Realigning Student and Teacher

Perceptions of School Rules: A Behavior

Management Strategy for Students
with Challenging Behaviors
Aaron M. Thompson and Kristina C. Webber

This article describes a data-informed intervenrion to close the gap between studetit and
teacher perceptions of school rules and improve student behavior.The student and teacher
agreement realignment strategy was pilot tested over 36 weeks with 10 middle school
students receiving semces for special education in the eligibility' category of emotiona)
disturbance. Students and teachers used similar assessment tools to record student compliance
with five classroom behavior norms or niles. Student and teacher reports of student behavior
were compared in weekly student-led conferences. Data were used by students, teachers,
and che school social worker to evaluate students' progress, identify goals, and develop
individualized interventions for improving behavior. In the current study, single-subject
data on the 10 students were analyzed for clinical and visual significance and statistical
significance using the pmportion-frequency procedure and the two standard deviations
statistical test. Significant improvement in student behavior was revealed. Furthertnore,
nine out of 10 students demonstrated a significant reduction in teacher-generated office
disciplinary referrals.
KEY WORDS: behavior management; cognilivc-hehavioral
discipline; middle school; self-monitoring

eachers frequently identify classroom

behavior management as an area in
which they would like to receive more
training (Maag, 2002). Most preservice teacher
training programs fail to equip teachers with basic methods of positive classroom reinforcemetit,
behavior management, and data-based decision
making (Maag,2002).Therefore.more effective
and feasible strategies for classroom management of dificult students should be provided to
teachers who are already in teaching positions.
School social workers can work individually
with teachers or on student support teams to
help meet this need.
Students exhibiting disruptive behaviors such
as task avoidance, inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and aggression are at risk of school failure
because of the effect these behaviors have on
their ability to learn. Furthermore, one student's
disruptive behavior often impedes other students' ability to learn by distracting the teacher

CCCCode: 1532-a7S9/10 13.00 e2010National Association of Social Workers

therapy;

from a focus on the academic progress of the

whole classroom (DuPaul, McCioey, Eckert,
& Van Brakle, 2001). Even minor disruptive
behaviors have been shown to sap teachers'
energy, cause teacher stress, and increase the
likelihood of burnout (Clunies-Ross, Little, &
Kienhuis,200H).
Although many strategies are available for
educators' use in schools to manage students
whose challenging behaviors present frequent
disciplinary problems, the most familiar disciplinary methods are punitive. Common respotises to
discipline problems include detention, suspension, expulsion, and other forms of putiishtnent
(Maag, 2002). However, punitive measures have
been shown to have litde effect in dissuading
students from engaging in disruptive behavior
at school (Maag, 2002). In addition, suspension
and expulsion are not only exclusionary disciplinary practices, they have been documented
to disproportionately penalize minority students

71

and ultimately fail to achieve the intended

goal of promoting prosocial decision making
(Cameron &c Sheppard, 2006; Fenning & Rose,
2007; Skiba, Micheal, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002;
Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997). Given the
mounting evidence that punitive practices lack
effectiveness, schools' continued use of such
disciplinary methods lends credibility to the
common criticism of puhhc education's capricious implementation of policies having httle
empirical support (Maag, 2002).
Studies have shown that the predominant
teacher response to disruptive student behavior
is reactive and punitive rather than proactive and
positive.The reactive approach does litde to decrease disruptive student behavior (Clunies-Ross
etal.,2008;Colvin,Kameenui,&Sugai,1993).In
the past decade, the national movement toward
universal,classroom,and individual management
systems provided by the schoolwide positive
behavior support (SWPBS) system has given
teachers and school officials tools to address
classroom behavior in a proactive and positive
manner (Sugai & Horner, 2008).
The SWPBS fratnework is a multisystemic,
practical approach to achieve learning and social goals while reducing disruptive behaviors
in the classroom. Now broadly applied to all
students, SWPBS was initially used in special
education settings as an evidence-based practice
targeting students with severe emotional and
behavioral disabilities (Sugai & Horner, 2002,
2008). SWPBS now directs a school's efforts
toward developing schoolwide systematic
strategies that teach and reinforce prosocial
decision making among all students. In addition, SWPBS can be extended to classroomand individual-level interventions for students
who display chronic behavioral difficulties in
spite of systems-level preventive efforts {Sugai
& Horner, 2002).
Despite extensive amounts of research on
SWPBS, the literature on school-based interventions for students with significant behavioral
difficulties reveals few strategies that use data
to compare teacher and student perceptions of
school expectations and develop goals to facilitate behavioral improvements (Mooney, Ryan,
Uhing, Reid, & Epstein, 2005; Sugai & Horner,

72

2008).The intervention described m this article

is a promising practice that uses student selfevaluations compared over time with teachers'
perceptions of student compliance with clearly
stated classroom norms. Unlike reactive and
punitive approaches to behavior management,
the tested intervention offered here is proactive, individualized, and a feasible strategy for
the classroom setting. The intervention also
presents teachers and school social workers
with a practical strategy to increase student
understanding of acceptable school behavior
while empowering the student as a partner in
the change process.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Students with challenging behaviors often come

fi-om nondominant racial or ethnic, economic,
or cultural backgrounds. By contrast, 90 percent of teachers in U.S. schools are members
of the dominant social group and come from
white, middle- and upper-class homes (Delpit,
1995; Shen,Wegenke, & Cooley, 2003). Often,
children from minority and low-income homes
are socialized with different expectations for
social and interpersonal interactions at school
than are children from the dominant culture
(Delpit, 1995).This difference in socialization
can increase barriers for these nondominant
students as they negotiate unfamiliar expectations at school. Similarly, when students are
unfatniliar with school behavior norms, they
often struggle with decoding the "culture of
power" (Delpit, 1995) that permeates most
classrooms throughout the Utiited States. According to Delpit, issues of power are enacted in
the classroom, the codes or rules for participating
in the culture of power reflect those who have
power, and exphcit instruction in those rules
makes acquiring power easier.
Cognitive-behavioral (CB) strategies are
grounded in social learning theory (Bandura,
1999) and provide an effective approach for
teaching classroom and school expectations
(DuPaul & Eckert, 1997; Maag, 2002; McGoey,
Eckert, & DuPaul, 2002). In addition, CB is
the foundation of social skills training (Kaplan
& Carter, 1995) and has been suggested as a
way to address antisocial and violent behavior

Children &Schools VOLUME 32. NUMBER 2

APRIL 2010

among students in public schools (Alexander

& Curtis, 1995). Therapies incorporating CB
principles rely on the internal thought proces,ses that occur as an individual internalizes
and behaviorally engages with external stimuli
(Kaplan & Carter, 1995).CB social skills training
provides a framework within which to teach
students with behavioral difficulties to respond
appropriately and self-monitor socially desirable
behaviors (Kaplan & Carter, 1995). In summary,
CB methods focus on the students thoughts
and feelings as a way to improve dysfunctional
behavior. Data-informed implementation of CB
social skills training focuses school social worker
and teacher efforts on individual application of
effective intervention practices as defined by
SWPBS {Sugai & Horner, 2008).
The student and teacher agreement realignment strategy (STARS) is a CB intervention designed to provide students, teachers, and school
social workers with a pathway to realign student
and teacher perceptions of school and classroom
norms. Secondary goals include decreasing office
disciplinary referrals, reactive forms of discipline,
and teacher frustration with student behavior
while improving teacherstudent relationships
and increasing instructional time. This article
describes a pilot test of the intervention. Singlesubject data from 10 students were examined
in multiple ways to evaluate the effectiveness of
the intervention.
METHOD
Sample
Administrative data were collected on a convenience sample of students eligible for special
education services under the disability category
of emotional disturbance.The students attended
a public day school for children with disabilities
in a niidwestern rural area. Students were placed
in the alternative setting by an individualized
education program (IEP) team so the students
could receive additional support. Integration
into regular education classes was available for
students considered ready for transition to their
home schools. Students were considered ready
for integration when they displayed 90 percent
appropriate behavioral responses for the period
of time outlined in their IEPs.

The original sample included 20 middle

school students in four separate classrooms.The
students were chosen by classroom teachers to
participate in the pilot study on the basis of
the students' difficulty maintaining appropriate
classroom behavior. The analytic sample was
reduced to 10 students due to successful student
integration into regular education classrooms,
transfers out of the school system, and one case
with incomplete data .The final sample (average
age = 12 years) comprised three sixth graders,
four seventh graders, and three eighth graders; three white and seven African American
students; two female and eight male students.
Though the data were collected for administrative purposes,permission to use the deidentified
data was obtained from the school system's director of special education services and approved
by the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill Internal Review Committee on Human
Subjects Research.
Design
An AB (baseline and intervention) single-subject
design was used to test whether the STARS
intervention led to behavioral improvements.
In single-subject designs, the subject's baseline
scores serves as his or her own control for performance in the intervention phase. An 18-week
baseline phase and an 18-week intervention
phase provided ample data points for testing the
hypothesis that STARS would have a positive
effect on student behavior.
Intervention Procedures
The STARS intervention incorporated a set of
five classroom behavior norms or rules that were
displayed throughout the school building:
1. Do your work :Thc student's job is to learn,
and in order to learn, he or she must do
the work assigned by his or her teacher,
2. Keep body parts to self: Students are expected
to keep their body parts to themselves and
to physically and verbally respect others'
personal space.
3. Be considerate of others: Students are expected to respect the rights of others, including
the right to learn in a safe environment.

T H O M P S O N AND W E B B E R / Realigning Student and Teacher Perceptions of School Rules

73

4. Follow directions: Students are expected to

follow directions from all school staff.
5. Be on time in assigned areas: Students are
expected to be where they are scheduled
to be.
As part of the regular school program, all students were provided with biweekly social skills
lessons taught in the classroom. The lessons
were provided in a group format and targeted
increasing student awareness and comprehension
of the five school rules.
Four classroom teachers assessed STARS
students' behavior at half-hour increments
throughout the school day (5 rules x 13 observations over 6.5 hours 65 observations). Using a simple yesno format, teachers recorded
whether the students' behavior was consistent
with each of the hve school behavior norms.
Baseline measures were recorded on each student by their homeroom teacher for 18 weeks
prior to intervention. The second 18-week
data-collection period was the intervention
phase. During this phase, all students and their
teachers kept track of their perceptions of how
well the students complied with the five school
rules. Teacher- and student-reported data were
entered daily into a spreadsheet designed to
calculate the number of yes marks the student
had across the observation times for each rule.
Each student's overall daily performance for
each rule was plotted on a graph using different
colored lines to reflect compliance trends, from
which a weekly average for each rule was computed.The data-collection tool and spreadsheet
program are available on request from Aaron M.
Thompson.
Teachers and students met weekly to compare and discuss their perceptions of behavioral
achievements in a short (five- to 10-minute)
conference with the school social worker. Prior
to each conference, the school social worker
reviewed with each student how to interpret the
graphs, how to direct the conference, and how
to compare his or her data with the teacher's
data. Using a solution-focused approach, the
student identified one or two behavioral goals
for the following week. Data-review meetings
followed this format;

74

identifying positive behaviors and target

behaviors, as evidenced by the data;
identifying measurable, observable, and
desirable behaviors related to the student's
data and the school rules;
framing the behavior as a goal in positive
language that was observable and measureable (for example,"I will increase my
'Following Directions' percentage from
75 percent to 79 percent by complying
with my teacher's request within 30 seconds after I am given a direction from my
teacher"); and
writing the goal down as a contract, with
all parties (teacher, school social worker,
and student) signing the contract, and
taping it to the student's desk.
Interrater reliabihty among the four teachers
was strengthened through procedures outlining
the appropriate recording of student data. The
development of these procedures was an iterative
process and important to maintaining consistent recording of student behavioral patterns.
Teachers were trained using classroom scenarios
to apply the behavior ratings. Detailing these
procedures is beyond the scope of the current
article; however, the rating protocols are available
from Aaron M.Thompson on request.
ANALYSIS

Visual, clinical, and statistical significance of the

change in behavior from the baseline to intervention phases was examined.Visual analysis of
each student's weekly average focused on teacher
observations of a student's compliance with the
five rules. Baseline- and intervention-phase
weekly means were plotted on each participants
graph (see Figure 1). Clinical significance was
determined by means of subjective but expert
evaluation among the involved adults about the
value of the observed changes in terins of classroom learning environment, studentteacher
relationship, and academic progress.
The proportion-frequency procedure is useful for single-subject designs in which the data
points are dichotomous responses and is an acceptable statistical test to reduce bias when small
numbers of observations exist (Rubin & Babbie,

Children &Schoob

VOLUME 32, NUMBER 2

APRIL

2010

Figure 1: Baseline- and Intervention-Phase Weekly Means for 10 Students

80

^
\

Smdent 2
13

)
11
Week

s 80

-g 80

DS

ta

I 60

fi.

17

"A/
V

a.

40

Student 3

20

.Student 4
20

!>

17

Week

9 11
Week

15

13

17

100

ICH)

r-

60

20

- ^ ^ ^

m
. 40

Student 5
II

13 15

Student 6

20

17

Week

13

15

17

Weck

100

"1^

Smdenr 7
1 3

'9'

20

'M'

Week

'I

13 15 17

Week

!00

100

C 60

'"

2
a

Student 9
9
II
Week

13

15 17

Note: Solid lines represent prejniervention averag; dashed linci represent poitinterventlon

Student 10
20

.i

9 1!
Week

13

15

17

2001).This test assesses the statistical significance

of the percentage of pre- and posttest scores
above a clinical cutofF.The two standard deviation statistical test is used to determine whether
the pretest and posttest means are signiftcantly
different (Rubin & Babbie, 2001). In addition,
an effect size statistic was calculated to evaluate
the magnitude of observed changes in means
(Catiipbell, 2004; Rubin & Babbie, 2001). Fitially, to further triangulate our evaluation of the
effects of the intervention, we used a test to
determine whether the change in ofFice referral rates between the baseline and intervention
phases was statistically significant.
RESULTS

The raw data presented in Figure 1 show the

weekly averages for all 10 students.The graphs
indicate that all students demonstrated patterns
of improvement in percentage of appropriate
behavior.The data also suggest that students
displayed more stabilized behavioral patterns
during the intervention phase than during the
baseline phase.
The intervention described here produced
clinically meaningful outcomes, such as improved student and teacher relations, increased
time dedicated to academic work, and fewer
behavioral problems. The effectiveness of the
present intervention was evidenced by a significant reduction in teacher-generated office

referrals (seeTable l).Wth an alpha level of .05

and a two-tailed t test, the mean number of office referrals for students during the intervention
phase ( M ^ 12.10, SD ^ 7.87) was significantly
lower than the baseline mean (M - 22.20, SD
= 8.92), i(9) = 2.26,p < .05. Subsequently, this
significant reduction required fewer suspensions and other reactive forms of discipline and
classroom management.
The proportionfrequency test demonstrates
that nine out of 10 students displayed statistically
significant improvements (see Table 1). These
nine students' intervention-phase weekly averages exceeded the 90 percent benchmark, with
the frequency needed to represent a significant
increase at the .05 level over the baseline-phase
weekly averages.This score largely agrees with
the means plotted in Figure 1.
The more rigorous two standard deviations
statistical test indicated that 40 percent of the
students experienced statistically significant
change in their intervention-phase means. As
shown in Table 1, four students (1, 8, 9, and
10) experienced significant improvements by
which their intervention averages increased
at least two standard deviations above their
respective baseline averages.Though the results
of the intervention failed to show significant
improvements for all students, it should be noted
that the two standard deviations statistical test
is sensitive to the wide variance present in the

Table 1: Pre- and Postintervention Behavior Rating Means, Standard Deviations,

and Office Referral Counts for 10 Students and Results of Statistical Tests
Prop-Freq Test^
student

Pre

.11

.00

3
4

Post

ISnro SD Test

Referrals''
SD

ES

Pre

Post

95.50*

3.28

2.0(1

15

8.23

90.33

7.32

1.22

20

11

7.16

90.00

4.14

0.52

20

20

85.56

7.50

94.67

7.'>0

1.21

39

23

79.72

11.37

90.00

7.28

0.90

16

82.67

6.44

9.^.70

..O.

1.72

23

12

82.72

7.04

91.22

4.26

1.21

32

23

62.17

12.92

92.83*

3.19

2.37

10

8.3.5

.3.84

95.56*

2.96

3.14

30

12

83.83

3.11

93.94*

4.11

3.25

17

M(Pre)

SO

S2.7Z

5.00

.67*

80.22

.44

.55

86.33

.17

M*

.06

.67*

.06

.94*

.17

.67*

.00

.3*

.06

.94*

10

.00

.89*

M (Post)

Notes; Prop-Fceq = pToportion-frequency, Pre = preintervcntion. Post = postinterventioni ES = sftetX siie. ES a 2.00 is coaiideted large,
liatici oi weekly data points above 90 percenl out of IB week!
Total number of office referrals tor the 58-v<eek pre- and postintervenlion phases.
p < .05.

76

Children &Schools VOLUME j i , NUMBER 2

APRIL 2010

students' baseline scores. Given this sensitivity,

this test indicates that the intervention was
meaningful for 40 percent of the students. The
effect size {seeTable 1 ) statistic indicates that the
difference between the baseline and intervention means of students 1, 8, 9, and 10 is largely
attributable to the intervention's impact. Effect
sizes in education research of greater than 2.00
are considered large, and these suggest that the
changes observed in the students' behavior were
attributable to the intervention (Rubin & Babbie, 2001 ; Schochet, 2005).
DISCUSSION

The STARS intervention was tested using a

single-subject design with 10 students rated
by their teachers. Multiple indicators and tests
of behavioral improvement indicate that the
STARS intervention resulted in both clinically
and statistically significant improvements in behavior and a reduction in teacher-generated office referrals for nearly all participating students.
Available evidence suggests that office disciphne
referral patterns are valuable data sources for
monitoring individual student interventions
(Irvin et al., 2006). A particular strength of the
current study is the use of frequent behavior rating over an extended length of time18-week
baseline and intervention phases. An additional
strength of this study is our statistical testing
and reporting of effect size calculations, which
are rarely reported in single-subject design
studies (Campbell, 2004;Jenson, Clark, Kircher,
6 Kristjansson, 2007). A third strength of this
study is the use of data-collection uiethods that
are feasible for teachers and school professionals
in a classroom setting, reducing the burden of
collecting consistent and accurate individualized
data. Furthermore, we are currently exploring
ways in which technology can be used to improve the accessibihty and ease of data-collection
procedures for this intervention.
This study has important limitations that must
be considered if the findings are to be adequately
interpreted. First, the data were obtained from
a convenience sample; such nonrandom selection of participants is a frequent limitation in
school-based intervention research (Hedges &
Hedberg, 2007). Second, our sample included

only students labeled as eligible for special education under the disability category of emotional
disturbance, which limits our ability to generalize the study findings to other student populations. However, this sample limitation can also
be considered a strength of the study, because
schools often struggle to provide individualized interventions to students with disabilities
(Sug-ai & Horner, 2008).Third, we did not test
the reliability of teachers' observations before
implementing the intervention. Observer testing
might have strengthened interrater reliability
and increased reliabiHty of the data collection.
Finally, it is important to collect follow-up data
to establish long-term effects of an intervention. In the present study, follow-up data were
not available because the students were successfully mainstreamed to their home school
environments.
Future research should build on these efforts
by replicating data-informed interventions for
individual students. In addition, future efforts
should build on this study with special education
students to test the efficacy of STARS in regular
education settings with children struggling to
maintain classroom behaviors expected by teachers. Furthermore, future efforts should seek to
use randomized sampling of students to increase
the generalizability of results and incorporate
steps to strengthen interrater reliability.
STARS answers the call for additional research to develop effective school-based interventions for students who display chronic
problem behaviors (Sugai & Horner, 2008).
In addition, the relative ease of the datakeeping tool and intervention procedure is
one that responds to frequent teacher criticisms of research-based approaches in schools.
Teachers frequently fail to collect data for the
proper evaluation of evidence-based interventions because of the time and effort required
(Clunies-Ross et al., 2008). The approach to
data collection and management developed
for STARS dramatically reduces teacher time
and effort, provides data to inform decision
making, is compatible with efforts to implement SWPBS, is individualized, and is research
supported. Furthermore, such classroom-based
data-collection efforts increase the efficacy of

THOMPSON AND WEBBER / Realigning Student and Teacher Perciptiom of School Rules

11

The procedure of collecting daily behavioral

data for STARS can give school social
workers and teachers a reasonable method
of assessing, designing, and measuring the
eectiveness of interventions for students.

proactive interventions to address disruptive

forms of behavior by providing frequent monitoring and feedback on efforts. As established
by prior research, reactive efforts fail to produce
significant student change (Cameron & Sheppard, 2006; Fenning & Rose, 2007; Skiba et al.,
1997,2002). As tested, STARS is proactive and
has the potential to save teacher time and effort
otherwise spent on reactive forms of classroom
management.
The results of this study are consistent with
those of research aimed at testing the efficacy of
data-driven self-management strategies (Smith
& Sugai, 2000). Self-management strategies are
a productive way to help students develop and
enhance skills for school success. In addition,
self-management strategies foster students'
internalization of change rather than relying
on external rewards or consequences to shape
behavior. Self-management strategies have been
widely reported as effective in helping special
and regular education students to acquire new
skills (Todd, Horner, & Sugai, 1999). However,
efforts to use self-management strategies with
children who display behavioral problems are
often unsuccessful because the strategies rarely
incorporate individualized data (Smith k Sugai,
2000).Though the current study tested STARS
with students in special education classrooms,
STARS holds promise for broader use across all
classnjonis. The STARS methods can be used
to assist students in mastering self-management
techniques and to improve the efficacy of CB
social skills lessons. Applicability of the STARS
intervention has particular importance for guiding individualized interventions, an area that is
lacking in SWPBS research (Sugai &i Horner.
2008).The procedure of collecting daily behavioral data for STARS can give school social
workers and teachers a reasonable method of

78

assessing,designing,and measuring the effectiveness of interventions for students. E

REFERENCES
Alexander, R,,& C;urtis, C. M, (1995). A critical review
, of stracegies to reduce school violence. Social Work
ill Education, 17, 73-82.
Baiidura,A. (1999), Social cognitive theory of personality, 111 n.Vervone &Y. Shoda (Eds.), Tiie coherence of
personality {pp, IH5-241), New York; Guilfbrd Press.
Cameron, M,, & Sheppard, S. M. (2006), School discipline and social work practice: Application of
research and theory to intervention. Children &
Schi>ob,28. 15-22.
Campbell,J. M. (2004), Statistical comparison of four
effect sizes for single-subject designs. Behavior
Modification, 28, 234-246.
Clunies-Ross, H, Little, E,. & Kienhuis. M. (201)8). Selfreported and actual use of proactive and reactive
classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behavior.
Ediuatioml Psydwh^y. 28, ("i93-71(),
Colvin,G., Kameenui,E,.& Sugai, G, (t993).Reconceptualizing behavior management and school-wide
discipline in general education. Eautation andlkatrneril ofCliUdreti. 16. 361-381,
Delpit. L. D, (1995). Other people's children. New York:
Nevi^ Press,
DuPaul, G, J., & Eckert,T, L. (1997).The effects of
school-based interventions for attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis. School
Psychology Revieif, 26, 2-27,
DuPaiil, G, J,, McGoey, K. E., Eckert,T. L., & Van rakle,
J, (2001). Presfhool children with attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder: InipairiiienK in behavioral, social, and school functioniig.JMrfu/ oftlie
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
40,508-515.
Fenning, P., & R.ose,J. (2t)07). Overrepresentation of
African American students in exclusionary discipline, Urhiin Education, 42, 536559.
Hedges, L.V.. & Hedberg, E, C:, (2007), Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in
education. Edwational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
29, 6()-7.
Irvin, L, K,. Horner, R, H,, Ingram, K.,Todd, A.W,
Sugai, C;., Sampson, N, K., & BolandJ. B. (2006).
Using oflice discipline referral tlata for decision
making about student behavior in elementary and
middle schools: An empirical evaluation of validity.
Journal of Positive Bfhai'ior nicri'enlions, 8, 1023.
Jenson,W. R,, Clark, H., Krcher,J. C , & Kristjansson,
S. I). (2007), Statistical reform: Evidence-hased
practice, nieta-analyses. and single subject designs.
Psycholo-^y in the Sfhools, 44. 483-493.
Kaplan,J. S.. & Carter,J. (1995). Beyond behavior modification: A co^nitivehehai'ioral approach to behavior management iti the school (3rd cd,). Austin,TX: Pro-Ed.
Maag,J. W (2002). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in
schools. Exceptional Children, 61, 173-186.
McGoey, K, E., Eckert,T, L., & DuPaul, G. j , (2002).
Interventions for preschoolers with ADHD: A
literature review.JtiMrmi/ o/ Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 10. 14-28.
Mooney. P,. Ryan.J, B., Uhing, B, M,, Reid, R., &
Epstein, M. H, (2005), A review of self-management
interventions targeting academic outcomes for
students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 203-221.

Children &Schools VOLUME 3z, NUMBER 2

APRIL 2010

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research methods for soda]

work (4th ed.). Pacific Grove. CA: Brooks/Cole,
Schochct, P. Z. (2005). Siaiisikal power for random assignmem eviilualioiis of education programs (Report No.
6O4fi-3lO), Princeton, NJ; Mathematics Policy
Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED--01-CO-()3S-(I009)
ShenJ..Wegnekc. G. L., & Cooley.V. E. (2003). Has
the public teaching force become more diversified? National and longitudinal perspectives on
gender, race, and ethnicity. Educaliona! Horizons, 11,
12-18.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S, Nardo, A. C . & Peterson,
R. L. (2002).The color of discipline: Sources of
racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Rcvifw, 34, .117-342.
Skiba, R.J.. Peterson, R. L., & Witliams,T. (1997). Office
referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention
in middle school. Education &Treaiment of Children.
20, 295-315.
Smith, B.W., & Sugai, G. (2000). A self-management
fiinctionai assessment-based behavior support plan
for a middle school student with EBD. Jnwrwii/ of
Positive Behavior hilerventions, 2, 208217.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002), Introduction to
the special series on positive behavior support in
schools.Ji'Hnw/ of Emotional & Behai'ioral Disorders,
U), 130-136.
Sugai. G.. & Horner, R. H. (2008). What we know and
need to know about preventing problem behavior
in schools. Exceptionality, 16, 6777.
Todd.A.W. Horner. R. H.. & Sugai, G. (1999). Selfmonitoring and self-recruited praise: Effects on
problem behavior, academic engagement, and work
coinpietinn in a typical chisroon-i. Journal of Positive
Behavioral Interventions, I, 6676.
Aaron M. Thompson, MSH^ and Kristina C. Webber,
MSV^are doctoral students and Ekmentary School Success
Prok research assistants, School of Social Work. Vtiiwrsity
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The authors thank the
students and teachers who participated and Natasha K. Bowen
for guidance in reporting these restdts. Address correspondence
to Aaron M. Thompson, School of Social Work. University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550; e-mail:
athom@email.unc.edu.
Original manuscript received Aprii 1, 2009
Final revision received luly 28. 2009
Accepted August 5, 2009

NARRATIVES

SOCIAL

T ECONOMIC

JUSTICE

^ R

R. Greene, Harriet L. Cohen,

John Gonzalez, and Youjung Lee

Narratives of Social and Economic Justice

answers the call from social work

educatorsforacademic resources that
deal with cross-cutting issues and
cover a broad spectrum of domains
and specializationsgerontological
social work, social policy, health, mental
health, and social justice.
Special Features

Introductory chapters
covering the four
dimensions of narrative
and the normative model
ofresilienq/

Competency-based
,
approach to core social
work practices, with
emphasis on mastery of critical diinkJng,
diversity work, and advocacy skills

* Narratives of 11 remarkable people who thrived

in spite of discrimination and oppression

Political and historical commentaries,

review questions, and exercises accompany
each narrative
;

As an educational resource, this book will foster

the insights and skills that social workers need to
effectively combat racial and'ethnic disparities and
promote optimal human development.
ISBN:978-0-87101-88-0. 2009. Ircm 3880. 180pages. $34.99.
1-800-227-3590

NASW

THOMPSON AND WEBBER / Realigning Student and Teacher Perceptions of School Rules

www.n3swpress.org

NASW PRESS

79

Copyright of Children & Schools is the property of National Association of Social Workers and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.