Antisocial Behavior: Its Causes and Prevention Within Our Schools.
School violence (Prevention)
Social skills in children (Study and teaching)
Behavior disorders in children (Care and treatment)
Antisocial behavior (Research)
Mayer, G. Roy
Pub Date:
Name: Education & Treatment of Children Publisher: West Virginia University Press, University of West Virginia Audience: Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Education; Family and marriage; Social sciences Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2001 West Virginia University Press, University of West Virginia ISSN: 0748-8491
Date: Nov, 2001 Source Volume: 24 Source Issue: 4
Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States

Accession Number:
Full Text:

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 dropouts.

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, 1993).

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, punitive approaches.

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 differential reinforcement.

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 & Mayer, 1994c).

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 students.

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 their horizons."

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 illustrations).

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, and incarceration.


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 Foundation.

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 Publishing Co.

Heller, M. S., & White, M. A. (1975). Teacher approval and disapproval on ability grouping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 796-800.

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, 8-16.

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, 154-169.

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 Prevention.

Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1994). The Morningside model of generative instruction: A history and an elucidation. In R. Gradner, III, D.

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: Irvington.

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, 16, 355-369.

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 Psychologists Monograph.

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 Center.

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 Children, 60,390-401.

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, 19,378-383.

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, 1,27-29.

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 Development.

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, 44-48.

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 Image.

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# 1810-0551.

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: Brooks/Cole.

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, 87-105.

White, M. A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8,367-372.

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 Psychologists.
Table 1


(Teacher Rating Scale: Check yes or no for each item)

Yes  No

          Rules and Policies of Deportment (Clarity)

---  ---  1. A Written Schoolwide Discipline Policy Exists

---  ---  2. I have Written Classroom Rules or Standards for
          classroom Discipline

---  ---  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
          Least Yearly

          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
          Student Learning

---  ---  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
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.