$3.33? Y 33 .. 3‘“ C; ‘3‘ :53." x"??? 1; ‘1 . ,- ' .‘ x-“ 3:: a ‘C "RA-1135.29“ 3}- ‘ ‘ SS.‘ . k 3» - ‘3 (in- Mas * 1%; ‘~« “"1“? ‘k‘ z '3' . L l . K9 5?? ; Q: .. . ~: 1‘ ”3‘1?le _ N" 3" . ‘v . @5335. v I. . ': v.4 I ‘u “.3" 1 .a 1*. “t’ v {é m «x - 3+2?“ ‘ ' ’g 5 . _ t“ M‘fiQfi" ‘ “WEE: . ‘ ' .. - A‘qcn . . 1 .m ~ . 30$. ., , a ,4 .. K en‘M” ‘5"- r’ "' 41. it: gayflfiifgga’g' 1 . - 43$ ‘5' 1 zit; )‘ . I? “ ' ‘5 . . .- 'V 3‘ “3'" 4% .. . .5 . ," M» m X #fl‘éu-‘t‘ ‘ :. '5 V}? :fi. Fig. :, 31'1"» “fly. ‘ Peg. . , : , L 01¢ . :n - ‘ ‘. p?‘m«:"¢?'. “ .4. 13‘ R’E‘fia‘; ‘ ‘ .5 ’ 4.4“. ‘ (x: a " 5.14 fig 3'." .,- 3:," ‘ .. if '35.“.33, ‘ ‘ , . ‘3 V, 'rnIJ-L' . 7,; x a &- m ‘ . _ 1? #533» ‘ gt . . gig,“ .3 J 11‘ fit 1; r: x _{ .‘R,;...1, fifeaigw .‘ ' ‘i‘. V 'J‘ ‘J . l‘. u‘t‘d‘fl‘r‘fi d' ’3‘ v.1 44 - ’x’ 3 . a; ". n: 1‘. ~:‘ It ,5, 72‘- . ,.. , wifailfix-s dc. -! ' . h: ‘ gm "Wm 5“; " L‘J . ' ‘ ‘§ .‘ I m (7.. “"75? “ 83.5. ' . I, :33 3‘7 . {a "0' ILLE”?‘ :35 . a 9. F A 6" ‘ ‘_ f ', . c 13¢H, - . a“; i p. . . , 'M "Nt\’l"';’; 4“ ‘ f. "1 1" . a, atéa‘fixfii‘sw ‘ m . " I'l:\,733v,'fi fla'e' '1' 'V H ‘ )1 ’11 , _ ' I ' ”k" x,” h .1, . , ’ , , H ‘ , ,3 . ‘ 1.: - ‘ , . ‘. V ‘ ~ fift- l‘gg‘ ‘ mtg .2‘ J ‘Im mmmmmmmmmnmmu " 3 1293 00864 4191 ‘ , 7‘ cat—- . ‘ " J k . » i ‘ ‘10“ . . E ‘ i i . a. , 3 .4 m;_ ‘ M an.“ SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND VANDALISM: FEARS, FALLACIES, AND FACTS By Steven L. Plavnick A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 ©1983 STEVEN L . PLAVNICK All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND VANDALISM: FEARS, FALLACIES, AND FACTS By Steven L. Plavnick In this dissertation the writer identified, through the lit- erature, key variables educators may manipulate, which appear to be associated with school violence and vandalism. These variables were developed from selected research and were proposed for use as a demonstration project. Much research has been undertaken regarding juvenile violence, vandalism, and general deviance. This investigator pursued a multi- disciplinary approach to the literature, attempting to identify those aspects of juvenile antisocial behavior pertinent to school operations. Some aspects of juvenile deviance are beyond the scope of the school to affect and were not included in this study. However, some writers have identified aspects of juvenile deviance as being associated with particular school practices over which educators do have control. The variables identified in the literature as being factors school officials may manipulate in an attempt to reduce school violence and vandalism were presented, with recommendations for their use in a demonstration project. Also developed from the literature were Steven L. Plavnick recommendations for further research and a suggested methodology for collecting data and for establishing baseline data. Two important studies were reviewed in this project, one con- ducted by Michael Rutter et al. and the other a new survey initiated by the Office of Safe Schools (State of Michigan Department of Educa- tion). A new post hoc analysis was conducted on the latter. The writer concluded that manipulating the identified vari- ables in the suggested fashion may lower school violence and vandalism. He also proposed a methodology for data collection that could deter- mine the effectiveness of the recommended variables. Across the nation, school districts large and small, rural and urban, routinely expend their limited resources on nonreturnable and noneducational security and replacement costs. This acceptance of school violence and vandalism as a public-policy norm has grave implications for social and educational planning. Dedicated to two common men who lived by codes Meyer Lacoff, that made them great: an uneducated immigrant who achieved great wisdom; a man who taught children and grandchildren the value of learning; a teacher of chess, political thought, and social responsibility; a patriarch who, by example, taught children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to strive for their dreams. and Bernie Plavnick, a loving man who cared about people, saw the I thank them. best in them and nurtured it. His example left his children and the grandchildren he idolized (David, Jonathon, Matthew, Josh, and Rebecca Kate) a legacy of warmth, honesty, and integrity that are lifetime ideals to strive toward. I am honored to bear their names! Steven Lacoff Plavnick ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people were helpful in the development of this work. I wish to thank: Dr. I. Carl Candoli, who encouraged both the graduate work and helped limit the scope of the phenomenon studied. Clarissa Young, who identified the applied aspects of the problem and amplified the chaos regarding the record keeping. Al Hurwitz, director of the Office of Safe Schools, who made their data available to me and freely discussed aspects of the prob- lem. Paul Bader of the Michigan Department of Social Services, who provided me with much overview material and helped with a computer search of the literature. A special thanks to the members of my committee: Drs. John Suehr, chairman; Sam Moore; Tim Little; and Robert Trojanowicz. They allowed and encouraged my investigation into this poorly researched phenomenon, insisted upon and facilitated scholastic quality, and were very helpful and supportive throughout these endeavors. I wish to thank Richard Joseph, who, as only he could, con- tinuously encouraged this project. I also need to thank Susan Cooley for her patience in editing and typing this manuscript. iii I want to acknowledge Dr. Robert Marshall, whose medical help and advice during the last two years facilitated my survival. I wish to thank my family: my wife, Sharon, and my children, Matthew, Josh, and Becky Kate. I thank them for their extraordinary patience, support, and understanding throughout the time associated with this entire process. I could not have finished this project without it. Finally, thanks to my friends and colleagues, who continued to support and encourage both me and these endeavors throughout a very difficult time. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................... viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................ 1 Introduction ..................... 1 Background of the Problem ............... 2 Purpose ........................ 4 Theory ........................ 4 Extent of the Problem ................. 6 Questions to Be Investigated ............. ll Importance of the Study ................ ll Overview ....................... l3 II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................... 15 Introduction ..................... 15 Extent of the Problem ................. l6 Perspectives on Juvenile Delinquency ......... 22 Summary ........................ 40 III. ASSOCIATED VARIABLES .................. 42 Introduction ..................... 42 The Rutter Study ................... 42 State of Michigan Data: l978-l979 ........... 60 Summary ........................ 79 IV. VARIABLES RECOMMENDED FOR MANIPULATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR EVALUATION .................... Bl Ten Manipulable Variables ............... Bl Data Collection .................... 108 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH, AND REFLECTIONS ............... 118 Summary ........................ 118 Discussion of the Variables .............. 122 V Recomendations for Further Research ......... 129 Conclusions ...................... l3l Reflections ...................... 133 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................... l35 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Marijuana Use Among School Children-~Hinnetka, Illinois ........................ 20 2.2 Alcohol Use Among School Children--Ninnetka, Illinois . . 20 3.1 Incident Rates for Violence and Vandalism ........ 69 3.2 Incident Rates for Vandalism ............... 70 3.3 Incident Rates for Violence ............... 70 3.4 Critical Population Point: Violence and Vandalism . . . . 71 3.5 Critical Population Point: Vandalism ........... 72 3.6 Critical Population Point: Violence ........... 72 3.7 Incidents of School Violence and Vandalism by Population Size .................... 73 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.l Deviance ......................... 85 4.2 Groups to Be Involved in the Input Process ........ 93 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction §g§g_l, He was alone. He was lonely. He was angry. He was driven. He was among 1,700 fellow students, teachers, counselors, and administrators during class change, but he could find no way to resolve the problem. There was no one for him to turn to. He had to settle it himself. He was there, but unnoticed. He heard but did not appear to be heard. Staff knew of him but didn't know him. He was a "loner." He was "different." He waited. He was patient. He would not be troubled for much longer. He would stop the hassle. He took aim. Two shots. Two more shots. Two students lay in their own blood. One was dead. §g§g_g. She was 12 years old, a good student, personable, tall for her age, a little plump, well-liked, and she happened to be there. She would go on to junior high school after summer vacation. Her teachers liked her and felt she could do well. She liked and trusted everyone. She emerged from the school gym and nodded her acknowledgment to the two youths who were there. The boys talked to each other as they drew closer. She knew them--they had been in this elementary school with her last year. They had entered junior high school last fall. She was suddenly against the wall, with no one to help her. One boy held her arms. She tried to kick, but the other 1 boy had pulled her gym shorts down around her ankles. They pressed against her. She couldn't move. §a§g_§. They always had gum. They always had candy. They always had the best of everything. At lunchtime when they approached, they always were given the swings. The other kids on the swings would immediately get off, leaving gum or candy for them. They often traded food at lunchtime, too. They were given a hot sandwich for their vege- tables, an extra dessert for their jello, or a can of pop for their milk. They were given gifts, too. After vacations like Christmas and Easter, they were given after-vacation presents like watches, rings, earrings, or electronic games. There were four of them. They were only 11 and 12 years old. They had lots of school friends who wanted to give them nice things. The preceding three incidents actually occurred. They are part of an increasing montage of school violence and vandalism that has been sweeping the United States since the last half of the 19705. For educators in the 19805, few issues will draw more comment, create more confusion, or precipitate more anger and chaos than will the fact and consequences of school violence and vandalism. Background of the Problem Abnormal student behavior has been considered in texts, in journals, and in practice in a myriad of ways, including self-concept orientation, stages of development, self-awareness, group socializa- tion, positive peer culturing, regimentation, and social norms. Various authors have blamed abnormal student behavior on parents, society, unprepared teachers, unresponsive social workers, lenient administrators, repressive police, uninformed juvenile justices, inadequate discipline codes, socioeconomic status, segregation, and desegregation. What is needed is a method of studying school practices and procedures. The school organization and its operations have been associated with varying amounts of violence and vandalism. Why one school has a high amount of violence, vandalism, and other deviant behaviors, while another school has relatively little, needs to be investigated. Unquestionably, it is not the fault of the school that a psychotic youngster commits a psychotic act. Neither can a teacher be faulted for an antisocial action committed by an antisocial student. Behavioral mores, when contrary to the prevailing social mores, may not be appropriate curricular concerns. Yet school practitioners, faced with rapidly increasing rates of school violence and vandalism, need solutions to this problem. What factors, what actions, will reduce violence and vandalism in the schools? Can schools take any preventive measures? Is the only option to do as one New York State school district reported doing--using trained attack guard dogs in the schools?1 1Michael J. Sexton and Michael J. Killion, "To Combat Vandal- ism: Do You Build Fences or Bridges," NASSP Bulletin 63 (February 1979): 19-26. Purpose An attempt was made in this study to identify those aspects of school organization and Operation that are associated with the non- cognitive student behaviors of violence, vandalism, in-school anti- social behavior, and juvenile delinquency. The question considered in this study was whether schools do influence these actions. Further- more, the investigator sought to determine whether mechanisms can be identified that school personnel may manipulate to lessen such occurrences . Theory Schools as individual units have varying degrees of influence on student violence, vandalism, in-school antisocial behavior, and juvenile delinquency. These types of student conduct are associated with school practices and procedures that are part of the organiza- tional structure and daily operations of the school. The variation in antisocial student behavior from school to school cannot be accounted for solely by different intake factors, resource expenditures, physi- cal settings, or chance. A review of Pertinent current research will establish the asso- ciation between school operations and negative school outcomes. The researcher found little investigative work in the specific area of school organization as it relates to the student behaviors in question. Most of the relevant studies on school violence and vandalism have focused on the secondary-school level because of the higher incidence of antisocial behavior in junior and senior high schools. This inves- tigator theorized that a student's propensity to engage in violent and destructive activity is initiated by school practices and procedures at the elementary-school level. These school practices would then result in observable elementary-school behaviors that are similar to the behaviors of older students. Methods of intervention suggested in the research literature are discussed in a subsequent chapter and are based on research conducted at the secondary level. The problem of school violence and vandalism is neither a regional nor a demographic problem. It is found in urban, suburban, and rural school communities and is increasing or remaining at an unacceptably high rate in many locales. However, some researchers have indicated that the rates of incidence are higher in urban school districts than in rural ones.2 Most intervention at the school-district level has been in the form of security measures, such as special security equipment and/or security guards. Intervention on a behavioral level has been under- taken by a minority of teachers and support personnel attempting to be empathic. Both methods of intervention have had some influence on school violence and vandalism. Yet neither method systematically affects those everyday school occurrences that foster the milieu in which violence and vandalism become an accepted part of the school day. Considering the increasing rates of violence and vandalism and the public concern over rising delinquency rates, as well as research linking violence and vandalism with particular school 2Violent Schools--Safe Schools, Executive Summary (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education, December 1977), p. 4. organizational practices, school personnel should begin to address the problem of violence and vandalism. The individual school, as part of a larger organization, may be inhibited from intervening suc- cessfully in student behavioral problems by practices and procedures of the larger school organization to which it belongs: the district. This may help explain the higher rates of violence and vandalism in larger urban school districts than in smaller rural districts.3 Extent of the Problem The extent of school violence and vandalism needs to be explicated. The rates of juvenile violence, vandalism, and anti- social behavior are projected nationally. After hearing considerable testimony, the Senate subcommittee on school vandalism, headed by Senator Birch Bayh, estimated the yearly cost of vandalism in the 4 Some nation's schools at more than half a billion dollars. sources have used a range with that figure as the upper limit. Others have cited the research by the National Center for Education Statis- tics (NCES), whose five-month study from September 1974 through February 1975 projected the annual repair-and-replacement cost of 5 vandalized school property at approximately $216 million. The National Institute of Education cited a range from $50 million to 3Ibid., p. 3. 4Samuel Brodbelt, "The Epidemic of School Violence," Clearing- house (April 1978): 383. 5Shirley Boes Neill, "Violence and Vandalism: Dimensions and Correctives,“ Phi Delta Kappan 59 (January 1978): 305. $600 million in its report. However, the Institute supported and used the $216 million estimate of the NCES report.6 In the Violent Schools--Safe Schools study, an attempt was made to put into perspective the scope of the problem across America. Through mailed surveys and on-site visits, rates for the incidence of school violence and vandalism were determined. The data indicated that teenagers spend only 25 percent of their "waking time in school, [yet] 40 percent of the robberies and 36 percent of the assaults on . 7 urban teenagers occurred in school." The figures for junior-high schools were even higher. For youngsters aged 12 to 15, "68 percent of the robberies and 50 percent of the assaults occurred at school. Yet only 17-19 percent of the violent offenses against urban youths in this age group occurred in the streets."8 In the same study, it was projected that across the country, each month, 2,400,000 secondary-school students (11 percent) will have something valued at one dollar or more stolen from them. Twenty percent of these thefts will include items valued at ten dollars or more. Further, 282,000 secondary-school students (1.3 percent) will report being attacked at school. Forty percent of the attacks will result in injury, with 4 percent needing medical treatment. Attacks are more frequent in junior high than in senior high schools (2.1 percent versus 1 percent). In addition, it was estimated that, each month, 112,000 secondary-school students (.5 percent) will be robbed 6Violent Schools-~Safe Schools, op. cit., p. 3. 8 71bid., p. 2. Ibid. by force or threat of force. Eleven percent will involve some injury, 2 percent needing medical treatment. "For the typical student," con- tinued the writers, “we can estimate the risks as follows: he or she has about one chance in nine of having something stolen in a month; one chance in eighty of being attacked; and one chance in 200 of being robbed."9 Similar monthly projections were made for the approximately one million teachers in secondary schools. In any given month, 120,000 secondary-school teachers (12 percent) will have something valued at one dollar or more stolen from them. Also, 5,200 secondary- school teachers (.5 percent) will be physically attacked at school, and 19 percent of these teachers will report needing medical treatment. More attacks, proportionately, occur in junior high than in senior high schools, and more take place in cities than in rural areas. Further, 6,000 secondary-school teachers (.5 percent) will be robbed. Thus, a projection of the risk faced by a typical secondary-school teacher in the United States is as follows: "He or she has around one chance in eight of having something stolen at school in a given month; one chance in 167 of being robbed, and one chance in 200 of being attacked."10 In a 1979 survey of its membership, the National Education Association (NEA) reported that 5 percent of its members had been 11 assaulted during the 1978-79 school year. From this survey the NEA 9 1°Ibid.. p. 3. Ibid. n"Teacher Poll Tells Attacks," (Lansing, Michigan) State Journal, July 5, 1979, p. B8. estimated that in the 1978-79 school year, 110,000 teachers were assaulted, 11,000 (11 percent) needed medical attention, and 9,000 more (8 percent) needed medical attention for emotional trauma. Although national data and projections cause concern, the specific demographic rates and costs are frightening. Brodbelt cited data from the Baltimore City Public Schools, indicating that in one fiscal year there were 832 assaults on students (out of 186,000 pupils), 219 assaults on staff members (out of 8,500 teachers), and 758 larceny complaints (from 200 schools). Larry Burgon, Chief of Security for the Baltimore schools, placed the dollar loss to the schools as a result of vandalism, arson, and theft at approximately $2 million; the district spends another $2.1 million annually for 238 public commissioners and 127 security guards.12 In 1974, Chicago schools reportedly incurred expenses of $3.5 million in property losses and spent an additional $3.2 million for school security programs and $3 million for guards necessitated by 13 violence and vandalism. Los Angeles schools spent more than $7 million in the 1974-75 school year on vandalism repairs and preventa- tive measures.14 The problem of school vandalism and violence is not limited to large urban school districts. San Antonio, a smaller school 12Brodbelt, op. cit., p. 383. 13Senator Birch Bayh, "Seeking Solutions to School Violence and Vandalism," Phi Delta Kappan 59 (January 1978): 300. 14Ibid. 10 district, spends between $150,000 and $160,000 annually just in repair-and-replacement costs.15 Suburban schools and communities are not immune to this problem either. The Baltimore County Public School System (excluding Baltimore City Public Schools) reported increased costs resulting from theft, arson, and vandalism. In 1974, the system spent $372,000; in 1975, $904,000.16 Said Brodbelt, "As suburban crime rates increase nationwide faster than urban rates, so inevitably will the suburban school experience an increase unless suitable strategies for solutions are devised."17 The effect of the problem is not limited to economics. Robberies, assaults, rapes, and extortion all too often are becoming a part of the educational scene. As one teacher testifying before the Bayh subcommittee stated, "The past few years have seen violence and vandalism become an almost daily occurrence on school grounds. Students and school personnel have become numbed to these acts: a sub- dued anger, frustration and acquiescence seems to pervade the system."18 Hoff summarized the problem: One of the most distressing results of vandalism and violence in schools is that nothing of any educational value can be accomp- lished under such conditions. The administrative responses of repressive controls, expulsion of students, or surrender to chaos indicated an inability to resolve conflict productively. More 15Robert B. Morris, "Who's Afraid of the Dark? Vandals--That's Who!" American School and University 50 (August 1978): 38. 16 17 Brodbelt, Op. cit., p. 384. Ibid. 18Bayh, Op. cit., p. 300. ll often than not, problems are only patched up . . . and [this] serves only to buy time until the problems reappear with a vengeance. 9 Questions to Be Investigated There are many questions related to school violence, vandalism, and deviance. Some of them are: 1. What, if anything, can be done about school violence and vandalism? Are school violence and vandalism mere reflections of street delinquency and social problems? Are the causative or associative factors of delinquency and deviance identifiable? Are the causative or associative factors of delinquency and deviance beyond the influence of the educational community? Is containment of juvenile delinquency and deviance the best approach to school violence and vandalism? Is intervention in school violence, vandalism, and devi- ance the prOper role of the educational community, or is this more apprOpriately responded to by other governmen- tal units? If the educational community were to become involved in intervention of this nature, how should it begin? Seeking answers to these questions was of primary importance in the present investigation. Importance of the Study The extent of the problem of school violence and vandalism has been highlighted in this chapter. In any given month, as many as 12.8 percent of the secondary-school students may be robbed, assaulted, 19 Robert H. Hoff, "The Toughest Game in Town," NASSP Bulletin 63 (February 1979): 9. 12 or stolen from while at school. Likewise, 13 percent of the secondary- school teachers may be robbed, assaulted, or stolen from in a given month. Large amounts of emotional energy are expended in considering the topic of school violence and vandalism. Everyone associated with education--students, teachers, administrators, and parents--feels he/she can identify the causes of school violence and vandalism. Often this knowledge pertains to the perpetrators of the incidents, usually students. Many methods have been proposed to deal with deviant students. These methods are attempts to "control," "combat," or "repress" juvenile deviance. School practice often presumes that deviance within school is necessarily bad. A prevalent belief among educators, as a first-grade teacher said to this writer, is: "If only the student would take advantage of all the good things offered to him and conform to the rules and norms, everything would be fine." This investigator approached school violence and vandalism from the perspective of the school organization. The major thesis was that the school organization affects the degree of school violence and vandalism. Whereas deviant juveniles may be involved in such incidents, juvenile deviance need not result in negative outcomes. Therefore, the writer hypothesized that: 1. Juvenile deviance, regardless of location, is a function of place. 2. The exhibited behaviors are affected both positively and negatively by the social organizational setting in which the student functions, i.e., street, school, home. 13 3. School operations, the manner in which the school conducts its business, have an unexpected and great influence on school violence and vandalism. Overview Pertinent literature relevant to both juvenile delinquency and deviance is reviewed in Chapter II. In this review, the writer fol- lowed a multidisciplinary approach reflecting research concepts cur- rently being investigated. A synopsis of the changing legal status of the juvenile and its subsequent effect on the educational milieu is presented. Also developed in Chapter II is the linkage of the school with juvenile delinquency and deviance. Two studies of importance to the present research are discussed in Chapter III. In the first study, by Michael Rutter et al., some of the explicit practices of the school organizational day that are statistically associated with school violence, vandalism, and street delinquency are identified. The second survey was conducted by the Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, Michigan Department of Education. A review of the findings of this survey and a new analysis of the raw data are included. In Chapter IV, the investigator develops the major thrust of this work. Presented are variables that may be manipulated by educators attempting to reduce school violence and vandalism. This presentation includes a neutral approach to deviance. Also proposed in Chapter IV is a method of data collection pertinent to school operations and juvenile deviance and a methodology for beginning the collection of baseline data. 14 A summary of the study and recommendations regarding the use of the variables are contained in Chapter V. Also discussed is the need for additional research. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Different perspectives regarding school violence and vandalism and juvenile delinquency are presented in this chapter. These perspec- tives, often at odds with each other, contribute to the confusion, frus- tration, and emotionality surrounding school violence and vandalism. School violence and vandalism are often associated with the actions of delinquent juveniles. Therefore the degree of juvenile delinquency as it affects school violence and vandalism is examined in this chapter. The problem of classifying certain actions as delinquent is also discussed. A review of the legal transformation regarding juveniles, which has caused further confusion, is followed by a review of perspectives on and studies concerning juvenile delinquency. Most research (and emotion) concerning school violence and vandalism treats the action as a delinquent phenomenon. This approach affects the issue of school violence and vandalism by establishing negative expectations within the school community. In the ensuing literature review, the writer follows a multi- disciplinary approach in discussing different, yet related, fields of inquiry. What these fields have in common is their effect on the total school community-~too often reinforcing the already-held view that school violence and vandalism are caused by delinquent juveniles. 15 16 Because school violence and vandalism are most often viewed as the actions of delinquent juveniles, both the status of the law and the current findings regarding juveniles and delinquency are reviewed. First, however, the rate and degree of juvenile crime are discussed to identify the extent of the problem. Extent of the Problem Estimates of the extent of juvenile crime vary. Neill claimed that, nationally, 43 percent of all persons arrested for serious crime in 1975 were under 18 years of age. Youths between 18 and 24 accounted for another 32 percent of all arrests.1 Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion figures for the same year showed that 43.3 percent of all reported and cleared crimes were committed by 10-21 year olds.2 George Halver- son, former director of the Michigan State Police, attributed 58 per- cent of the crime in Michigan in 1977 to juveniles.3 The research is mixed in terms of demographic rates of delin- quency. Peterson et a1. cited research estimating that, nationally, 17 to 29 percent of all males will have been adjudicated delinquent by the time they reach 18 years of age. In contrast, "70% or more 1Shirley Boes Neill, "Violence and Vandalism: Dimensions and Correctives," Phi Delta Kappan 59 (January 1978): 304. 2U.S. Department Of Justice, Uniform Crime Reports, 1975 Annual Report, issued by Clarence M. Kelly, Director FBI (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976). 3Holly Sims, "Tax Slash Means Crime Boost?" (Lansing, Michigan) State Journal, July 11, 1978, p. B7. 17 of all male youths living in inner city slum areas will be adjudicated delinquents by the time they are 18 years of age."4 Some skeptics do not believe there really is a juvenile- delinqueney problem. They point to the struggle that has occurred throughout the ages between society and its youths. Also, Erickson maintained that when a total birth cohort is identified, there appears to be "no systematic specialization or escalation in offense serious- ness over time."5 Others, like Paul Strasburg, of the Vera Institute of Justice, have found that juvenile crime is increasing. In his study for the Ford Foundation, Strasberg found that in 1970 the highest arrest rate was for young adults (18-24 year olds), followed by older juveniles (15-17 year olds). However, in 1975 the arrest rate for the older juveniles grew three times faster than, and was higher than, the rate for the young adults.6 This occurred at a time when juvenile violent crime was steadily increasing, yet adult violent crime was slowly decreasing. Strasburg also found that violent crime, specifically violent juvenile crime, was increasing faster in nonurban than in urban areas. 4Peterson et al., "Self Report Measurements of 'Delinquent Orientation' in Institutionalized Delinquent and High School Boys," in Delinquency Prevention and the Schools: Emerging Perspectives, ed. Ernst A. Wenk (BeveFly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 1976 . p. 92. 5Maynard Erickson, "Delinquency in a Birth Cohort," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 64 (1973): 362-67. 6Paul Strasburg, "The Ver Bad News on Juvenile Violence," Behavior Today 8 (August 29, 1977): 1. 18 Between 1970 and 1974, the arrest rates for juveniles committing violent crimes were as follows:7 Urban areas (cities of 2,500 or more) + 7.6 percent Nonurban areas +19.2 percent Strasburg maintained that the commotion and emotion regarding youth violence are based on very little "factual knowledge" and that those emotions threaten the very basis of youth policy and practices. Other actions and behaviors are also lumped into the phe- nomenon labeled juvenile delinquency. Two of the most emotionally charged and improperly classified behaviors are drug abuse and teen- age sexuality.8 In the late 19605, Americans expressed great concern about drug abuse. Although public discussion of the problem is not nearly as vocal now, the problem is still prevalent. In a speech before the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Lee Dogoloff (formerly with the National Institute of Drug Abuse and later with the Carter White House) cited a recent survey of marijuana use among male high school seniors. Dogoloff contrasted the research results with those of a similar survey that had been conducted nine years earlier. In 1969, it was found that 20 percent of the respond- ents had tried marijuana once, whereas in 1978, 56 percent of the 7 8No review of the literature on juvenile delinquency would be complete without including data on teenage sexuality and drug abuse. Yet the classification of these actions as juvenile delin- quency is questioned by this writer. Ibid., p. 2. 19 respondents had tried marijuana once. In addition, 10 percent of the 1978 respondents said they used marijuana daily.9 A recent study by Levine and Kazak illustrated the extent of 10 The authors conducted their research in the drug-abuse problem. Winnetka, Illinois, an upper-middle-class suburb of Chicago. Table 2.1 shows the percentage of marijuana use within the study sample, by grade and sex. Table 2.2 shows the alcohol use of these same school children. Just over 60 percent of both the males and females in the twelfth grade indicated they had smoked marijuana. Also, 63.4 percent of the males and 55.8 percent of the females in the twelfth grade used alcohol once a month or more. In elementary school, 10 percent of the boys in the sixth grade and 11 percent of those in the fifth grade reported having smoked marijuana. Eight percent of the sixth-grade boys and 18.8 percent of the fifth-grade boys reported using alcohol once a month or more. Obviously, drug abuse has not disappeared. Teenage sexuality, although an emotionally laden topic, is a fact of life that cannot be denied. Yet because of the emotional loadings of the issue, very little systematic research establishing the extent of sexual activity by grade level has been conducted. In 1976, Zelnik and Kantner surveyed 2,200 single females between 15 and 19 years of age.n Forty-one percent of these young 9"Current Thoughts on Drug Abuse, or Alice in Wonderland," Behavior Today 9 (July 24, 1978): 5. 10Edward Levine and Conrad Kazak, "Drug and Alcohol Use, Delin- quency, and Vandalism Among Upper Middle Class Pre and Post Adolescents," Journal of Youth and Adolescence 8 (March 1979): 91-101. 1‘Melvin Zelnik and John Kantner, "Teenagers and Contraception: A War Between Contradictory Images," Behavior Today 9 (June 19, 1978): 3. 20 Table 2.1.--Marijuana use among school children--Winnetka, Illinois. Once a Month or More (%) Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Grade Number Nevezzgried Some (%) Level 12 52 43 36.5 39.5 19.2 27.9 44.3 32.6 11 59 38 42.4 47.4 18.5 28.9 39.1 23.7 10 66 58 43.9 63.8 18.2 10.3 37.9 25.9 9 60 68 60.0 64.7 18.4 14.7 21.6 20.6 8 40 43 62.5 58.1 15.0 9.3 32.5 32.6 7 38 45 79.0 91.1 7.9 0.0 12.2 8.9 6 50 41 90.0 97.6 6.0 0.0 4.0 2.4 5 45 41 88.9 92.7 8.9 4.9 2.2 2.4 Source: Edward Levine and Conrad Kazak, "Drug and Alcohol Use, Delin- quency, and Vandalism Among Upper Middle Class Pre and Post Adolescents," Journal of Youth and Adolescence 8 (March 1979). Table 2.2.--Alcohol use among school children--Winnetka, Illinois. Never Tried Once a Month Grade Number (z) Some (%) or More (%) Level Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 12 52 43 13.5 9.3 23.1 34.9 63.4 55.8 11 59 38 11.9 31.6 15.4 21.1 62.7 47.3 10 66 58 34.8 25.9 24.2 29.3 41.0 44.8 9 59 66 49.2 42.4 27.0 39.5 23.8 18.1 8 4O 43 30.0 41.9 45.0 30.2 25.0 27.9 7 38 44 44.7 70.4 28.9 25.0 26.4 4.6 6 50 41 58.0 80.5 34.0 14.6 8.0 4.9 5 48 40 62.5 80.0 18.8 12.5 18.8 7.5 Source: Edward Levine and Conrad Kazak, "Drug and Alcohol Use, Delin- quency, and Vandalism Among Upper Middle Class Pre and Post Adolescents," Journal of Youth and Adolescence 8 (March 1979). 21 women reported having had sexual intercourse. The authors contended that this was a 33 percent increase over a similar study they had conducted in 1971. In addition, they estimated that 10 percent of all white girls between 15 and 19 years of age will have a premarital pregnancy.12 In 1977, the Planned Parenthood Foundation offered a slightly higher estimate of teenage premarital sexual activity. They claimed that there were approximately 21 million 15-19 year olds in the United States and that more than half of them had had sexual intercourse.13 Estimates of the number of children born from these unions vary. The Planned Parenthood Foundation claimed that more than one million girls between 15 and 19 years of age become pregnant each year, that the number is rising, and that 21 percent of these young women will give birth out of wedlock.14 Although specific rates or statistics concerning teenage drug use and sexuality may be argued, it is clear that young people are involved in drug abuse and sexual expression. To maintain that these are activities of only a delinquent minority is to ignore the problem. (In fact, it may be that these practices are so prevalent that those students who do not engage in them are the deviants.) What 1§_Clear is that these issues are so widespread that their exclusion from 12Melvin Zelnik and John Kantner, "Premarital Sexual Activity Among Teenagers Up By a Third Since 1971," Behavior Today 9 (February 20, 1978): 3. 13Sylvia S. Hacher, "...And Teenage Pregnancy: The Problems Are Not Mechanical," Behavior Today 8 (August 8, 1977): 3. 14 Ibid. 22 the social-educative process is both shortsighted and irrespon- sible. Perspectives on Juvenile Delinquengy As shown in the previous section, the term "juvenile delin— quency" is amorphous, implying different concepts to different people who perform different roles. The meaning is further confused by a societal and legal transformation that began in the late 19605 and accelerated in the 19705. This legal transformation regarding the rights of juveniles and the responsibilities of the school has helped to establish an atmosphere that frustrates and/or embitters many staff members. Before advancing different definitions of juvenile delin- quency, a sequential overview is appropriate. The Perspective of Law: A Microview Until the late 19605, the juvenile code in American society was based on the premise of parents patriae, the sovereign power of 15 the state over the minor. This premise is based on the theory that the minor needs the state to protect him from abuses of adults and against himself and/or his follies. As a protector, the state knows what is best for the minor and has ultimate responsibility for his affairs. For 50 years the concept of parents patriae governed society's dealings with minors. 15Kent vs. U.S.: The Constitutional Context of Juvenile Cases, 1967, Supreme Court Review 167, pp. 173-74, cited in "Due Process and Waiver of JOvenile Court Jurisdiction,“ Washington and Lee Law Review 30 (Fall 1973): 592-613. 23 Most professionals working with minors, be they teachers, juvenile court workers, or police, received their training during the era when the concept of parents patriae was followed. But in 1967 the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that precipitated a change in society's dealings with minors. Ig_re Gault addressed the rights of juveniles to due process.16 Briefly, the court found that Gault, a minor, had been deprived of his constitutional rights even though the juvenile court was supposedly acting as a solicitous parent. The court acknowledged that the original intent of the juvenile court had been to protect the minor's welfare, but, in fact, that had not been the result of most juvenile-court actions. Therefore, in any juvenile-court action in which "adjudication of wrong- . . adjudication of wrongdoing or deviant conduct is involved, where a substantial sanction . . . such as . . . reform school is involved, . . . the Juvenile Court must provide notice of charges, rights to counsel, confrontation and crossiexamination of witness and the pr1v1lege of self—incrimination. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas summarized the argument concisely, saying, "Due Process of Law is the primary and indispensable foundation of freedom. . . . Procedure is to law what 'scientific method' is to science. Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court."18 16 17L. Harold Levinson, "Regulating School Law," in Constitu- tional Rights of Students, ed. Kern Alexander and James Camp e (Gainesville, Fla.: School Law Conference, 1969), pp. 76-79. 18David Schimmel and Louis Fisher, The Civil Rights of Students (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), p. 228. Ibid. 24 In_rg_Gault set the precedent for new court rulings and state legislation that were often in conflict and were confusing to profes- sional personnel. This case, in addition to having obvious conse- quences for police and juvenile-court personnel, also has affected educators. In other rulings, the United States Supreme Court has struck at the parents patraie concept. In the case of Ig_re_Winthrop, the court suspended a New York state statute requiring that the New York Family Court only have a preponderance of evidence regarding a juvenile to take action. The Supreme Court stated that juvenile courts must use the same standards as adult criminal courts to define guilt. More than a preponderance of evidence is necessary. The court must find that the juvenile has violated a statute before any court action can be taken.19 David Bazelon, Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, further attacked the juvenile courts and the concept of parents patriae. He argued that the juvenile courts should abandon their jurisdiction over incorrigible and truant minors. The courts' involvement with these minors is based on the theory that if the courts do not act, nobody will. Bazelon contended that the opposite is true. Because the courts act, nobody else does. He continued, The courts ought to level with the community about the illusory hope of preventing crime by dealing with delin uent children. . . As long as the community view [the court? as a prevention 1gln__r_'gWinthrop, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Also 1 supra, p. 592. 25 agency and refer its social and behavioral problems to you [juvenile courts], the root problems will not be attacked. Bazelon felt that the courts should draw attention to the need for such services and not pretend to do the job themselves. He said that there is one likely institution to take over the job: the school! The school must not "let go of the youngster [and] lose him to the streets."20 The question of juveniles' constitutional rights has not been limited to the arena of the juvenile courts. In several decisions, the Supreme Court moved to reaffirm the constitutional rights of juveniles in the public schools. In a 1969 decision delivered by Justice Fortas, the Supreme Court said, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to free- dom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."2] Other courts also have addressed themselves to the constitu- tional rights of juveniles. The New Jersey court, in Tibbs versus the Board of Education of Franklin, found that a student, Tanya Tibbs, had not been given adequate due process before being expelled from school. The court found that expulsion "constitutes deprivation of a most drastic and potentially irreparable kind. In that setting compro- mise with punctiliousprocedural fairness becomes unacceptable." In this case, school authorities indicated that due process had been 20Raymond A. Novak, “The Incorrigible Child Under the New Penn- sylvania Juvenile Act: An Unsound, Unsupportable and Unfortunate Policy Choice,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 35 (Fall 1973): 85-86. 2lTinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., Supreme Court of the United States, 1964. 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2nd 721. 26 deprived in part because witnesses had been threatened. The court responded that, regardless of external circumstances, the juvenile had the right to confront and to cross-examine the witnesses. The issue here was not the action of the school board in expelling the student for assaulting another student. Simply, the constitutional rights of the Tibbs minor had not been protected. Regarding the threats made to witnesses, it was ruled that "the school community must be content to deal with threats or intimidation of the kind allegedly encountered by invoking the jurisdiction of the law enforcement authorities who must be presumed equal to their responsi- bilities."22 Finally, in 1975, the United States Supreme Court spoke out clearly on due process within the schools. In 6055 versus Lopez, the court articulated the procedure necessary to suspend a student 23 from school, even for a short period of time. The school's conten- tion that it operated in lieu of the parents, i.e., in loco parentis, did not, in the court's view, dismiss the school from the responsi- bility of insuring due process to all students. Many states have changed or are in the process of changing their laws governing society's dealings with juveniles. Michigan, Florida, New York, Arizona, and California are just a few. Such changes make it even more difficult to define juvenile delinquency. 224 supra. pp. 230-32. 23Goss vs. Lopez, Supreme Court of the United States, 1975, 419 U.S. 565 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2nd 725 as quoted in E. Edmund Reutter, Jr. and Robert L. Hamilton, The Law of Public Education, 2nd ed. (Mineola: The Foundation Press, 1976), pp. 612-20. 27 Polk presented two leading definitions of juvenile delinquency. On the one hand, "juvenile delinquency is based in law. Technically, it consists of those persons who have been legally processed and iden- tified as 'delinquent youth."'24 On the other hand, delinquency is defined as "an orientation, on the part of the young person, which leads to a willingness to engage in forms of behavior, especially peer behavior, which render the individual vulnerable to punishment and sanctions by adults."25 Polk said that orientation is not a fixed stated but rather "a loose way of life which a youngster may drift into and out of, episodically. . . . What such an orientation does is probabilistically to render the young person vulnerable to adult 26 sanctions." Thus the youngster risks being labeled by adults in control, i.e., the school (slow, emotionally disturbed, noncollege). In turn, the youth may "be pressured or drift into more specific acts of delinquency, such acts being consistent with this orientation (not a necessary result)."27 Still other writers have approached juvenile delinquency from a much broader perspective. Ruchkin wrote, Delinquency is not simply adult crime committed by minors. It includes proscribed activities of youth, such as truancy, in some parts of the country, smoking, drinking, and driving, with the first two mentioned being the sole charge of the school to prohibit. Delinquency is in essence and by definition, a prob- lem between young people and adults}8 24Kenneth Polk, "Schools and the Delinquency Experience," in Delinqueney Prevention and the Schools: Emer ing Perspectives, ed. Ernst A. Wenk (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage ublications, 1976), p. 23. 25Ibid., p. 25. 261bid. 27Ibid. 28Judith P. Ruchkin, "Does School Crime Need the Attention of Policemen or Educators?" Teachers College Record 79 (December 1977): 234. \ mm: 28 In summary, the three often-cited definitions of juvenile delinquency involve (1) formal processing, (2) an orientation toward punishable behavior, and (3) a generation gap. These differences are important in terms of what is being dealt with: an offender, a mis- creant, a rascal, an urchin, a deviant. A Sociological Perspective Many writers have explained juvenile delinquency and violence as a phenomenon of the society in which both adults and juveniles live. Calhoun studied youths 13 to 16 years of age at the Boys Training School near Detroit, Michigan. He found that socioeconomic status (SES) was a chief contributor to both type and cause of delinquency. He found that "boys from middle and upper SES seemingly commit crime for atten- tion, while boys from low SES commit crime for economic gains."29 Some writers have viewed delinquency as a youth's response to his segregation from the rest of society. Rahov cited work done by 30 several writers regarding the effect of such segregation. Rahov stated, Delinquency and crime are much more prevalent among minority and subordinate groups than within the dominant sector in society. . . These generalizations both deal with the same phenomenon. . . Delinquency is an expression of intergroup conflict, and . . . both ethnic minorities and youth are in conflict with the dominating elements in society.3 29George Calhoun, Jr., "An Ethnic Comparison of Juvenile Offenses and Socioeconomic Status," Clearing House 51 (October 1977): 58. 30Giora Rahov, "Juvenile Delinquency as Minority Crime," Adolescence 12 (Winter 1977): 473. 31 Ibid., p. 471. 29 Citing various authors, Rahov continued that adolescents are "segregated" from adult society. They have a special age classifi- cation (adolescence), school, children's quarters, and other forms of spatial segregation (Musgrove, 1964). And because labor in modern society is no longer a function of the family but of the individual, the job world is also a segregating force (Eisenstadt, 1956). Once youths are segregated, they respond to the expected norms. Adults mistrust youths and expect rebelliousness; youths fulfill these expectations. These situations can and often do escalate to more offensive behaviors resulting in arrests (Black & Reiss, 1970).32 Rahov concluded that "these conflicts and ensuing disparities in the conception of proper behavior are institutionalized in the criminali- zation of characteristic behavior patterns of the subordinate groups in the process of law enforcement."33 A Medical/Biological/Physiological Perspective As a result of many advances in medical technology, some investigators have made interesting discoveries about delinquency. Although these data do not yet fit into an integrated whole, the results are worth noting because they influence the belief systems of those who work with juveniles. The debate over genetic and/or psychobiologic causes of juvenile delinquency has continued for years. Lewis maintained that good research into genetic and psychobiologic causes of juvenile 32 33 Ibid., p. 473. Ibid. 30 delinquency has just not been done during the past 60 to 80 years. The reason for this dearth of research stems from a massive public and professional reaction to Lambroso's biological-type theories. (Lambroso maintained that criminality was a degenerate biological phenomenon capable of "in toto transmission to the next generation.") Lewis cited research done in the area of biochemical imbalance, the association between psychiatric disorders and antisocial behaviors, and the effect of drugs on mood disorders and suggested that certain antisocial behaviors are the result of a genetically derived chemical imbalance.34 Mednick and Hutchings reviewed work by other observers, link- ing genetics and antisocial behaviors. These authors cited several studies that were conducted in an attempt to isolate genetic from environmental variables, thus establishing a case for genetic pre- cursors of antisocial behavior.35 Mednick and Hutchings discussed several studies of twins adopted into different environments. The writers maintained that the similar rates of criminality of twins reared in different envi- 36 ronments established a genetic association with antisocial behavior. In a study of female inmates, Crowe identified crime similarities in 34Dorothy Otnow Lewis, "Psychobiologic Vulnerabilities to . Delinquency," Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry_l7 (Spring 1978): 194. 35Sarnoff A. Mednick and Barry Hutchings, "Genetic and Psycho- physiological Factors in Asocial Behavior," Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 17 (Spring 1978): 209. 361bid. 31 mother-daughter relationships and offered these likenesses as an argument establishing a "specificity of genetic effect."37 The work of Bell et al. on electrodermal recovery (EDRec) time further substantiated genetic associations with antisocial behaviors. Bell and his associates measured the length of time needed for the skin to conduct and recover from an electrical stimulus. They found that a criminal parent passed on to his son a lower EDRec time than did the larger population. The researchers also looked at the EDRec times of twin pairs with criminal fathers. They found that their EDRec times were lower than those of twin pairs from the normal popu- lation. Furthermore, the differing environments of twins reared separately did not significantly alter the EDRec times they had inherited from their fathers. The researchers concluded that the criminal father passes a genetically lower EDRec time to his son, who thus fails to learn adequately to inhibit antisocial responses even if the "proper environmental circumstances" exist.38 Other associations between psychobiological factors and anti- social behavior have also been found. Some writers have linked hyperkinesis and antisocial behavior. In a study they conducted in 37Ibid., p. 214. 381bid., p. 218. It should be noted that the inclusion of "proper environmental circumstances" leaves the question of genetic association with antisocial behavior unanswered. Environmental asso- ciations with antisocial behavior are presented in a subsequent section of this chapter. Suffice it to say that the investigator needs to retain an open mind in dealing with juvenile-delinquency data and that medical, technical, and psychobiologic research into delinquency is one avenue to achieving such data. 32 Vermont, Huessy et al. found that hyperkinetic children dropped out of school five times as often as the rest of the state's student 39 population. Also, students in the hyperkinetic group were 20 times more likely than those in the general pOpulation to be institutional- ized in a facility for delinquent youths.40 In fact, as West and Farrington suggested, the delinquent-to-be may be distinguished from his peers years in advance by behavioral patterns suggesting the presence of the hyperkinetic syndrome.4] Lewis and Balla found a strong relationship between delinquent youths and schizophrenic parents. Those youths known to the juvenile court were almost three times more likely to have a schizophrenic parent than the rest of the population. This association held true for both males and females and for blacks and whites.42 Williams studied adult inmates jailed for crimes of aggres- sion. His findings showed that the habitual aggressor had a much higher percentage of group EEG abnormalities than did the inmate with only one aggressive act--57 percent as compared to 12 percent.43 The preceding data were not presented to argue the case for the psychobiologic or genetic causation of deviance or antisocial 39Dennis P. Cantwell, "Hyperactivity and Anti-Social Behavior," Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 17 (Spring 1978): 254. 40 42Dorothy 0. Lewis and Shelly S. Shonok, "Delinquency and the Schizophrenic Spectrum of Disorders," Journal of the American Academy, of Child Psychiatry 17 (Spring 1978): 267. 43Jonathan H. Pincus and Gary J. Tucker, "Violence in Children and Adults," Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry_l7 (Spring 1978): 282. Ibid. -4]Ibid., p. 253. 33 behavior. Much of this phenomenon may be explained away by other theories, such as the sociological perspective of deviance. However, the findings are important and the associations that have been found need to be noted. The influence of these studies on personnel who work with juveniles also should be observed. School-Related Violence and Vandalism Brodbelt offered several interactive causes of school violence and vandalism. He maintained that 1. Grade competition produces friction. 2. Television and the community provide models of violence for ghetto students. 3. Teachers and the school represent power and the system for many youngsters from a lower socioeconomic status. 4. Many teachers prompt violence by responding inappropri- ately to youngsters. In addition, Brodbelt found that the incidence of vandalism, fighting, and drug/alcohol offenses in schools was related directly to the size of the school, and that more crime occurred in schools located in low- socioeconomic areas.44 Lesser provided a cataloguing of studies on school violence. He classified these studies in three groups, according to their per- spective on school violence:45 44Brodbelt, op. cit., p. 385. 45Phillip Lesser, "Social Science and Educational Policy: The Case of School Violence," Urban Education 12 (January 1978): 397. 34 1. School violence is a manifestation of our society (and as such is not a school problem but a societal one). a. Changes in school need to follow changes in society (Jencks et al., 1972). Violence is a cultural tradition (Rossi, 1968). Violence is learned at home (McGovern & Piers, 1972). Violence is learned from television (Sommers, 1976). Violence is a result of increased ethnic pride (Bailey, 1970). Violence results from increased adolescent gang activi- ties (Our Nation's Schools, April 1975). The schools are increasingly politicized (Ritterbrandl& Silverstein, 1973). 2. School violence reflects the nature of the students. a. f. 9. Physiological causes--genetics (Silberberg & Silber- berg, 1971). Low ego development because of frustration at under- achievement (Cardinell, 1974). Paranoid personalities (Rader, 1975). Aggressive personalities (Shane, 1974). Ethnic background (Worcester & Ashbaugh, 1973). Class background (Miller, 1958). Restricted linguistic codes (Burnstein, 1961). Lesser contended that the findings of studies in these first two classifications inherently work against educators attempting to resolve the problems of school violence and vandalism because these 35 approaches (1) shift responsibility away from the school, (2) assume that violence and vandalism are undesirable outcomes that cannot be justified (they may be), and (3) fail to identify the factors that school personnel can manipulate. 46 The third classification of studies is facilitative because it offers school personnel a basis from which to reduce violence and vandalism. It provides specific variables that educators can manipu- late. 3. School violence reflects school characteristics. a. b. k. Landscaping and lighting (Pablant & Baxter, 1975). Architectural design (Mallowe, 1976). Newness (Wells, 1971). Oldness (Greenburg, 1969). Size (Berger, 1974). Curriculum (Stinchcombe, 1964). Grades (McPartland & McDill, 1977). Teachers (Werthman, 1971). Authority structures (Spady, 1973). Lack of student input into governance (McPartland et al., 1971). Tracking (Kelly, 1976). Again, studies using this approach help educators manipulate variables to reduce the cost and rate of violence. The findings of such studies also help to identify the interactions between variables. 46 Ibid., p. 399. 36 However, the shortcoming of these studies is that they lack corre- lational data.47 Robert Hoff, Dean of the College of Education at Roosevelt University, perceived the problem in sociological terms, with dire consequences for educators. "The problems of the schools . . . are symptomatic of a social system in profound difficulty, a system where alienation, helplessness, and fear are facts of life."48 Within a single generation, Hoff continued, educators may have lost the con- sensus of the population regarding their function. Also, the school system gives young people mixed messages that threaten educators' credibility. The question of credibility arises when teachers violate court orders during strikes, yet still expect students to obey them within the classroom setting. Even more damaging may be situations like the one that occurred in a Chicago-area high school. Black female students were sent to the principal's office more often than other students. The reason: the school gave only traditional ath- letic and academic rewards, and because the school lacked a good women's athletic program and these girls did not excel academically, they had no opportunity to have their accomplishments acknowledged. Therefore, they got the recognition they sought by acting out-- negatively.49 47Ibid., p. 402. 48Robert H. Hoff, "The Toughest Game in Town," NASSP Bulletin 63 (February 1979): 11. 491bid., p. 15. The effect of recognition is dealt with in more detail in a later chapter of this dissertation. 37 Others have supported the sociological perspective on school violence and vandalism. Sexton and Killion cited the work of Nathan Goldman, A Socio-Psychologjcal Study of School Vandalism: "A low level of personal identification with the school and its goal among students, teachers, and parents was found positively associated with a high rate of vandalic behavior among students."50 Many writers have begun to look at the association between school violence and vandalism and the schools themselves. Paul Strasburg cH’ the Vera Institute of Justice analyzed data on 2,617 students in California. He concluded that the school is the critical social context for the generation of delinquent behavior. . . . While in school, delinquents who sub- sequently dropped out had much higher police contact rates than student(s) who remained in school. Once they had left school, however, the dropouts' contact rates declined sharply, while the students who continued in school registered increases in police contacts. The association between dropping out and reduced delinquency was especially strong with regard to delin- quents who had been serious offenders: their involvemegt with serious offenses declined sharply after leaving school. Other associations between schools and deviance have also been noted. Spencer identified eight school-associated traits in youths committed to correctional schools. These students 1. Are frequent school dropouts. 2. Are educationally retarded by four to five years. 3. Are chronic truants. 50Michael J. Sexton and Michael J. Killion, "To Combat Vandal- ism:)Do You Build Fences or Bridges," NASSP Bulletin 63 (February 1979 : 21. 5t'Strasburg, op. cit., pp. 3-4. GDNONU‘l-b 38 Usually have behavior problems in school. Usually have failed in school. Have an intense dislike for school. Usually have a poor self-image. Usually are seen as failures by their school teachers and families.52 Spencer synthesized these traits into five causative factors over which school personnel can exert control. These factors are: 1. Impossible academic expectations damage self-concepts and push youths toward delinquency. Frequent failure leads to unhappiness and acting out. School experiences are unrelated to life and job experien- ces of youths. This leaves youths uninvolved and contrib- utes to the dropout rate; the unemployed dropout has a greater chance of becoming delinquent. Irrelevant curriculum leads to boredom, to acting out, to discipline problems, and to delinquency. Negative interactions between teachers, administrators, and students cause youths to turn to the delinquent sub- culture for approval.53 According to the U.S. Office of Education, 98 percent of all American youths reach secondary school, but only 75 percent complete 52 Gordon L. Spencer, "How School Contributes to Delinquency," Youth Authority Quarterly_30 (Spring 1977): 23. 53 Ibid. 39 high school in four years.54 Furthermore, 20 percent of this nation's adults are functionally illiterate.55 In other words, one out of every five youngsters in our schools will have failed: failed in lessons, failed in learning, failed in life. Testifying before a national Canadian investigation, Dr. Diane Syer dramatically illus- trated this "school connection": "An eleven year old boy . . . before he hung himself, arranged in a circle underneath him the numerous school report cards he had hidden from his parents because they branded him as a failure who, in his own interpretation, did not deserve to live."56 The total effect of this school connection, although not fully understood, is indeed observable. Schuchtersummarized the findings of a study conducted by the Center for Community Resource Development at Boston University for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.57 Findings of the report were based on field visits to rural and urban areas in 16 states. It was found that most personnel, whether from community agencies, the Youth Service Bureau, or juvenile courts, felt that (1) school factors influence delinquency rates, (2) school adjustment is a significant factor in delinquency 54Ruchkin, op. cit., p. 225. 55"Social Indicators, 1976," quoted in "News Roundup," Behavior Today 9 (January 16, 1978): 8. 56Diane Syer, "Plain Speaking From Canada on Child Suicide and Prison Sex. . . ," Behavior Today 8 (October 17, 1977): 4. 57Arnold Schuchter. "Schools and Delinquency Prevention Strate- gies," in Delinquency Prevention and the Schools: Emerging Perspectives, ed. Ernest A. Wenk (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1976), p. 49. 4O prediction, and (3) much staff time and resources are spent interven- ing and compensating, or coping with failure in school environments. The investigators contended that the school should be the first line 58 Of this school influ- of social defense in delinquency prevention. ence on delinquency, Polk wrote: "Providing a framework for a wide range of school activities (including unconventional and deviant activities), the school extends into the lives of adolescents well beyond the re9ular school hours."59 Summary In the review of literature it was indicated that perceiving and responding to school violence and vandalism as the actions of delinquent youths will not solve the problem. In fact, researchers have not supported the contention that "juvenile delinquents" within the schools are the cause of the problem. Rather, a number of writers have suggested that it may be the school that causes the "juvenile delinquent." The actual variables associated with school violence and vandalism are inevitably complex. These variables affect the degree of violence or vandalism a school may experience. However, school personnel can manipulate these variables once they are identified and understood. Developing an understanding of the effect of these variables is difficult. Most people have firmly held prejudices. They have 58Ibid. 59Polk, op. cit., p. 22. 41 either been affected by school violence and vandalism, know someone who has been, or know a "basic truth" about the problem. The general population has very wide emotional involvement in and identification with school violence and vandalism. This emotion further compounds the problem by becoming another variable affecting the total school process. It may even prompt behaviors by school and community per— sonnel that lead to further school violence and vandalism. This emotionality further exacerbates the problem by inhibit- ing viable research relevant to school violence and vandalism. Too many people are intuitively convinced that they have the solutions to the problem. Others, involved in education, hesitate to become involved in research for fear that they or their schools may "look bad." The dearth of meaningful research helps to maintain the status quo, which generally nurtures elevated rates of school violence and vandalism. CHAPTER III ASSOCIATED VARIABLES Introduction This chapter is divided into two sections. In the first part of the chapter, the writer summarizes the work of Michael Rutter and his colleagues, who quantitatively identified aspects of school opera- tions associated with school violence, vandalism, attendance, and cognitive gain. In the second part of the chapter, the results of a survey of Michigan schools compiled by the Office of Safe Schools are presented. These findings and a new post-hoc analysis are used to identify trends concerning violence and vandalism in Michigan's schools. The Rutter Study In 1979, Michael Rutter and his colleagues published their findings on the outcomes of school practices and procedures affect- ] The investigators attempted to identify the ing student behavior. causative factors within the educative process that either facili- tated or debilitated the espoused educational outcomes of 12 second- ary schools in the inner city of London, England. Four key outcomes were studied: student attendance, pupil behavior, examination success, 1Michael Rutter, Barbara Naughan, Peter Mortimore, Janet Ouston, and Alan Smith, Fifteen Thousand Hours (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979). 42 43 and delinquency. Through statistical analysis of various measure- ments (questionnaires, direct observations, self-report surveys, and standardized tests) the authors identified ten school characteristics that had a direct influence on school outcomes. A synthesis of these school-process factors follows. The results obtained were independent of other nonschool variables, such as community, socio- economic status, race, and ethnic background. 1. Students in different schools showed considerable diver- gence in behavior and achievement. These differences manifested themselves in varying indices of behavior, attendance, percentage of students voluntarily continuing school beyond compulsory age, success on public exams (standardized tests), and street-delinquency rates. 2. At the time of intake, schools had differing proportions of behaviorally difficult and/or low-achieving students. Yet these differences did not account for the wide degree of variation among schools in terms of students' behavior or achievement. The students generally exemplified both better behavior and better academic achieve- ment if they attended certain schools rather than other schools. 3. These variations among schools in terms of student out- comes were fairly stable over a four- to five-year period. 4. The schools studied generally fared similarly on all of the student-outcome measures. Schools with better-than-average student behavior tended also to have better academic achievement, as measured by examination success, and less delinquency. It appeared that the different forms of success were interrelated and somewhat independent of the intake population. 44 5. The difference in school outcomes was not a result of physical factors, such as school size, age, or space available, or of administrative organizational status. 6. "The differences between schools in outcomes were syste- matically related to their characteristics as social institutions."2 Various factors, such as degree of academic emphasis, teacher behavior during lessons, use of incentives and rewards, and opportunities for students to take responsibility, were manipulatable by staff and were associated with different outcomes among the schools. 7. Some factors outside the teachers' control did influence outcomes. For example, schools with an "academic balance"--that is, a nucleus of students with at least average intellectual ability-- experienced better examination success than did schools without such a nucleus. In addition, schools without this nucleus and with a bottom-heavy grouping of least-able students had higher delinquency rates. Ironically, although student outcome was associated with balance at intake, "it did NOT appear to have any comparable influence on school functioning as reflected in our school process measures."3 8. The importance of balance at time of intake was most noticeable with regard to delinquency and least important in observed school and classroom behavior. 9. There appeared to be a cumulative effect of the various social factors, which was greater than the effect of any one of the process variables separately. Also, "the individual actions or 2Ibid., p. 178. 31bid.. p. 179. 45 measures may combine to create a particular ETHOS, or set of values, attitudes and behaviors which will become characteristic of the schools as a whole."4 10. The totality of these findings indicated, at least in part, a causal process between school process and school outcome. "To an appreciable extent children's behavior and attitudes are shaped and influenced by their experiences at school and, in particular, by the qualities of the school as a social institution."5 The claims made by Rutter and his associates are far-reaching, laying at the feet of educators a responsibility for the education and socialization of virtually all youngsters, regardless of their non- school background. Essentially, Rutter et al. said that the expec- tations and behavior of school personnel, coupled with the practices and procedures of doing business, significantly influence student outcomes--perhaps more significantly than the nonschool experiences of the youngsters. The magnitude of these implications necessitates closer scrutiny of the research itself. The following discussion is an overview of what the authors referred to as "school outcomes," followed by the associations of these outcomes with "school processes." Background Information Rutter and his colleagues used standardized group tests to obtain information on student intellectual level and reading attainment. The tests they used were the National Foundation for Educational Ibid. 5Ibid. 46 Research (NFER) test NV 5 and NFER reading tests SRA.6 In 1970. Rutter et al. also administered a questionnaire to all teachers in one inner-London borough. (This was the Isle of Wight survey, modified in 1970 as the Isle of Wight--Inner London comparative study.) The survey dealt with all children ten years of age who were finishing their primary-school experience and would transfer to secondary school in September 1971. Through this questionnaire the researchers obtained an assessment of the then-current behaviors of the children.7 Approximately two-thirds of the youngsters in the study went on to 20 nonselective schools in South London. All the students were retested (and teachers surveyed with the same questionnaire) in 1974, when the students were 14 years of age. Because the study was concerned with school effects, a cohort approach was developed. The total population equaled 3,485: 1,998 students from adjacent boroughs and 1,487 cohort students. All the students were given identical tests and questionnaires. No signifi- cant differences were found between the two subpopulations.8 However, immense differences in terms of behavior problems were found between secondary schools with similar intake populations. For example, one school took in 65 children, 30.8 percent of whom had behavior problems, as indicated on the primary teachers' questionnaire. 6Ibid., p. 23. 7Ibid., p. 24. A more extensive dialogue regarding the legiti- macy and validity of this instrument may be found in M. Rutter, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry_8 (1967): l-ll; and M. Rutter, J. TizaFd and K.’Whitmore, eds., Education, Health and Behavior (London: Longmans, 1970). 8 Ibid., p. 25. 47 A second school took in 50 children, 34.0 percent with behavior prob- lems. Yet, four years later, teachers indicated that 9.2 percent of the cohort students in the first school were having behavior problems, whereas 48.0 percent of the cohort youths in the second school were exhibiting behavioral difficulties. In other words, at least in terms of perceived behavioral difficulties, there existed "a FIVE-FOLD difference between the schools."9 Given this preliminary finding, the researchers focused on individual school effects and limited their study to 12 schools that were similar to the original 20 in terms of size, church assistance, '0 The authors identified demographics, single sex or coed, and so on. different school outcomes in four areas: attendance, student behavior, delinquency, and academic attainment. Specific findings in these four areas are discussed in the following section. School Outcomes Attendance.--The authors looked at attendance of all the fifth- year students within the 12 subject schools for 20 days: two weeks in September and another two weeks in February. They found that the 1] The average attendance per school ranged from 12.8 to 17.3 days. analysis of variance showed students' verbal reasoning (VR) band at ten years of age and parental occupation to be associated with attend- ance in the students' fifth year. The investigators also found a strong relationship between attendance and the school the students attended.12 9 11 12 '0 Ibid., p. 57. Ibid. Ibid., p. 27. Ibid., p. 28. 48 The authors proceeded to perform an analysis of variance to identify the main effect of variables relevant to attendance. By following a hierarchical approach, putting the school variable in last, they identified the effect of the school variable on attendance. To control for intake differences between schools, they used only those students in the middle VR band (N = 1,262 students--50 percent of the students at the fifth-year level). The classification of parental occupation was based on the Registrar General's five categories, which were then collapsed into three all-inclusive categories. These were: l--professional, mana- gerial, and skilled nonmanual; 2--skilled manual; and 3--semi-skilled manual and unskilled or unemployed. Rutter et al. found that parental occupation did have a mild effect on students' attendance in the fifth year (F = 3.92; df = 2, p = .02). But a much greater effect on attendance was found when the school variable was analyzed (F = 4.18; df = 11, p = .001).13 "Thus when the analysis was restricted to pupils of similar ability and when the effects of parental occupation had been taken into account, there were still substantial and statistically significant differences between schools."14 As an alternative measure, the authors also looked at just the very poor attenders. They defined very poor attendance as less than 8 out of 20 possible days. According to Rutter and his asso- ciates, "the proportion of poor attenders in each school varied from ‘3Ioid., p. 238. 14Ibid., p. 59. 49 5.7 percent to 25.9 percent, and as might be expected there was a very high correlation (rs = .93) between a school’s rank position on this measure and its position on the mean attendance measure already described."15 The investigators also examined attendance by age level. Generally, they found a drop in attendance from first year to third year to fifth year. However, they found that those schools with better attendance from first-year students also had better attendance from their fifth-year students.16 The legal dropout rate of the schools was also measured as an index for attendance purposes. Legally, any student reaching 16 years of age by the end of January of his/her fifth year could leave school at Easter. Those eligible comprised slightly less than half of the fifth-year group of students. In the different schools, the propor- tion of students leaving ranged from a low of 10.7 percent to a high 17 This correlated highly with the school's score on of 75 percent. the adjusted fifth-year attendance measure (rS = .99).18 It was also found that the proportion of students staying on into the sixth year correlated with the fifth-year attendance measure (rS = .81).19 It should be added that the authors found the school differ- ences to be stable over time when compared to the full-year attendance 20 records kept by the schools for the years 1972/73 and 1975/76. The data led the authors to the following conclusion regarding attendance: 17 18 '6 Ibid., p. 72. Ibid. 15 19 Ibid. Ibid. 20 Ibid. Ibid., p. 70. 50 Pupils of below average intellectual ability or from families of low occupational status were the ones most likely to show poor attendance records. However, even after controlling for school variations in intake or VR bands and occupation, large and statistically significant school differences in levels of attendance remained. 1 Student behavior.--Rutter et al. used various tools to examine the entire scope of student behavior. Teacher and pupil question- naires, direct investigator-observations of student behavior and responses, and observations of the amount of school vandalism and graffiti were the methods of data collection they employed. The rank order of children with high scores on both the primary and a subsequent secondary school teacher questionnaire was very low, producing a rank correlation of only 0.27. This, claimed the authors, indicated that the secondary schools with the worst behavior in the classrooms and on the playground were NOT necessarily those with the "worst" intakes of different pupils at the age of ten years. The very considerable differences between schools in their pupils' behav- ior could NOT simply be seen as a continuation of patterns estab- lished in primary schools.2 As stated earlier, an immense gap was found to exist between secondary schools with common behavioral intakes and the percentage of perceived behavioral problems reported by the teachers (9.2 percent versus 48 percent). (See page 47.) Delinquency,--In the spring of 1977, Rutter et al. collected data from the Metropolitan Police Juvenile Bureau regarding all pupils enrolled in the 12 subject schools at 14 years of age--a total of 2,352 students. Students were identified as "delinquent" if they had 2'Ibid., p. 72. 22Ibid., p. 74. 51 been officially cautioned or found guilty in a juvenile court at least once. The proportion of students thus involved in delinquent acts ranged from a low school rate, for boys, of 16 percent to a high school rate of 44 percent. For girls, the range was from 1 percent 23 The authors also found that "the schools with the to 11 percent. lowest or highest rates for ANY delinquency were also the ones with the lowest (or highest) rates for REPEATED delinquency."24 Further- more, when subsamples were taken in 1974 and again in 1976, comparing delinquency for all ages at the schools, a wide range of variance between schools was found. Using the Kendall coefficient of concord- ance to compare the three sets of data (the main sample and the two pupil samples in 1974 and 1976), a close relationship between the data 2 sets was found to exist. For the boys, W = 0.78, X = 18.72 with 8 df, p < .05. For the girls, w = 0.81, x2 = 17.01 with 7 df, p < .05. Rutter et al. concluded: The variations between schools which had emerged in the delin- quency figures for the main sample of pupils were clearly echoed in these data for a wide range of other age groups. Once again, it seemed that school variations on this outcome also showed considerable stability over time.25 The authors then proceeded to manipulate the data to take into account the effect of different VR bands and parental occupations. Their findings indicated that "for comparable groups of boys in the same VR band and occupational group the delinquency rate at school 'I' 26 was THREE TIMES that at school 'A.'" (Only boys were used in this analysis because the number of girls was too small.) 23 25 26Ibid.. p. 80. 24 Ibid., p. 76. Ibid., p. 75. Ibid., pp. 76-77. 52 Academic outcomes.--Rutter and his associates also reported that significant differences existed between the schools when academic attainment of students was identified. This variance was not related solely to classification by VR-band group as established before enter- ing secondary school at age ten. Identified was the school effect, which influenced academic attainment. To evaluate academic attainment specifically, the writers 27 As expected, they found rated the successful exam level completed. a very strong correlation between the student's VR band and the average number of examinations passed; across the 12 schools in the study, that number was 3.18 for VR band one, 1.53 for band two, and 0.46 for band three.28 The same data also showed that the school effect on academic attainment was so significant that "the average score for band-three children in the most successful school was as good as [that for] the band-one children in the least successful school!"29 Moreover, when the scores were adjusted for the VR distributions, the authors reported that the exam score "of the most successful school (2.38) was nearly four times that of the least successful [school] (0.62)."30 Since a linkage had been established between parental occupa- tion and student attainment, Rutter et a1. analyzed their data with occupation as the key predicting variable, independent of school 27England has several compulsory exam levels from which stu- dents may choose. For a more detailed discussion of this rating, see Rutter et al., pp. 80-85. 28 29 30 Ibid., p. 65. Ibid.. PP. 85-86. Ibid., p. 86. 53 effect. To hold the effect of VR band constant, the researchers looked at youngsters in the middle VR band (n = 1,104). Again they found "a highly significant school effect (p < 0.001) [with] large differences between schools in academic attainment (mean 1.60 with range from 0.35 to 2.80) even after making full allowance for variations in intake."3] These school differences appeared to be stable over a two-year period. To assure the maximum reliability of their results relevant to academic attainment, Rutter et al. also looked at the subgroups of least-able and most-able students. The least-able students were in the bottom VR band (VR groups 6 and 7), whereas the most-able students were in the top three VR groups. For the least-able students, the researchers "found highly significant differences (p < 0.001) between schools once more (mean score 1.25 with range from 0.55 to 2.17). Moreover, the rank ordering of schools on this lower exam pass measure correlated very highly (0.83) with that on the examination score."32 The analysis of data from the subgroup of students from the top three VR groups also showed "highly significant (p < 0.001) dif- ferences between schools (mean score 1.57 with range from 0.15 to 2.36), and a ranking of schools which was broadly similar (0.70) to 33 that obtained-with the overall weighted pass measure." Further analysis of school ranking for those students who voluntarily entered the sixth form also showed a high correlation (0.87) with that obtained from the overall weighted mean pass score.34 31 32 33 34 Ibid., p. 88. Ibid., p. 89. Ibid. Ibid. 54 School Process School-process items are those aspects of the social organi- 35 what zation and environment of the school that affect learning. follows is a brief review of six of the seven conceptual areas con- stituting school process: academic emphasis, teacher actions in lessons, rewards and punishments, pupil conditions, children's respon- sibilities and participation in the school, and staff organization}36 Academic emphasis.--Rutter and his colleagues found that homework--when given, checked, and returned--had a positive effect on student behavior and academic outcomes. It was not the amount of work given that appeared to be important, but rather the fact that it was given regularly. The average amount of homework in Rutter's study ranged from 15 minutes to 35 minutes a day per student.37 Teacher expectations were also associated with student achieve- ment. The math and English teachers of the third-year students in the middle-ability level were surveyed as to how many of their students they expected would pass the standardized tests given in each subject. The schools varied greatly in the proportions of students the teachers expected to do well on these tests (from 2.5 percent to 45 percent). The school scores on this measure correlated significantly with both attendance and academic outcomes. However, . . . two of the schools in the bottom third with respect to academic expectations were in the top third with respect to the children's measured abilities at intake. . . . It seems probable that these expectations will be transmitted to the 35 36 37 Ibid.. p. 43. Ibid., p. 107. Ibid., p. 110. 55 children who will then show some tendency to conform to their teachers' view of their expected attainments.38 Another aspect of academic emphasis worth noting is the posi- tive effect on academic outcomes achieved by displaying the students' work on classroom walls. Conversely, Rutter and his associates found an inverse relationship between the amount of student work and other material on display and the amount of graffiti observed in the building (a correlation of -0.6l).39 Yet another interesting association involving academic empha- sis must be stated. The researchers found that . . teachers in the schools which were more successful in terms of good attendance and low delinquency were much less likely to report that they had absolute freedom in planning tgeir.courzss. In these schools, planning was a group mat- In these schools, planning of course material was done on a group basis within departments. In the less-successful schools, teachers worked much more on their own, often with little coordination among teachers in the same department.4] Rutter et al. found that an emphasis on academic matters within the school tended to correlate with better student behavior and improved academic performance, as measured by standardized tests. They found that one specific activity relating to academic emphasis was not the crucial precipitator, but rather that any activity emphasizing academic performance was crucial.42 38 41 39 40 42 Ibid., p. 111. Ibid., p. 112. Ibid. Ibid., p. 112. Ibid., p. 114. 56 Teacher actions.--The researchers found interesting correla- tions between topic time per lesson and student behavior. They observed and recorded the amount of teacher time spent on the subject matter of the lesson. The average amount of teacher time per lesson ranged from 65 percent to more than 85 percent. Pupil behavior was better in those schools with a higher proportion of tOpic time. Ironically, academic success was not significantly correlated with time spent on the lesson. Furthermore, Rutter et al. found a negative correlation between pupil behavior and the amount of teacher time spent on equipment and passing out materials. The average amount of teacher time devoted to these tasks varied from 2 to 13 percent among the different schools; pupil behavior became worse as the proportion of time increased.43 The investigators also found that in the more successful schools the teachers spent a greater proportion of their time inter- acting with the entire class in contrast to interacting with individual students in the class. In these schools, . . better outcomes were reported in terms of attendance, behavior, and academic attainment. . . . In the schools with less satisfactory behavior and less good exam results even the more experienced teachers tended to focus unhelpfully on the individual to the detriment of overall class management. 44 Teacher actions also tended to affect disciplinary disruptions. The more frequently a teacher had to interrupt the flow of the lesson to reprimand a student, the worse the general behavior of the students observed. In addition, schools in which teachers started class 43 44 Ibid.. pp. 115-16. Ibid., pp. 116-17. 57 late and/or finished the lessons before the time was up were "associated with worse outcomes in [student] behavior, attendance and academic attainment. Conversely, schools where most lessons started promptly tended to have better outcomes with better behavior."45 Rewards and punishments.--Rutter et al. reported some intriguing associations regarding rewards and punishments. Their classroom obser- vations revealed an average of six reprimands as compared to three compliments per lesson.46 Also reported were significantly better academic and delinquency outcomes when school discipline was group based, with generally recognized and accepted standards, in contrast to individual classroom rules. Although the data were unclear in terms of statistical significance, there appeared to be a positive association between corporal punishment and worse student behavior.47 When staff members took opportunities to praise their students' work, substantially better outcomes for both behavior and delinquency were reported. Praise was found to be most effective when given right at the time it was earned, rather than waiting weeks to award a formal prize at a special awards ceremony. Frequent public praise for good work or behavior (i.e., at assemblies or meetings) was also associated 48 with better student behavior. Pupil conditions.--Pupil conditions encompassed those aspects of the school that provided a pleasant environment for the students. These included "freedom to use the building during breaks and the 45 46 47 48 Ibid., p. 118. Ibid., p. 120. Ibid., p. 121. Ibid., p. 124. 58 lunch period, access to a telephone, and the availability of hot 49 drinks." A high score on the 14-item general-conditions scale developed by these researchers was associated with better rates of examination success.50 Rutter et al. also found positive associations between schools in which students felt they could talk to staff members about personal problems and the outcomes of better attendance and academic achieve- ment. It also appears that those schools that make "formal provisions for pastoral care . . . are also likely to have teachers who are seen by the pupils as more approachable and who actually do talk to more children about problems."51 Responsibilities and participation.--Rutter and his associates also reported significant correlations between school leadership oppor- tunities and the outcomes of better student behavior and greater aca- demic success. The schools differed from one another in terms of percentage of students who held positions of responsibility. This range extended from a low of 7 percent to a high of 50 percent.52 According to Rutter et al., It appears that the schools' giving of responsibility may be in part a reaction to pupil behavior; but it also plays a part in developing an overall school climate, which itself helps to shape pupil behavior. Staff organization.--Rutter and his colleagues found that . . in the less successful schools teachers were Often left completely alone to plan what to teach, with little guidance 49 51 52 Ibid., p. 125. 5°Ioid., p. 127. 53Ibid.. p. 132. Ibid., p. 129. Ibid., p. 130. 59 or supervision from their senior colleagues and little coor- dination with 3ther teachers to ensure a coherent course from year to year.5 Two other aspects of staff organization affecting student outcomes were a check on whether teachers gave homework, and staff punctuality. Schools ranged from a low of 10 percent to a high of 100 percent of the staff indicating that checks were made on whether they gave homework. Those schools with a higher proportion of checks had better academic outcomes. Lack of awareness of staff punctuality was also associated with poor student attendance. Rutter et al. stated, It should be emphasized that the more successful schools were not unduly regimented. Rather, good morale and the routine of people working harmoniously together as part of an efficient system meant that both supervision and support were available to teachers in a way which was absent in less successful schools. In some schools with relatively poor outcomes teach- ers appeared very isolated, teaching their own syllabus with little interest being taken in what they were doing or how they were doing it.55 Conclusions of the Rutter Study It is clear from the findings of the study conducted by Rutter and his associates that distinct interactions exist, linking the method Of school operations and the degree of cognitive gain, behavior, attendance, and delinquency of the students in a particular school. Rutter and his colleagues consistently found that the school with the best cognitive gains also had the best attendance, the fewest behavioral problems, and the least delinquency. The differences 54Ibid., p. 135. 55Ibid., p. 137. 60 between schools could not be accounted for by differences among stu- dents' socioeconomic backgrounds, family circumstances, or parental occupations. State of Michigan Data: 1978-1979 Survey Responses Based on recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, Task Force personnel conducted a random-sample survey of students, teachers, and administrators in selected Michigan school districts. As of August 1980, the survey results were the most current material for the state of Michigan. Although the survey data do not represent the official position of the Michigan State Department of Education, the figures do indicate current trends and point to the crucial need for systematic, rigorous research on school violence and vandalism. The study was conducted during the 1978-79 school year. All survey instruments were handled by local school personnel rather than by members of the Task force and were distributed to sixth through twelfth graders, their teachers, and their principals. A letter from Governor Milliken to the target superintendents requested their full cooperation in their district and assured them that individual school districts would not be identified in the results. This strati- fied sample reflected all districts across the state. The following 61 results were based on responses from 2,270 students, 102 teachers, and 34 school-building administrators.56 The fear of violence was seen to be as debilitating as actual violence for staff and students because of its effect on school cli- mate. The students were asked: Question: "How often are you afraid that someone will hurt or bother you?" They responded: Schools Schools All 85% 85% Schools Students White Black Deseg. W (74) 4%) (74) N Most of the time 3 3 1 4 76 Sometimes l7 l7 16 23 413 Almost never 34 35 26 32 798 Never 46 45 57 40 1,092 Twenty percent of all the students and 27 percent of the students in desegregated schools responded that they were afraid they would be hurt or bothered while at school "either most of the time or some- times."57 Students were asked whether they ever brought instruments to school for protection. Question: “Do you bring something to school to protect yourself?" Their responses were: 56Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, “Summary of Data Collected Through School Survey" (Lansing: State Of Michigan, 1980). 57Ibid., p. 3. 62 Schools Schools All 85% 85% Schools Students White Black Deseg. (7t) (76) (74) (74) N Most of the time 5 4 6 5 106 Sometimes 5 3 l3 8 122 Almost never 7 7 9 7 177 Never 83 85 72 79 1,957 At some time during the 1978-79 school year, 14 percent of the students in predominantly white schools, 21 percent of the students in desegregated schools, and 28 percent of the students in predominantly black schools went to school armed to protect themselves. Seventeen percent of all the students sur- veyed were so armed.58 Regarding physical violence, 8 percent of the students said that they had been “physically attacked and hurt" in the 1978-79 school year. Sixteen percent of the students indicated that theyluui"attacked and hurt" another person during that school year.59 The teachers in the survey were asked if, during the previous 12 months, they had been victims of physical assaults while performing their school duties. Three percent of the teachers indicated that they had been assaulted.6O The teachers were also asked: Question: “How would you describe the issue of violence in your school?" They responded:6] 58 59 60 61 Ibid., p. 4. Ibid. Ibid., p. 5. Ibid. 63 A very serious problem 1% A serious problem 4% Somewhat of a problem 47% Not a problem at all 48% Principals were also the victims of physical attacks. Eighteen percent of the principals completing the survey reported having been attacked by students sometime during their careers. These same principals were asked about violence in their schools: Question: “How would you describe the issue of violence in your school?" The principals responding said violence was:62 A very serious problem no response A serious problem no response Somewhat of a problem 47% Not a problem at all 53% Not one principal reported violence as being a serious or very serious problem in his/her school. Five percent of the teachers completing the survey said violence was a serious or very serious issue. Yet 17 to 27 percent of the students feared that they would be hurt or bothered while at school. Members of the Task Force saw school discipline as a central issue in school violence and vandalism. They found that 20 percent of all the students who completed the survey reported having been suspended or expelled from school. Forty-seven percent of the stu- dents from schools with 85 percent or more black pupils reported 62Ibid. 54 having been suspended or expelled, whereas 12 percent Of the students attending schools 85 percent or more white reported having been sus- pended or expelled.6.3 Teachers were questioned about a number of items pertinent to school violence and vandalism. The questions and their responses follow. Question: "How much inservice training have you had in each of the following areas in the last 24 months?" Classroom Management64 None 60% About a half-day 18% 1-2 days 12% 3-4 days 3% 5 days or more 6% 65 Interpersonal Relations None 49% About a half-day 29% 1-2 days 14% 3-4 days % 5 days or more 5% Handling Disruptive Students66 None 64% About a half-day 22% 1-2 days 8% 3-4 days 4% 5 days or more 2% 63 64 65 Ibid., p. 8. Ibid., p. B4. Ibid., p. 85. 66Ibid., p. 55. schools were run. behaving students.68 65 In addition, 81 percent of the staff members reported that students had little (67 percent) or no say (14 percent) in how the Teachers felt that school counselors were of little (43 per- cent) or no help (21 percent) in giving advice on how to handle mis- In relation to dealing with such students, the tion and the teachers' responses follow: Question: Send them out of class69 teachers indicated that they used a variety of methods. The ques- "In your dealing with misbehaving students, how often do you do the following things? 7°Ibid., p. 515. 7‘Ibid., p. 515. Never 14% Seldom 47% Sometimes 33% Often 4% Very often 2% . . . 70 lee addltlonal school work Never 47% Seldom 23% Sometimes 20% Often 7% Very often 3% Use or threaten to use physicalpunishment7] Never 60% Seldom 26% Sometimes 10% Often 4% Very often no response 67Ibid., p. 510. 68Ibid., p. 512. 69Ioid., p. 514. 66 Lower their grades if it is repeated72 Never Seldom Sometimes Often Very often 52% 29% 19% 2% Give privileges to increasegpositive involvement73 Never 7% Seldom 24% Sometimes 38% Often 24% Very often 8% Summary of teachers' survey.--From who participated in the study, it appeared preceding the survey: - 78 percent of the teachers had had (60 percent) inservice training in - 78 percent of the teachers had had (49 percent) inservice training in - 86 percent of the teachers had had (64 percent) inservice training in the responses of teachers that within the two years little (18 percent) or no classroom management little (29 percent) or no interpersonal relations little (22 percent) or no handling disruptive students In addition, most of the responding teachers indicated they used the more traditional, punitive responses to misbehaving students. Only 32 percent indicated that they often (24 percent) or very often (8 percent) gave privileges to reinforce positive student involvement. The data from the State of Michigan survey have some major shortcomings. factors associated with school violence and vandalism. 72Ibid., p. 517. 73 The study was not designed to identify operational (A new study Ibid., p. 818. 67 is currently being planned; some of the findings and recommendations from the present dissertation will be used in developing the design of that study.) But the raw data were helpful in identifying which areas should be pursued. A review of those raw data follows. In the questionnaire, schools were grouped in five school- population categories: 0-500, 501-l,000, l,001-l,500, l,502-2,000, and 2,000+. The problem with these groupings was that researchers could not relate the effect of school population to number of incidents of school violence and vandalism. Also, terms used in the question- naire were not clearly defined, so this might have affected the accu- racy of responses. For example, what is considered violence? Is a fight between two students considered an incident of violence? Is shooting a BB hole in a window an act of vandalism? Do the reported vandalism figures include labor costs, exclude district-covered labor costs, or represent an unknown combination of the two? Yet for all the shortcomings of the State of Michigan survey, some conclusions may be gleaned from the data. These conclusions will be helpful in developing the needed baseline data for future research. State of Michigan Data-- Post-Hoc Conclusions The data from the State of Michigan study were manipulated in several ways. These included a Spearman rank correlation of violence and vandalism, an indexing of leading figures, and a compari- son of the rates of violence and vandalism in larger and smaller schools. 68 Population figures and incidents.--Three methods of analysis were used in working with the figures concerning population and incidents. An incident rate per thousand students was developed. Also developed was a critical population point--that point at which incidents occurred. Finally, an incident rate per school-size group - was compared to the population. These three indices were computed for the state sample population as a whole; then the larger schools and smaller schools were contrasted. Schools were grouped according to their populations. Group A comprised schools with larger populations. This group included eight schools-~seven with student populations ranging from l,001-l,500 students and one with 2,000+ students. (No school reported a popula- tion of l,501-2,000 students.) Eighteen smaller schools constituted Group B; eight schools had a population range from 0-500 students, and ten had a range of 50l-l,000 students. Because the State of Michigan data were based on pooled popu- lation figures, an analysis assumption was necessary. Within each population classification, the top population figure was used for manipulative purposes. This writer assumed that the consistent use of the top population figure for all the pooled data would minimize any error throughout the sample. The alternative was to use the mid- point within each specified population range. This approach was rejected because under this assumption 44 percent of the smaller schools would have had a population of 250 students--an enrollment figure considered unusual for that many secondary schools. 69 The formula for calculating incident rate was simply %%4 number of incidents divided by the number of students. For the state sample, the incident rate per thousand students was 33.7, based on 911 incidents of violence and vandalism in a student population of 27,000. The incident rate for the larger schools was 36.7, compared to 31.0 for the smaller schools. (See Table 3.1.) Table 3.l.--Incident rates for violence and vandalism.a Reported # of Incidents Students Rate/1,000 Total sample 911 27,000 R = 33.7 Larger schools 477 13,000 R = 36.7 Smaller schools 434 14,000 R = 31.0 Note: Larger school rate is 18.4 percent higher than smaller school rate. a _ I (reported incidents) R (rate) - 5 (number of students) The comparative rates of incidents of vandalism per thousand students are given below. The state sample yielded a vandalism- occurrence rate of 16.2 per thousand students. The larger schools' rate was 17.8, compared to a rate of 14.6 for the smaller schools. (See Table 3.2.) The rates of violence were similar to those of vandalism. For the total state sample, the violence rate per thousand students was 17.6. The larger schools had a violence rate of 18.9, compared to a rate of 16.4 for the smaller schools. (See Table 3.3.) 70 Table 3.2.--Incident rates for vandalism.a Reported # of Incidents Students Rate/1,000 Total sample 436 27,000 R = 16.2 Larger schools 232 13,000 R = 17.8 Smaller schools 204 14,000 R = 14.6 Note: Largerschoolrete~is 21.9 percent higher than smaller school rate. a _ I (reported incidents) R (rate) ' S (number of students) Table 3.3.--Incident rates for violence.a Reported # of Incidents Students Rate/1,000 Total sample 475 27,000 R = 17.6 Larger schools 245 13,000 R = 18.9 Smaller schools 230 14,000 R = 16.4 Note: Larger school rate is 15.24 percent higher than smaller school rate. I (reported incidents) a .. R (rate) ' S (number of students) Much more insight into the data was gained when the population figures were viewed in terms of a critical point--that population number associated with an incident. This point was calculated by dividing the student population figure by the number of reported incidents. For the total state sample the critical point of student 71 population divided by all reported incidents of both violence and vandalism was 29.6 students. The critical point for the larger schools was 27.25 students, contrasted to a critical point of 32.3 students for smaller schools. (See Table 3.4.) Table 3.4.--Critical population point: violence and vandalism.a Critical # of Reported . Students Incidents Pogggztlon Total sample 27,000 911 29.60 Larger schools 13,000 477 27.25 Smaller schools 14,000 434 32.26 Note: The smaller schools need 18.4 percent more students than the larger schools to reach the critical population point. S (number of students) I (reported incidents) aCPP (critical population point) = When vandalism rates were considered separately, the state sample yielded a critical population point of 61.93 students. The critical point for larger schools was 56.03 students, compared to a critical point of 68.63 students for the smaller schools. (See Table 3.5.) The critical population points relative to violence were simi- lar to those for vandalism. For the state sample as a whole, the critical point was 56.84 students. The critical point for the larger schools was 53.06 students, in contrast to a critical point of 60.87 students for the smaller schools. (See Table 3.6.) 72 Table 3.5.--Critical population point: vandalism.a Critical # of Reported . . Populatlon Students Inc1dents Point Total sample 27,000 436 61.93 Larger schools 13,000 232 56.03 Smaller schools 14,000 204 68.63 Note: The smaller schools need 22.5 percent more students than the larger schools to reach the critical population point. 5 (number of students) I (reported incidents) aCPP (critical population point) = Table 3.6.--Critical population point: violence.a Critical # of Reported . Students Incidents POB312§1°n Total sample 27,000 475 56.84 Larger schools 13,000 245 53.06 Smaller schools 14,000 230 60.87 Note: The smaller schools need 14.7 percent more students than the larger schools to reach the critical population point. S (number of students) I (reported incidents) aCPP (critical population point) = A third comparison derived from the population figures was of the number of incidents of violence and vandalism per school to the population size. In this sample 911 total incidents were reported 73 from 26 schools with a combined population of 27,000 students. Inci- dents per school yielded a statistic for the state sample of 35.04. The larger schools reported 477 incidents within eight schools having a population of 13,000 students. This yielded a statistic of 59.63 incidents per school. The smaller schools reported 434 incidents within 18 schools with a population of 14,000 students. These figures yielded a statistic of 24.11 incidents per school. (See Table 3.7.) Table 3.7.--Incidents of school violence and vandalism by population size. # of # of School R o t d Ifigigefits Schools Average Total sample 911 26 35.04 Larger schools 477 8 59.63 Smaller schools 434 18 24.11 Spearman correlation of violence and vandalism.--A Spearman rank correlation between violence and vandalism yielded an r = .224. This manipulation was based on data from the 26 schools that consis- tently and completely reported such information. No attempt was made to correlate school size and number of incidents because school size was reported as a range rather than as an exact total. When the rank correlation between school violence and van- dalism from the eight larger schools was compared to the correlation between violence and vandalism from the 18 smaller schools, a different 74 phenomenon was identified. In the smaller schools, the rank corre- lation between school violence and vandalism yielded an r = .134. The rank correlation between school violence and vandalism in the larger schools yielded an r = .732. This difference between the correlation statistics of the two school groups suggested that the incidence rate in the smaller schools had no interaction effect, i.e., violence on vandalism or vandalism on violence. Yet the much higher correlation in the larger schools suggested an interaction effect. In some of the larger schools it appeared that the incidence of vandalism had an encouraging effect on the incidence of violence. Conversely, the incidence of violenceluui an encouraging effect on the incidence of vandalism. This interaction needs further exploration. Summary of Michigan survey raw data--population.--The State of Michigan survey yielded some interesting data that may be of value to policy makers and can be used as a baseline for further investigators. In this sample, the rate of school violence and vandalism per thousand students was 18.4 percent higher in the larger than in the smaller schools. The vandalism rate per thousand students was 21.9 percent higher in the larger schools than in the smaller schools. And the rate of violence per thousand students was 15.2 percent higher in the larger schools than in the smaller schools. The number of students needed to reach that hypothetical critical point at which incidents occur was also significantly differ- ent between the larger and the smaller schools. For all reported incidents of violence and vandalism, the smaller schools had a 75 critical population point 18.4 percent higher than that of the larger schools (32.3 versus 27.3 students). The critical population figure for vandalism was 22.5 percent higher in the smaller schools than in the larger schools (68.63 versus 56.03 students). Violent incidents showed a similar pattern: Smaller schools had a critical population figure 14.7 percent higher than that of the larger schools (53.06 versus 60.87 students). A third population statistic was used to develop a building rate, which yielded another important figure regarding incidents of school violence and vandalism. Eight larger schools and 18 smaller schools were included in the study; that is, there were 2.25 times as many small schools as large ones in the sample. Yet the total student population of the smaller schools as a group was 7.7 percent higher than that of the larger schools (14,000 versus 13,000). Furthermore, smaller schools had 10 percent fewer incidents of violence and van- dalism than did the larger schools (434 versus 477). In other words, the larger schools had almost 8 percent fewer students than the smaller schools, yet they accounted for 10 percent more of the incidents of school violence and vandalism. Also, the larger schools had an inci- dence rate per building 2.47 times higher than did the smaller schools (59.6 versus 24.1). Conclusions It appeared from the State of Michigan survey that various segments of the school population perceived school violence very dif- ferently. This difference in perceptions was illustrated by the fact 76 that none of the principals responding to the survey indicated that violence was a serious or very serious problem in their schools. 0n the other hand, 5 percent of the teachers felt that violence was a serious or very serious problem in their schools, and 20 percent of the students surveyed said they were afraid they would be hurt or bothered while at school. This fear was so significant that 17 per- cent of all the students indicated that at some time during the 1978-79 school year they had gone to school armed to protect themselves. In fact, in some subpopulations within the survey sample, as many as 27 percent of the students were afraid they would be hurt or bothered while at school. And as many as 28 percent of another subpopulation had gone to school armed to protect themselves. This wide discrepancy in perceptions of whether a problem does or does not exist certainly indicates a problem. Obviously, those students who felt threatened and those who went to school armed lacked an effective means of communicating their fears to the larger school community. Such alienation, even in the absence of overt violence, is counterproductive to the educational process. The association of higher incidence rates of school violence and vandalism with the larger schools appeared to be consistent within this sample. The indices developed for comparative purposes indicated that larger schools had consistently higher rates of school violence and vandalism than did smaller schools. Furthermore, there appeared to be an interaction effect between school violence and vandalism in the larger schools, which encouraged more violence and vandalism. This interaction effect was absent in the smaller schools. 77 An association between larger schools and higher rates of school vandalism and violence was identified. It is not this writer's contention that all large schools have higher rates of school vio- lence and vandalism nor that large schools cause increased incidence rates. Yet within this sample the larger schools were constantly associated with higher rates of violence and vandalism. Based on the State of Michigan data, it appears that some factor or factors occur in the larger schools that encourage these higher rates. It may be as Brodbelt, Lesser, and others have con- tended: School size may have an interactive effect on school violence and vandalism. (See Chapter II, pages 33-36.) Larger schools appear to exacerbate several variables that have often been cited as poten- tially problematic. Such variables may include anonymity, anomie, lack of student input, lack of community input, and governance by administration, leading to an "us versus them" mentality. The contention here is plain. If larger schools are to be a reality of the educational scene in the 19805, educators need to consider programmatic changes to deal with school violence and van- dalism. Some such changes are proposed in Chapter IV. Another issue that was seen as a major concern in the Task Force recommendations was discipline. The Task Force found that schools provided very few opportunities for teachers to improve their disciplinary skills. Consistently large percentages of surveyed teachers reported little or no inservice training in crucial discipline- .related matters. Seventy-eight percent of the teachers had had little (one-half day--18 percent) or no (60 percent) inservice preparation o \ . 78 in classroom management. Another 78 percent indicated they had had little (one-half day--29 percent) or no (49 percent) inservice train- ing in interpersonal relationships. Eighty-six percent of the responding teachers indicated they had received little (one-half day--22 percent) or no (64 percent) inservice training in strategies or methods for handling disruptive students. These teachers indicated that most of their disciplinary re5ponses to misbehaving students were the more traditional, punitive reactions. Only 32 percent indicated they often used positive rein- forcement to encourage positive student involvement. Such a lack of planned school activity regarding the handling of misbehaving students could lead to several conclusions. Either (1) school authorities are pleased with their staff's handling of misbehaving students, (2) there is no problem regarding misbehaving students, (3) teachers come out of their schools of education well versed in the strategies and methods for handling such students, or (4) know one knows where to begin. It is fairly obvious which conclu- sion is the “most correct" one. In Chapter IV, suggested methods of sensitizing personnel to alternative disciplinary strategies are pre- sented. However, it must be clearly stated that teachers and all personnel responsible for school operations share the responsibility for effectively handling disruptive students. If staff members are not effectively dealing with disruptive students, then the school administrators need to address this issue. 79 A Note on Indexing The investigator admits that indexing incidents of school violence and vandalism to the school population figures means taking liberties with the data base. However, there appears to be no gen- erally accepted analytical method for comparing school violence and vandalism. In some instances, dollar costs are reported. In many other cases, nothing is reported and no data are kept. Too many school personnel perceive school violence and vandalism as a reflec- tion on themselves and their jobs; thus, they don't keep reliable records. These indexed rates were based on grouped enrollment figures; the high point of the range was used to compute the indexed figure. It was assumed that any statistical deviations resulting from the grouped enrollment figures would balance out. Summar Rutter and his colleagues clearly established a "school effect" that had a significant influence on students' cognitive gain, behavior, attendance, and delinquency. This school effect could not be explained by differences is socioeconomic background, family home life, or parental occupation. It firmly linked the schools' standard operating procedures and those identified school outcomes. The State of Michigan Task Force identified totally different perceptions regarding violence as a problem within sampled schools by school subpopulations. Students felt the problem most acutely, followed by teachers. Admistrators seldom indicated that violence or fear of violence was a problem in their schools. 80 This investigator used the State of Michigan Task Force data to develop rates of incidence of violence and vandalism within the surveyed schools. These rates allowed for comparison and analysis, facilitating policy decisions affecting school violence and vandalism. The State of Michigan data revealed that larger schools had greater rates of school violence and vandalism than did smaller schools and that violence and vandalism had an interactive effect on each other that was absent in smaller schools. Finally, the State of Michigan Task Force data included the amount of programmatic intervention staff members receive to help them deal with inappropriate student behavior. CHAPTER IV VARIABLES RECOMMENDED FOR MANIPULATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR EVALUATION Ten Manipulable Variables Many factors affect the degree of school violence, vandalism, and street delinquency in and around a school. In the preceding three chapters, the writer presented material suggesting that school person- nel can and do influence school violence, vandalism, and street delinquency. It should be noted that the school is not being blamed as the primary cause of school violence and vandalism. Instead, what is being suggested is that school personnel are in a unique position to affect--either positively or negatively--school violence and van- dalism and even the attendant street delinquency. In this chapter, the writer presents the manipulable variables developed from the literature and reviewed in the preceding chapters. As suggested earlier, these variables appear to have an interactive effect on the total school ethos that is greater than their individual parts.1 The writer's goal is to juxtapose as many of these variables as possible. Several of the identifiable variables may be manipulated by school officials in an attempt to minimize school violence, 1Michael Rutter, Barbara Naughan, Peter Mortimore, Janet Ouston, and Alan Smith, Fifteen Thousand Hours (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979), p. 179. 81 82 vandalism, and street delinquency. They are discussed in the fol- lowing sections. Included are deviance; the school connection; student identification; student self-governance; the input process; recognition of achievement, effort, and contributions; facility use; the extended school effect on the home; discipline; and coordination of community resources. It should be stated at this juncture that these variables, although developed from selected literature, have not been tested systematically and are the writer's recommendations for a further research/demonstration project. Deviance Important to understanding this variable is an awareness and identification of student deviance as a positive occurrence within the school--one that should be accepted and encouraged. Outstanding academic performance is deviance. So is the performance of the star athletes. Too often, deviance is seen only as a negative occurrence. Many educators, particularly those in daily contact with students, also identify and respond to deviance in value-laden terms. Lesser decried the lack of scholarly material relating the school and deviant behavior. Most of what he found were anecdotal pieces. He contended that the area of deviance within school lacks systematic research.2 The problem of viewing deviance as a negative occurrence is that it limits the response patterns of staff personnel. If the 2Phillip Lesser, "Social Science and Educational Policy: The Case of School Violence," Urban Education 12 (January 1978): 329. 83 school personnel accept deviance and are prepared to identify and reinforce deviance that does not detract from the school's purposes, measures intended to deal with deviance that interferes with stated school purposes may be better received. Therefore, a definition of deviance should be developed that identifies such behavior in terms other than negative ones. Much has been learned in the study of deviance. Yet many practitioners and the public still think of behavioral deviance as actions committed by "bad kids." This value-laden response to deviance begins a labeling process that often results in secondary deviation behaviors that further the deviant orientation.3 Kelly advised caution regarding the effect of labeling on youngsters in schools. Once a youth has been labeled, whether by official action such as the criminal-justice system or informally by the youth's perception of school personnel's response to him/her as a "trouble- maker," “potential delinquent," or ”deviant" within the school set- ting, the outcome is the same. The youths, said Kelly, then feel free to engage in the selected forms of school misconduct and deviance most comfortable to them.4 Yet failure to the youth "lies in a complex of organizational and interpersonal behaviors hinging on stigma, humiliation, and 3For an extensive analysis of the complexities of deviance, see Dan C. Gibbons and Joseph F. Jones, The Study of Deviance: Pers)ectives and Problems (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975 . 4Delos H. Kelly, "Labeling and the Consequences of Wearing a Delinquent Label in a School Setting," Education 97 (Summer 1977): 371-80. 84 defeat, generated within the here and now of the pervasive status system of the school."5 It appears that the self-fulfilling prophecy still works in education. Because of the effects of labeling, the writer perceived a value in developing a definition of deviance not associated with value-related terms. Deviance within schools might be defined as behavior that is different from the desired behavior. Since schools, at least to students, are run by the teachers, the norms are set by the teachers. The teachers, often unconsciously, set the desired student behavior as the norm of what ought to be. There are cogni- tive norms, social norms, and public behavioral norms. Variance from these norms often presents problems for the institutional actor. Conformity to the norms (the desired behavior) becomes an end product of the institution. This approach to the norm, by definition, will sidestep the issue of labeling. It also will help avoid the stereo- types associated with deviance. As Gibbons and Jones stated, deviance should be "mundane and commonplace, marked off from conformity only by degrees rather than in absolute terms."6 And these degrees are both negative and positive. The mid-point of the norm is the desired behavior. Behavior on either side of the norm is deviance. (See Figure 4.1.) 5William T. Pink, "Rebellion and Success in the High School," Contemporary Education 49 (Winter 1978): 80. 6Gibbons and Jones, op. cit., p. 8. 85 Deviant Behaviors Deviant Behaviors -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 l 2 3 4 5 Norm STANDARD DEVIATIONS Figure 4.1.--Deviance. For example, a cognitive norm for many teachers is a student working at grade level. A student who is working three grade levels below or above the norm can cause problems for the teacher. Some institutions, through established practices and procedures, effec- tively respond to such deviance, i.e., through special enrichment/ remedial classes, individualized programming, and/or modular schedul- ing. Other institutions do not. An example of a public behavioral norm is staff members' responses to students' language toward teachers. Language on either side of the norm prompts responses from the staff. Abusive language toward a teacher elicits sanctions that will keep a student away from the teacher, i.e., being suspended t0 the principal or being sent to a counselor. In other cases, staff discussion regarding a child being a "goody two-shoes" or "sickeningly sweet" initiates informal sanctions that keep the student at an appropriate distance. The suggestion herein is that deviance on either side of the norm creates a state of uneasiness and tension for actors within the institution. The established methods of response used by the 86 institutional actors either increase or decrease the institution's effectiveness in dealing with deviance. At this point a cycle begins. The less responsive the personnel are toward positive deviance, the more limited their ability to cope and deal effectively with deviance, either positive or negative. The School Connection The appropriate role of school personnel has been and con- tinues to be heatedly debated. Many people believe that educators should only be concerned with presenting academic material to the students. Learning that material becomes the responsibility of the students and their families. If students do not learn or if they behave in a fashion not conducive to learning, the family is held accountable. Although simplistic, this reasoning has many proponents who view educative incursions into social-problem resolution as a major public-policy error. And given current economic and sociopolitical realities, this reasoning may prevail in education. However, public policy makers have legislated and adjudicated that almost all youngsters between6 and 16 years of age are to be brought together regardless of virtually any differences between them except, in rare cases, documented physiological handicaps. Given this legislative and judicial policy decision, the educational commu- nity may wish to acknowledge and consider the expanded demographic nature of the "educational marketplace." This educational marketplace comprises a highly heterogeneous population that includes individuals of diverse races, cultures, 87 customs, socioeconomic backgrounds, and family units (i.e., single- parent homes, multiple-parent homes, matriarchal homes, patriarchal homes, role-inverted homes, homosexual homes). Each child has learned different methods of interaction and expectations based on his/her own background. Yet each child is compelled by law to enter the educational marketplace. These youngsters bring to their school experience different styles of learning, problem identification and resolution, and adap- tive mechanisms. Based on their previous learning experiences, they will behave in ways that vary from the expected norm. Such variance is deviance. The writer suggests that institutional staff members' response to deviance may help establish an ethos that positively or negatively affects the degree of violence, vandalism, and street delinquency. And as Rutter et al. also claimed, staff members' response to deviance appears to influence the cognitive gains of the students.7 Ruchkin claimed, The issues are complex and the daily realities often grim. Yet, the larger question of whether school can indeed be a lib- erating, enabling, capacity- and opportunity-expanding institu- tion rather than an Oppressing, restricting, status-confirming and aspiration-diminishing one is at the core [of] how we deal with deviance found in schools.8 7 8Judith P. Ruchkin, "Does School Crime Need the Attention of Policemen or Educators?" Teachers College Record 79 (December 1977): 234. - Rutter et al., op. cit., pp. 72, 74-77, 80, 85-86. Ia 35 cr- 88 Student Identification Underestimated in importance by many educational practitioners is the identification, or more succinctly, awareness, of who every student is. Some writers have attributed this lack of awareness to school size, stating that large schools preclude awareness of who the students are, outside of their relatively passive roles in 9 the educational process. In the National Institute of Education report entitled Violent Schools--Safe Schools, large schools and large classes were cited as being more violent and as experiencing more vandalism than small schools and classes. Yet when school per- sonnel "establish personal relationships with students, the risks of violence decrease."10 In much of the literature it is unclear about whether school size is an important factor in school violence and vandalism. What is clear is that when school size interferes with adult-student relationships, violence and vandalism increase. A number of writers have debated about the point at which this occurs (500, 1,000, 2,000 students). The Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism placed the maximum school size at 2,000 students]1 'Yet other researchers like 9Paul A. Strasburg, "The Very Bad News on Juvenile Violence." Behavior Today 8 (August 29, 1977); Gordon L. Spencer, "How School Con- tributes to Delinquency," Youth Authority uarterly 30 (Spring 1977); Michael J. Sexton and Michaél J. Killian, To Combat Vandalism: DO You Build Fences or Bridges," NASSP Bulletin 63 (February 1979). 10Violent Schools--Safe Schools, Executive Summary (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education, December 1977), p. 5. HGovernor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, "Report and Recommendations" (Lansing: State of Michigan, November 6, 1979), p. 32. 89 Hoff and Baker have claimed that 600 students ought to be the maximum enrollment of any school. They stated that schools with more than 600 students have too many pupils wandering around whom no one knows.12 The State of Michigan data, which were presented in Chapter III, suggested that schools with enrollments of more than 1,000 students have elevated rates of school violence and vandalism.13 It may be that school size only exacerbates the problem--that viable relationships between students and certain types of staffing patterns would not occur even if the student population were reduced. The National Institute of Education's Violent Schools--Safe Schools summary report identified the problem: "Consideration should also be given to ways of decreasing the impersonality of . . . schools and increasing the amount of continuing contact between students and 14 Staff members who excel at developing interpersonal teachers." relationships with students could be encouraged to do so. Those who excel at imparting knowledge could be encouraged in that direction, with the awareness that their colleagues' contributions in terms of affective, interpersonal relationships are equal in value and impor- tance to their own contribution of knowledge. 12Robert H. Hoff, "The Toughest Game in Town," NASSP Bulletin 63 (February 1979): 18; Rodger Baker, cited in Hoff, loc. cit. 13Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, "Summary of Data Collected Through School Survey Authorized by the Governor's Task Force on School Vandalism and Violence" (Lansing: State of Michigan, 1980). For manipulations, see Chapter III, pp. 67-77. 14Violent Schools--Safe Schools, Executive Summary (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education, December 1977), p. 4. 90 Many activities may help accomplish this awareness. However, the writer also suggests that school administrators could emphasize the importance of staff-student interaction and provide incentives to encourage such interaction. These incentives might be additional remuneration, reduced teaching loads, compensatory time, and so on. Student Self-Governance Active student governing boards help to enhance student iden- tification. These boards provide additional activities in which students can become involved, thus furnishing extra avenues for staff-student interaction. Student government is not being recommended as a school policy-making board. Rather, it is recommended as an avenue for students to provide viable input to school personnel, establish addi- tional student activities that can enhance the school climate or ethos, and provide additional leadership positions. An active stu- dent government could meet the needs of divergent student populations, based on the individual needs of involved students. Student participation in decision making should extend from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Specific forms of student par- ticipation at various grade levels should be developed consis- tent with the students' maturation and skill. . . . As a result, students would take more pride in their school and, at the same time, gain a sense of self-interest and commitment in the school situation through genuine involvement. This would also counter- act alienation and reduce the sense of powerlessness which often leads to acts of violence.15 15Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, "Report and Recommendations," op. cit., p. 11. 91 The Governor's Task Force also noted that “the lack of meaningful student participation in schools . . . leads to an 'us versus them' 16 attitude on the part of students and school staff." The Security Personnel subcommittee of the Task Force added, Schools should explore means of involving students as active partners in efforts designed to reduce school violence and vandalism. There appears to be a direct relationship between students' sense of 'ownership' and 'responsibility' for the 17 school environment and the extent of violence and vandalism." Finally, the Institute for Reduction of Crime's monograph entitled Violence in Schools stated: Decisions made by school personnel without pupil involvement invited counteractions by the pupils. The importance of seek- ing student input cannot be overemphasized. Unless school personnel involve students in the development of actions pur- portedly aimed at helping pupils, it is hard to see how solu- tions can be found. Treating the symptoms rather than the causes of school crime without consulting students can only be termed a stop-gap measure, as was thg establishment of school security offices in the late 19605. A viable, active student government could provide an excellent vehicle toward these ends. The Input Process Most of the claims made for the involvement of students in a student government can also be made for the involvement of most com- munity groups within the school community. Through the input process, constituent groups provide information to school personnel regarding group members' concerns and feelings. Conversely, the input process 16 18Institute for Reduction of Crime, Violence in Schools: Implications for Schools and for School Districts, ed. Robert J. Rubel, A Monograph (College Park, Md.: ’The Institute, 1978), p. 17. 17 Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., p. 32. 92 can make the constituent group aware of the constraints and problems faced by the school. This two-way exchange works to attune both school personnel and constituent groups to the needs of the other, and it provides a developing sense of identification of, and vested interest in, the success of each other. Several subcommittees from the Governor's Task Force have called for the inclusion of more community groups in the input process. These included the student, the security, and the parents subcommit- tees.19 Constituent groups are not necessarily limited to "appropri- ate" groups. All groups that feel they have a vested interest in the school, for whatever reason, are appropriate constituent groups to be included in the input process. This proactive approach to all con- stituent groups has the advantage of minimizing potential conflict by prompting necessary or advantageous change before conflict behaviors arise. Indeed, these input groups become a highly motivated part of a rational change strategy because the change target "perceives that 20 This change will occur when change is in his own best interest." both the interest group and the school positively respond to each other, rather than simply reacting to one another. Examples of groups that may be included in the input process are shown in Figure 4.2. 19Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, "Report and Recommendations,"‘op. cit., pp. 10, 32, and 35. 20Gerald Zaltman, David Floria, and Linda Sikorski, D namic Educational Chan e, Models, Strate ies, Tactics, and Management (New York: The Free ress, 1977), p. 7. 93 Students Staff Community Residents - Neighborhood Business - Organizations Special-Interest - Groups Parents Citizens Councils Civic Associations i.e., NAACP, UNICEF, etc. Association linkage: directly affected by school, students, and staff. Figure 4.2.--Groups to be involved in the input process. Recognition of Achievement, Effort, and Contributions An important factor that is often overlooked or lost in normal daily operations is recognition of the achievement, efforts, and/or contributions of school-community members. Everyone likes and needs to be recognized for what he/she does. Built into the school struc- ture, through activities, could be a method of identifying and acknowledging the special achievement, efforts, and contributions of individuals and perhaps even groups. Safe Schools, As stated in Violent Schools-- Schools should give particular attention to establishing effec- tive governance programs, and to assuring a structure of incen- tives--such as grades and honors--that recognize students for their efforts and achievements. 21 This might mean rewarding students for diverse kinds of accomplishments, including indi- vidual improvement, and broadening the availability of rewards. 21 Violent Schools--Safe Schools, op. cit., p. 11. 94 Rutter et al., too, commented on the need for recognition and praise of students' individual accomplishments and achievements.22 In addition, Bloom wrote, The individual who is denied positive reassurance of his worth in school is impelled to seek positive reassurance of his worth wherever he can find it. . . . Some individuals must turn to less socially approved areas (e.g., gangs, illicit activities) to find rewards and self- approval denied them in school and school-related activities.23 The traditionally recognized areas of athletics and academics need to be continued. But recognition could be expanded to other areas as well, including citizenship, social accomplishments, commu- nity service, fine arts, and vocational and avocational achievements. In addition, all groups within the school community would be recog- nized regularly: students, parents, teachers, aides, custodians, adult learners, area businesspeople, community members, senior citizens--everyone. If necessary, special attention might ensure that all subgroups within the population are proportionally recognized. The concept of acknowledging significant achievement, effort, and con- tributions may have different outcomes among various suprpulations, yet all are important (example: drag racing, honor roll, Golden Gloves, chess tournament, 4-H, cooking, the arts). Special recognition can be included as part of the school process without much additional effort. All activity groups could be encouraged to recognize regularly and publicly the special 22 23Benjamin S. Bloom, "Affective Outcomes of School Learning," Phi Delta Kappan 39 (November 1977): 197. Rutter et al., Op. cit., p. 124. 95 accomplishments of their membership and of others with whom they come in contact. This can be done through the school paper, bulle- tins, announcements, awards, and school assemblies, as appropriate. Such proactive, positive recognition of school-community members may do far more to facilitate optimal education than does the recurrent recognition of negative student behaviors. Facility Use Facility use is a variable that school personnel can easily manipulate. Without great expense or difficulty, school buildings can be opened to various community groups. As Sexton and Killion suggested, three aspects of facility usage are significant to these concerns: 1. Generally, when schools are being used during the evening, late at night, and on weekends, they are not likely to be broken into nor vandalized. 2. When subpopulations of the conmunity use the facility, they begin to feel less estranged or alienated from the school. In fact, some subpopulations, in time, may even begin to start identify- ing with the school. 3. Benefits of expanded facility use begin to be evidenced through channels of communication within the community. Students hear the more positive conments regarding the school establishment in their homes and in their friends' homes and begin to bring a less negative, more positive, attitude to school with them. This, in 96 turn, helps to establish a more positive ethos or climate within the building.24 The Governor's Task Force stated, "Where communities perceive the schools as their institutions, violence and vandalism reduce. Where communities perceive the schools as outside their sphere of influence, the potential for violence and vandalism increases."25 Understandably, school districts caught in the budget squeeze of the 19805 are trying to minimize expenses and to fight inflation. The temptation to reduce overhead costs by limiting school use and by increasing rates charged for building use is great. Yet these actions should be evaluated in terms of the cost of school vandalism and vio- lence, a reflection of both the alienation and the frustration felt by some community subpopulations and seen by them to be caused by the school. Schools seldom should be empty. Whenever a school is not filled with the "traditional" students involved in the formal learning process, it could be open to community groups involved in their own learning endeavors. According to the Governor's Task Force, "Local districts should be encouraged to keep school facilities and grounds open and available to the public for use during non-school hours; ESPECIaIIY during the evening."26 24Michael J. Sexton and Michael J. Killion, “To Combat Vandal- ism: DO You Build Fences or Bridges," NASSP Bulletin 63 (February 1979): 23-26. 25Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, "Report and Recommendations," op. cit., p. 38. 26 Ibid.. p. 36. 97 Extended School Effect on the Home Claims of the extended effect of the school beyond its four walls were presented earlier (e.g., several subcommittees of the Governor's Task Force, Polk, Powell, Schuchter, Strasburg, and Syer). In fact, Polk went further, claiming that the school provides "a frame- work for a wide range of social activities (including unconventional and deviant activities), [that] extends into the lives of adolescents well beyond the regular school hours."27 The writer has often heard the comment that schools cannot teach kids because of the home situation. Yet perhaps even more disastrous to education than this onerous claim is the acceptance of the home as a totally separate entity upon which the school has no effect. What parents have not been challenged by their youngster emphatically saying, ”Our teacher says to do it like this!"? To cite the home as a totally separate entity, one that is too often seen as the den of the enemy (and perhaps a den of iniquity) tends to absolve educators of the responsibility to educate and reinforces the continued distrust, ambivalence, and hatred that are often associated with school violence, vandalism, and street delinquency. Schools have a profound effect on the home. This effect may be negative or positive, productive or counterproductive. Educators should do all within their control to make the effect a positive one. 27Kenneth Polk, "Schools and the Delinquency Experience," in Delinquency Prevention and the Schools: Emerging Perspectives, ed. Ernest A. Wenk (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 1976 , p. 23. 98 Just as student identification is an important variable that needs to be manipulated properly, so, too, is parent and home identifica- tion. Home visits.--Visits by teachers to their students' homes is one strategy to use in resolving some of the issues expressed by the Governor's Task Force subcommittee focusing on family concerns.28 Parents often have a feeling of alienation from the schools that school people could take the initiative to resolve.29 This minimal- pressure meeting between teachers and parents can go a long way toward (1) creating viable change before a conflict arises, (2) establish- ing meaningful communication channels, and (3) sensitizing school personnel toward the home, and the home toward the school. These sessions need not last long, 30 to 45 minutes in most cases, and the payoff in terms of gains in attitude and cooperation could be immense. Optimally, home visits should be made by classroom teachers; counselors and social workers do not have to be the ones who make these visits. (These professionals, who are trained in interpersonal relationships, may be better used to help train staff members who need additional skills before visiting students' homes.) Parenting or parent supportggroups.--Another activity of value in positively extending the school ethos into the home is the parenting or parent support group, offered by the school as part of its regular program (in contrast to add-on programs). The parenting group would 28Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism, "Report and Recommendations," Op. cit., pp. 33-36. 29Ibid., p. 33. 99 be skill oriented and could help parents develop skills in such areas as communication, discipline, and creative problem solving. The parent support groups would be designed to provide parents with needed support to help resolve or cope with problems and their effect on the students. These groups could cover or share concerns regarding being a single parent, substance abuse, child abuse, divorce/separation, death and dying, illness, and teenage sexuality. Appropriate commu- nity agencies could provide additional support or assistance in resolv- ing technical problems. The benefits that can be derived from parenting and parent support groups are similar to those identified earlier when the input process was discussed. The schools would be providing parents with strategies for proactive problem resolution, skill building, and sensi- tizing two-way communication, all of which enhance the climate of the school. Groups of this type were requested by the Governor's Task 30 Force. And they have been encouraged by mental-health workers like the noted psychiatrist, William Glasser.3] Discipline Discipline appears to be a word that has different shadings of meaning, depending on the user's perspective. In general, dis- cipline is a positive word that, through parlance, has too often 30 3]"Disorders in Our Schools: Causes and Remedies," Phi Delta Kappan 59 (January 1978): 333. Ibid.. PP. 34-35. 100 been equated with punishment. For example, the well-disciplined runner, musician, or scholar denotes positive traits and quali- ties. Indeed, a dictionary designed for use by school children contains the following definitions