Sarah Wilson Pitcher

An Abstract of: Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D. &" Hybl, L. G. (1993). Managing Adolescent Behavior: A Multiyear, Multischool Study. American Educational Research Journal, 30. pp. 179-215.

Rationale: This study conducted by Denise and Gary Gottfredson and Lois Hybl involved eight middle schools in the Charleston County School District (CCSD) and was implemented from fall, 1986 to spring, 1989. As Gottfredson and Hybl state:

Program: The primary purpose of this study was to improve adolescent behavior within the CCSD. The behavior difficulties were linked to a high suspension rate that translated into a high number of lost instructional days.

The program had four key elements:

1. School discipline policy review and revision: rules were made clearer and good behavior was recognized as well as bad behavior.
2. Behavior tracking system: parental involvement programs focusing on behavior and a computerized tracking system for record keeping purposes.
3. Classroom organization and management: strategies to reduce classroom disorder
4. Positive reinforcement: the program developed and instructional handbook for teachers and, in the second year of study, targeted high risk students for assistance using behavior techniques specified in both the instructional handbook and a practical book on modifying classroom behavior

The implementation of the program was conducted by teams of teachers and administrators appointed in each school. Authors collected data from 5719 students at these eight middle schools.

Method: The study used a non-equivalent control group design. Two of the eight schools served as comparison schools. The program employed a variety of tests to measure the level of implementation.

• Classroom environment surveys: All classrooms (except P.E. and visual/hearing impaired) were administered a brief Classrooms Environment Assessment (CEA) that measured changes in the classroom environment. These assessments were given to both teachers and students.
• Teacher ratings: Teachers were asked to rate how often each student in the selected class "attends to academic work" and "disrupts the classroom"
• Effective School Battery: This student questionnaire was administered each spring to students to measure rebellious behavior, school rewards and avoidance of punishment, clarity of rules, respect for students, and fairness of rules. These measures were scored only at the school level.
• Teacher Survey: This survey, administered at the end of the program, rated the opinions of teacher relating to the effectiveness of the school team, the effectiveness of the program itself, how often they used positive reinforcement, how often they sent both positive and negative communications home, and how often they used the preventive management techniques.
• School discipline records: The computerized tracking system provided a means to measure the effect of the positive referral system.

Results: Researchers found that some of the eight schools accomplished a higher level of implementation than did others. Changes from pre-to post treatment on measures of program outcomes generally showed a positive change for these high-implementation schools (p.204). These schools received medium to high levels of support, experienced fewer administration changes, and displayed no obvious sign of implementation breakdown (p.204).

• Students in the high-implementation schools reported less punishment, more rewards, and teacher perception improved and higher orderliness in the classroom.
• Three of the schools experienced problems in the implementation of the program. These problems ranged from weak administrative participation to poor communication between administration and teaching staff.
• The two low-implementation schools (comparison schools) experienced little improvement.

Discussion: The study mentions "enthusiasm for this approach must be tempered" because schools vary on their ability to establish such vast changes.

• The amount of implementation was akin to administrative support.
• The cost of the program was significant, but not unreasonable.
• Schools that implemented only the school-level components, those being the computerized tracking system and schoolwide discipline policy review, did not experience positive change. Most behavior can be traced to either the classroom or to individuals. Because of this, school-level components did not help address the overall behavior problems (p.210).