TL;DR: In this article, an exploratory review of the literature of antisocial behavior at school of junior high and high school students was conducted, focusing on behavior problems resulting from interactions between students and teachers, administrators, and other students.

...read moreread less

Abstract: VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper by Feldhusen was to examine the issues of adolescent problem behavior in school. Causes for antisocial behavior and school-based prevention programs were included in this review. The focus was on behavior problems resulting from interactions between students and teachers, administrators, and other students. METHODOLOGY: This study was a non-experimental, exploratory review of the literature of antisocial behavior at school of junior high and high school students. The definition of antisocial behavior for this study included, "all forms of antisocial, aggressive, and disruptive behaviors which violate school expectations and which interfere with the orderly conduct of teaching" (p. 17). FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: Several reports from 1977 are used to document the prevalence and the increase of violence in the schools, including the Report of the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency to the Senate Committee (Senator Birch Bayh), the National Institute of Education's Safe School Study Report to the Congress, and a survey by the National School Boards Association. A book published in 1977, The Unruly School, reports major trends in school antisocial behavior: 1) simple misbehaviors have changed to acts of violence against persons and property, 2) antisocial behavior has increased much faster than the high school population, 3) the intensity of violent acts has greatly increased, 4) school administrations are using increasingly legal responses, 5) security guards are being used increasingly, and 6) schools are institutionalizing methods of dealing with the violence. The National Education Association's teacher surveys of 1974 and 1976, along with the Gallup Poll of The Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, showed discipline in the classroom as the major problem facing public schools. The correlates of the behavior problems fall into four categories: "1) psychological and sociological variables; (2) television; (3) political and social influences, and (4) the school itself" (p. 20). According to Jessor and Jessor (1977) the correlates of problem behavior are synonymous with developmental trends of youth: "growth of independence, decline of traditional ideology, increase in relativistic morality, increase in peer orientation, and increase in modeling of problem behavior" (p. 20). A longitudinal study by Lefkowitz, Huesmann, Walder and Eron (1973) reported parental rejection and SES variables the best concurrent predictors for both boys and girls, while SES and TV violence viewing were good long-range predictors for them. For boys alone, IQ and TV violence viewing were good predictors, and for girls, identification with the mother. Another longitudinal study by Feldhusen, Thurston and Benning (1973) found that "aggressive-disruptive youngsters were substantially disadvantaged in terms of the home, family, and parental situation when compared with prosocial youngsters" (p. 20). The study also identified school factors for aggressive-disruptive children: an IQ deficit averaging 9 points, significantly lower reading and math achievement test scores, more tendency to drop out, lower rank at graduation if they stayed, and lower teacher ratings of personality and social skills. The best long-range predictors they identified were the teacher's original assessment of behavior, IQ, reading scores, and father's educational level. Peer and gang influences are briefly reviewed by the author as being significant factors, and the influence of TV viewing is treated in a review by Liebert (1974) on the relationship between TV viewing and aggression. He concluded that "...beyond a reasonable doubt...watching television violence produces antisocial attitudes and behavior..." (p. 22). The influence of the schools themselves is summed up by the author in reviewing several books and studies, which put much of the blame on anticipated or real failure in school. Elliott and Voss (1974) state that "School is the critical generating milieu for delinquent behavior by bringing together in one setting all of the facilitating conditions for adverse behavior" (p. 22). McPartland and McDill (1977) assert that schools promote delinquent behavior by not involving students in the decisions that affect their lives while in school. Both of these studies concluded, however, that family variables were the major cause of delinquent behaviors rather than the school. The author concludes that the causes of high school discipline are many, but that "they derive principally from weakened home and family structure, the heavy dose of crime and violence modeled by TV, school experiences which precipitate a failure-frustration-aggression sequence, and school and societal conditions which make it easy and rewarding for youth to engage in violence and crime as an effective adaptation or coping mechanism" (p. 23). The cures for the above problems are reviewed, but the author feels that valid approaches supported by evaluative research evidence are few. Those that seem to be most effective are approaches growing out of the behavior modification or management systems, based on reinforcement theories. Limitations of these would include the necessity of training and outside assistance for classroom teachers. Other approaches include the academic or educational, with a special academic program with behavioral objectives given to disruptive students. There were several individual programs reviewed by the author. One used collaboration between students, community, parents, school board, staff and administration. Another used enforced orderliness. A positive school climate was developed by a third, with nonthreatening success experiences offered. Other programs were developed to strengthen academic and social behavior. The Senate Subcommittee (Bayh, 1977) presented recommendations, summarized as 1) programs should be developed by school boards and state educational agencies, to prevent violence, delinquency and vandalism; 2) programs to reduce violence, delinquency and vandalism should be developed cooperatively within the school by teachers, parents, students and administrators; and 3) the Federal government needs to enact programs to assist the states, cities and schools. The NIE report recommended controlling discipline in the schools, using devices and security personnel. They also suggested increasing interaction among teachers, students and principals, with joint planning to deal with discipline problems. Individual teacher behaviors were also discussed, stressing as positives the personal acceptance of students, verbal reinforcement, correction of behavior problems when they happen, and making the class positive and exciting. AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS: The solutions to the problems of violence in schools are not well known, with little research evidence, except in the field of behavior modification or management. Nevertheless, the author makes the following recommendations: 1) Research evaluation of programs, developed as theoretical models, needs to be done at the Federal and State levels. 2) Schools with behavior problems need to organize task forces to survey the problems and develop programs to correct them. These task forces need to include teachers, parents, students and administrators. 3) Teachers and administrators need to have in-service programs stressing behavior management techniques. 4) School rules need to be developed by teachers, students, parents and administrators. 5) Curricula should be developed to help all students achieve success. 6) Crime and delinquency need to be prosecuted, not condoned. 7) Basic skills need to be stressed and taught in an effective manner. 8) A positive, humanistic climate needs to be developed, first by the principal. 9) Severe discipline problems should be handled by special short-term treatment instead of suspension. 10) Involve students in developing self direction and self control. 11) A bridge from school to work should be developed with special vocational and career programs for students with severe behavioral problems. 12) A diagnostic system should be coordinated by guidance counselors, with programs planned for severe discipline cases. 13) Positive behaviors should be recognized. 14) In schools with severe behavior problems, devices and security personnel should be employed. 15) Education schools should train teachers in the art of classroom management, and should work closely with schools and teachers to combat problems. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) KW - Literature Review KW - Late Childhood KW - Late Adolescence KW - Early Adolescence KW - Junior High School Student KW - Senior High School Student KW - Grade 7 KW - Grade 8 KW - Grade 9 KW - Grade 10 KW - Grade 11 KW - Grade 12 KW - Student Aggression KW - Student Behavior KW - Student Crime KW - Student Violence KW - Child Antisocial Behavior KW - Child Aggression KW - Child Behavior KW - Child Crime KW - Child Delinquency KW - Child Offender KW - Child Problem Behavior KW - Child Violence KW - Aggression Causes KW - Behavior Causes KW - Delinquency Causes KW - Violence Causes KW - Property Crime KW - Vandalism KW - Juvenile Antisocial Behavior KW - Juvenile Behavior KW - Juvenile Aggression KW - Juvenile Crime KW - Juvenile Violence KW - Juvenile Delinquency KW - Juvenile Problem Behavior KW - Juvenile Offender KW - School Crime KW - School Violence KW - School Based KW - Program Recommendations KW - Aggression Prevention KW - Behavior Prevention KW - Crime Prevention KW - Delinquency Prevention KW - Violence Prevention KW - Prevention Recommendations

...read moreread less