_._ i. _.::__:::_

,rl’ I'L',

 

20‘)?

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Application of the Deficit and Strengths Perspectives T
to a Secondary School for Students Diagnosed with
Emotional and Behavior Disorders

presented by

Michelle Marie Stevens

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science

degree in _C1:iminal_Justice

 

v r
Majollrrofessor

 

Date J9-O6-02

0-7639 MSUis an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

APPLICATION OF THE DEFICIT AND STRENGTHS PERSPECTIVES TO A
SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR STUDENTS DIAGNOSED WITH EMOTIONAL AND
BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
By

Michelle Marie Stevens

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Criminal Justice

2002

ABSTRACT

APPLICATION OF THE DEFICIT AND STRENGTHS PERSPECTIVES TO A

SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR STUDENTS DIAGNOSED WITH EMOTIONAL AND
BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
By
Michelle Marie Stevens
Education is vital for success in society. Students with Emotional and Behavior

Disorders (EBD) do not receive an adequate education. Inadequate education, including
failure to complete high school and unsatisfactory academic skills, has been consistently
linked to criminality in prior research. Thus, without an adequate education, students
diagnosed with EBD have a high risk for future criminality. Effective educational
approaches have been shown effective in combating school failure. This research
compared two perspectives, with contrasting approaches to education, in regard to
student retention and student academic performance in a school for students diagnosed
with Emotional and Behavior Disorders. Four school years were included in the
research. The Deficit perspective governed the first two years. The Strengths

perspective governed the last two years. Comparisons of contact hours per day and test

scores were made between the two contrasting perspectives.

Copyright by
MICHELLE MARIE STEVENS
2002

This thesis is dedicated to my Father, Wes, who was a source of unending guidance,
knowledge, and support; my Mother, Carolyn, who was always ready to lend a helping
hand or listening ear; my Brother, Mike, who could always make me laugh and helped to
put things in perspective; and to Antonio, who selflessly gave support and encouragement

through whatever form needed

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Vincent Hoffman, for his patience, encouragement, and
support; Dr. Wes Stevens, for his guidance and time; Dr. Christina DeJong, for her
statistical expertise and guidance throughout my program; and Dr. Shelia Maxwell, for

her helpful feedback and direction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. viii
CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
Purpose of Study ........................................................................... 3
Relevance of Study ........................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 5
School Success and Criminality .......................................................... 5
Effective Education Approaches ......................................................... 7
School Perspectives ........................................................................ 8
Deficit Perspective ..................................................................... 9
View of Individual .................................................................. 9
Role of Professional ................................................................ g 10
Education ............................................................................ 11
Strengths Perspective .................................................................. 11
View of Individual .................................................................. 11
Role of Professional ................................................................ 12
Education ............................................................................ 13
Summary .................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................... 15
METHODS ..................................................................................... 15
Research Design ............................................................................ 15
Sample ....................................................................................... 16
Deficit Perspective Group ............................................................. 16
Strengths Perspective Group .......................................................... 16
Variables .................................................................................... 17
Independent ................................................................................. 17
Dependent ................................................................................... 1 8
Student Retention ....................................................................... 18
Student Academic Performance ...................................................... 18
Instruments .................................................................................. 19
Administration .............................................................................. 19
Data Privacy ................................................................................. 20
Limitations .................................................................................. 20
Data Entry and Analysis .................................................................. 21
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................... 23
RESULTS ....................................................................................... 23
Test of Research Question #1 ............................................................ 23

vi

Test of Research Question #2 ............................................................ 26

Summary .................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................... 32
DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 32
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 37

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Demographics of Students in the Deficit and Strengths Groups ........................ 17
Comparison of Contact Hours Between the Deficit Perspective and Strengths

Perspective Groups ............................................................................ 24
Average Contact Hours per Day by Gender and Ethnicity ............................... 25
Correlation of Contact Hours per Day and Grade .......................................... 26
Test Score Descriptive Statistics by Group ................................................. 27
Average Test Score by Gender and Ethnicity .............................................. 28
Correlation of Test Score and Grade Level ................................................. 30

viii

CHAPTER I
Introduction

Education is important to success in society. Without an adequate education,
opportunities for achievement in society are limited. With limited opportunities and
limited education, individuals are not afforded the chance to become contributing
members of society. In turn, such individuals have an increased risk of engaging in
criminal behaviors.

Students with Emotional and Behavior Disorders (EBD) often do not obtain an
adequate education (Razeghi, 1998; Rosenberg, Wilson, Maheady, & Sindelar, 1992).
With a lack of education, students with EBD are not afforded the opportunities for *
success in society (Barr & Parrett, 1995; Razeghi, 1998; Rosenberg et al.). Students with
EBD experience limited access to employment, impaired social adjustment, and increased
risk of criminal behavior due to a lack of adequate intellectual, emotional, and social
skills (Eber, Nelson, & Miles, 1997; Prater, Sileo, & Black, 2000; Razeghi, 1998;
Scanlon & Mellard, 2002)

Emotional and Behavior Disorder is a descriptive diagnosis (DSM-IV, 1994)
given to youth whose behavior surpasses the tolerance and comprehension of others
(Whelan, 1998). The troubling behavior is seen as stemming from emotional hurts
(Cassel, Chow, DeMoulin, & Reiger, 2001b). Estimates of the number of school aged
youth who are diagnosed with EBD range fi'om two to twenty percent, with four percent
being the standard (Fomess & Kavale, 2001; Kauffman, 1999; Reinert, 1976).

Students diagnosed with EBD reflect the highest dropout rate of children in any

disability category, with one-third of students diagnosed with EBD completing school

(Brooks & Sabatino, 1996; Razeghi, 1998; Rosenberg et al., 1992; Wagner, 1989; Wood
& Cronin, 1999). Dropping out of school has been highly correlated with future
criminality, as the average prison inmate dropped out of school after the tenth grade and
performs at more than three years below the tenth grade level (Bell, Conard, Gazze,
Greenwood, Lutz, & Suppa, 1983). Due to their lack of imperative skills and high
dropout rate, students diagnosed with EBD are at high risk of fiiture involvement with the
criminal justice system (Barr & Parrett, 1995; Brooks & Sabatino, 1996; Cassel, Chow,
DeMoulin & Reiger, 2001c; Cullingford, 1999).

A high school drop out earns $250, 000 less over their lifetime than does an
individual who graduates (Winters, 1997). Furthermore, studies have found that 45-50%
of inmates are unemployed at the time of their arrest (Bell et al., 1983; Martinez, 1988).
It is reported that individuals who do not complete a high school education cost the US.
Nation $240 billion in crime, welfare, and health costs (Winters, 1997). Consequently,
when students with Emotional and Behavior Disorders drop out of school, social health,
welfare, and correctional institutions become the bases of their education (Razeghi,
1998)

The nature of traditional public school regulations, overcrowded classrooms, and
absence of educational methods geared to the unique needs of students are barriers to
educating a student diagnosed with EBD (Bakken & Kortering, 1999; Battistich & Horn,
1997 ; Gunter, Denny, & Venn, 2000; Gunter & Reed, 1997). Therefore, many students
with EBD attend special educational programs within regular schools or separate schools
specifically for students with EBD (Eber et al., 1997; F orness & Kavale, 2001). Special

EBD programs are proposed to be instrumental in mediating school dropout, preventing

fixture social dependence, and reducing involvement in the criminal justice system (Kern,
Delaney, Clarke, Dunlap, & Childs, 2001; Lloyd, Fomess, & Kavale, 1998). Effective,
alternative schools are reported to have substantial positive influences on children at-risk
for future criminality (Barr & Parrett, 1995; Brook, Nomura, & Cohen, 1989; Edmonds,
1986; Rutter, 1979).

Although there is a growing body of research exploring the relationship between
teaching approaches and the needs of students in special education, existing studies on
educational approaches are inadequate and inconsistent in establishing the effectiveness
of educational approaches (Bakken & Kortering, 1999; Cox, Davidson & Bynum, 1995;
Fomess & Kavale, 2001; Kauffman & Pullen, 1996; Kern et al., 2001; Lloyd et al., 1998;
Maccini & Gagnon, 2000; Razeghi, 1998; Sutherland, 2000). The studies that exist tend
to focus on populations of special education students, students with severe emotional
problems, student drug use, and student delinquency. Few studies focus only on students
diagnosed with Emotional and Behavior Disorders. In addition, existing research on the
Deficit and Strengths approaches in education with populations of students with EBD are
limited in numbers and consistency.

Purpose of Study

This study compares the outcomes of two perspectives in an education program
designed specifically for students with EBD. The purpose of this study is to compare the
Deficit perspective approach and the Strengths perspective approach to education of
students with EBD. The two approaches to educating students with EBD compared in

this study consist of contrasting models of human growth and development. The Deficit

approach emphasizes the students’ shortcomings and problems. The Strengths
perspective stresses the importance of the students’ strengths and future potential.
Relevance of Study

If students diagnosed with EBD drop out of school before acquiring the necessary
skills and knowledge to adequately adjust as adults in society, the costs to society and to
social institutions are increased. This increased cost is reflected in the National and
States budget allocation of fewer dollars to educational programming and increased
allocation to correctional programs (Whelan, 1998). The shift in find allocations and the
prevalence of existing research suggests that educational programs for troubled youth
could be a primary target for social interventions.

Although this study will report findings regarding the influence of educational
programs only for youth diagnosed with EBD, findings from this study could contribute
to public understanding of the potential role of different approaches in the education of
youth at-risk for school failure and criminality. This study could contribute to the field of
Criminal Justice. If this study finds that one approach produces greater student
attendance and higher passage of state tests than another approach, then this research
could contribute to the broader public understanding of factors that may increase student
retention, thus reducing the number of student dropouts. Furthermore, if higher student
retention can be achieved, then the findings fi'om this study could contribute to public
policy discussions on preventing or reducing juvenile delinquency and subsequent

criminal behavior.

CHAPTER H
Literature Review

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between two alternative
approaches to the education of students diagnosed with Emotional and Behavior
Disorders on school attendance and academic performance. This chapter reviews the
literature on the relationship between criminality and delinquency with student success in
school and educational approaches with adolescents. In so doing, the literature review:
first, discusses existing research on the relationship between school success and
delinquency and subsequent criminality; second, examines the relationship between
student success in school and educational perspectives; and third, discusses elements of
two approaches to education students with EBD.

School Success and Criminality

Studies illustrate a consistent connection between school success, delinquency,
and subsequent criminality (Barr & Parrett, 1995; Bell et al., 1983; Cassel et al., 2001c;
Martinez, 1988; Stephens, 1990; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001; Winters, 1997). Dropping
out of school is one factor that has been connected to delinquency and subsequent
criminality (Gottfredson, 2001).

The link between school failure and delinquency has been shown to be complex.
Research conducted by J arj oura (1993) found that involvement in delinquency varies by
the reason for dropping out of school. Using data from two waves of the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth, J arj oura determined that dropping out does not always
increase a person’s likelihood for delinquent behavior. Students who dropped out of

school because of poor grades, problems at home, or financial difficulties did not differ

significantly in the level of involvement in violence from graduates (J arjoura, 1993).
Students who dropped out to get married, because they were pregnant, disliked school,
and those who were expelled or dropped out for other reasons did show to have higher
levels of violence than those who did not dropout (J arjoura, 1993). Students who
dropped out because of poor grades or for financial reasons were found to have
significantly higher levels of involvement in thefi than those who stayed in school

(J arjoura, 1993). Students who dropped out for other reasons did not show an increase in
involvement in theft (J arjoura, 1993). A later study conducted by J arjoura (1996)
exemplified the complexity of the dropout-delinquency relationship by examining the
effect of social class on delinquency and dropout. The research found that dropping out
of school is connected with higher rates of delinquent behavior for middle-class youth
than for lower-class youth (J arjoura, 1996).

Research conducted on the dropout-delinquency link has also examined the
predictors of delinquency. School, family, social, behavioral, and psychological
measures have all been found to be good predictors of school dropout (J anosz, LeBlanc,
Boulerice, & Tremblay, 1997). J anosz et al. found that the above listed measures are
stable and strong despite variations in sample and sociohistorical variations.

A study published by the United States Department of Justice, conducted on the
characteristics of individuals admitted to Texas prisons, reported that more than 60% of
admissions had not completed a high school education (Martinez, 1988). This research
involved a sample of 1,483 inmates using a case study combined with individual
interviews. Research conducted by Stephens (1990) reports that 79% of the randomly

sampled 220 inmates were high school dropouts.

Poor academic achievement is another factor, besides dropping out, that has
consistently been associated with delinquency and subsequent criminality (Bates et al.,
1992; Bell et al., 1983; Gottfiedson, 2001; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001; Winters, 1997).
A 1992 study conducted on a sample of 161 inmates found that the average inmate was at
a S‘h-6th grade academic level (Bates et al., 1992). Findings of a study conducted in 1983
on prisoners in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington reported that the average
inmate had completed the 10th grade in school, but was performing academically at more
than three years below the 10th grade level (Bates et al.). The same study found that at
least 42% of the inmates had some type of learning deficiency. The researchers
operationalized learning deficiency as “scoring at or below the fifth grade level on at least
one of the subtests on the Tests of Adult Basic Education” (Bates et 31.).

Effective Education Apprcfihes

Research on education approaches research identifies specific education factors
that appear to be instrumental in mediating the above discussed consequences of
dropping out of high school and low academic achievement for at-risk students
(Alspaugh, 1997; Farmer, Farmer, & Gut, 1999; Gunter et al., 2000; Gunter & Reed,
1997; Gottfredson, 2001; Harrison, Gunter, & Reed, 1996; Kauffman, Lloyd, & Baker,
1995; Lloyd et al., 1998; Razeghi, 1998). One such mediating factor is school programs
directed at a target population such as low academic achievers or delinquent youth. The
directed schools have been found more effective than programs with a general direction
(Cox etal., 1995). Small schools, with the K-6, 7-12 grade level organization, have been
found to have lower dropout rates than larger schools with a more segregated

organization (Alspaugh, 1997). Alspaugh hypothesizes that factors such as a higher

percent of student participation in extracurricular activities and the extended period of
time students spend with a small number of teachers may play a part in the lower dropout
rate of small schools (Alspaugh, 1997).

Education programs focusing on employability skills training have also been
shown to be effective in mediating low academic achievement and high dropout rates.
Schools implementing such focus have been found to have fewer students dropout of
school, placed in juvenile justice programs, or are suspended from school (Casey, 1996).
Kovaleski, Glicking, & Morrow (1999) conducted a study on 105 school districts in
Pennsylvania and found that an Instructional Support Team had positive effects on
academic performance. Instructional Support Teams consisted of the school principal,
the students’ teacher, a support teacher, and other specialists. Members of the group
worked together in a problem solving process upon identification of a students’ difficulty.
Students working with implementation at a high level of intensity of the Instructional
Support team showed a significant increase in academic performance (Kovaleski et al.,
1999). Positive changes in academic performance and negative behaviors brought about
by alternative education programs appear to be short-lived once the student is returned to
the traditional school (Cox, 1999).

School Perspectives

This section of the literature review examines two perspectives to educating
youth, the Deficit and the Strengths perspectives. The two perspectives reflect
contrasting understandings of the behavior and experience of students. The differences in

understandings contribute to differences in curriculum, teaching, and interventions with

students. The following section discusses the Deficit and the Strengths Perspectives with
regard to: views of individuals, roles of professionals, and approaches to education.
Deficit Perspective

View of Individua_l.

The Deficit approach views individuals with disorders as deviating from
normalized patterns of behavior, thinking, and emotions (Cassel, Chow, DeMoulin, &
Reiger, 2000; Maccini & Gagnon, 2000). Such deviations are viewed as stemming from
damage to, or deficit within, an individual (Cassel, Chow, DeMoulin, & Reiger, 20013;
Martens, 2000; Rosenberg et al., 1992). The literature attributes such deficits to
biological structures and environment influence.

Deficits in individuals’ biochemistry are believed to be an underlying cause of
some disorders (Fomess & Kavale, 2001). The lack of chemicals in individuals’ brains
are thought to cause disorders such as depression, ADI-ID, or schizophrenia (QSM-IV,
1994). In accordance with the deficit approach, pharmacological drugs are introduced
into the individuals’ body containing a synthetic form of the chemical they are lacking
(Apter, 1982).

Environmental influences result in deficits in individual development and
learning. Educational environment (classroom structure, educational material, etc.) is
credited for deficits in a student’s academic ability and performance (Chinien, Boutin, &
Letteri, 1997; Farmer, Farmer, & Gut, 1999; Harrison etal., 1996). Familial and peer
influences have been associated with individual deficiencies in social interaction i.e.,
delinquency, conduct disorder, or adult maladjustment (Farmer et al., 1999; Fomess &

Kavale, 2001 ).

Individuals with deficits who exhibit characteristics or symptoms of abnormal
behavior, thinking, and emotions are placed in categories of diagnosis, such as
schizophrenia or depression (Fomess & Kavale, 2001; Magg & Fomess, 1998; W).
The primary sourcebook for the deficit perspective, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (4th ed.), contains more than 16 primary categories of diagnosis
(DSM-IV, 1994; Magg & Fomess, 1998). Individuals with these diagnoses are viewed as
disabled or handicapped, therefore, lacking the internal resources to overcome their
problems alone (Morgan & Reinhart, 1991).

Diagnostic labeling is seen as a necessity from the Deficit perspective (Brooks &
Sabatino, 1996; Kauffman, 1999; Kauffinan & Pullen, 1996; Magg & Fomess, 1998).
Diagnostic labels allow for clear communication among professionals working with an
individual exhibiting characteristics of a disorder (Brooks & Sabatino, 1996). Diagnostic

labels also help to ensure proper treatment of a disorder (Kauffman, 1999; Kauffman &

Pullen, 1996).

Role of Professionfi

Helping professionals, working from a Deficit perspective, emphasize the
diagnosis and treatment of an individual’s problem (Leon, 1999; Whelan, 1998). In
diagnosing an individual, professionals often use standardized tests. (Cassel et a1, 2000;
Cassel et al., 2001a,b,c; Magg & Fomess, 1998). Standardized tests measure many
different things such as intelligence, social interaction, and personality (QSM-IV, 1994).
The tests are used by professionals to obtain information about an individual, in order to

better form treatment plans around the individual’s needs (Magg & Fomess, 1998).

10

Professionals using the deficit approach design and implement treatment plans
(Magg & Fomess, 1998). Treatment plans are based on “fixing” individuals faults. The
deficits perspective posits that such deficits in personality, brought about by childhood
experiences and other influences, are deeply rooted in the structure of personality (Zoints,
1985). Approaches used to mediate the deficits seek to re-educate the person or provide
supportive services (Apter, 1982). Progress is measured in terms of an individual
meeting the treatment goals set by the professional (Holmes, 1996).

Education.

Educators operating from the Deficits perspective acknowledge that some
students are unable to deal with the academic and social expectations in schools (Kern,
Delaney, Clarke, Dunlap, & Childs, 2001). In academic instruction, teachers operating
from the Deficits perspective use scripted lessons and the drill and practice approach,
emphasizing repetition. (Gunter & Reed, 1997). Most educational lessons are textbook
based (Gunter et al., 2000). Teachers using the deficit approach cover the content
presented in the textbook, using the textbook as a guide for the depth and duration of
teaching as each topic is covered (Schmidt, Houang, & Cogan, 2002). The correlation
between what a textbook covers and what a teacher teaches is .95 (Schmidt, 2002).
Strengths Perspective

View of Individual

The Strengths perspective believes that people do the best they can with what they
think they have, and who they think they are, as well as individuals have the capacity to
make appropriate decisions regarding what is best for them (Van Wormer, 1999; Weick,

Rapp, & Kisthardt, 1989). The multidimensionality and uniqueness of an individual is a

11

primary assumption of the Strengths perspective (Van Wonner, 1999). The Strengths
approach posits that in actuality people experience various realities and because of these
multidimensional realities, there are multiple pathways to achieving a satisfactory life
(Chapin, 1995; Weick et al.).

Resiliency, the ability to bounce back, is key in the Strengths perspective (Benard,
1997). This perspective believes that all individuals possess personal resiliency
(Saleebey, 1996). Through resiliency, individuals are viewed as able to gain strength and
knowledge from difficult situations and succeed against all odds (Saleebey, 1997). After
having lived through difficult situations, individuals are viewed as survivors (Postmus,
2000). The Strengths perspective posits that individuals can develop an awareness of the
attributes and principles that got them through their past trials and tribulations, and in so
doing refocus a self-concept that builds a positive future (Saleebey, 1996).

The Strengths perspective also holds that humans are reservoirs of untapped
resources- physically, emotionally, socially, and spiritually- that can be mobilized in
times of need (Van Wormer, 1999). Untapped and undeveloped personal resources
provide the instruments for an individual to move from a current undesirable situation to
a superior situation (Saleebey, 1996). The recognition that individuals possess the
capacity for grth is coupled with the belief that individuals never use all of their
strengths in order to achieve their full potential (Kisthardt, 1997; Weick et al., 1989).

Role of Professionals.

The role of professionals in the strengths perspective is based on collaboration
with the individual (Kisthardt, 1997). Professionals validate pain where it exists and

suspend disbelief of an individuals personal stories and experiences (Holmes, 1997; Van

12

Wonner, 1999). The individual, not the professional, is viewed as the director of the
helping process (Kisthardt, 1997). Meetings between a professional and an individual
often occur in the community, rather than in a set office environment (Rapp, 1997).

Empowerment plays a key role for professionals operating from the Strengths
perspective (Cowger, 1997; Holmes, 1997). Professionals aid an individual in becoming
aware of the power that lie within him or her to gain control of their life’s direction
(Kurtz, 1997; Van Wormer, 1999). In empowering an individual, professionals
emphasize increasing the awareness and the choices for behaviors (Hohnes, 1997).
Attention is also drawn to the consequences of behavior choices. Through exploring
behavior choices, the ability to imagine an alternative future is fostered and the
development of personal goals in encouraged (Saleebey, 1996).

Education.

Teachers operating from the Strengths perspective provide learning opportunities
connected to individual learning needs (Benard, 1997). Academic lessons are designed to
be relevant to youth’s life experiences (Casey, 1996). In educating students, teachers
choose activities to facilitate individual storytelling capacities, exploration of behavior
choices, and a future goal orientation (Holmes, 1997). Students are often given an option
as to the medium they use to carry out an assignment (Kern et al., 2001). In all aspects of
the classroom, high expectations regarding standards of performance are maintained
(Benard, 1997). Teachers believe that in maintaining high standards, student
performance is enhanced (Benard, 1997). Teachers believe that all students are able to

learn (Saleebey, 1997).

13

Summg

As presented in this chapter, students diagnosed with Emotional and Behavior
disorders are not receiving a quality education. This lack of quality education puts
students diagnosed with EBD at a higher risk of delinquency and future criminality.
Certain education practices have been shown to have a positive effect on two important
aspects of a quality education, student retention and student academic performance. Two
perspectives, Deficit and Strengths, were presented, contrasting each perspectives view of
an individual, role of professionals, and approach to education. This research will
compare the Deficit perspective and Strengths perspective, using outcome variables of
student retention and student academic performance, with students diagnosed with

Emotional and Behavior Disorders.

14

CHAPTER HI
Methods

The impact of educational approaches for students diagnosed with EBD is the
focus of this research. This chapter discusses the research methods used in this study,
including: research design, sample, variables, instrumentation, agency access, data
privacy and confidentiality, data collection, data entry, data analysis, and limitations of
research design. This study compares the outcomes of the Deficit perspective and the
outcomes of the Strengths perspective in educational programming for student diagnosed
with EBD, who participated in the Bridgeway Learning Center over a five-year period.
Student retention and student academic performance are the dependent or outcome ,
variables. The school perspective, Deficit and Strengths, was the independent variable.
Each perspective governed two of the four school years studied in this research. The
dependent variables were student retention and student academic performance. Each
dependent variable was measured in relation to each of the independent variables during
the correlating tirneframe.

Research Des_igg

An adapted quasi-experimental design was utilized in this research. This research
analyzed secondary data obtained fiom student records. The research design compared
two groups of students who attended school during timefiames when different
educational perspectives guided school programming. Group one was comprised of
students who attended Bridgeway Learning Center during the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998
school years, when the Deficit perspective governed. Group two was comprised of

students who attended Bridgeway Learning Center during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001

15

school years when the Strengths perspective was used. The 1998-1999 school year was
not included in analysis, as this year served as a transitional period.
mm
The sample population in this research consisted of students who attended
Bridgeway Learning Center, a secondary school for Emotionally and Behaviorally
Disturbed students. The population sample was comprised of all students who attended
Bridgeway Learning Center between the years of 1996-1998 and 1999-2001. Students
who left and returned to the program were counted as only one student. The students
were divided into two groups for purposes of this research.
Deficit Perspective Group
Table 1, Demographics of Students in Deficit and Strengths Groups, presents

descriptive information on the students in the Deficit and Strengths groups. The Deficit
Perspective group included seventy-three students (n=73. Males represented 73%
percent (n = 52), and females represented 27% percent (n = 20), of the Deficit
Perspective group. Approximately 66% of the group was Caucasian (n = 48), and
approximately 34% of the group was classified as members of an ethnic minority (n =
25). Particular minority groups were not analyzed separately due to the small number of
students included in the classifications. The grade level of students ranged from seventh
(n = 19, 20.2%) thru eleventh grade (II = 7, 7.4%). The median distribution of students
was the eighth grade (II = 32, 34.0%).
Strengths Perspective Group

The Strengths Perspective group included seventy-four students (n=74). Males

represented 70% (n = 52), and females represented 30% (n = 22), of the Strengths

16

Perspective group. Approximately 58% of the group was Caucasian (n = 43), and
approximately 42% of the group was classified as members of an ethnic minority (n =
31). Students grade level ranged from sixth grade (n = 1, 1.4%) thru twelfih grade (II = l,

1.4%). The median distribution of students was the ninth grade (n = 24, 32.4%).

 

 

 

Table 1.
Demographics pf Students in Deficit and Strengths Groups
Deficit Strengths
V'mb'“ Number Percent Number Percent
Gender
Male 53 72.6 52 70.3
Female 20 27.4 22 29.7
Ethnicity
Caucasian 48 65.8 43 58.1
Minority 25 34.2 31 41.9
Grade
Sixth O 0.00 1 01.4
Seventh 19 20.2 6 08.1 '
Eighth 32 34.0 17 23.0
Ninth 24 25.5 24 32.4
Tenth 12 12.8 32 43.2
Eleventh 7 07.4 14 18.9
Twelfth 0 00.0 1 01.4
Variables

Independent

School Perspective.

The key independent variable in this research was school perspective. The
governing school perspective was either based upon the Deficit perspective or the
Strengths perspective. Group one students (n=7 3) were educated in a Deficit perspective
school environment. Group two students (n=74) were educated in a Strengths
perspective school environment. As previously presented in the literature review, the
Deficit perspective and Strengths perspective have contrasting views on firndamental

issues of education.

17

Gender. Ethnicity. and Gregg

Independent variables included in analysis were gender, ethnicity, and grade.
Gender was included to examine any difference that may exist between male and female
students. Student’s ethnicity was included as an independent variable to examine any
possible differences in contact hours or test scores for students of an ethnic minority
versus Caucasian students. Students’ grade levels were included in analysis to determine
if students’ in different grade levels attend school at different rates, or score differently
on standardized tests.

Dapendent

Student Retention.

The first dependent variable analyzed in this research was student retention.
Student retention was operationally defined as contact hours, the number of hours of
actual face-to-face contact between students and teachers. This operational definition is
the definition used by the school. Contact hours are periods of time when students
receive a rating on their performance. There are ten periods of time that students are
rated during each day, thus there are ten possible contact hours per day of school. A ratio
variable was calculated by dividing the total number of days a student was enrolled at
Bridgeway, during a specific school year, by the total number of contact hours during the
correlating school year. This ratio variable could then be used for analysis as it
controlled for length of time a student attended Bridgeway Learning Center.

Student Academic Perfonnafl

The second dependent variable analyzed in this research was student academic

performance. Student academic performance was operationally defined as the number of

18

correct responses on the Minnesota Graduate Standards Test for the respective years. In

accordance with Minnesota State Rule 3501, all students in the state of Minnesota must

perform at a set level on the tests prior to being awarded a high school diploma. The

Bridgeway Learning Center staff administers the tests on a set day during the school year.

Scores from the math and reading tests were utilized in the analysis. Only students

enrolled and present on the day a test was administered were included in analysis.
Instruments

The Minnesota Graduate Standards Test was utilized as an instrument in order to
determine student academic success in the Bridgeway Learning Center program. The
number of correct responses, as determined by the state test scorers, was used as a ‘
measure of student academic success. Every student is required to pass the Minnesota
Graduate Standards test prior to being awarded a high school diploma from any school in
the state of Minnesota (State rule 3501).

To measure student attendance the total number of student/teacher contact hours,
as recorded in each student’s file, was used. Contact hours include only hours where the
student and teacher had actual contact.

Administration

Written permission to use the data was first obtained from the director of Willrnar
Public Schools Alternative Program, Dr. Edward Downey. Written permission to
conduct the research was then obtained from the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects, at Michigan State University. Arrangements were then made
to have access to the data. The researcher was given a spreadsheet with school records

data on it. The researcher transformed the spreadsheet from Excel to SPSS format.

19

Access to the school files with the students test scores was also granted. The test scores
were recorded from official scoring sheets for each individual student. The test scores
were then entered into SPSS. The researcher administered no instrument. Information
on instrument administration through the school program was used.

Data Privacy

Confidentiality of individual’s represented in the data was strictly maintained.
Names were not used, as each individual’s data was coded with identification specific to
only this research project. The data is kept in a locked file cabinet in the researchers
home, with only the researcher having access to it. The data will be kept for three years
beyond completion of the research, at which time it will be shredded.

meta—time

Threats to internal validity exist within this research design. One such threat is
history. This threat arises from the fact that events in the subjects’ environments, other
than the manipulated independent variable school perspective, may affect the outcome.
Another threat to the research design is maturation. The students were studied in blocks
of school years. Psychological or physical changes, taking place within the subjects, that
occurred with the passing of time may have affected on the outcome of the research.

A third possible threat to internal validity is testing effects. Some of the students
took the Minnesota Graduate Test more than one time. This effect refers to the changes
in test score that are brought about by reactions to having taken the test previously.
Similar, yet different, formats of the test are administered, but such testing effects have

been shown to exist even in the given situation.

20

The selection of subjects is a limitation of the research design as well. There are
possible systematic differences in the composition of the two experimental groups. Such
selection bias is quite likely, as naturally occurring groups were studied. An attrition
threat also exists in the research design. The loss of subjects occurs in the research;
therefore, it is possible that those who remain differ from those who dropped out in some
way. Non-probability sampling was utilized in the research. The target population is
students diagnosed with EBD who attend secondary, self-contained school programs.

Data Eng and Analysis

The majority of the data was given to the researcher in excel spreadsheet form.
The test scores were accessed by the researcher on the official scoring sheets from the
Minnesota testing offices. In order to assure data accuracy, double entry was completed.
Scanning for outliers was also done, and any outliers were re-checked to ensure accuracy
of entry. Data was entered in raw scores based on the information given to the
researcher.

Transformation of data using SPSS programming was done for purposes of the
research. The number of days a student was enrolled in Bridgeway Learning Center was
divided by the total number of contact hours for purposes of obtaining a ratio variable for
use in analysis. This ratio variable is contact hours per day.

Missing data was coded, inserted in SPSS programming, and labeled as missing.
Not all subjects included in the contact hours per day data are included in the test score
data. Only students in attendance on the day the test is administered take the test;
therefore, only those students who took the test are included in analysis. Not each

student takes both the reading and math test each year. For example, a student may pass

21

the reading test in eighth grade, so in ninth grade that student would only take the math
test.

As outlined in the literature review, student retention and academic performance
in school are predictors of delinquency and subsequent criminality. This research
examined student attendance and academic performance under the Deficit perspective

and the Strengths perspective.

22

CHAPTER IV
Results

This research examines the school retention and the academic performance of
Emotionally and Behaviorally Disturbed students under two contrasting perspectives.
The research seeks to assess any differences in either school retention or academic
performance related to a governing educational perspective. This chapter presents the
findings of the statistical analysis of the data through comparisons of two groups of
students. The first section of this chapter addresses research question #1, which states:
“Is there a difference in student contact hours in school, when either the deficit or the
strengths perspective is the governing educational approach?” The second section of this
chapter addresses research question #2, which states: Is there a difference in student test
scores when either the deficit or the strengths perspective is the governing educational
approach?

Test of Research uestion #1: Is there a Difference in Student Contact Hours in School
when either the Deficit or the Strengths Perspective is the Governing Educat_i0_ng
Approach?

This study proposes that there may be a difference in the number of contact hours
that students spend in school based upon the educational perspective of the school during
the differing timeframes that students were enrolled in school. As data in Table 2,
Comparison of contact hours between the Deficit perspective and Strengths perspective
groups, suggest, the mean number of contact hours per day for students in the Deficit
group is 8.09, with a standard deviation is 1.64. The Strengths group of students has a

mean number of contact hours per day of 7.91 and a standard deviation of 1.61.

23

The comparison of the mean contact hours per day between the two groups
employed a two-tailed t-test. A two-tailed t-test was used because insufficient research
exists to predict a direction for comparison between the groups. The calculated value of t
falls between the critical values of—3. 18 and 3.18, and the mean number of contact hours
per day for the Deficit group is not significantly different than the mean number of
contact hours per day of the Strengths group (t = .67). Based on this result, the data do
not indicate that there is a difference between the average contact hours per day for
students enrolled in school during the Deficit timeframe versus students enrolled during

the Strengths perspective tirneframe.

 

 

 

 

Table 2.

Comparison of Contact Hours Between the Deficit Perspective and Strengths Perspective Groups
Variable Mean Standard Deviation Numflr
Deficit group 8.09 1.64 73
Strengths group 7.91 1.61 74

 

Calculatedt = .67; Calculated df = 3; Significance of t = .05

In order to explore whether or not gender, ethnicity, or grade level might account
for the absence of differences between groups, the following analysis examines
differences in contact hours based on gender, ethnicity, and grade level. The mean
number of contact hours for females in the Deficit group, 8.15, was compared to the
mean number of contact hours for females in the Strengths group, 8.34. As indicated by
Table 3, there is no significant difference between the mean numbers of contact hours per
day for females in the Deficit group versus females in the Strengths group. The mean
number of contact hours per day for males in the deficit group, 8.06, was compared to the
mean number of contact hours per day for males in the Strengths group, 7.73. No

significantly difference in mean number of contact hours per day was indicated for males

24

in the Deficit group versus males in the Strengths group. These findings reveal that
female and male attendance at school does not vary based on the use of Deficit or

Strength approach to education.

 

 

 

 

Table 3.
Average Contact Hours per Day by Gender and Ethnicity
Females Males
Variable Mean Std Dev number Mean Std Dev number
Group
Deficit 8.15 1.34 20 8.06 1.75 53
Strengths 8.34 1.03 22 7.73 1.79 52
Minority gaugasian
Group
Deficit 7.60 1.79 25 8.34* 1.51 48
Strenths 8.42 1.06 31 7.55 1.85 43

 

I"Significant <.05; Female Calculatedt = -.50; Female df = 1; Male Calculatedt = 1.2; Male df = 6 .
Minority Calculatedt = 2.05; Minority df = 27; Caucasian Calculatedt = 2.22; Caucasian df = 40

Students belonging to a minority ethnic group have a mean of 7.60 contact hours
per day in the Deficit group and a mean of 8.42 contact hours per day in the Strengths
group. As shown in Table 3, this difference is not significant, indicating that minority
contact hours per day do not change based on the governing educational perspective.
Caucasian students have a mean of 8.34 contact hours per day in the Deficit group, while
Caucasian students in the Strengths group have a mean of 7.55 contact hours per day.
This difference is significant (t = 2.22, critical value 1 2.021), with Caucasian students
having fewer contact hours in the Strengths perspective timefrarne than in the deficit
perspective tirneframe.

In further addressing research question #1 , contact hours per day and grade level
are analyzed. As indicated in Table 4, grade level was found to have no significant
correlation with contact hours per day for the Deficit group. Analysis on the Strengths

group also indicated no significant correlation between contact hours per day and grade

25

level. Such results suggest that student attendance at school does not increase or decrease

as grade levels change.

 

 

Table 4.
Correlation of Contact Hours per Day and Grade
Deficit Strengths
N=73 N=74
Grade in 1996-1997 .28
Grade in 1997-1998 .05
Grade in 1999-2000 -.05
Grade in 2000—2001 .20

 

Is there a Difference in Student Agdemic Performance when either the Deficit or the
Strengths Perspective is the Governing Educational Approach?
M_ath Test Scores
This study proposes that there may be a difference in students test scores based
upon the educational perspective of the school during the differing timefrarnes that
students were enrolled in school. As data in Table 7, Test Score Statistics by Group
present, the mean math test score for students in the Deficit group is 28.29, with a
standard deviation of 10.92. The Strengths group of students has a mean math test score
of 37.91 and a standard deviation of 10.76. The comparison of the mean math test scores
between the two groups employed a two-tailed t-test. A two-tailed t-test was used
because insufficient research exists to predict a direction for comparison between the
groups. The calculated value oft does not fall between the critical values of 12056.
Thus, the mean math test scores are significantly different (t = -3.23). Data suggest that
students who participated in the group under the Strengths approach to education receive
higher scores in math than students who participated in the group under the Deficit

perspective.

26

Table 5.
Test Score Descriptive Statistics by Group

Variable number Mean Standard Deviation

 

Math test score

Deficit 26 28.29" 10.92

Strengths 29 37.91 10.76
Reading test score

Deficit 25 1986* 7.14

Strengths 28 25.64 8.73

 

1"Significant at .05; ”Significant at .01; Math Calculatedt = —3.23; Math Calculated df = 26; Math
Critical value of t = i2. 05 6; Reading Calculated t = -2. 6; Reading Calculated df = 26; Reading Critical
value of t = i2. 056

To further explore the significant differences in the mean math test scores of the
Deficit group and Strengths group, analysis was done to examine differences in test
scores based on gender, ethnicity, and grade level. The mean math test score for females
in the Deficit group, 27.59, was compared to the mean math test score for females in the
Strengths group, 37.42. A two-tail t-test was used to test for significance of the
difference between means. No significant difference was found (t = 1.80, critical value =
2.447). The mean math test score of males in the Deficit group, 28.80 and the mean math
test score of males in the Strengths group, 38.04, were compared. Using a two-tailed t-
test, a significant difference was established between the mean math test score for males
in the Deficit group compared to the mean math test score for males in the Strengths
group (t = -2.20, critical value = i212). The mean math score for students of an ethnic
minority group in the Deficit perspective is 25.08, while minority students in the
Strengths group have a mean math test score of 34.80. As shown in Table 6, this
difference is significant (t = -2. 126, critical value = 2.120), with minority students scoring
significantly higher on the math tests given during the Strengths perspective timeframe
than during the Deficit perspective tirneframe. Caucasian students in the Deficit

timeframe have a mean math score of 31.04, while Caucasian students in the Strengths

27

group have a mean math score of 41 .25. This difference is significant (t = 2.57, critical

value = i 2.16), with Caucasian students scoring higher in math during the Strengths

timeframe than during the Deficit perspective timeframe.

Table 6.

Average Test Score by Gender and Ethnicity

 

Math Test Score
Deficit
Strengths

Reading Test Score
Deficit

Strengths

Math Test Score
Deficit
Strengths

Reading Test Score
Deficit

Strengths

Mean

27.59
37.42

20.06
26.75

Mean

 

2508*
34.80

20.78
24.10

Female

Std Dev

7.64
10.96

6.92
8.46

Minorig

Std Dev

12.32
9.99

8.67
9.69

Ema
Male
number Mean Std Dev Number
11 28.80“ 13.07 15
6 38.04 10.96 23
8 19.77 7.64 17
8 25.20 9.01 20
Ethnicigy
Caucasian
number Mean Std Dev n m r
12 31.04* 9.34 ' 14
15 41.25 10.90 14
9 19.50" 6.30 16
15 28.00 7.61 15

 

I"Significant at .05; "Significant at .01

Reading Test Scores

The mean reading test score for students in the Deficit group is 19.86. Students in

the Strengths group have a mean reading test score of 25.64. A two-tailed t-test was used

to compare the mean reading score of the two groups. The calculated value of t does not

fall within the critical range of 12.056; thus, the mean reading test score of each group is

significantly different (I = -2.60). Based on the result of the t-test, the data show that

students scored significantly higher on the reading tests under the Strengths perspective

than under the Deficit perspective.

To firrther explore the significant difference in the mean reading scores of the

Deficit group and the Strengths group, analysis was done to examine differences in test

28

scores based on gender, ethnicity, and grade level. The mean reading test score of
females in the Deficit group is 20.06, while females in the Strengths group have a mean
reading score of 26.75. This difference is not significant (t = -1.68, critical value =
:2.365). Males in the Deficit group have a mean reading test score of 19.77. The mean
reading test score of males in the Strengths group is 25.20. A t-test reveals a no
significant difference between the two means (t = -1.413, critical value = 2.021).

The mean reading test score for students of an ethnic minority in the Deficit
group is 20.78, while minority students in the Strengths group have a mean reading test
score of 24.10. As shown in Table 6, this difference is not significant (t = -.828, critical
value = :2.28). Caucasian students in the Deficit group have a mean reading test score of
19.34. The mean reading test score of Caucasian students in the Strengths group is 27.42.
A t-test indicates a significant difference, with Caucasian students scoring higher on
reading tests given during the Strengths perspective tirneframe than during the Deficit
perspective timefi'ame (t = 2.98, critical value = i 2.16).

In continuing to address research question #2, test score and grade level were
statistically analyzed by correlation matrix. As Table 7 indicates, grade level in 1997-
1998 is positively correlated with math score, suggesting that students in the higher
grades during this school year had higher scores on the math test during the tirneframe
under the Deficit perspective. Grade level in 2000-2001 is significantly correlated with
reading test score, suggesting that students in higher grades obtained higher reading test
scores during the tirneframe under the Strengths perspective. Correlations between grade

in 1996-1997 and math and reading test score, grade in 1997-1998 and reading test score,

29

grade in 1999-2000 and math and reading test score, and grade in 2000-2001 and math

test score are not of a significant level.

 

 

Table 7.
Correlation of Test Score and Grade Level
Deficit Strengghs

Math Reading Math Reading
Grade in 1996—1997 .38 -.04
Grade in 1997-1998 .50* -.01
Grade in 1999-2000 -.33 .39
Grade in 2000-2001 .02 .56"

 

*Significant at .05; “Significant at .01

Summm

The results section first addressed research question #1: Is there a difference in student
contact hours in school when either the Deficit or the Strength perspective is the
governing educational approach? The average contact hours per day for students were
not found to differ with educational approach. Further analysis found that when the
groups were compared based on ethnic group status, Caucasian students have fewer
contact hours per day under the Strengths perspective than under the Deficit perspective.
Secondly, this section addressed research question #2: Is there a difference in
student contact hours in school when either the Deficit or the Strengths perspective is the
governing educational approach? Both math and reading test scores are higher during the
Strengths perspective tirneframe than during the Deficit perspective tirneframe. Results
indicate that male students obtain higher math scores under a Strengths perspective
approach to education than during the Deficit perspective approach to education.
Students of an ethnic minority were also indicated as scoring higher in math during the

Strengths timefiame than during the Deficit tirneframe. Caucasian students were found

30

to obtain higher math and reading test scores in an educational environment under the

Strengths perspective than an educational environment under the Deficit perspective.

31

CHAPTER V
Discussion

This research examined the school retention and the academic performance of
Emotionally and Behaviorally Disturbed students under two contrasting perspectives.
Two questions were the basis of data analysis, first, is there a difference in student
contact hours in school when either the Deficit perspective or the Strengths perspective is
the governing educational approach? And second, is there a difference in student
academic performance when either the Deficit perspective or Strengths perspective is the
goveming educational approach?

Analysis indicated that math and reading test scores were higher under the
Strengths perspective than under the Deficit perspective. Student ethnicity, which was
classified as Caucasian and minority, does not appear to be a factor in the increased test
scores as students in ethnic minority and Caucasian classes both responded with higher
math and reading test scores under the Strengths perspective.

Male students were found to score higher on math tests during the Strengths
tirneframe than during the Deficit tirneframe. Reading test scores for males were not
significantly different between the Deficit and Strengths timeframes. No difference in
reading or math test score was found for females under the contrasting perspectives.

One possible explanation of the higher test scores under the Strengths perspective
is that students in the Strengths group had a higher median grade level than students in
the Deficit group. However, student test scores obtained from multiple testing during the
Deficit and Strengths timefrarnes and the 7-12 grade levels were correlated significantly

in only two of eight correlation analyses. This would suggest that a higher median grade

32

level of students in the Strengths group might only be a partial explanation of higher test
scores in the Strengths group than in the Deficit group.

Another possible explanation for the differences in students’ math and reading
tests rest with the unique population of students who were enrolled during the study
timeframes. Because a “zero tolerance for behavioral issues” policy was implemented in
the broader school district during the timefiames included in the study, it is possible that
the students referred to Bridgeway Learning Center fiom the broader school during the
Deficit timeframe differ from the students referred during the Strengths timeframe.
Students with behavior and academic problems that were referred to Bridgeway prior to
implementation of the policy may have been directed to correctional facilities after ‘
implementation of the “zero tolerance” policy. Such occurrence would suggest that
Bridgeway Learning center received students with reduced behavioral and acaderrric
problems during the latter years included in the study, which represent the Strengths
perspective tirneframe.

Future studies, with the use of pre-tests and post-tests or student matching on
background, identified behavioral issues, and student prior academic performance, could
aid in evaluating whether the increase in student math and reading test scores in the
Strengths perspective are effected by factors external to the particular perspectives used
in the Bridgeway program, i.e., policies impacting student enrolhnent in the Bridgeway
program.

This study also attempted to assess whether student attendance at school, as
measured through student contact hours per day, differed between tirneframes when the

Deficit and Strengths perspectives were used by the school. Data analysis aimed at

33

answering question number one revealed no difference in students contact hours per day
under the different perspectives. However, further analysis of differences in attendance
based on ethnic classification revealed that Caucasian students had fewer contact hours
per day during the Strengths perspective tirneframe than during the Deficit perspective
tirneframe. Data analysis did not indicate a difference in the number of contact hours per
day between the two timefrarnes for students classified as minority. A procedural
variation in school determination of student enrolhnent status that occurred between the
Deficit and Strengths timefrarnes may account for some of the difference in number of
contact hours per day for Caucasian students and the lack of difference for minority
students.

Under the Deficit perspective timeframe, students who were placed in a treatment
facility, a correctional facility, or left town for a period of time were immediately un-
enrolled. Under the Strengths perspective, students’ enrolhnent continued for fifteen
days after the last day of attendance, and was then terminated. The school district ran
into fiscal problems, and under state law, is allowed to keep students enrolled up to
fifteen days after their last day of attendance. These changes in procedures meant that a
student enrolled under the Deficit perspective who fully attended 100 days (10 hour days)
of school prior to entering a treatment facility would have a mean of 10.00 contact hours
per day during their enrollment in the school. A student enrolled under the Strengths
perspective who was enrolled and fully attended 100 days of school (10 hour days) prior
to entering a treatment facility would have a mean of 8.70 contact hours per day.
Although students, hypothetically, attended school under the Deficit and Strengths

perspectives for equal amounts of time, students who left during the Strengths timefi'ame

34

would be considered as enrolled for 115 days as opposed to 100 days. This change in
procedure may have skewed the results of this analysis. Given the minimizing effect of
this procedural change on differences between student attendance in this study, there may
actually be an increase in the number of contact hours per day for students under the
Strengths perspective. In firrther research, there is a need to standardize contact hours if
used as a measure of student retention.

The education of students with EBD is critical to their success in society. As
presented in the literature review, student academic performance and graduation from
high school are significantly related to delinquency and future criminality. If students
diagnosed with EBD are not adequately educated, they stand a good chance of
delinquency and/or criminality. In examining possibilities to increase student academic
performance and reduce student drop out, this research sought to determine if school
perspective has an effect on student academic performance (test score) and student
retention (contact hours per day). As discussed previously, analysis showed no
difference in the number of contact hours for the Deficit tirneframe versus the Strengths
tirneframe. However, due to procedural changes in the school district during the included
tirneframe, the contact hours per day finding may have significantly minimized or
eliminated differences that existed.

Math and reading test scores were both higher in the Strengths perspective
tirneframe than in the Deficit perspective tirneframe, suggesting that school perspective
has some effect on student academic performance. Based on the results of analysis, the
Strengths perspective is assumed to have a positive influence on student academic

performance. Whether it is the perspective as a whole or certain elements of the

35

Strengths perspective that are influential in increased student performance cannot be
determined by this research. Future research should consider identifying and isolating
key elements of the Deficit perspective and Strengths perspective, and comparing these
elements with regard to school retention and academic performance.

Results of this research may be incorrect, as the Deficit group and the Strengths
group may have differed in various ways. Naturally occurring groups were studied, thus
naturally occurring differences exist. Gender, ethnicity, and grade level were found to
play a role in contact hours and test scores. Therefore, any differences in gender,
ethnicity, and grade level between the groups would bias results. Future research should
consider ensuring the equality of the comparison groups through matching of subjects.
Multivariate analysis would also help to ensure that noted differences between the groups
in contact hours and test scores were not biased due to group inequality in other factors.

This research produced uncertain conclusions. Differences in contact hours and
test scores were presented, but there is reason to believe that these results are flawed.
With a lack of multivariate analysis, difference in contact hours and test scores produced
due to unintended independent variables are indistinguishable fi'om differences produced
by the intended key independent variable. Future research should take into consideration
the suggestions about future research presented above in order to obtain more certain

findings.

36

References

Alspaugh, J. W. (1997). Maybe schools encourage dropping out. American
Secondary Education, 25, 10-17.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). D_iagnostic and staflstical manual of
meLal disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Apter, S. J. (1982). Troubled Children Troubled Systems. Elmsford, NY:
Pergarnon Press.

Bakken, T., & Kortering, L. J. (1999). The constitutional and statutory obligations

of schools to prevent students with disabilities from dropping out. Remedial and Special
Education. 20. 360-366.

Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (1995). Hope at last for at-risk youth. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bates, P. T., Davis, T. C., Guin, C. C., & Long, S. W. (1992). Assessment of
literacy levels of adult prisoners. J oumal of Correctional Education 43 172-175.

 

Battistich, V., & Horn, A. (1997). The relationship between students’ sense of
their school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American
JournAof Public Health. 87. 1997-2001.

Bell, R., Conard, E. H., Gazze, 3., Greenwood, S. C., Lutz, J. G., & Suppa, R. J.
(1983). The nature and prevalence of leaming deficiencies among adult inmates.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 139805.

Benard, B. (1997). Fostering resiliency in children and youth: Promoting

protective factors in the school. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The Strengms Perspective in Social
Work Practice (pp. 167-182). White Plains, NY: Longrnan Publishers.

Brook, J ., Nomura, C., & Cohen, R. (1989). A network of influences on
adolescent drug involvement: Neighborhood, school, peer, and family. Genetic Social
mGeneral Psychology Monographs. 115, 303-321.

 

Brooks, B. L., & Sabatino, D. A. (1996). Persorprl Perspectives on Emotional
Disturbance/ Behavioral Disorders. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Casey, R. E. (1996). Delinquency prevention through vocational
entrepreneurship: the New Smyrna Beach Employability Skill Training Model for
youthful offenders. Preventing Schoolfiailure. 40. 60-62.

37

Cassel, R. N., Chow, P., DeMoulin, D. F., & Reiger R. C. (2000). Identifying
high school freshmen with serious atypical behavior and mental health problems for
delinquency prevention purposes. Edugtion. 121. 257-263.

Cassel, R. N., Chow, P., DeMoulin, D. F ., & Reiger, R. C. (2001). Comparing the
cognitive dissonance of 116 Juvenile delinquent boys with that of 215 typical high school
students. Education. 121 . 449-453.

Cassel, R. N., Chow, P., DeMoulin, D. F., & Reiger, R. C. (2001). Comparing the
cognitive dissonance of 57 juvenile delinquent girls with that of 215 typical high school
students. Education. 121, 454-458.

Cassel, R. N., Chow, P., DeMoulin, D. F., & Reiger, R. C. (2001). Comparing the
‘hall-marks for success in a democracy’ of 116 juvenile delinquent boys with that of 461
typical high school students. Education. 121. 436-440.

Chapin, R. K. (1995). Social policy development: The strengths perspective.
Social Work. 40. 506-516.

Chinien, C. A., Boutin, F ., & Letteri, C. (1997). Empowering at-risk students to
stay in school using a cognitive-based instructional system. J ouml of IndustriaLTeacher
Educafion. 34. 42-63.

Cowger, C. (1997). Assessing client strengths: Assessment for client
empowerment. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The Stren s Perppective in Social Work Practice
pp. 59-73. White Plains, NY: Longrnan Publishers.

Cox, S. M., Davidson, W. S., & Bynum, T. S. (1995). A meta-analytic assessment
of delinquency-related outcomes of alternative education programs. Crime and
Delinquency. 41. 219-229.

Cullingford, C. (1999). The causes of exclusion. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Eber, L., Nelson, C. M., & Miles, P. (1997). School-based wraparound for
students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Excgptional Children, 63, 539-555.

Edmonds, R. (1986). Characteristics of effective schools. In U. Neisser (Ed.), lh_e

school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 93-104). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Farmer, T. W., Farmer, E. M. Z., & Gut, D. M. (1999). Implications of social
development research for school-based interventions for aggressive youth with EBD.
Journal of Emotional and Behaviogrl Disorders. 7. 130-139.

Fomess, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (2001). Reflections on the future of prevention.
Preventing School Failure. 45, 75-81.

38

Gallagher, P. A. (1998). Promoting dignity: Taking the destructive D’s out of
behavior disorders. In R. Whelan (Ed.), Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: A 25-Yeag;
Focus. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Gottfredson, D. (2001). Schools and Delinquency. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Gunter, P. L., & Reed, T. M. (1997). Academic instruction of children with

emotional and behavioral disorders using scripted lessons. Preventing School Failure. 42,
33-37.

Gunter, P. L., Denny, R. K., & Venn, M. L. (2000). Modification of instructional
materials and procedures for curricular success of students with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Preventing School Failure. 44. 116-121.

Harrison, J. S., Gunter, P. L., & Reed, T. M. (1996). Teacher instructional
language and negative reinforcement: a conceptual framework for working with students

with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children 19 183-
196. ‘

 

Holmes, G. E. (1997). The strengths perspective and the politics of clienthood. In

D. Saleebey (Ed.), The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice (pp. 151-164).
White Plains, NY: Longrnan Publishers.

Janosz, M., LeBlanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, RE. (1997). Disentangling
the weight of school dropout predictors: A test on two longitudinal samples. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence. 26. 733-762.

J arjoura, G. R. (1993). Does dropping out of school enhance delinquent

involvement? Results from a large-scale national probability sample. Criminology, 31,
149-1 70.

J arjoura, G. R. (1996). The conditional effect of social class on the dropout-
delinquency relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 232-255.

Kauffinan, J. M. (1999). How we prevent the prevention of emotional and
behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children. 65. 448-468.

Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. L. (1996). Eight myths about special education.
Focus on ExceptionaJLChildren. 28. 1-15.

Kauffman, J. M., Lloyd, J. W., & Baker, J. ( 1995). Inclusion of all students with
emotional or behavioral disorders? Let’s think again. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 542-546.

39

 

Kern, L., Delaney, B., Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. (2001). Improving the
classroom behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders using

individualized curricular modification. Journal of Emotional_ and Behavioral Disorders. 9.
239-247.

Kisthardt, W. (1996). The strengths model of case management: Principles and
helping functions. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The Strengths Perspective in Social Work
Practice (pp. 97-113). White Plains, NY: Longrnan Publishers.

Kovaleski, J. F ., Gickling, E. E., & Morrow, H. (1999). High versus low
implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity.
Remedial and Special Education. 20. 170-183.

Kurtz, P. D. (1997). Clients as resources: Empowering school social work
practice with students, families, and communities. Social Work in Education, 19, 211-
218.

Leon, A. M. (1999). Family support model: Integrating service delivery in the
twenty-first century. Families in Society, 80, 14-24.

Lloyd, J. W., Fomess, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (1998). Some methods are more
effective than others. Intervention in School and Clinic. 33. 195-200.

Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2000). Best practices for teaching mathematics to
secondary students with special needs. Focus on Exceptional Children. 32. 1-22.

Magg, J. W., & Fomess, S. R. (1998). Depression in children and adolescents:
Identification, assessment, and treatment. In R. Whelan (Ed.), Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders: A 25-Year-Focus. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Martens, W. H. J. (2000). Antisocial and psychopathic personality disorders:
Causes, course, and remissions- A review article. International Journal of Offen_dar
Therapy and Comparative Criminology.44. 406-430.

Martinez, P. (1988). Characteristics of the Texas prison admissions. National
Criminal Justice Reference Service 112789.

 

 

Morgan, S. R., & Reinhart, J. A. (1991). Intervention_s for Students with
Emotional Disorders. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Prater, M. A., Sileo, T. W., & Black, R. S. (2000). Preparing educators and related
school personnel to work with at-risk students. _Taacher Education and Special Education,
23_, 51-64.

Postrnus, J. L. (2000). Analysis of the family violence option: A strengths
perspective. Affilia 15 244-258.

 

40

Rapp, R. (1997). The strengths perspective and persons with substance abuse
problems. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The Strengt_h_§ Perspective in Social Work Practice (pp.
77-96). White Plains, NY: Longrnan Publishers.

Razeghi, J. A. (1998). A first step toward solving the problem of special
education dropouts: infusing career education into the curriculum. Intervention in School
and Clinic. 33. 148-156.

Reinert, H. R. (1976). Children in Emotional Conflict: Educational Strategies for
the Emotionally DisturbeL and Behaviorally Disordered. St. Louis, MO: CV. Mosby.

Rosenberg, M. S., Wilson, R., Maheady, L., & Sindelar, P. T. (1992). Educating
students with beiravior disorders. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Inc.

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and

disadvantage. In M. W. Kent & J. E. Rolf (Eds), Primg prevention of psychopathology,
Vol. 3: Social competence in children (pp. 49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press of
New England.

Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions
and cautions. Social Work.4l. 296-308.

Saleebey, D. (1997). Introduction: Power in the people. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), lh_e
strengths perspective in social worlgrractice. (2nd ed.), (pp. 3-19). White Plains, NY:
Longrnan Publishers.

Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D. F. (2002). Academic and participation profiles of
school-age dropouts with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children. 68. 239-258.

Schmidt, W. (2002). The benefit to subject-matter knowledge. American
Educator.26. 18.

Schmidt, W., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case
of mathematics. American Educatoa 2L 10-26.

Stephens, R. T. (1990). Educational histories of incarcerated male felons with an
emphasis on perceptions of school, causes of dropping out, and participation in prison
educational programs. National Criminial Justice Reference Service. 147971.

Sutherland, K. S. (2000). Promoting positive interactions between teachers and
students with emotional/behavior disorders. Preventing School Failure 44 110-115.

 

Sutherland, K. S. & Wehby, J. (2001). Exploring the relationship between
increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral
outcomes of students with EBD. Remedia_1_ and Special Education. 22. 12-13.

41

Van Wormer, K. (1999). The strengths perspective: A paradigm for correctional
counseling. Federal Probation. 63. 51-58.

Wagner, M. (1989). Educational Programs and Achievements on Secondm

Special Education Students: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Weick, A., Rapp, C., & Kisthardt, W. (1989). A strengths perspective for social
work practice. Social Work. 350-354.

Whelan, R. J. (Ed.) (1998). Emotional and behavior disorders: A 25 year focus.
Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Winters, C. A. (1997). Learning disabilities, crime, delinquency, and special
education placement. Adolescence. 32. 451-462.

Wood, S. & Cronin, M. (1999). Students with emotional/behavioral disorders and

transition planning: What the follow-up studies tell us. Psychology in the Schools, 36,
327-345.

Zoints, P. (1985). Teaching disturbed and disturbing students: An integpative
approach. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

42

  

VE
H
l

l

‘MIC‘HI‘G‘AN SI‘ATE U’NI TSIT‘Y ‘L
‘llltillIllllllllllll till
3 1293 02 8

iii
llll‘
328 14

  

   

RIES

l l
IN
9