Background

1. Parents, Teachers, and School Engagement: Predicting High School Behavior ProblemsJanay B. Sander, Ph.D. & Jill D. Sharkey, Ph.D. Abstract We present an empirical path analysis of school behavior problems that includes school climate, teacher relationships, and parent relationship factors. Data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study base year 10th grade (n=15,000) sample were included. The model was tested with structural equation modeling. Two different models were tested to incorporate the complexities of these variables. Results indicated that negative school climate variables strongly predicted school behavior problems. Neither participation in school activities nor teacher relationship quality predicted behavior problems. Parent-adolescent relationship qualities that related to risk for behavior problems at school will also be discussed, with attention to what school psychologists can do to offset known risks. Herrenkohl and colleagues (2000) found low commitment to school, low educational aspirations, and multiple school transitions significantly increased predications of later violence. In summary, it is important to consider the parent roles, the school as a system, and possibly individual teacher relationships to capture the unique contributions of each aspect of the youth’s environment to understand aggressive and disruptive school behaviors. There is very little in the literature to address these variables in high school students that includes school climate. Considerable research exists to illustrate the importance of each of these variables in children (see Webster-Stratton et al.). By investigating a model of the relations between parents, teachers, and school climate to predict behavior problems, we aim to better understand the contribution of schools, specific teachers, and families the problematic behaviors in high school students. Research Questions This study sought to answer the following research questions. See Figure 1 for the visual diagram of study variables of interest. 1.How do student perceptions of school relate to behavior problems? 2. In what ways do parent-child interactions contribute to behavior problems of high school students? 3. In what ways might individual teacher relationships contribute to level of behavior problems in high school students? Background High school students who engage in acting out behaviors are at risk for school failure and involvement with juvenile justice. Although individual risk and protective factors for behavior problems are well documented, most of the literature discusses home or individual youth variables that fall outside the school setting, such as parental relationships. Yet, schools are where youths spend most of their time and they remain central to student success. In addition, the school-level practices that contribute to overall student success and school engagement may be especially important for students with aggression or acting-out behaviors (Walker, Horner, Sugai & Bullis, 1996). Information about the contributions of student engagement, including specific contributions of parent and teacher relationships, informs practitioners who might assist these struggling high school students. Clearly, risks for acting out behaviors cut across ecological systems, and exist at the school-wide, family, community, and individual student level (Walker et al., 1996; Agnew, 2005). The link between family practices and youth behavior is well documented. Harsh discipline, lack of parental monitoring, and inconsistent discipline are associated with delinquency and aggression (Dodge, 2002; Pashall, Ringwalt & Flewelling, 2003). Several school-level factors, which ironically mirror the parent factors associated with delinquency, are also related to juvenile risk for repeat adjudications, including lack of positive leadership of administrators, harsh or zero-tolerance discipline policies, and low academic success or insufficient interventions (Christle, Jolivette & Nelson, 2005). The teacher-student relationship itself appears to be very important in early childhood (Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004), and may influence the ultimate path in a developmental trajectory (Pianta, 1999). Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of the model to be tested

2. Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Methods Participants. Approximately 15,000 youth from the base year (10th graders) National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) 2002 were included in the analysis. NELS selected participating schools through a clustered, stratified nationally-representative sample. Within each school, students were randomly selected to participate. Youth of Asian and Hispanic origin were over sampled and some students with significant disabilities were excluded at school official discretion. Parents, students, teachers, and school administrators were all informants for data collection. All participants were included in this analysis. Selection of variables. Researchers selected individual items from the NELS dataset that appeared to represent some aspect of one of the following areas: parental relationships, school engagement (behavioral and psychological engagement) (Reschly & Christenson, 2006), school climate (i.e., discipline policies, structure, general school safety), specific teacher relationships (English or Math teacher only), and negative behaviors (including suspension, parent contact about behavior problems, getting into fights at school). The primary variables of interest had large portions of missing data (<50% of sample) in the NELS database and had to be altered. Family relationship information was only available in the form of recreational and social activities, not quality of the relationship. This variable has been linked to one specific area of family functioning () so it was included. Individual teacher relationship variables exist, but the portion of missing data prevented using that specific composite. Composite scores were created based on averaged sums of responses for each item to represent the construct. Missing data were handled with mean substitution. Scores for scales were used if 70% of items on each scale were non-missing. The remaining scales were limited to: positive school climate, behavior problems, family recreational activities, and negative school climate. The scale of ‘family pleasant activities’ is comprised of variables that indicate higher scores equates to greater time spent with family or greater number of family recreational activities. The ‘negative school climate’ scale includes items scored in the direction such that high scores indicate more problematic school climate. ‘Positive school climate’ scale items are scored in NELS such that high scores indicate positive perceptions of school. The model was examined using AMOS 16, through SPSS 16, software for structural equation modeling. Table 1. Regression weights for behavior problems analysis Results The path model is depicted with regression weights in Figure 2. The estimates and critical ratio values are in Table 1. The findings were significant, indicating the regression weights for each of the three variables in predicting behavior problems were significant (all <.01 level). Generally speaking, as family recreational activities increase, behavior problems would decrease. As negative school climate increases, so do behavior problems. As positive school climate indicators increase, behavior problems decrease. Conclusions The study objectives were to examine the combination of teacher relationships, family relationships and school climate in a nationally representative sample of high school students in relation to behavior problems typically seen in school settings. Large portions of missing data prevented some research scales from being included in the analysis. The analyses that could be performed indicated that recreation activities with families predicts lower behavior problems at school, and school climate is also very important, or more important than family activities. Considerable research links teacher relationships and school climate to success in academics and behavior for elementary school students (Baker & Morlock, 2008; Pianta, 1999; Gottfredson et al., 2005), and these patterns appear similarly important for high schools students. Other researchers have indicated similar findings and the importance of school climate in predicting or alleviating behavior difficulties (Christle et al., 2005; Gottfredson et al., 2005), but not in nationally representative non-delinquent samples. Given the strong link between disruptive behaviors, history of behavior problems at school, school suspension and expulsion and later crime, delinquency and juvenile justice involvement, these relationships are important to examine in order to inform practice (Christle et al., 2005). The literature on juvenile crime is largely separate from that on school climate and school behavior problems, but school failure in academics and with acting out is usually a precursor to later criminal activity (Agnew, 2005). As Reschly and Christenson (2006) illustrated in a study with a nationally representative sample, school engagement is essential to consider to reduce drop out risk for those students who have marginal or less severe educational impairments. School climate, namely a positive one, is an innoculation to prevent disengagement, and is also highly associated with lower behavior problems (Sugai & Horner, 1999). In high school students, similar to elementary students, positive school climate can predict lower behavior problems in individual students. Negative climate, including harsh discipline policies and expulsion, appears to create more acting out. In summary, intervention at the level of the school, rather than individual discipline procedures for specific behaviors, such as those in Positive Behavior Support (Sugai & Horner, 1999) are consistent with what appears most helpful in reducing risk for behavior problems, which often lead to crime and delinquency. Figure 2. Path model with regression weights shown