Excluding students from classroom: Teacher techniques that promote student responsibility

Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Excluding students from classroom: Teacher techniques that promote student responsibility Ramon (Rom) Lewis a,1, Shlomo Romi b, *, Joel Roache a, 2 a b

Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 20 May 2011 Received in revised form 19 March 2012 Accepted 30 March 2012

Students who continuously misbehave are frequently excluded from class, allowing them time to reflect on their inappropriate behavior. This paper examines students’ perceptions of the teacher’s behavior toward them prior to, during, and after the exclusion, focusing on teachers’ explanations, punishments, and follow-up conversations. The results indicate that students who do not accept responsibility for being excluded think that their teachers’ are to blame. To convince students to accept responsibility for their acts, teachers must explain why the exclusion is necessary, warn and punish before excluding a student, and hold a follow-up conversation, highlighting the impact of the misbehavior on classmates. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Classroom management Discipline Excluded student Teacher-student relationships, Student responsibility

The way teachers choose to manage a class affects students’ concentration, their attitudes towards schoolwork and their teachers, and their developing pro-social values (Lewis, Romi, Katz, & Qui, 2008). Classroom management is of significant concern for administrators and the public (Hardman & Smith, 2003; Macciomei, 1999; Sprague & Walker, 2000), a major cause of job dissatisfaction for teachers (Liu & Meyer, 2005), and fertile ground for theories and approaches. Yet, even given all that has been written about classroom management, there still remains a need for systematic research on effective ways of preparing teachers to deal with students’ inappropriate classroom behavior. The aim of this paper is to examine students’ perceptions of the teacher’s behavior toward them prior to, during, and after being sent from class, focusing on teachers’ explanations and punishments. Students are frequently asked to leave class for the remainder of a lesson and may be excluded more than once by the same teacher during one academic year (Morrison, Anthony, Storino, & Dillon, 2001; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997). For the remainder of the lesson, the excluded student remains within the school complex but not with his or her class, the underlying assumption being that a short-term penalty, or ‘time out,’(the case

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 3 5318557; fax: þ972 3 7384029. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Romi). 1 Tel.: þ613 94792611. 2 Tel.: þ613 95250730. 0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.009

of exclusion in this article) will help the student take classroom learning, the teacher, and the educational system more seriously. Our perspective in this exploration of the ‘exclusion’ is the relationship between teacher and student, viewed here as the interaction between a significant adult and a child/adolescent. Students are not passive recipients of a teacher’s classroom management actions. They choose to resist or to comply to acquiesce, question, ignore, avoid, or sabotage, (Sheets, 1996, 2002). The behavior a student exhibits, then, comprises “purposive acts” based on their interpretations of school and classroom life, and especially of their relationships with teachers (Schlosser, 1992). Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein (2006) summarized the issue of student and teacher perspectives on classroom management by stating that students distinguish between teachers who are reasonably strict in their limit setting and those who are mean, punitive, and unreasonable. These researchers and others (e.g., Pomeroy, 1999; Schlosser, 1992; Thorson, 1996), agree that: “students respect teachers who set fair rules to protect students’ safety and support the learning environment, who use humor and a light touch to get students back on track, and who do not publicly reprimand or embarrass them” (Woolfolk Hoy & Weinstein, 2006, p. 208). Recent research has also highlighted the productive nature of management techniques such as hinting, involvement of students in decision-making, recognition of students’ appropriate behavior and conversations with misbehaving students (Roache & Lewis, 2011; Romi, Lewis, & Katz, 2009; Lewis et al., 2008; Osher, Bear, Sprague, & Doyle, 2010; Sticher et al, 2009).

R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878

As indicated above, teachers’ classroom management acts of conscious commission will be viewed here through the lens of the childeteacher relationship (Pianta, 2006), as distinct from the many other views of classroom management described in detail by Evertson and Weinstein (2006). According to Pianta (2006), the childeteacher relationship perspective tends to “embrace the complex social, psychological and emotional process involved in interactions and relationships between teachers and children that are the focus of classroom management” (p. 704). In this context of relationship systems, Pianta (2006) summarized various theoretical and practical processes and concepts (e.g., Goodenow, 1992; Newman, 2000; Wentzel, 2003). These processes and concepts focus on social behavior, expectations, beliefs, attributions, interpersonal perception, and the regulation of students’ social and help-seeking behavior, all of which demonstrate that: “students’ and teachers’ emotions, perceptions, and motivations are interconnected in the context of instructional and classroom management interactions” (p. 686). Consequently, the teacher and child relationship can be characterized as a dynamic relational system (O’Connor, 2010; Pane, 2010). 1. The excluded student/temporal referral out of classroom The excluding of a student can serve the class, the student, and the teacher. Exclusion acts to remove a ‘distraction’ from the class, thus protecting the learning of the other students. It may provide the teacher with the support of more senior staff, or simply provide the teacher with immediate relief. For the students, exclusion demonstrates the seriousness in which his or her misbehavior is regarded. Viewed from the perspective of the childeteacher relationship, exclusion provides the opportunity for a short conversation between student and teacher, perhaps creating a starting point for the child to reflect upon his or her behavior and commit to more responsible ways of behaving, or for the teacher and school to begin to develop interventions to assist the student. However, exclusion may also become the first step in a process of repeated and prolonged isolation, suspension and, ultimately, expulsion from and by the institution, or the student actively dropping out (McIntosh, Flannery, Sugai, Braun, & Cochrane, 2008). There is a large literature that deals with exclusion, mainly exclusion from school and not only from the classroom. Imich (1996) explained that exclusion is a term describing the removal or expulsion of a child from school. This can be either permanently or for a fixed period of time. Macrae, Maguire, and Milbourne (2003), in their paper, explored policy approaches aimed at addressing school exclusions in the U.K. According to them the limitations of ‘weak’ versions that indirectly ‘blame’ the excluded and work ‘on’ this constituency, rather than taking a broader view which encompasses those who exclude, make such approaches problematic. This contradiction between the desire to reduce exclusions and truancy, while at the same time increasing schools’ powers to exclude, highlights the political conflict between presentation and practice. (Welsh, 1999) Therefore, a new and thorough look at this potentially significant, singular event is called for, examining whether, and under what conditions, sending a child out of class seems to be productive in helping students become more responsible. The consequences of being sent out of class may result in students taking more responsibility for their misbehavior, yet it may equally serve as the beginning of an alienating process, resulting in students’ disengagement and ultimate removal from schooling (Skiba et al., 1997; Sprague & Walker, 2000). Such an examination as that presented in this study provides a new perspective on the findings presented in the literature on expulsion and dropping out. Suh, Suh, and Houston (2007) sought to find key contributing factors to dropping out of school. They conducted logistic regression

871

on data derived from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth e 1997 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002) and revealed that low grade point average, suspensions, and low socioeconomic background were risk factors, with each having a different effect on predicting dropout rates. Similar research has looked at the strong links between poor academic performance, problem behavior, and dropout rates (McIntosh, Flannery, et al., 2008; McIntosh, Horner, et al., 2008), as well as links between gender, socioeconomic status, and academic performance and higher rates of office disciplinary referrals (ODRs) (Skiba et al., 1997). To gain insight into why students were expelled from school, Pomeroy (1999) conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 students, all permanently excluded from school, about their perceptions of their educational experience. The results highlighted a number of salient features of the school experience, one of which was the students’ relationships with teachers. The most consistent and common grievance was that teachers did not listen to students. The excluded students perceived teacher qualities as either fostering or hindering the development of positive relations, with disciplinary practice as a particularly significant set of interactions that affect relationships. The excluded students perceived the hierarchical social structure in which these relationships were formed and in which they operated as one in which students occupied the lowest position in the hierarchy while teachers were at the highest position. Smyth and Hattam (2004), referring to early school leavers, also listened to student voices, attempting to develop a new reading of what happens to students who leave school prematurely. Following earlier research (Freebody, Ludwig, & Gunn, 1994) they talk about interactive trouble e students being alienated by the experience of schooling because of a significant mismatch between their struggles to “become somebody” (Wexler, 1992) and the narrowly defined identity that schools expected. Arnold, Yeomans, and Simpson (2009) continued this line of thought and summarized an exploration of the cases of five young excludees and the experiences of a range of people who have a perspective on these school exclusions, namely: the child; their family; the excluding school; and the receiving unit. The primary issue, according to Parsons (2010), was the student’s unmet needs. The above reports, amongst others (Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008; McIntosh, Horner, et al., 2008), emphasize how important it is to do more to recognize students’ needs early, target these needs with appropriate and sustained interventions, and have layers of provision to ensure that a punitive, damaging, and quasilegal process of exclusion is not active. A summary of data on high-school dropout rates in Canada (Applied Research Branch, 2000) presented additional information on the characteristics of dropouts and the costs to society of dropping out of high school. According to this study, dropouts are underachievers, who, from the early grades exhibit misbehavior and disengagement from school. According to the Applied Research Branch study (2000), most of the excluded students came from disadvantaged minorities (e.g., Aboriginal youth in Canada), have difficulties adapting to the regular education system, and are considered a vulnerable part of society. Many countries impose legal limits upon the number and type of student exclusions. For example in one Australian state, principals can give short suspensions (up to 4 days) and long suspensions (up to 20 days). However, if the principal decides to impose more than two short suspensions on a student in any 12-month period, the school education director must be advised (New South Wales Department of Education and Training, 2011). Obviously, this is not the case for temporary but repeated isolations conducted within schools. Often the number of students excluded from class, such as those who provided data for this paper, is not necessarily recorded, nor commented on by ministries of education. Nevertheless,

872

R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878

temporary isolation out of class prevents the inclusion of these students in the normal classroom learning environment and may place a student at the beginning of a process that leads to expulsion, an effect that has already be commented on in the USA (McIntosh, Flannery, et al., 2008; McIntosh, Horner, et al., 2008). It is customary in many schools for a teacher to remove students from the room when they have misbehaved severely or repeatedly. It is our contention that this removal constitutes a significant experience for students, although the significance and impact will vary, depending on the student’s self-concept and sense of self-efficacy. For many students, such one-time removal will be a catalyst for improving their social and academic behavior, as they have the confidence and self-acceptance necessary to believe that they can rebuild a relationship of worth with the teacher and the class. However, there are students who have experienced repeated rejection, who frequently have serious educational disadvantages, often manifested in low grades and only partial literacy. For these students being sent out of class may represent further movement down a slippery slope. It can be experienced as an alienating occurrence, which may increase the student’s feelings of low self-worth, which, in turn, will be manifested as more misbehavior in class (Lewis & McCann, 2009). Alternately, academic failure may begin the process by leading the student to greater levels of task avoidance as task difficulty rises in later secondary schooling, leading to situations where students instigate behavior they know will lead to removal from class, with the resultant effect of more class time missed, even poorer academic performance, and greater task avoidance (McIntosh, Flannery, et al., 2008; McIntosh, Horner, et al., 2008). Whatever the reason and whatever the impact, it is relatively clear that a teacher has determined that an ‘excluded’ student has chosen to act in a socially inappropriate manner. Frequently the student has already indicated an unwillingness to submit to punishment. Consequently, removing him or her from the room can act as a way of providing some time for reflection. It can also provide an opportunity for a follow-up conversation during which teachers may challenge students’ actions and help them see the impact that their behavior has on others (Lewis, 2009). As stated above, it is important to note that a positive relationship has been shown to exist between such conversations and students’ developing sense of responsibility, as well as their attitudes to teachers and their schoolwork (Romi, Lewis, Roache, & Riley, 2011; Lewis et al., 2008). 2. The purpose of the present study As stated earlier, the purpose of the present study was to examine excluded students’ perceptions of their teacher’s behavior towards them prior to, during, and after the exclusion. The study was conducted as part of a small-scale evaluation preceding a Professional Development (PD) program conducted in eight secondary schools in the Northern Metropolitan Region (NMR) of Victoria, Australia. The program identifies a number of principles of management and some relevant skills central to the Developmental Management Approach (Lewis, 2009, 2011). The principles most relevant to this study highlight students’ rights and responsibilities and the need for teachers to stress these, in an adult manner, as a way of encouraging students to take responsibility for the negative impact their behavior has on other students’ safety or learning. Some specific skills include calmly asking students who repetitively act inappropriately, or who resist the teacher’s attempts to manage their behavior, to leave the classroom. Before an exclusion, teachers are to provide approximately three increasingly severe consequences for misbehavior. At the time of the exclusion they should explain that this is necessary to protect the learning and/or safety rights of others. After an exclusion the teacher is to conduct a follow-up discussion that again highlights the negative impact

the misbehaving student’s behavior had on his or her classmates. To gather information on the frequency with which these techniques were being utilized in schools in the NMR, prior to commencing the PD, a survey was designed to provide data on students’ perceptions of teachers’ use of such techniques. The survey also provided reasons for the exclusion to determine to what extent students were more likely to accept responsibility if teachers were using more of the recommended techniques described above. The validity of this type of data gains support from research using ODRs, the majority of which are initiated within a classroom setting. For similar reason as those evident in this study (Skiba et al., 1997), ODR data has shown itself to be a ‘useful metric’ (Sprague et al., 2001) for determining classroom behavior patterns (Irvin et al., 2006), for identifying which students require a given level of intervention (Hawken et al., 2008), and for predicting a range of future outcomes (McIntosh, Campbell, Russell Carter, & Dickey, 2009). Use of such data is not, though, without the risk of criticism. There remains the possibility for distortions resulting from the limitations inherent in ODRs practices themselves (Osher et al., 2010), from variations in cultural values held by teachers leading to inconsistent use and application (Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent, 2004), the over-representation of certain teachers in ODRs (Skiba et al., 1997), and the influence a student’s discipline history can have on their likelihood of receiving an ODR for a given behavior (Morrison et al., 2001). It must be noted that we recognize the differences that exist between the ‘excluded’ students considered in this study and comparable research into ODRs, even given the obvious links between them. According to McIntosh, Frank, and Spaulding (2010) teacher-completed ODRs measure (at their lowest level of inference) the rate of specific problem behaviors (e.g., fighting, disrespect) for both individual students and schools. ODRs are also considered indicators of student behavioral problems, particularly externalizing problem behavior (McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, & Zumbo, 2009; McIntosh, Flannery, et al., 2008; McIntosh, Horner, et al., 2008). In addition, they have been shown to be associated with broader social constructs (e.g., student and teacher perceptions of school climate, school engagement, classroom orderliness, effectiveness of school-wide intervention) and predictive of negative student outcomes (e.g., behavior disorders, delinquency, dropout, use of illegal substances, academic failure, family conflict; see Irvin et al., 2004). Critically for this study, and why the study is significant, ODRs do not express the student’s voice, a vital factor usually neglected in these cases, as well as failing to investigate the actual exiting process itself. 3. The study In summary, the current study examined excluded students’ perceptions of their teacher’s behavior towards them prior to, during, and after being sent from class, in a bid to firstly document the frequency with which they were used, and to determine which techniques were most successful in promoting student responsibility for the negative impact of their behavior. Consequently, the ‘excluded’ students commented on explanations provided by teachers, the punishments they received, and any follow-up discussions they were involved in. There were four research propositions addressed, namely; 1. Students who were provided an explanation prior to being asked to leave the room will be more likely to accept responsibility for the exclusion 2. Students who received either warning or punishment prior to being asked to leave the room will be more likely to accept responsibility for the exclusion

R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878

3. Students who had a follow-up discussion for a previous exclusion would be more likely to accept responsibility for the current exclusion 4. Students who, after prior exclusions participated in follow-up discussions which focused on the negative impact their behavior had on others would be more likely to accept responsibility for the current exclusion 4. Sample Students sent out of class in seven secondary schools in the Northern Metropolitan Region of Melbourne, Australia over a period of 2 months completed 302 exclusion questionnaires. Two of the authors were involved in a research project in those schools designed to improve relationships between students and teachers by having teachers modify their classroom management practices to be more consistent with those of the Developmental Management Approach (Lewis, 2009). Students completed forms for approximately two months in the second half of the school year. The participating schools returned between 8 and 109 forms, with an average (median) of 42. Of these forms, between 68% and 80% were completed by boys (depending on the grade), with the majority of excluded students coming from eighth, ninth, and seventh grades (35%, 30%, and 24% respectively, approximate ages being 13, 14, and 12 years respectively), and the remainder (11%) from tenth-grade students (aged approximately 15 years). There was some variation by school. For example, depending on the school, the proportion of forms completed by girls ranged from 2% to 33%, and in 4 of the schools most forms were completed by students in year 9 whereas in the another 2 schools the majority came from year 7 students, and in one school most forms came from year 10 students. It is important to note that the unit of analysis in this study is the exclusion form, not the student excluded. That is, a number of students were excluded more than once from class. The majority of students were excluded at least twice in the research period. To restrict sampling to one exclusion survey per student would distort the data as not all teachers who exclude a particular student treat him or her in the same manner, and even if the same teacher excludes a student on two or three occasions the manner in which this is done may vary. Consequently, because this exploratory study was aimed at capturing all exclusions provided by all teachers over a period of time, it was decided to consider all exclusions as units of data, as in total they provide a valid representation of the school culture, as it relates to exclusions. 5. Instruments In total there were four sections and 25 closed questions on the survey questionnaire. The first section contained 11 items, each outlining a reason why the exclusion occurred. Some of these were designed to focus on the impact of the student’s behavior on the safety of others (e.g. ‘I hurt the feelings of other students,’ or ‘I made other people feel unsafe’), their concentration (‘I distracted other students from their work,’ ‘I made too much noise’), the teacher (‘I made the teacher angry,’ ‘I argued with the teacher’) and passivity (‘I arrived late to class,’ ‘I did not have equipment for class’). All these items were assessed through the use of a four-point scale, progressing from Strongly Agree, through Agree and Disagree, to Strongly Disagree. The next section asked about how many punishments were received prior to the exclusion and whether an explanation was provided for it. The third section asked if the student had been asked to leave a classroom on an earlier occasion and if so, how many punishments were received prior to that exclusion and whether an explanation was provided.

873

Finally, the fourth section asked if there was a follow-up discussion after a prior exclusion, and if so, what was the nature of that discussion? In this section of the survey, some items focused on teachers emphasizing the impact of the student’s behavior on others (e.g. ‘tried to explain that you were stopping other kids from learning,’ or ‘making other kids feel uncomfortable’) or in contrast, the discussion took a different path (‘just told you off’). For these questions the response format was dichotomous (Yes or No). In most cases, the students answered the questionnaires while they were out of the classroom, during their exclusion period, so that they were handed the questionnaire when they arrived at either a ‘time-out’ room or a senior teacher’s room. In some schools, they collected a questionnaire from the school’s reception office. The administration staff then sent the student to a class at least two years above or below their own, where they sat quietly in the back until the end of the period. When teachers were present, or if questions returned unanswered, students were assisted to understand what was being asked of them. Because most questionnaires were completed shortly after students were sent out, it is likely that at least some students were still emotional when completing it, and their answers might have been different if they had been given time to calm down. Nevertheless, the data provide a valid assessment of the feelings and beliefs of the student at the time, and as such provide an insight into the life-long significance of being sent out of class.

6. Results 6.1. Reasons for a student being sent out of the classroom To commence, we examined the analysis of students’ support for 11 alternative explanations for being excluded. Table 1 lists (in order of agreement) the percentage of reports supporting or strongly supporting reasons provided as accurately explaining why the exclusion had taken place. Inspection of the data in Table 1 shows that of the seven most frequently selected reasons for being excluded, the most common five were associated with students’ perceptions of their negative interactions or relationships with teachers. In order of popularity these reasons included making the teacher angry, an assumption that the teacher hated them and picked on them, and arguing with, or ignoring teachers. The only other reasons attracting substantial percentages of students related to the negative impact that the behavior of the excluded student was having on other students’ learning. These alternative explanations were identified by approximately 35% of respondents. A smaller proportion (approximately 10%) indicated that the reason for being excluded was related to avoiding work or making other students feel unsafe or upset.

Table 1 Reasons for being excluded from class (N ¼ 302 reports). Items

%Agree/Strongly Agree

1. I made the teacher angry 2. The teacher hates me 3. The teacher just picks on me 4. I argued with the teacher 5. I ignored the teacher’s instructions 6. I distracted other students from their work 7. I made too much noise 8. I did not have equipment for class 9. I hurt the feelings of other students 10. I arrived late to class 11. I made other people feel unsafe

71 47 47 45 44 38 35 16 10 8 7

874

R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878

Having established why students thought they were asked to leave the classroom, the focus shifted to what management techniques students perceived their teacher to employ prior to demanding their departure. The techniques considered were consistent with those proposed by Developmental Management Approach (Lewis, 2009). These techniques included the provision of an explanation (based on the learning and safety needs of other students), a series of approximately three intermediate consequences prior to excluding students, and the provision of a followup conversation between excluded students and their teachers focusing on the impact of the student’s behavior on his or her classmates. Table 2 records the relevant data pertaining to explanations and intermediate punishments, taken from 302 excluding reports. As can be seen, 29% of reports noted the incidence of some punishment before the student was sent out. Just less than half of this group of students noted one such punishment, with 95% noting between one and three. For a little less than half of the exclusions the teacher provided an explanation of why it was necessary to send out the student. Having established the frequency of usage of explanations and intermediate punishments by teachers before they excluded misbehaving students, the second stage of the analysis examined the reliability of these findings by considering previous exits. Almost two thirds of the reports (66%) indicated that the teacher who had excluded the student on this occasion had done so before. Because it was assumed that students who had been sent out of class on at least one prior occasion may differ systematically from those who were sent out on only one occasion, the responses of these two groups were compared. Firstly the 11 reasons were used as dependent variables in a MANOVA for which being excluded on a prior occasion served as the independent variable. To permit such an analysis, the responses Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree were coded 4e1 respectively. Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the overall pattern of responses (F(11,294) ¼ 1.048, p ¼ 0.404), and none of the individual reasons showed significant differences for these groups of respondents. Secondly the perceptions of provision of punishments prior to the exclusion and reasons for it were compared for the two groups by conducting chi square analyses. Once again neither relationship was significant. Consequently it appears that there are no significant differences between students whose current exclusion is the first one, and those who have had at least one prior exclusion. This conclusion is, in part, supported by the data in Table 2, which show that the proportion of responses acknowledging that an explanation was provided for previous exits (48%) is quite similar to those reported above for the current exit (42%), thereby strengthening confidence in the findings. However, approximately 41% of reports noted the incidence of some punishment before the student was sent out on earlier occasions, compared to a significantly lower 29% for their current one (z ¼ 2.64, p < 0.01). However in interpreting this finding it needs to be also noted that 28% of

Table 2 Teacher’s behavior.

Reason as to why the student had to leave Punishments prior being told to leave Number of punishments received

Prior to current exit

Prior to earlier exit

Yes (42%) Yes (29%) 1(47%) 2(30%) 3(18%) 4(1%) >4(4%) (n ¼ 302)

Yes (48%) Yes (41%) 1(44%) 2(37%) 3(12%) 4(6%) >4(4%) (n ¼ 199)

students exited for the first time note the presence of punishments prior to their exit. These figures may indicate that as the school year progresses, teachers may be less likely to punish students before excluding them from class. 6.2. The follow-up conversation The remaining questions on the Exclusion questionnaire focused on whether the teacher followed up the earlier exclusions with a conversation, and if so, what were the characteristics of that conversation. Of the 199 students who had been excluded on an earlier occasion, 91 (46%) stated that a follow-up conversation took place. Table 3 reports (in order of agreement) the percentage of students who indicated that their teacher addressed each of the six elements listed during the follow-up conversation. The data presented indicates that teachers primarily attempt to help excluded students to acknowledge their wrong-doing. Approximately two thirds of the teachers also encourage excluded students to understand why their behavior was unacceptable and have them determine how to behave better; interestingly, these conversational elements are often perceived by the excluded student as “telling off.” About half of the conversations refer to the impact of the excluded student’s behavior on the learning of his or her classmates. In only 18% of conversations is the negative impact of students’ misbehavior on the wellbeing of other students raised. Having documented excluded students’ perceptions of their treatment both before and after being sent from the classroom, the remainder of this paper will attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of these techniques in fostering a sense of responsibility in exited students. 6.3. Excluded students’ sense of responsibility To commence this part of the analysis, students’ support for alternative explanations for being excluded were subjected to factor analysis to determine whether a number of factors could account for the patterns of students’ responses. For the purposes of this analysis, the response alternative of Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree were coded to from 4 through to 1 respectively. A principle component analysis, with oblique (Oblimin) rotation was used as any dimensions were assumed related. The Scree test (Cattell, 1966) indicated that a two-factor solution explaining 43% of variance was optimal. Table 4 reports the questionnaire items and their loadings on each of the two factors. Based on the two-factor solution outlined in Table 4, two scales were developed. The first comprised items 1e9, all of which indicate that the student took responsibility for the exclusion, and therefore the scale was called Student Responsible. In contrast, the second scale comprised items 10 and 11, which suggest that the exclusion had little to do with the student or his or her behavior. Consequently, this scale was called Teacher’s Fault. Table 5 reports

Table 3 Teacher’s behavior during the follow-up conversation (N ¼ 91). Characteristics

% Yes

Attempt to help student see that he/she had done the wrong thing Attempt to help student to understand his unacceptable behavior Attempt to help student to work out a better behavior Just told the student off Attempt to explain that student’s behavior stopped other kids from learning Attempt to explain that student’s behavior made other kids uncomfortable

83% 68% 65% 63% 53% 18%

R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878 Table 4 Two-pattern solution for exit reasons.

875

Table 6 Relationship between teacher ‘excluding’ behavior and student responsibility.

Items

Factor loadings

1. I made other people feel unsafe 2. I distracted other students from their work 3. I hurt the feelings of other students 4. I made too much noise 5. I did not have equipment for class 6. I ignored the teacher’s instructions 7. I made the teacher angry 8. I argued with the teacher 9. I arrived late to class 10. The teacher just picks on me 11. The teacher hates me

N

Factor 1

Factor 2

0.648 0.673 0.661 0.663 0.419 0.570 0.547 0.479 0.349 0.076 0.025

0.079 0.258 0.050 0.184 0.192 0.077 0.028 0.227 0.141 0.901 0.891

each scale’s mean, average item mean, standard deviation, and indicator of internal consistency (Cronbach Alpha). Inspection of the statistics shows negatively skewed scale distributions, with relatively low average item means. Students disagree with both sets of reasons. Nevertheless, the scales display reasonable variance and have good reliability. These two scales were used to examine the effectiveness of various teacher classroom management behaviors. First, Student Responsible and Teacher’s Fault were used as dependent variables in analyses which examined the relationship between the extent to which students see themselves and/or the teacher as responsible, and perception of a number of teacher behaviors, namely giving an explanation and prior punishment, for the current and previous exclusions, as well as a providing a follow-up talk after earlier exclusions. The results of these independent t tests are reported in Table 6, which reports numbers in groups, means, standard errors, t values, probability estimates and effect size estimates (Cohen’s d) in parentheses for statistically significant differences. Inspection of the results of the t tests in Table 6 show that students who report that they received an explanation as to why they were told to leave the classroom are significantly more likely to take responsibility for the exclusion (p ¼ 0.003[d ¼ 0.42]), and less likely to blame the teacher (p < 0.000[d ¼ 0.60]), compared to those who did not receive an explanation. Students were also more likely to take responsibility for their exclusion if they thought that they had received other punishments prior to being excluded (p < 0.001[d ¼ 0.56]), although prior punishments did not relate to whether the teacher was seen at fault (p ¼ 0.292). A one-way Analysis of Variance showed that the number of punishments did not significantly predict students’ acceptance of responsibility for being sent out of the room. The results of independent t tests show that students who believe that on previous occasions they received an explanation as to why they had been excluded are significantly more likely to have taken responsibility for the current exclusion (p < 0.005[d ¼ 0.44]). They are less likely to blame the teacher (p < 0.000[d ¼ 0.87]) than those who did not receive an explanation. Students were also more likely to take responsibility for their exclusion if they thought that they had been punished prior to the exiting (p ¼ 0.009[d ¼ 0.42]), although prior punishments did not relate to whether the teacher was seen at fault (p ¼ 0.469[d ¼ 0.41]). The students who had conversations with

Mean

Received explanation for exclusion Teachers’ fault Yes 129 2.72 No 179 2.24 Student’s Yes 127 2.10 responsibility No 176 1.92

SE mean

T value

df

Prob (d)

0.098 0.056 0.050 0.034

4.49

308

0.000(0.60)

3.00

303

0.003(0.42)

1.055

310

0.292

4.218

303

0.000(0.56)

5.864

177

0.000(0.87)

2.834

172

0.005(0.44)

0.726

174

0.469

2.652

169

0.009(0.42)

1.146

177

0.254

2.928

173

0.004(0.47)

Received punishments before exclusion Teachers’ fault Yes 95 2.35 0.095 No 217 2.47 0.065 Student’s Yes 89 2.29 0.046 responsibility No 216 1.92 0.036 Received explanation for prior Teachers’ fault Yes 86 No 93 Student’s Yes 82 responsibility No 92

exclusion 2.16 2.92 2.13 1.91

0.096 0.088 0.054 0.055

Received punishments before prior exclusion Teachers’ fault Yes 74 2.48 0.105 No 102 2.58 0.095 Student’s Yes 70 2.12 0.061 responsibility No 101 1.92 0.046 Received follow-up talk Teachers’ fault Yes No Student’s Yes responsibility No

64 115 61 114

2.45 2.62 2.15 1.92

0.126 0.084 0.066 0.043

a teacher following previous exclusions were more likely to take responsibility for the current exclusion (p ¼ 0.004[d ¼ 0.47]), but were not less likely to blame their teacher (p ¼ 0.254). In general the Cohen’s d values indicate the effect sizes of statistically significant relationships are moderate. Table 7 records the relationship between the extent to which students see themselves and/or the teacher as responsible, and a number of aspects characterizing, in part, the nature of the follow-up conversations. It reports numbers in groups, means, standard errors, t values, probability estimates and effect size estimates (Cohen’s d [pooled variance]) in parentheses. Students who were more willing to take responsibility for the current exclusion noted that teachers had explained that their misbehavior prevented other students from learning (p ¼ 0.023 [d ¼ 0.1]), or made them feel uncomfortable (p ¼ 0.011[d ¼ 0.73]) and tried to help them see they had done the wrong thing (p ¼ 0.05 [d ¼ 0.74]. In contrast, students were less willing to blame their teacher if he or she had tried to help them understand that they had done the wrong thing (p ¼ 0.001[d ¼ 1.23]), if they understood why their behavior was unacceptable (p < 0.000[d ¼ 1.07]), and if the teacher had them work out a better way to behave (p ¼ 0.006 [d ¼ 0.76]). If, however, the teacher just told them off during earlier follow-up conversations, students were more likely to blame the teacher for the current exclusion (p ¼ 0.002[d ¼ 0.89]). Yet, although students were less likely to blame teachers, they were not more likely to take responsibility (p ¼ 0.269). In general the Cohen’s d values indicate the effect sizes of statistically significant relationships are moderate to strong. 7. Discussion

Table 5 Statistical properties of exclusion reason scales. Scale

No. of items

Mean

Average item mean

SD

Cronbach a

Student’s responsibility Teacher’s fault

9 2

17.93 4.88

2.00 2.44

4.61 1.91

0.72 0.83

As shown in Table 1, students view 71% of exclusions as being characterized by teachers’ anger. Whether teachers are genuinely angry, or whether students think that anyone who disagrees or potentially embarrasses them by sending them out is angry, cannot be discerned. However, recent research into teacher aggression

876

R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878

Table 7 Relationship between aspects of teacher ‘discussion’ behavior and student responsibility. N

Mean

SE mean

T value

df

Prob (d)

Tried to help you to understand why your behavior was unacceptable Teachers’ fault Yes 41 2.90 0.140 3.90 58 0.000(1.07) No 19 1.92 0.214 Student’s Yes 38 2.8421 0.07550 0.32 55 0.753 responsibility No 19 2.8889 0.14594 Tried to explain that you were stopping Teachers’ fault Yes 41 2.9024 No 19 1.9211 Student’s Yes 38 2.8421 responsibility No 19 2.8889

other kids from learning 0.095 0.86 57 0.065 0.046 2.34 54 0.036

0.393 0.023(0.10)

Tried to explain that you were making other kids feel uncomfortable Teachers’ fault Yes 11 2.6818 0.33893 0.325 58 0.746 No 49 2.5714 0.14211 Student’s Yes 11 2.5051 0.21260 2.62 55 0.011(0.73) responsibility No 46 2.9420 0.06468 Tried to help you see you had Teachers’ fault Yes 50 No 10 Student’s Yes 47 responsibility No 10 Tried to get you to work Teachers’ fault Yes No Student’s Yes responsibility No Just told you off Teachers’ fault Student’s responsibility

Yes No Yes No

done the 2.7800 1.6500 2.7943 3.1556

wrong thing 0.13106 0.353 0.28916 0.07458 2.04 0.15731

58

0.001(1.23)

55

0.046(0.74)

58

0.006(0.76)

55

0.252

3.25

60

0.002(0.89)

1.12

57

0.269

out a better way to behave 41 2.83 0.135 2.83 19 2.079 0.260 39 2.80 0.071 1.16 18 2.9753 0.156

39 23 37 22

2.2308 3.0435 2.9249 2.7677

0.167 0.160 0.084 0.115

towards students (Romi et al., 2011) notes that in Australia, the proportion of teachers who report that they sometimes yell in anger at misbehaving students is 37%, with 45% saying they use sarcasm to the same extent. The equivalent data for students who claim that teachers are angry and sarcastic was 64% and 50% respectively. This study also reports the damage that such teacher behavior has on their relationships with students and on the students’ ability to focus on their schoolwork. Given that excluded students represent extreme cases, it is likely that anger is often present as well. From the data reported earlier, it seems that teachers frequently act in ways that may damage their relationships with challenging students (Boynton & Boynton, 2005). Of the students instructed to leave class, 58% did not recall being given an explanation for why they had to leave. They also reported that only 29% of the teachers seemed to be calm while sending them out. At the same time, it seems that teacher’s anger and aggression not only further provokes misbehavior, it also fails to deliver responsible behavior (Lewis, 2001; Roache & Lewis, 2011; Sprague et al., 2001). Approximately 45% of the excluded students feel hated and picked on, whilst 60e70% failed to note any prior punishments or warnings and so may have felt suddenly rejected. About half of the students who were sent out did not have a follow-up conversation with the teacher to mend the relationship and, unfortunately, of those who did have a conversation, 63% felt they had been “told off” again. The only noticeable difference between teacher behavior associated with the current exclusion and previous exclusions is that approximately 41% of reports noted the incidence of some punishment before the student was sent out on prior occasions.

This figure is significantly higher (z ¼ 2.64, p < 0.01) than the 29% observed for the current exclusion. However, as noted above, there are no significant differences between the perceptions of students whose current exclusion is the first one, and those who have had at least one prior exclusion, as to the provision of punishments prior to the current exclusion. Consequently it is possible that as the school year progresses, teachers may be less likely to punish students before excluding them from class. This could be related to fatigue or a developing sense of frustration, or a belief that earlier excluding is more efficient and better for both the remaining students and the teacher. In summary, the data show that there appear to be teacher behaviors that increase the likelihood that excluded students will take more responsibility for being sent out of class. These behaviors include providing an explanation, giving warnings or punishments before sending students from the class, and conducting a follow-up conversation with the excluded student. The follow-up conversation should highlight the negative impact the excluded students’ misbehavior had on the learning and wellbeing of other students. A number of management techniques also reduce the likelihood that students will blame their teachers for being sent from class. To avoid being blamed for the exclusion, teachers should explain why the student had to leave the room, talk with student later, highlight why the student had done the wrong thing and why it was unacceptable, and have the student work out a better way to behave. In addition, teachers should avoid just “telling the student off.” Consideration of how often students perceive that teachers utilize these productive management techniques highlights some interesting findings. Despite the apparent value in providing an explanation when sending a student from class, teachers explained their reasons on fewer than half of the exclusions. In most cases, a student who is sent out has resisted the teacher’s authority by repeatedly misbehaving, resisting the teacher, or engaging in very serious misbehavior. Such incidents are generally at the extreme end of classroom management interactions and, as such, can challenge and frustrate teachers, leading to possible over-reaction (a contention supported by Skiba et al., 1997). It is therefore understandable that most teachers may find it difficult to remain calm when dealing with such incidents. It is relevant to note that in 71% of exclusions, students report that one of the reasons they were sent out is because they made the teacher angry, whilst approximately 45% claimed that they were excluded because they think the teacher hates them. As explained above, students’ perceptions at such an emotional moment may be less than accurate. Clearly, when an adult assertively disagrees with an adolescent, the adult may be accused of yelling at them. Nevertheless, it is these perceptions that affect them and their subsequent behavior. At the same time, it is noteworthy that many teachers perceive that they yell at students who misbehave (Riley, Lewis, & Brew, 2010). The results of this investigation indicate that it appears important for teachers to calmly identify why a student has to leave the classroom when an exclusion is necessary. For example, a teacher may need to say something like: “Jason, your behavior is making it too difficult for the other students to concentrate on their work, and makes some students feel very uncomfortable. Therefore please leave the class. Go to [school office, teachers’ hall, lower-grade class, etc.] and we will catch up later for a chat.” Other findings reported above would support references to the rights of other students to learn or be safe as a useful motivation. If such statements are uttered in a calm adult voice, they are more likely to be heard. In contrast, if they were said aggressively, a student who has suffered from abuse at home may experience transference (van der Kolk, 2005) and react badly, perceiving hatred and rejection. This is of particular concern given the links between repeat office referrals in the USA and

R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878

reduction in student optimism for the future, and higher levels of family conflict (Morrison et al., 2001). Teachers may need ongoing support to act professionally at such challenging times. Before a teacher resorts to excluding students, it is appropriate to give them some form of intermediate penalty (name on board, moving to another seat, etc.). The present study shows that students perceive that 30e40% of exclusions are preceded by a penalty. To increase the likelihood of a penalty preceding an exclusion teachers may need to ensure that they have a transparent system of steps before excluding students. It may even be useful for the school to develop exclusion forms on which teachers can record the steps they took prior to asking the student to leave the room. This could provide a focus point for later conversations with excluded students, as well as an opportunity for teachers to gather useful data in the form of direct behavior ratings (Riley-Tillman, Chafouleas, Sassu, Chanese, & Glazer, 2008). As indicated in earlier research (Lewis et al., 2008; Romi et al., 2009) follow-up conversations can be very productive in fostering students’ responsibility for their actions. Students perceived less than half of the exclusions to be followed by a talk, so there may be a need to provide schools with school-wide support systems to facilitate this process, as well as coaching to see that the teacher avoids the tendency to simply admonish the student. The findings support a descriptive emphasis in such conversations, focusing on the impact of the student’s behavior on his or her friends’ learning or safety, rather than having a judgmental or negative evaluative tone (a position also held by those who advocate programs of School-wide Positive Behavioral Support and Social Emotional Learning; see Osher et al., 2010). In summary, the results of this investigation appear very consistent with recent research into the impact of various classroom management techniques. We are getting an increasingly clear idea of what techniques are productive in reducing misbehavior, promoting responsibility, promoting interest in learning and reducing distraction (Roache & Lewis, 2011; Stichter et al., 2009). It is now incumbent upon schools to encourage teachers to provide hints, warnings and a short series of consequences prior to excluding a student from the classroom. They should also explain to students that the reason for their exclusion is the impact their misbehavior is having on the learning and/or safety of other students. This negative impact should also act as the focus for a mandatory follow-up conversation conducted by the classroom teacher. As a result of teachers’ implementation of such techniques, it is likely that, rather than setting out on a slippery slope of exclusion and underachievement, excluded students may be successfully reintegrated into their classes by accepting the impact their misbehavior has on their peers and through becoming more responsible. 8. Limitations As indicated earlier, students normally completed their surveys shortly after they had been sent from class. Consequently their perceptions may be less critical and more accurate, if they were asked to complete their survey 2 days later, after they calmed down. The second limitation applies to all studies which are based solely on student survey data. In the absence of interviews or observations there is no way to examine the validity of their responses to the questionnaire. A third limitation applies to the data. It is possible that a small number of teachers in a school were responsible for generating a large number of exit forms. It is also possible, if not probable, that these teachers’ behavior may not be representative of that of all the teachers in their respective schools. However, because the schools participating in this study wished to provide anonymity for teachers, it is not possible to investigate this issue.

877

References Applied Research Branch. (2000). Dropping out of high school: Definitions and costs, SP-4 67-01-02E R-01-1E. Canada: Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development. Arnold, C., Yeomans, J., & Simpson, S. (2009). Excluded from school: Complex discourses and psychological perspectives. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham. Boynton, M., & Boynton, C. (2005). Educator’s guide to preventing and solving discipline. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245e276. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of classroom management, research, practice and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Freebody, P., Ludwig, C., & Gunn, S. (1994). Everyday literacy practices in and out of schools in low socio-economic urban communities. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. (Executive Summary). Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27(2), 177e196. Hardman, E. L., & Smith, S. W. (2003). Analysis of classroom discipline-related content in elementary education journals. Behavioral Disorders, 28(2), 173e186. Hawken, L., Vincent, C., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for social behavior: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16(4), 213e225. Imich, A. (1996). Exclusion from school. Health Education, 4, 28e31. Irvin, L., Horner, R., Ingram, K., Todd, A., Sugai, G., Sampson, N., et al. (2006). Using office discipline referral data for decision making about student behavior in elementary and middle schools: an empirical evaluation of validity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 10e23. Irvin, L., Tobin, T., Sprague, J., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. (2004). Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3), 131e147. Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The student’s view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 307e319. Lewis, R. (2009). Understanding pupil behaviour. Classroom Management Techniques for teachers. NewYork: Routledge. Lewis, R., & McCann, P. (2009). Teaching “At risk” students: Meeting their needs. In L. J. Saha, & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching (pp. 875e885). New York: Springer. Lewis, R., Romi, S., Katz, Y. J., & Qui, X. (2008). Students reactions to teachers’ classroom discipline in Australia, China, and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 715e724. Liu, X., & Meyer, J. P. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of their jobs: a multi-level analysis of the teacher follow-up survey for 1994-5. Teachers’ College Record, 107(5), 985e1003. Macciomei, N. R. (1999). Behavioral problems in urban school children. In N. R. Macciomei, & D. H. Ruben (Eds.), Behavior management in the public schools: An urban approach (pp. 3e18). Westport, CT: Praeger. McIntosh, K., Campbell, A., Russell Carter, D., & Dickey, C. (2009). Differential effects of a tier two behavior intervention based on function of problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(2), 82e93. McIntosh, K., Campbell, A., Russell Carter, D., & Zumbo, B. (2009). Concurrent validity of office discipline referrals and cut points used in school wide positive behavior support. Behavioral Disorders, 34(2), 100e113. McIntosh, K., Flannery, K., Sugai, G., Braun, D., & Cochrane, K. (2008). Relationships between academics and problem behavior in the transition from middle school to high school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(4), 243e255. McIntosh, K., Frank, J., & Spaulding, S. (2010). Establishing research-based trajectories of office discipline referrals for individual students. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 380e394. McIntosh, K., Horner, R., Chard, D., Dickey, C., & Braun, D. (2008). Reading skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. The Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 131e147. Macrae, S., Maguire, M., & Milbourne, L. (2003). Social exclusion: exclusion from school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(2), 89e101. Morrison, G. M., Anthony, S., Storino, M., & Dillon, C. (2001). An examination of the disciplinary histories and the individual and educational characteristics of students who participate in an in-school suspension program. Education & Treatment of Children, 24(3), 276e293. Newman, R. S. (2000). Social influence on the development of children’s adaptive help seeking: the role of parents, teachers, and peers. Developmental Review, 20(3), 350e404. NSW Department of Education and Training. (2011). Suspension and expulsion of school students e Procedures. https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_ serv/discipline/stu_discip_gov/suspol_07.pdf. O’Connor, E. (2010). Teacherechild relationships as dynamic systems. Journal of School Psychology, 48(2), 187e218. Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48e58. Pane, D. M. (2010). Viewing classroom discipline as negotiable social interaction: a communities of practice perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 87e97.

878

R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 870e878

Parsons, C. (2010). Excluded from school: complex discourses and psychological perspectives. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 109e110. Pianta, R. C. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers: implications for research and practice. In C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management, research, practices and contemporary issues (pp. 685e709). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pomeroy, E. (1999). The teacherestudent relationship in secondary school: insights from excluded students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(4), 465e482. Riley-Tillman, C. T., Chafouleas, S., Sassu, K., Chanese, J., & Glazer, A. (2008). Examining the agreement of direct behavior ratings and systematic direct observation data for on-task and disruptive behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(2), 136e143. Riley, P., Lewis, R., & Brew, C. (2010). Why did you do that? Teachers explain the use of legal aggression in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 957e964. Roache, J. E., & Lewis, R. (2011). The carrot, the stick, or the realationship: What are the effective disciplinary strategies? European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 233e248. Romi, S., Lewis, R., & Katz, Y. (2009). Student responsibility and classroom discipline in Australia, China and Israel. Compare, 39(4), 439e452. Romi, S., Lewis, R., Roache, J., & Riley, P. (2011). The impact of teachers’ aggressive management techniques on students’ attitudes to schoolwork. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 231e240. Schlosser, L. K. (1992). Teacher distance and student disengagement: school lives on the margin. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2), 128e140. Sheets, R. H. (1996). Urban classroom conflict: studenteteacher perception: ethnic integrity, solidarity, and resistance. The Urban Review, 28(2), 165e183. Sheets, R. H. (2002). “You’re just a kid that’s there” e Chicano perception of disciplinary events. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(2), 105e122. Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 295e315.

Smyth, J., & Hattam, R. (2004). In J. L. DeVitis, & L. Irwin-DeVitis (Eds.), ACSS (Adolescent, Cultures, School & Society). ‘Dropping out’, Drifting off, being excluded, becoming somebody without school, Vol. 22. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. (with Cannon, J. Edwards, J. Wilson, N. & Wurst, S.). Sprague, J., & Walker, H. (2000). Early identification and intervention for youth with antisocial and violent behavior. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 367e379. Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, T., et al. (2001). Translating research into effective practice: the effects of a universal staff and student intervention on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education & Treatment of Children, 24(4), 495e511. Stichter, J., Lewis, T., Whittaker, T., Richter, M., Johnson, N., & Trusse, R. (2009). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management strategies: comparisons among high- and low-risk elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(2), 68e81. Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston, I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(2), 196e203. Thorson, S. (1996). The missing link: students discuss school discipline. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(3), 1e12. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). National longitudinal survey of youth 1997. Retrieved February 18, 2003, from. http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy97.htm. Van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 401e408. Welsh, P. (1999). Managing Inclusion: the challenge of exclusion and truancy. Management in Education, 3(2), 16e17. Wentzel, K. (2003). School adjustment. In W. Reynolds, & G. Miller (Eds.), Educational psychology. Handbook of psychology, Vol. 7 (pp. 235e258). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Wexler, P. (1992). Becoming somebody: Towards a social psychology of the school. London: Palmer Press. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Weinstein, C. (2006). Student and teacher perspectives on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management, research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 181e219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.