Antisocial behavior among youth is a major national concern; and
about one out of every three students drop-out of school. Factors
related to antisocial behavior are reviewed, with emphasis placed on
their prevalence in the school Suggestions are provided as to what
educators can do to prevent, rather than foster, antisocial behavior and
Antisocial behavior by our youth presents a major concern to
everyone. Though rates of crime are dropping overall, reports show that
young children are increasingly involved in deadlier crime, such as
murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault (Snyder & Sickmund,
1995; Butts & Snyder, 1997). More juveniles are locked up in secure
detention centers, training schools, jails, and prisons than ever before
(partially because many states are now emphasizing longer and more
punitive sanctions rather than treatment or prevention) (Puritz &
Shang, 1998). Ingersoll and LeBoeuf (1997) also have noted that there
have been increases in student suspensions and expulsions.
Antisocial behavior is defined here as "recurrent violations
of socially prescribed patterns of behavior" (Simcha-Fagen,
Langner, Gersten, & Eisenberg, 1975, p. 7), usually involving
aggression, vandalism, rule infractions, defiance of adult authority,
and violation of the social norms and mores of society. Youngsters who
exhibit chronic patterns of antisocial behaviors frequently are
diagnosed by clinicians as having oppositional or conduct disorders
(Home & Sayger, 1990; Kazdin, 1987).
Most antisocial and incarcerated adults develop from youths whom
engage in antisocial behavior and drop out of school (Henggeler, Melton,
& Smith, 1992; Hodgkinson, 1991). About one-third of the youth in
our country drop out rather than graduate from high school (National
Dropout Prevention Center, 1992). More than 80% of the incarcerated
individuals in the United States are high school dropouts, and the
states with the highest dropout rates tend to have the highest rates of
prisoners per 100,000 people (Hodgkinson, 1991). Along with our high
dropout rates, our overcrowded prisons and other detention centers are a
reflection of the degree to which our society and schools are failing
with a large percentage of our human resource.
A national study (Noun, Davies, & Chandler, 1995) found that
12% of secondary school students report that they have been the victim
of bullying, physical assault, or robbery at school or on the way to
school during the preceding school year. And, 20% of African American
and Hispanic teens have indicated that crime, or the threat of crime,
have caused them to remain home from school or cut class (Ingersoll
& LeBoeuf, 1997).
Antisocial behavior is reported to be most acute among urban, low
SES minority youth (Elliott & Ageton, 1980), and it's
adolescents, particularly boys, who commit higher rates of crime than
any other age group (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989). Yet, as the
APA's Commission of Violence and Youth points out, "violence
is most prevalent among the poor, regardless of race" (p. 23,
Annual Gallup Polls of public opinion have frequently identified
the lack of discipline as a common complaint about public schools, and
the single most common assistance request from teachers is for help in
managing problem behaviors (Homer, Diemer, & Brazeau, 1992; Reichle,
1990). The fact is, "without a safe learning environment, teachers
cannot teach and students cannot learn" (Kaufman et al., 1998).
What Appears to Contribute to Antisocial Behavior?
Before we can devise effective strategies to prevent antisocial
behavior, we must first understand what contributes to the occurrence of
antisocial behaviors. There are a number of factors contained within the
home, community, and school that are related to antisocial behavior
(Mayer, 1995). However, a factor that cuts across all three of these
areas is an aversive or punitive environment (DeBaryshe, Patterson,
& Capaldi, 1993; Dishion, 1992; Elliott, 1992; Mayer, 1995).
Research has taught us that aversive or punitive environments
predictably promote antisocial behaviors, such as aggression, violence,
vandalism, and escape (Azrin, Hake, Holz, & Hutchinson, 1965;
Berkowitz, 1983; Mayer, 1995). For example, when a small child gets
spanked by a parent, he or she often goes off and sulks alone or
responds by hitting a younger sibling, the parents, or any other handy
person or object. A parent who has been punished (e.g., criticized) at
work may take it out on his or her family or may seek isolation for a
while. A student, after being punished verbally or physically by a
teacher, may fight back by destroying school property or fighting with
others. Of course, not all students respond to a punitive environment
with aggression or retaliation. Some attempt to escape by being tardy or
truant, by tuning out in a class, or by dropping out of school. Thus,
because overly punitive environments foster vandalism, violence, and
attendance problems, the use of punitive consequences must be minimized.
But are aversive environments extensive within our schools?
Are School Environments Aversive for Some Students?
Research indicates that teachers too often emphasize punitive
measures to manage student behavior. This overemphasis occurs with many
students, but disproportionately with males, minority students,
developmentally delayed students, and students from low-income homes
(McFadden, Marsh, Price, & Hwang, 1992; Shaw & Braden, 1990;
Shores et al., 1993). Teachers' disapproval statements directed at
developmentally delayed students have been observed to outnumber
approval statements by a ratio of 15 to 1 (Shores et al., 1993).
Teachers in low-income areas and/or low white-percentage schools more
frequently endorse the use of punishment and the removal of students
(Moore & Cooper, 1984). Similarly, adolescents from low-income homes
report a greater number and variety of school-imposed penalties that
tend to be disproportionate to the offenses and humiliating in nature
(Brantlinger, 1991). And, Larson's (1994) findings illustrate how
punitive some school environments are. He reports that learning disabled
and emotiona lly disturbed students experience a more aversive punitive
environment in public schools than when they are incarcerated in youth
prisons. Thus, the school environment is very punitive for some
students, and certain groups appear to be singled out for punishment.
Disapproval is used more frequently than approval as a consequence
to student behavior, not only in high-risk homes (Hart & Risley,
1995), but also by many teachers (Heller & White, 1975; Shores et
al., 1993; Thomas, Presland, Grant, & Glenn, 1978; Van Acker, Grant,
& Henry, 1996; White, 1975), though certainly not all teachers
(Nafpaktitis, Mayer, & Butterworth, 1985; Wyatt & Hawkins,
1987). And, teacher disapproval or "reprimands appear to exacerbate
student negative behavior and non-compliance" (Van Acker et al.,
1996, pp. 330-331). Repeated failure experiences also function as
punishment resulting in aggression. For example, Munk and Repp (1994)
point out that several instructions followed by several errors can
provide a context in which the next instruction can result in an
aggressive response by the student. Another problem is that many
teachers do not attend positively to the desired social behavior of any
of their students; nor do they tend to praise the academic behavior of
their students who often misbehave (Van Acker et al., 1996; Shores et
al., 1993). Such extinction conditions for positive, pro-social and
academic behaviors are likely to promote additional student aggression
(Wehby, Symons, & Shores, 1995).
We also sometimes find that the total school environment is too
punitive for all students. Results from a survey by the American
Association of School Administrators (Brodinsky, 1980) indicated that
school personnel spend more time and energy in implementing punitive
than positive or preventive measures. And, as several investigators
point out (Greenberg, 1974; Mayer & Leone, 1999), a reliance on
heavy security arrangements (security guards, metal detectors, locked
doors, etc.) and punitive discipline strategies appears to aggravate,
not reduce, vandalism, aggression, and disorder. In fact, "creating
an unwelcoming, almost jail-like, heavily scrutinized environment, may
foster the violence and disorder school administrators hope to
avoid" (Mayer & Leone, 1999). Thus, it appears that schools,
particularly urban schools, are indeed punitive for many students.
Factors Within the School That Contribute to Antisocial Behavior
Mayer (1995) has identified and summarized a number of contextual
factors within the school that appear to contribute to a punitive school
environment that promotes antisocial behavior. These include: (1) an
over-reliance on punitive methods of control; (2) unclear rules for
student deportment; (3) weak or inconsistent administrative support for
staff in carrying out student discipline (consistent follow-through),
little staff support of one another, and a lack of staff agreement with
policies; (4) academic failure experiences; (5) students lacking
critical social skills that form the basis of doing well academically
and relating positively to others, such as persistence on task,
complying with requests, paying attention, negotiating differences,
handling criticism and teasing; (6) a misuse of behavior management
procedures; (7) lack of understanding or appropriate responding to
ethnic/cultural differences; and, (8) lack of student involvement.
The importance of these factors is highlighted by the fact that
they are similar to those identified in the home that promote antisocial
behavior (e.g., reliance on coercive or punitive discipline, lack of
positive consequences, inconsistent rule setting and delivery of
consequences) (Loeber, Stouthammer-Loeber, & Green, 1987; Reid &
Patterson, 1991). Also, these identified contextual factors within the
school have been found to relate significantly to both school vandalism
frequency and its resultant cost (Mayer et al., 1987). Thus, it should
come as no surprise that a recent Federal publication stated:
"Studies indicate that approximately four of every five disruptive
students can be traced to some dysfunction in the way schools are
organized, staff members are trained, or schools are run" (U.S.
Dept. of Educaton, 2000, p.10). In addition, research evidence (Mayer
& his colleagues, 1979, 1981, 1983a, 1991, 1993) suggests that when
these school-related environmental, or contextual, factors are
considered an d incorporated into a plan that focuses on making the
school environment more reinforcing for students and staff, a variety of
benefits occur. Antisocial behaviors (including vandalism costs) are
reduced, attendance improves, dropouts and suspensions decrease, more
students spend increased time on assigned tasks, and cooperation and
positive feelings among students and staff increase. In other words, it
appears that changing these identified contextual factors within the
school not only can help prevent antisocial behavior, but also can help
to create an environment more conducive to learning.
What Can Educators Do To Help Prevent Antisocial Behavior?
A major strategy that educators can use for creating safe,
constructive school environments would be to address the contextual
factors within our schools that appear to promote antisocial behavior.
The Constructive Discipline approach described by Mayer and his
colleagues (1983b, 1999, 2000) is designed to address these factors.
This approach implies that our efforts should no longer emphasize
"treating" students as the source of the problem. Rather, we
must be child advocates as we focus on helping teachers and
administrators identify and correct the factors within the school that
promote antisocial behavior. In other words, as Ysseldyke et al. (1997)
point out, problem behaviors, rather than being located within the
student, are often due to a "mismatch between the characteristics
of the learner and those of the instructional environment or the broader
home/school context" (p. 5). Accepting this approach will require a
paradigm shift for many educators, who for years have been told that
behavior problems or iginate from within their students.
A number of the contextual factors that appear to promote
antisocial behavior are briefly addressed below. In addition, resources
are provided for those who would like to obtain further information on
addressing each factor.
Reduce Punitive Methods of Control
As mentioned previously, a reliance on reactive, punitive methods
of control (security guards, metal detectors, an emphasis on punitive
discipline strategies, etc.) contributes to student antisocial behavior.
The use of punitive methods of control must be minimized. They must no
longer be allowed to be the first response to most antisocial behaviors.
Positive behavioral reductive techniques can usually be used in the
place of punitive methods, particularly for minor infractions. Positive
reductive methods include modeling and various differential
reinforcement strategies. Such strategies are described and illustrated
in many resources (e.g., LaVigna, & Donnellan, 1986; Mayer, 1999;
Mayer et al., 2000; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991; 1994a). Their
emphasis, like social skills training below, is on teaching youngsters
how to behave, not on how not to behave (as are punitive procedures).
Thus, an instructional approach is recommended in place of reactive,
Clovin and Sugai (1988) point out that while proactive strategies
are generally used to remediate academic problems, reactive, punitive
strategies tend to be used by educators for behavior problems. Yet, both
academic and behavior problems are learned and respond to similar
teaching strategies. First we analyze the behavior pattern, and then we
teach replacement behaviors using strategies such as modeling and
Provide Clear Rules for Student Conduct and Discipline
Clearly communicating the rules for student behavior is a major
step in setting up effective classrooms as well as schoolwide discipline
programs. Too often we mistakenly assume that classroom and school
discipline standards are understood or that the students already know
how to behave when they often do not. Furthermore, we frequently
communicate standards indirectly rather than directly. That often
results in students learning the rules through trial and error. Unclear
classroom discipline policies or rules are likely to result in a lack of
compliance and an increase in problem behavior, because the students are
unclear as to what behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable.
Unfortunately, the lack of compliance is likely to promote an increase
in the use of more punitive sanctions in the classroom. In contrast,
less discipline problems occur when students know and understand the
rules for conduct (Mayer & Leone, 1999).
Guidelines and illustrations for addressing the development of a
behavior code can be found elsewhere (Mayer, 1999; Mayer et al., 2000).
But briefly, the following guidelines should be followed: (1) Involve
students in the development of the rules. (2) Keep the rules simple and
short (about five to seven rules). (3) State each rule positively to
help teach students how to behave. (4) Review school policies and make
sure the rules do not conflict with them. (5) Teach the students the
rules. (6) Inform parents and solicit their support. (7) Review the
rules periodically and revise as necessary.
Assure Support for Educators
A lack of consistent support for implementing effective programs
can result in teachers and parents not implementing beneficial programs
or in their implementing them inconsistently. In the same way that
social support from a spouse or family member increases the
effectiveness of the interventions used in the home, support from other
teachers and administrators appears critical for effective program
implementation by a teacher at school. The lack of support for teachers
has resulted in teacher absenteeism and tends to foster an over-reliance
on punitive methods to control student behavior (Manlove & Elliott,
1979). Thus, a lack of support for the teacher is likely to result in an
increase in student problem behavior, because of the escalation of
punitive methods of control.
It is everyone's mutual responsibility to implement and
enforce discipline codes in the school. Teachers and administrators need
to depend on one another's support. Administrators need to know
what steps a teacher took before sending a student to the office.
Similarly, if teachers are to feel supported, they must know that action
will be taken consistently by the administration when a student is sent
to the office. Thus, classroom and schoolwide discipline programs must
be mutually coordinated and enforced consistently.
Minimize Academic Failure Experiences
We now know that there is a strong relationship between delinquency
and literacy. Failure level academic tasks result in significant
increases in problem behavior for some students, and "poor
scholastic experiences are significant causes of delinquent and
disruptive behavior" (Gold & Mann, 1982, p. 313). Berlin and
Sum (1988) report that poor basic skills are evident in 69% of all those
arrested, 79% of welfare dependents, 85% of unwed mothers, 85% of
dropouts, and 72% of the unemployed.
Repeated academic failure experiences are punishing to students and
result in more behavior problems. For example, several instructions
followed by several errors can provide a context in which the next
instruction can result in an aggressive response by the student.
Moreover, it is not uncommon to discover mismatches between a
student's assignment and his or her level of academic functioning.
For example, a group of high school students may be asked to read and
comprehend material at the eleventh grade level when their reading skill
is at the third grade level. Thus, academic failure situations set
students up for punitive/aversive experiences that result in increases
in problem behavior both in and out of the classroom.
Academic programs that show the most promise of preventing
antisocial behaviors are those that adjust to the student's
functional level, program frequent success, and assume the
responsibility for teaching without relying on out-of-school resources.
Some programs, such as the comprehensive Morningside Model (Johnson
& Layng, 1994), not only use well designed and sequenced
instructional material matched to students' performance levels, but
also build skills to fluency. Skills are built to fluency by using peer
coaching and testing to provide multiple opportunities for fluency
practice, recognition of progress, and correction of errors within the
school. Such an approach maximizes success and recognizes that the home
environment for antisocial youth often tends not to be very supportive
(i.e., they are not likely to receive home tutoring nor encouragement
with homework). Another program, the competent learner model (Tucci
& Hursh, 1991; 1994), has been developed for handicapped children.
It too is well designe d, sequenced, employs a coaching model, and also
has excellent training CDs for those learning the approach. Mayer et al.
(2000) and Suizer-Azaroff and Mayer (1994b) also provide specific
suggestions and information on how to enhance learning while minimizing
academic failure experiences that are applicable for most all students.
Teach Critical Social Skills
Many students lack the social skills necessary to relate positively
to peers and to do well academically. For example, most youngsters learn
to pay attention when they are read to and when they participate in
family discussions. Others, however, do not have these experiences and
do not learn to pay attention effectively. Similarly, some students
might not have learned to persist on a task, comply with requests,
negotiate differences, handle criticism from adults and teasing from
peers, or make appropriate decisions.
Too often youngsters who lack critical social skills are punished
by their teachers for their "misbehavior" (e.g., not paying
attention) rather than taught the necessary social skill(s). As a
result, a punitive classroom environment is created that fosters student
misbehavior. There are a variety of social skills training strategies
and programs available (e.g., Mayer et al., 2000; McGinnes, &
Goldstein, 1997; Panayan, 1998; Sheridan, 1995; Sulzer-Azaroff &
Use Appropriate Behavior Management Procedures
Both parents and teachers must be informed about the appropriate
use of behavior management procedures in order to help prevent their
misuse. As they receive training, they learn about the importance of
consistency. They also learn that distinctive learning histories can
cause particular consequences to be more or less effective for
individuals. Learning about functional assessments will help them to
understand how specific events influence behavior. As a result, parents
learn not to give a child the item at the store for which he is throwing
a tantrum. To do so, would be to teach the child to throw tantrums in
order to get what he wants. Throwing tantrums would become functional
for the youngster because they result in getting what he wants.
Teachers learn not to place a child in timeout when the student is
misbehaving to escape from an activity, request, assignment, or demand.
The use of timeout in this situation (when the student is misbehaving)
would be teaching the student to misbehave. Why? Because if the student
misbehaves, he or she will be able to escape from the request or
difficult task (i.e., he will be placed in timeout). Similarly, teachers
learn not to redirect students into another activity who are misbehaving
in order to obtain attention. Redirection would give them some of the
attention they are seeking, therefore the misbehavior works, proving
functional for the youngsters. Any behavior that proves functional, or
gets the student what he or she wants, is likely to be repeated. It
follows that consequences that reinforce the function of the
student's misbehavior can result in an increase, rather than a
decrease, in the misbehavior. Thus, the use of inappropriate
consequences can result in teaching misbehavior. And, as we have se en,
the resultant increase in misbehavior often results in the
administration of more punitive consequences that can further increase
the occurrence of future problem behaviors. There are a variety of
sources on functional assessment that can assist educators in
determining what would be the most appropriate behavioral strategy to
use (e.g., Durand, 1993; Mayer, 1996; Mayer et al., 2000; O'Neill,
Homer, Albin, Storey, & Sprague, 1990; Tilly et al., 1998).
Respect, Value, and Understand Ethnic/Cultural Differences
Some behavior problems are a result of a lack of understanding and
sensitivity by students, teachers, and others towards students from
cultures different from their own. it is important to recognize that
"what teachers consider to be 'discipline problems' are
determined by their own culture, personal values, and teaching
styles" (Kea, 1998). We have already pointed out the high
correlations between disciplinary actions with gender, low parental
income, handicapping conditions, and the ethnic identity of students in
the section on the overuse of punitive methods of control. These
students are disciplined, suspended, and expelled more often than other
There are actions that teachers can take to facilitate learning for
students from different cultures. For example, Dunn (1996) suggests:
"use culturally relevant reading materials that include ethnic
characters, deal with universal issues, and include settings and
experiences with which students can identify. In addition, expose
children to the culture in which they currently live in order to expand
A body of literature is now developing describing ethnic and
cultural differences. Teachers who are aware of this information are in
a better position to avoid inequltable discipline, and to understand and
work more effectively with students who are culturally and
linguistically different from their own culture. Kea (1998) and
Steinberg et al. (1996) and others have summarized ethnic/cultural
differences from the literature. However, findings from one study or
report may not be representative of the ethnic or cultural group in a
particular community, and therefore may not apply. There also are a wide
variety of values and beliefs within any ethnic or cultural group.
Caution: Do not assume that findings from one report are true for every
student within a particular ethnic or cultural group. (Individual
differences are incorporated throughout the application of behavioral
procedures based on functional assessments.)
Support Student Involvement
Low student participation in doing class work and in after school
activities is a factor that is usually caused by one of the other
factors discussed above (e.g., academic failure experiences, or critical
social skills are lacking that form the basis of doing well academically
and relating positively to others). Often, students become disengaged
and "hate" school because they are rejected by their peers,
and/or because of a history of failure and being frequently punished in
the classroom. Other students tend not to be involved because of a lack
of home support for attending and/or doing well in school. Thus by
addressing the above contextual factors, student involvement can be
enhanced. Also, sometimes it is helpful to provide incentives and/or
motivational programs for involvement (see Mayer et al., 2000, for
A Check-Off List for Educators
To assist in the identification of the specific factors, a
check-off list is provided in Table 1 that educators can fill out
regarding their school. It summarizes contextual factors within the
school, the lack of which has been identified as possibly being related
to the occurrence of student antisocial behavior. Any "NO"
checked by a teacher might be an area contributing to student antisocial
behavior, and thus in need of possible further investigation and/or
remediation. Or, the School Discipline Survey (Mayer &
Sulzer-Azaroff, 1991; Mayer et al., 1987) can be administered to
teachers. It is designed to measure how punitive the total school
climate is, particularly the discipline environment, and has
demonstrated reliability and validity.
Summary and Conclusions
There are multiple determinants of antisocial behavior, and,
although not proven, the evidence suggests that the school appears to be
a major contributor. Adding to the veracity of these findings is that
similar contextual factors to those identified in the school, as
possibly contributing to antisocial behavior, have been identified in
the home. These common contextual factors include a punitive
environment, a lack of positive consequences, and inconsistencies in
setting rules and applying consequences.
Such factors result in punishment and extinction of appropriate
behaviors (e.g., disapproving comments, academic task errors, and a lack
of recognition for either student or staff effort) that appear to evoke
most of the aggression, attendance problems (escape), and other
antisocial behaviors that occur in and around our schools.
Student antisocial behaviors present a problem for all educators as
they interfere with optimal learning conditions and possibly endanger
the safety of those involved; yet, as illustrated, various conditions
within the school can promote at least some of the student antisocial
behaviors. In order to help promote safe school environments that are
more conducive to learning, educators must identify and address
contextual factors within the school.
An emphasis on punitive classroom/school interventions needs to be
replaced by positive, preventive interventions that emphasize modeling
and differential reinforcement procedures. School and classroom rules
and policies need to be clear and stated positively to emphasize how to
behave. Student involvement in assignments and after school supervised
activities need to be supported and reinforced. Allowances must also be
made for individual student differences in terms of: (1) providing
consequences based on functional assessments; (2) social skills training
in relating positively to peers and for doing well academically; and,
(3) the selection of academic materials and instructional methodology.
Furthermore, staff must be supported for their efforts and
accomplishments if maximal student learning and appropriate social
behaviors are to occur.
Students also need to become more skilled in self-management and
aware of the factors that contribute to their antisocial behavior.
Counselors and school psychologists can teach them to monitor their own
behavior, to recognize its communicative purpose and the possible chain
of events that leads to the escalation of their antisocial behavior
(Watson & Tharp, 1997). Students also can be taught more adaptive
ways of achieving the purpose of their antisocial behavior.
Until such factors are addressed, we will continue only temporarily
to suppress student violence and related behavior problems. Reactive
fixes that rely on security (e.g., alarm systems, security personnel)
and punitive measures appear to aggravate, not reduce, antisocial
behavior over time. In other words, students resent punitive school
environments and react against them. Thus, security arrangements and
punitive measures, when necessary, must be viewed as temporary, reactive
expedients to help gain control in the situation while contextual
factors are addressed. Punitive measures are not the solution. We will
not be able to durably prevent violence and other antisocial behavior
until we address the identified contextual factors. We cannot afford to
fail a large percentage of our human resources by continuing to place
the emphasis in school discipline on security arrangements, punishment,
American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and
Youth, VoL 1. (1993). Violence & youth: Psychology's response.
Washington, DC: Author.
Azrin, N. H., Hake, D. G., Holz, W. C., & Hutchinson, R. R.
(1965). Motivational aspects of escape from punishment. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 8,31-34.
Berlin, J. A., & Sum. A. (1988). Toward more perfect union:
Basic skills, poor families, and our economic future. New York: The Ford
Berkowitz, L. (1983). Aversively stimulated aggression: Some
parallels and difference in research with animals and humans. American
Psychologist, 38, 1135-1144.
Brantlinger, E. (1991). Social class distinctions in
adolescents' reports of problems and punishment in school.
Behavioral Disorders, 17,36-46.
Brodinsky, B. (1980). AASA critical issues report: Student
discipline, problems, and solutions (Report No. 021 00334). Arlington,
VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Butts, J. A., & Snyder, H. N. (1997). The youngest delinquents:
Offenders under age 15. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. NCJ 165256.
Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (1988). Proactive strategies for
managing social behavior problems: An instructional approach. Education
and Treatment of Children, 11,341-348.
DeBaryshe, B. D., Patterson, G. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (1993). A
performance model for academic achievement in early adolescent boys.
Developmental Psychology, 29, 795-804.
Dishion, T. J. (1992, October). An applied model of antisocial
behavior. Paper presented at a workshop for potential applicants for
NIMH research grants to prevent youth violence, Bethesda, MD.
Dunn, R. (1996). 19 easy-to-try ways to turn on students. Teaching
Pre K-8, 27(3) 50-51.
Elliott, D. S. (1992, October). Correlates of youth violence, and
designing evaluations of interventions. Paper presented at a workshop
for potential applicants for NIMH research grants to prevent youth
violence, Bethesda, MD.
Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. A. (1980). Reconciling race and
class differences in self-reported and official estimates of
delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45,95-110.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. U.S. Department of Justice (1989).
Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC: Author.
Gold, M., & Mann, D. W. (1982). Alternative schools for
troublesome secondary students. Urban Review, 14,305-316.
Greenberg, B. (1974). School vandalism: Its effects and paradoxical
solutions. Crime Prevention Review, 1,105.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the
everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes
Heller, M. S., & White, M. A. (1975). Teacher approval and
disapproval on ability grouping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,
Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., & Smith, L.A. (1992). Family
preservation using multisystemic therapy: An effective alternative to
incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 60, 1-9.
Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73,
Horne, A. M., & Sayger, T. V. (1990). Treating conduct and
oppositional defiant disorders in children. New York: Pergamon.
Horner, R. H., Diemer, S. M., & Brazeau, K. C. (1992).
Educational support for students with severe problem behaviors in
Oregon: A descriptive analysis from the 1987-1988 school year. The
Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17,
Ingersoll, S., & LeBoeuf, K. (1997, February). Reaching out to
youth out of the education mainstream. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-11.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1994). The Morningside model
of generative instruction: A history and an elucidation. In R. Gradner,
Sainato, J. Cooper, T. Heron, W. Heward, & J. Eshleman (Eds.),
Behavior analysis in education: Focus an measurably superior instruction
(pp. 173-197). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kaufman, P., Chen, Xianglei, Choy, S. P., Chandler, K. A., Chapman,
C. D., Rand, M. R, & Ringel, C. (1998). Executive summary:
Indicators of school crime and safety, 1998. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES 98-251.
Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Conduct disorders in childhood and
adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kea, C. (1998, June). Focus on ethnic and minority concerns.
Newsletter, Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders, 11(6), 4-5.
Larson, K. (1994). Negative school culture. Office of Special
Education Programs, Spring Leadership Conference Executive Report, May,
9-12, p.8. Available from the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center,
Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 84341.
La Vigna, G. D., Donnellan, A. (1986). Alternatives to punishment:
Solving behavior problems with non-aversive strategies. New York:
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Green, F. (1987).
Prediction. In H. C. Quay (Ed.). Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp.
325-382). New York: Wiley.
Manlove, D. C., & Elliott, P. (1979). Absent teachers. Another
handicap for students? The Practitioner, 5, 2-3.
Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478.
Mayer, G. R. (1996). Conducting a functional assessment and its
relevance to intervention. California School Psychologist, 1, 29-34.
Mayer, G. R. (1999). Constructive discipline for school personnel.
Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 36-54.
Mayer, G. R., & Butterworth, T. (1979). A preventive approach
to school violence and vandalism: An experimental study. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 57, 436-441.
Mayer, G. R., & Butterworth, T. (1981). Evaluating a preventive
approach to reducing school vandalism. Phi Delta Kappan, 62,498-499.
Mayer, G. R., Butterworth, T., Nafpaktitis, M., &
Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1983a). Preventing school vandalism and improving
discipline: A three-year study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Mayer, G. R., Butterworth, T., Spaulding, H. L, Hollingsworth, P.,
Amorim, M., Caldwell-McElroy, C., Nafpaktitis, M., & Perez-Osorio,
X. (1983b). Constructive discipline: Building a climate for learning. A
Resource manual of programs and strategies. Downey, CA: Office of the
Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools.
Mayer, G. R., Mitchell, L., Clementi, T., Clement-Robertson, E.,
Myatt, R., & Bullara, D. T. (1993). A dropout prevention program for
at-risk high school students: Emphasizing consulting to promote positive
classroom climates. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 135-146.
Mayer, G. R., Nafpaktitis, M., Butterworth, T., &
Hollingsworth, P. (1987). A search for the elusive setting events of
school vandalism: A correlational study. Education and Treatment of
Children, 10, 259-270.
Mayer, G. R, & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1991). Interventions for
vandalism. In G. Stoner, M. K.
Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), interventions for achievement and
behavior problems. Washington, DC: National Association of School
Mayer, G. R., Ybarra, W. J., Pegadiotes, D., Fogliatti, H., &
Pines, M. (2000). Classroom management: A California resource guide. CA
Dept. of Education and LA County Office of Education, Safe Schools
Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (1999). A structural analysis of
school violence and disruption:
Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treatment of
Children, 22, 333-356.
McFadden, A. C., Marsh, G. E., Price, B. J., & Hwang, Y.
(1992). A study of race and gender bias in the punishment of school
children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15,140-146.
McGinnis, E., E Goldstein, A. P. (1997). Skillstreaming the
elementary school child: A guide for teaching prosocial skills.
Champaign Ill.: Research Press.
Moore, W. L., & Cooper, H. (1984). Correlations between teacher
and student backgrounds and teacher perceptions of discipline problems
and disciplinary techniques. Discipline, 5, 1-7.
Munk, D. D., Repp, A. C. (1994). The relationship between
instructional variables and problem behavior: A review. Exceptional
National Education Goals Panel. (1995). Report of the Goal Seven
Task Force on defining a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
Washington, DC: Author, Report No. 95-01.
National Dropout Prevention Center (1992). Statistics from the
secretary's wall chart. Clemson, S.C.: Author.
Nafpaktitis, M., Mayer, G. R., & Butterworth, T. (1985).
Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval and their relation to
student behavior in intermediate school classrooms. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77,362-367.
Nolin, M., Davies, E., & Chandler, K. (1995, October). Student
victimization at school. Statistics in Brief. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
O'Neill, R. E., Homer, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., &
Sprague, J. R. (1990). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A
practical assessment guide. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Panayan, M. V. (1998). How to teach social skills. Austin: Pro-ed.
Puritz, P., & Shang, W. W. L. (1998, Dec.) Innovative
approaches to juvenile indigent defense. OJJDP Juvenile Justice
Bulletin, December, 1-8.
Reichle, J. (1990). National working conference on positive
approaches to the management of excess behavior: Final report and
recommendations. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration,
University of Minnesota.
Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). The development of
antisocial behavior patterns in childhood and adolescence. European
Journal of Personality, 3, 107-119.
Shaw, S R., & Braden, J. P. (1990). Race and gender bias in the
administration of corporal punishment. School Psychology Review,
Sheridan, S. M (1995). The tough kid social skills book. Longmont,
Colorado: Sopris West.
Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., Gunter, P. L., Ellis, D. N., DeBriere,
J. J., & Wehby, J. H. (1993). Classroom interactions of children
with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
Simcha-Fagen, O., Langner, T., Gersten, J., & Eisenberg, J.
(1975). Violent and antisocial behavior: A longitudinal study of urban
youth. (OCD-CB-480). Unpublished manuscript. Office of Child
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and
victims: A focus on violence. Statistics summary. U.S. Office of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Steinberg, S., Brown, B. B., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996).
Ethnicity and adolescent achievement. American Educator, 20(2), 28-35,
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1994a). Achieving
educational excellence: Behavior analysis for school personnel. P.O. Box
427, San Marcos, CA: Western Image.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1994b). Achieving
educational excellence: Behavior analysis for improving instruction.
P.O. Box 427, San Marcos, CA: Western Image.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1994c). Achieving
educational excellence: Behavior analysis for achieving classroom and
school wide behavior change. P.O. Box 427, San Marcos, CA: Western
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Mayer, G.R. (1991). Behavior analysis for
lasting change. Fort Worth Harcourt, Brace & Javanovich.
Thomas, J. D., Presland I. E., Grant, M. D., & Glynn, T.
(1978). Natural rates of teacher approval in grade-7 classrooms. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8,367-372.
Tilly, W. D., Kovaleski, J., Dunlap, G., Knoster, T. P., Bambara,
L., & Kincaid, D. (1998). Functional behavioral assessment: Policy
development in light of emerging research and practice. Alexandria, BA:
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE).
Tucci, V., & Hursh, D. (1991). Competent learner model:
Instructional programming for teachers and learners. Education and
Treatment of Children, 14,349-360.
Tucci, V., & Hursh, D. E. (1994). Developing competent learners
by arranging effective learning environments. In Gardner et al (Eds.),
Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior
instruction. (pp. 257-264). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Effective Alternative
Strategies: Grant competition to reduce student suspensions and
expulsions and ensure educational progress of suspended and expelled
students. Washington D.C.: Safe and drug-free schools program. OMB#
Van Acker, R., Grant, S. H., & Henry, D. (1996). Teacher and
student behavior as a function of risk for aggression. Education and
Treatment of Children, 19,316-334.
Watson, D. L., & Tharp, R. G., (1997). Self-directed behavior:
Self -modification for personal adjustment. Pacific Grove, CA:
Webby, J. H., Symons, F. J., & Shores, R. E. (1995). A
descriptive analysis of aggressive behavior in classrooms for children
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 20,
White, M. A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and
disapproval in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Wyatt, W. J., & Hawkins, R. P. (1987). Rates of teacher verbal
approval and disapproval: Relationship to grade level, classroom
activity, student behavior, and teacher characteristics. Behavior
Modification, 21, 27-51.
Ysseldyke, J., Dawson, P., Lehr C., Reschly, D., Reynolds, M.,
& Telzrow, C. (1997). School psychology: A blueprint for training
and practice II. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
CONTEXTUAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
(Teacher Rating Scale: Check yes or no for each item)
Rules and Policies of Deportment (Clarity)
--- --- 1. A Written Schoolwide Discipline Policy Exists
--- --- 2. I have Written Classroom Rules or Standards for
--- --- 3. The Emphasis of Schoolwide Policies and Rules
is How to Behave
--- --- 4. The Emphasis of My Classroom Rules is on How to
--- --- 5. Reinforcement is Provided for Adherence to the
Rules (In My Class)
--- --- 6. Students Have Been Involved in the Development
of the Classroom Rules
--- --- 7. The Classroom Rule List is Kept Short (5 to 7
--- --- 8. There is Clear Communication of Classroom Rules
as Evidenced by Their Being Reviewed Periodi-
cally with Students and Shared with Parents at
Support For Staff and Policies
--- --- 9. Strong Administrative Support for Staff Exists
(e.g., good teaching is recognized, faculty
requests are acted on promptly)
--- --- 10. Strong Staff Support for One Another Exists
(e.g., staff confer with one another regarding
instructional and discipline
--- --- 11. Strong Teacher Support and Agreement with the
School Discipline Policy Exists
Allowances Made for Individual Differences Among
--- --- 12. Academic Assignments are Adjusted to Students'
Functional Level to Assure Frequent Success
--- --- 13. The School Assumes the Responsibility for
--- --- 14. Social Skills (necessary to relate positively
to peers and do well academically) Are
Identified and Taught
--- --- 15. Appropriate Consequences for Individual
Student Are Provided (the emphasis is on
reinforcement and the same cons provided
to all students)
--- --- 16. Student Involvement/Participation in Academic
Activities is High
--- --- 17. Students and Staff Understand, Value, and
Respect Ethnical/Cultural Differences
--- --- 18. Student Involvement/Participation in After-
School Activities is Encouraged