The Impact of School Experiences on African American Children

7/31/2019 The Impact of School Experiences on African American Children

1/26

School Experiences 1

Running head: IMPACT OF SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

The impact of school experiences on the behavior

of African American Children

Samuel J. Maddox

Clayton State University

Morrow, GA


2/26


Abstract

Because of various factors including historical injustices with African Americans and the

educational system and the disproportionate representation of African Americans in low-income

schools, there is a perception that African American children have less positive school

experiences than their white counterparts. Observed racial differences in antisocial behavior are

often attributed to African American students poor bonds with school.

The current study attempts to explore this issue by examining how various aspects of the

school experiences of African American elementary school children impact their attitudes toward

antisocial behavior and their self-reported antisocial behavior. The sample consisted of seventy,

African American, 3rd

-5th

grade students in a predominantly African American school district in

the southeast. Results revealed significant correlations between the students bonds to their

school, attitudes toward delinquency and self-reported conduct problems. In addition, regression

analyses revealed that the effect of school bonding on conduct problems was mediated by

changes in attitudes toward delinquency. These models support the theory that positive school

experiences can serve as a protective factor through its impact on student attitudes.

Keywords: School Bonding, African American Children, Conduct Problems, Delinquency


3/26


The impact of school experiences on the behavior

of African American Children

Introduction

Theory and research have consistently identified negative school experiences as a major

risk factor for a variety of negative life outcomes (Bryant, Schulenberg, OMalley, Bachman, &

Johnston, 2003; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Maddox & Prinz, 2003). Factors that have been

associated with negative school experiences include academic failure, school dropout, conduct

problems, and even more serious problems such as substance use and delinquency (Cernkovich

& Giordano, 1992; Crusto, 2000; Danziger, 1995; Eggert, Thompson, Herting, Nicholas, &

Dicker, 1994; Simons-Morton, Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1999). The two aspects of the school

experience that have been shown to be influential are the students connection to the school

(often referred to as school bonding) and the atmosphere of the school itself (school climate). In

their literature review, Maddox & Prinz (2003) separated the concept of school bonding into four

major theoretical dimensions. Attachment to school refers to the students connection to the

institution. Students who are high in this dimension report feeling as if they belong at the school,

having pride in their school, and feeling safe at their school. The second dimension, attachment

to personnel, refers to interpersonal connections between the student and school staff/personnel

(Maddox & Prinz, 2003). This theoretical dimension has also been referred to as attachment to

teachers or teacher-student interaction (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Maddox & Prinz,

2003). Elevations in attachment to personnel suggest that the student perceives positive

interaction between her and various school personnel (teachers, administrators, coaches,

counselors) and receives support from these individuals (Maddox & Prinz, 2003).


4/26


The third dimension of school bonding identified by Maddox & Prinz (2003) is school

commitment and refers to the students acceptance of the goals, norms and morals of the school

specifically and academic ideals in general. A student high in this dimension would endorse the

belief that doing well in school is important because it will help them build a better future.

Finally school involvement was identified as the fourth dimension of school bonding. According

to Maddox & Prinz (2003) school involvement represents actual participation in school activities

and events. This dimension is usually more objective than the other dimensions in that it is often

based on actual frequencies of participation (e.g. # of school events attended or # of hours

participating in a club) instead of self-reported perceptions.

Limitations with School Bonding Research

Although Maddox & Prinz (2003) offer a good theoretical foundation for the concept of

school bonding, their literature review comes from research primarily conducted on adolescents

(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Hirschi, 1969; Simons-Morton et. al., 1999). This is an

unfortunate limitation of school bonding research in general. With the notable exception of the

work of Murray and Greenberg (2000,2001), Hawkins et al. (2001), Catalano et al. (2003), and

Murray and Murray (2004) most school bonding research is based on adolescents. This

phenomena occurs because many of the outcomes linked to school bonding (e.g. sexual behavior

and pregnancy, delinquency, dropout and substance use) occur with higher frequency during

adolescence (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Crusto, 2000; Danziger, 1995; Eggert, Thompson,

Herting, Nicholas, & Dicker, 1994; Simons-Morton, Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1999). As a

result, there is less information about the course and development of school bonding in pre-

adolescents.


5/26


Although the Maddox & Prinz (2003) model is useful in conceptualizing school bonding

it is important to examine whether it accurately depicts the bonds of students prior to

adolescence. Examining school bonding in an elementary school sample for example can serve

two major purposes. First, it will help to identify the course and development of school bonding

throughout childhood, thus contributing to the scientific literature on the construct. More

importantly, a better understanding of the course and development of school bonding can provide

better strategies for early intervention since research has consistently identified that school

bonding can be improved through school-based interventions (Eggert et al., 1994; Hawkins, Guo,

Hill, Battin-Pearson, & Abbott, 2001; Simons-Morton et al., 1999). Interventions such as the

Families in Action program (Pilgrim, Abbey, Hendrickson, & Lorenz, 1998), the Personal

Growth Class (Eggert & Kumpfer, 1997; Eggert et al., 1994), Raising Healthy Children

(Catalano et al., 2003), and the Seattle Social Development Project (Hawkins et al., 2001) which

increased school bonding in participants have been shown to reduce the onset of adverse life

outcomes. Therefore, school bonding can serve both as a marker to identify youth who are at risk

for adverse outcomes and as a target for intervention to prevent the initiation of behaviors that

lead to adverse outcomes.

One major issue that arises when examining school bonding in an elementary school

sample is the fact that many of the outcomes linked to school bonding do not occur with great

frequency prior to adolescence (Simons-Morton et al., 1999). For example, outcomes such as

delinquency and substance use will be hard to assess in an elementary school sample because of

its lower rate of occurrence in this population. Therefore, to examine school bonding in an

elementary sample, identifying outcomes of more developmental significance to elementary

school students will be necessary. Although identifying developmentally appropriate outcomes


6/26


for elementary students that are analogous to outcomes for adolescents may appear to be a

daunting task initially, the concept ofcontinuity offers some hope.

Continuity is a common term used in the filed of developmental psychopathology. It

refers to the concept that some individuals who experience psychological dysfunction have a

previous pattern of behavior that, although different in its manifestation, is reflective of the

current level of dysfunction (Mash & Wolfe, 2005). For example, an individual who is engaging

in criminal behavior may have a history of delinquency in adolescence, conduct problems in

elementary school, and non-compliant or aggressive behavior in preschool. The concept of

continuity argues that these patterns of behaviors early in life can be indicators of later

dysfunction (Mash & Wolfe, 2005).

Consistent with concept of continuity, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) developed what is

referred to as a general theory of crime. The general theory of crime posits that behaviors such as

delinquency, substance use, and risky behaviors are not separate entities but sequelae of the same

construct: low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Similar to continuity, the general

theory of crime proposes that a child with low self-control will display behavioral problems

throughout the lifespan albeit in different forms depending on their age. This theory is consistent

with research that shows that behaviors such as delinquency, substance use, and unsafe sexual

activity tend to co-occur (Stattin & Magnusson, 1996).

Based on the concept of continuity and the assertion of the general theory of crime

(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), it is possible to identify developmentally appropriate outcomes

for elementary school children and link them to school bonding. Essentially research has

established school bondings link to outcomes for adolescents such as delinquency, substance

use, etc. (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Crusto, 2000; Danziger, 1995; Eggert, Thompson,


7/26


Herting, Nicholas, & Dicker, 1994; Simons-Morton, Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1999). The

general theory of crime and the concept of continuity argue that these same behaviors are present

prior to adolescence just in different forms. Based on this reasoning it can be assumed that the

same relationship between school bonding and negative outcomes for adolescents should exist

between school bonding and analogous outcomes for elementary school children. Research by

Blankmeyer, Flannery, and Vazsonyi (2002) and studies by Murray and Greenberg (2000, 2001)

identify possible analogous outcomes that are more salient for this population, including

antisocial behavior, anxiety, some milder forms of delinquency, and academic performance.

According to the theories (Mash & Wolfe, 2005; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) and

research (Blankmeyer, Flannery, & Vazsonyi, 2002; Murray & Greenberg, 2000, 2001), school

bondings relationship to these outcomes in elementary school children should mirror the

relationships found in the adolescent research. For example, Murray and Greenberg (2000, 2001)

examined the relationship of school bonding variables to various outcomes for fifth and sixth

grade students (N= 289) with and without disabilities found significant relationship between

school bonding variables and conduct problems. Their conceptualization of school bonding

included the dimensions, affiliation with teacher, dissatisfaction with teacher, bonds with school

and school dangerousness. Using the Seattle Personality Questionnaire for Children (Greenberg

& Kusche, 1990), they assessed conduct problems in their sample. They found that higher levels

of dissatisfaction with teacher and school dangerousness were associated with higher reports of

conduct problems (Murray & Greenberg, 2001). In a previous study (Murray & Greenberg,

2000) they found that all of their dimensions of school bonding were significantly related to

conduct problems.


8/26


Similarly, Blankmeyer et al. (2002) conducted a study with third through fifth grade

students (N=1432) and found that aggression and poor school adjustment were associated with

more negative attachment to school personnel. There was also an interaction effect that revealed

that aggressive children with poor school adjustment had more negative attachment to personnel

than children who were just aggressive. These findings are consistent with adolescent research

showing an inverse relationship between school bonding and antisocial behavior (Bryant,

Schulenberg, Bachman, O'Malley, & Johnston, 2000; Demaray & Malecki, 2002; Malecki &

Demaray, 2002).

Because of research by Murray and Greenberg (2000, 2001) and Blankmeyer et al.

(2002) it has been established that school bonding does play a significant role in the outcomes of

elementary school children. It also appears that school bonding operates in a similar fashion for

pre-adolescents as it does for adolescents. These results are important because it suggests that the

development and manifestation of negative behavioral outcomes follow a consistent path from

childhood through adolescence. Although identifying these outcomes for pre-adolescents will

overcome the major limitations of school bonding research, the next step will involve a deeper

understanding of how school bonding impacts these outcomes and demographic variables that

may moderate this impact.

Mediators and Moderators of School Bonding

School bondings relationship to behavioral outcomes is well-established, but the process

by which school bonding operates deserves further attention. Catalano and Hawkins (1996) and

Hawkins and Lishner (1987) proposed through the Seattle Social Development Model (SSDM)

an explanation of how school bonding might influence the behavioral outcomes. According to

the SSDM bonds to school should promote a belief system that is incompatible with antisocial


9/26


behavior and thus deter individuals from engaging in this behavior. Because antisocial behaviors

can jeopardize a students membership in school, students who are highly committed to school

will be less likely to endorse antisocial attitudes (Murray & Greenberg, 2001). This relationship

suggests that school bondings impact on behavioral outcomes may be mediated by the students

belief system. Examination of how school bonding influences students beliefs and attitudes,

which later impact their behavioral outcomes can offer valuable information about how to

strengthen and enhance the impact of school bonding for elementary school children.

In addition to examining how attitudes and beliefs serve as a mediator for the relationship

between school bonding and behavioral outcomes school bonding research would also benefit

from understand potential moderators of this relationship. Demographic variables such as gender

and race have frequently been identified as moderators of school bonding. This relationship is

not surprising given that there are gender and race disparities in life outcomes in general.

Although gender differences in behavioral outcomes for American youth are often attributed to

the interaction between biological constitution and socialization, school experiences have been

posited to be a contributing factor to the disparity between African American students and their

White counterparts (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Hunt & Hunt 1977; Tyson 2002). Poorer

bonds to school for African American students have been attributed to various factors including

historical injustices with African Americans and the educational system and the disproportionate

representation of African Americans in low-income schools (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986).

Although there are sound theoretical arguments and some research support suggesting

that negative school experiences may account for the aforementioned racial disparities, there is

some question of whether the school experiences of African American children are accurately

portrayed in the literature. As Tyson (2002) points out the perception of the African American


10/26


student who dislikes school and his teachers is largely based on the oppositional attitudes of

African American adolescents presented in the media. One issue with this representation is that

most adolescents, regardless or race tend to develop oppositional attitudes toward school.

Whether or not these oppositional attitudes and related negative school experiences are accurate

for elementary school children is still not clear. In fact Tyson (2002)s ethnographic study

revealed that African American elementary school students did display positive attitudes toward

their school experiences. Findings such as this suggest that school bonding research can be

extended by not only examining its correlates in a population of pre-adolescents but also in an

African American sample.

Purpose and Hypothesis

The purpose of the current study is to extend school bonding research in three ways.

First, the study will extend the literature on school bonding (which is predominantly adolescent-

based) downward to include pre-adolescents in elementary school. This will offer more

information on the progression and development of school bonding. Secondly, this study will

examine the mechanism by which school bonding impacts outcomes for elementary school

children by testing a mediational model. Finally this study will use a sample comprised

exclusively of African American pre-adolescents to gain more insight into the school experiences

of African American children and how it impacts their outcomes.

It is hypothesized, based on theories of development of antisocial behavior (Gottfredson

& Hirschi, 1990; Mash & Wolfe, 2005) that similar relationships between school bonding and

negative outcomes for adolescents will exist for analogous outcomes for pre-adolescents.

Specifically it is expected that higher levels of school bonding will be associated with lower

levels of conduct problems. It is also hypothesized based on the SSDM (Catalano & Hawkins,


11/26


1996) that the effect of school bonding on conduct problems will be mediated by antisocial

attitudes.

METHODS

Participants

The sample for this study is a sub-sample of a larger study completed by the author. The

original sample consisted of 160 African American participants from seven different schools.

The current sample consisted of only seventy, African American, 3rd -5th grade students from

four of the schools in a predominantly African American district in the southeast. Students in

grades 3-5 were chosen because of their capability of accurately reporting their experiences via

questionnaires. The mean age of the sample was 9.67 with a range from 8-12. The sample was

predominantly female (60%).

Measurement

SAM. The School bonding Assessment Measure (SAM) was created to assess school

bonding in elementary school children. This 26-item measure originally contained four separate

but related dimensionsbased on Maddox & Prinz (2003)s theoretical model. However, factor

analysis conducted as part of the original study revealed that the following factors emerged:

Assistance- Refers to perceived support and assistance the student receives from the

school and adults in the school.

Interaction- Refers to the interpersonal interaction between the student and adults in the

school.

Attachment to school- Refers to feelings about the school itself, such as feeling apart of

the institution, feeling pride in the institution, and feeling safe and comfortable at the

institution.


12/26


School Commitment- Refers to the acceptance of the goals, norms and mores of the

school specifically and acceptance of academic ideals in general.

Responses were on a four-point scale (YES, yes, no, NO). YES (all uppercase) signifies strong

agreement with the item, while yes (all lowercase letters) signifies moderate agreement. NO

(all uppercase) signifies strong disagreement with the item while no (all lowercase) signifies

moderate disagreement. In the original study the reliability analysis was conducted on the 26-

item SAM and yielded a Cronbachs of .942. The four dimensions of the SAM produced the

following internal consistencies: Assistance =.891, Interaction = .796, Attachment to school

=.872 and, School Commitment = .740. Higher scores indicate higher levels of school

bonding.

Delinquency Attitudes.For the purpose of this study, items from the self report portion of

the Delinquency Rating Scale for Self and Others (DRS) adapted by Murray and Greenberg

(2001) from the National Youth Survey (Elliott et al., 1985) were reworded to assess the

participants attitudes toward delinquent acts (e.g. It is O.K. to steal something that does not

belong to you). Responses were on a four-point scale (YES, yes, no, NO) to keep it consistent

with the rest of the survey. The items were scored in the pathological direction in which higher

scores indicate greater endorsement of delinquency attitudes. This measure was only

administered to two of the four schools for a total of 25 participants. Reliability analysis revealed

a Cronbachs alpha of .96.

Seattle Personality Questionnaire for Children. (Greenberg & Kusche, 1990) The conduct

problems scale from the Seattle Personality Questionnaire for Children (SPQC) was used to

assess pre-adolescent behaviors in this study. The 7-item scale assesses problem behaviors and


13/26


has high internal consistency (=. 85). The current sample also yielded high internal consistency

(=. 81) Response format for the SPQC is on a four-point scale (YES, yes, no, NO) and is scored

in the pathological direction in which higher scores indicate higher levels of conduct problems.

Procedures

Participant recruitment. The principals of all elementary schools in the district were

contacted for a meeting. During the meeting the rationale, purpose, and design of the study was

discussed and each principal had an opportunity to agree to participate or opt out of the study.

Seven schools agreed to participate, four of which are included in this sample. A general

information sheet/consent form was distributed to parents/guardians of all third, fourth and fifth

grade students at participating schools to get permission for their child to be apart of the study.

Students who returned the signed parental consent form were taken to a separate room in

the school (e.g. multipurpose room, cafeteria, or unused classroom) during their related arts

period. Because of the related arts schedule, the survey was administered to one grade at a time.

During the administration, the examiner read each question from the survey. This process

accounted for possible reading difficulties without drawing negative attention to the participant

with the difficulties. Participants were allowed to read ahead of the examiner, if they did not

have difficulties reading the survey. When the need arose, participants asked for clarification of

items which the examiner provided. Once finished, participants turned in the completed survey

to the examiner. As mentioned earlier the delinquency attitudes measure was only administered

to two of the four schools for a total of 25 students.

Results


14/26


Bivariate correlations conducted between the SAM, SPQC and the Delinquency Attitude

Measure supported the hypothesis that school bonding would be similarly related to outcomes in

pre-adolescents. Significant inverse correlations emerged between all dimensions of school

bonding and conduct problems suggesting that the more bonded students are to their school the

lower their reports of conduct problems (see Table 1). Although significant inverse correlations

also emerged between dimensions of school bonding and delinquency attitudes, the relationship

between school commitment and delinquency attitudes only marginally reached significance.

[Insert Table 1 Here]

Mediation Models

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test if the effect of school bonding on

conduct problems was mediated by a change in attitudes toward delinquency as hypothesized.

Because school commitment did not yield a significant bivariate correlation with delinquency

attitudes, it was omitted from the analyses.

In the first model we examined the relationship between assistance and conduct problems

as mediated by delinquency attitudes controlling for grade level. In step 1 the students grade in

school was entered as a control variable to predict conduct problems. In the second step grade

and assistance were entered as a predictor of conduct problems. Finally in the last step, grade,

assistance and delinquency attitudes were entered as predictors of conduct problems. Subsequent

hierarchical regressions were conducted in the same manner substituting the other dimensions of

school bonding.



15/26


The regression analyses revealed that grade significantly predicted conduct problems

(=-.510) in step 1. In step 2 grade level again significantly predicted conduct problems (=-

.358) and assistance significantly predicted conduct problems above and beyond grade level in

school (=-.512). However in step 3, when grade level, assistance and delinquency attitudes were

all entered as predictors of conduct problems, the relationship between assistance and conduct

problems loses significance (=-.158) as a result of the shared variance being used by

delinquency attitudes (=.578). This pattern of results supports the fact that the relationship

between assistance and conduct problems is mediated by assistances effect on attitudes towards

delinquency.


A similar pattern emerged for school attachment, delinquency attitudes and conduct

problems. School attachment significantly predicted conduct problems (=-.455) above and

beyond grade level. However, when both attachment to school and delinquency attitudes are

entered as predictors of conduct problems, the relationship between attachment to school and

conduct problems (=-.219) loses significance as a result of delinquency attitudes (=.593).

Finally the same pattern was observed for interaction, delinquency attitudes and conduct

problems. Interaction significantly predicted conduct problems (=-.506) above and beyond

grade level, but did not significantly predict conduct problems in the presence of delinquency

attitudes (=.562). These results suggest that attitude toward delinquency mediates the impact of

school bonding on the conduct problems of African American pre-adolescents.


Discussion


16/26


This study extended school bonding research by examining school bonding in an

exclusively African American sample of pre-adolescents. Several interesting results emerged

from this study. First the conceptual model of school bonding espoused by Maddox & Prinz

(2003) did not comprehensively explain the school experiences of African American pre-

adolescents. Based on research in the current study and from the original sample, the dimensions

attachment to school and school commitment emerged as the theory predicted; however, it

appears that items designated as attachment to personnel items split into two separate factors,

assistance and interaction. This re-organization of school bonding highlights the dominance of

interpersonal connections for African American pre-adolescents. The dominance of attachment

to personnel is consistent with other developmental theories for this age (Catalano & Hawkins,

1996). The social development model asserts that interpersonal attachment is the socializing

force that influences the development of the childs belief system. As a result the participants in

the study appeared to use their interpersonal attachments as a filter for their other school

experiences.

In addition to developmental theories, cultural theories can also explain the dominance of

interpersonal connections for African American pre-adolescents (Shade, 1982; Willis, 1992).

Communalism or a social orientation (Willis, 1992) is described as one of the common

characteristics of African American children. This term refers to African Americans affinity for

participation in social interaction. Shade (1982) also highlighted that while Whites tend to view

social interaction in terms of task demands, African Americans tend to view it in a more

affective and person-centered light. Based on both cultural and developmental theories (Catalano

& Hwakins, 1996; Shade, 1982; Willis, 1992) it can be expected that children, especially African


17/26


American children, have a natural tendency to place a higher importance on the interpersonal

connections to frame their bond to the school.

In addition to the separation of attachment to personnel, school involvement also did not

emerge as important for African American elementary school children. The absence of a school

involvement dimension could be the result of fewer opportunities for involvement during

elementary school. School involvement as conceptualized by Maddox & Prinz (2003) focused

exclusively on extra-curricular involvement. Traditionally middle and high school students have

more opportunities for extra-curricular involvement via school-sponsored athletic teams, clubs,

organizations, and dances. Although there are clubs and organizations in elementary school,

participation in these activities do not appear to be salient enough to affect the elementary school

students bond with the school. The poor association of school involvement has been found in

other research and is possibly the reason why it is usually not included in other measures of

school bonding for this age group (e.g. Murray & Greenberg, 2001; Murray & Murray, 2004).

In addition to revealing the nature of school bonding for African American children this

research also provided support for the mechanism by which school bonding affects life outcomes

for African Americans. All four of the dimensions of school bonding in the study were related to

self-reported conduct problems. Three out of these four dimensions were also significantly

related to attitudes toward delinquency. Based on the regression models, it appears that school

bonding exerts its effect on conductproblems through its influence on the childs attitudes

toward delinquency. This process supports previous theories of school bonding such as the social

development model (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Hawkins & Lishner, 1987) and Hirschi

(1969)s original control theory in that bonds with prosocial others promote a belief system in

the child that is incompatible with antisocial behaviors. This information is useful because it not


18/26


only supports the importance of school bonding for children in general but also provides support

that bonds to the school act in similar manner for African American children. Now that we

understand the role of school bonding as a protective factor for African American pre-

adolescents, we now must take advantage of opportunities to intervene in the schools to

strengthen the childs bonds. Interventions that promote connections to teachers and bonds to

school offer a chance to counteract some of the major negative outcomes that have historically

plagued the African American community.


19/26


References

Blankmeyer, M., Flannery, D. J., & Vazsonyi, A. (2002). The role of aggression and social

competence in children's perceptions of the child-teacher relationship. Psychology in the

Schools, 39(3), 293-304.

Bryant, A. L., Schulenberg, J., Bachman, J. G., O'Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2000).

Acting out and lighting up: Understanding the links among school misbehavior,

academic achievement, and cigarette use. Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper 46.

Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.

Bryant, A. L., Schulenberg, J. E. , O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (2003).

How academic achievement, attitudes, and behaviors relate to the course of substance use

during adolescence: A 6-year, multiwave national longitudinal study.Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 13(3), 361-397.

Catalano, R., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial

behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.),Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149-

197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Catalano, R. F., Maaza, J. J., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B.

(2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary

school: Results after 1.5 years.Journal of School Psychology, 41, 143-164.

Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1992). School bonding, race, and delinquency.

Criminology, 30(2), 261-291.

Crusto, C. (2000, June 1-4).Developing successful strategies to prevent dropping out of school:

Linking correlates and developmental processes to interventions. Paper presented at the

Society For Prevention Reseaerch, Montreal, Canada.


20/26


Danziger, S. K. (1995). Family life and teenage pregnancy in the inner-city: Experiences of

African-American youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 17(1/2), 183-202.

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2002). The relationship between percieved social support

and maladjustment for students at risk. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 305-316.

Eggert, L., & Kumpfer, K. L. (1997).Drug abuse prevention for at-risk individuals. Bethesda,

MD: Abt Associates Inc.

Eggert, L. L., Thompson, E. A., Herting, J. R., Nicholas, L. J., & Dicker, B. G. (1994).

Preventing adolescent drug abuse and high school dropout through an intensive school-

based social network development program.American Journal of Health Promotion,

8(3), 202-215.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985).Explaining delinquency and drug use.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Fordham, S. & Ogbu, J.U. (1986). Black students school success: Coping with the burden of

acting white. The Urban Review, 18 (3), 176-206.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990).A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

Greenberg, M., & Kusche, C. (1990).Draft manual for Seattle personality scale for

children.Unpublished manuscript, Seattle, WA.

Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K. G., Battin-Pearson, S., & Abbott, R. D. (2001). Long-term

effects of the Seattle Social Devlopment Intervention on school bonding trajectories.

Applied Developmental Science, 5(4), 225-236.

Hawkins, J. D., & Lishner, D. (1987). Etiology and prevention of antisocial behavior in children

and adolescents. In D. H. Crowell & I. M. Evans & C. R. O'Donnell (Eds.), Childhood


21/26


aggression and violence: Sources of influence, prevention and control (pp. 263-282).

New York: Plenum Press.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hunt, J. G., & Hunt, L. L. (1977). Racial inequality and self-image: Identity maintenance as

identity diffusion. Sociology and Social Research, 61(4), 539-559.

Maddox, S. J., & Prinz, R. J. (2003). School bonding in children and adolescents. Clinical Child

and Family Psychology Review, 6(1), 31-49.

Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring percieved social support: Development of

the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39(1),

1-18.

Mash, E.J., & Wolfe, D.A. (2005). Abnormal Child Psychology: 3rdEdition. Belmont, CA:

Thomson Wadsworth.

Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. (2000). Children's relationship with teachers and bonds with

school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood.Journal of

School Psychology, 38(5), 423-445.

Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. (2001). Relationships with teachers and bonds with school: Social

emotional adjustment correlates for children with and without disabilities. Psychology in

the Schools, 38(1), 25-41.

Murray, C., & Murray, K. M. (2004). Child level correlates of teacher-student relationships: An

examination of demographic characteristics, academic orientations, and behavioral

orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 41(7), 751-762.


22/26


Pilgrim, C., Abbey, A., Hendrickson, P., & Lorenz, S. (1998). Implementation and impact of a

family-based substance abuse prevention program in rural communities. The Journal of

Primary Prevention, 18(3), 341-361.

Shade, B.J. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style? A variable in school success. Review of

Educational Research, 52, 219-244.

Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., & Saylor, K. E. (1999). Student-school

bonding and adolescent problem behavior.Health Education Research, 14(1), 99-107.

Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1996). Antisocial development: A holistic approach.Development

and Psychopathology, 8, 617-645.

Tyson, K. (2002). Weighing in: Elementary-age students and the debate on attitudes toward

school among Black students. Social Forces, 80(4),1157-1189.

Willis, M.G. (1992). Learning styles of African American children: A review of the literature

and interventions. In K.H. Burlew, W. C. Banks, H.P. McAdoo & D.A. Azibo (Eds.)

African American Psychology: Theory, Research, and Practice (p. 260-278). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications.


23/26


Table 1: Bivariate Correlations Between Dimensions of School Bonding, Conduct Problems

Delinquency Attitudes

Conduct Problems Delinquency Attitudes

Assistance -.420**

N=69

-.628**

n=25

Interaction -.524**

N=70

-.551**

n=25

School

Attachment

-.366**

N=61

-.430*

n=25

Commitment -.403**

N=67

-.392

n=25

*p


24/26


Table 2: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses- Predicting Conduct Problems

From Grade level, Assistance & Delinquency Attitudes

Variable B SEB p < F R sig R

Step 1 41.980 9.058 .01 8.08 .260Grade -6.375 2.242 -.510** .01

Step 2 45.045 7.682 .01 10.94 .499 .01

Grade -4.479 1.976 -.358* .05Assistance -.523 0.162 -.512** .01

Step 3 27.554 7.655 .01 16.36 .700 .01

Grade -4.085 1.567 -.327* .05Assistance -.161 0.160 -.158 .40

Delinquency Attitudes .207 0.055 .578** .01

Note: * =p < .05; ** =p < .01; (N = 25)


25/26



From Grade level, Interaction & Delinquency Attitudes


Step 1 41.980 9.058 .01 8.08 .260Grade -6.375 2.242 -.510** .01

Step 2 44.116 7.642 .01 10.998 .500 .01

Grade -4.823 1.944 -.386* .05Interaction -.828 0.255 -.505** .01

Step 3 27.946 7.148 .01 17.66 .716 .01

Grade -4.072 1.511 -.326* .05Interaction -.345 0.231 -.210 .15


Note: * =p < .05; ** =p < .01; (N = 25)


26/26



From Grade level, Attachment To School & Delinquency Attitudes


Step 1 41.980 9.058 .01 8.08 .260Grade -6.375 2.242 -.510** .01

Step 2 42.871 8.092 .01 8.51 .436 .01

Grade -4.186 2.168 -.335 .10Attachment -.500 0.191 -.455* .05

Step 3 26.650 6.802 .01 18.07 .721 .01

Grade -3.574 1.568 -.286* .05Attachment -.240 0.148 -.219 .12


Note: =p < .10; * =p < .05; ** =p < .01; (N = 25)

The Impact of School Experiences on African American Children

Documents

Transcript of The Impact of School Experiences on African American Children