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 therapy;

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

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

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

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,

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

72

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;

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,

74

Children &Schoob

VOLUME 32, NUMBER 2

APRIL

2010

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

80

y
) 11 Week

^ \

Smdent 2 13 n 17

s 80
DS

-g 80
ta
c

I 6 0
fi.

V
1 3 5
7

"A/ V
.Student 4

S
O

a. ^
Student 3 20
3

40

20
!>
17

Week
ICH)

9 11 Week - ^ ^ ^

13

15

17

100

r60

V
II Week

m
. 40

Student 5
20

Student 6
M 13 15 17

20

13 15

17 Weck

100

"1^

Smdenr 7
1 3 5 7 '9' 'M' 20
r 3 5 7 'I n 13 15 17

Week
!00
100

Week

C 60

'"

2
a
O

Student 9
20

Student 10 I .i 5 7 9 1! Week 13 15 17

9 II Week

13

15 17

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

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 1 2 3 4 Pre .11 .00 .44 .17 .06 6 7 8 9 10 .06 .17 .00 .06 .00 .67* .55 M* .67* .94* .67* .3* .94* .89* Post M(Pre) S2.7Z 80.22 86.33 85.56 79.72 82.67 82.72 62.17 8.3.5 83.83 SO 5.00 8.23 7.16 7.50 11.37 6.44 7.04 12.92 .3.84 3.11 ISnro SD Test M (Post) 95.50* 90.33 90.00 94.67 90.00 9.^.70 91.22 92.83* 95.56* 93.94* SD 3.28 7.32 4.14 7.'>0 7.28 ..O. 4.26 3.19 2.96 4.11 ES 2.0(1 1.22 0.52 1.21 0.90 1.72 1.21 2.37 3.14 3.25 Referrals''

Pre
15 20 20 39 16 23 32 10 30 17

Post

n
11 20 23 4 12 23 1 12

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.

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.

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

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

T ECONOMIC
^ R

SOCIAL
R. Greene, Harriet L. Cohen, John Gonzalez, and Youjung Lee

NARRATIVES

JUSTICE

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 www.n3swpress.org

NASW

NASW PRESS

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

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.