A Descriptive Analysis of School Connectedness

Abstract

Few studies have investigated school connectedness from the perspectives of the adults working in the school. Using qualitative methods, the present study examined three dimensions of school connectedness in one urban, low-income middle school. Analyses revealed that school personnel cared for students’ needs, sometimes at the expense of holding them accountable to rigorous standards. Some respondents assumed that families did not care about their children, and were unable to support them academically or instill in them pro-social values and behaviors. These deficit assumptions influenced how the school disciplined students and engaged with families. Results are discussed with practice and policy implications.

Keywords

school connectedness urban education ethnically diverse low-income students

School connectedness has been defined as the belief by students that adults in the school care about them as well as their learning (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009). Students who have strong connections to school exhibit lower rates of participation in health-risk behaviors such as substance use, early sexual debut, and weapon-use violence (Catalano, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Thompson, Iachan, Overpeck, Ross, & Gross, 2006). They also demonstrate better school performance such as increased attendance, test scores, and grades (Blum, 2005; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Klem & Connell, 2004), relative to their less connected peers. Most studies examining school connectedness have focused exclusively on students’ outcomes and experiences. Fewer studieshave documented how school connectedness plays out on school campuses, particularly in urban locations serving economically disadvantaged students of color (Nasir, Jones, & McLaughlin, 2011).

Ethnically diverse, low-income students from urban backgrounds often experience circumstances that hinder their ability to fully participate and feel connected to school, such as greater exposure to health and safety risks (e.g., crime) and less access to enrichment opportunities, adequate health care, and proper nutrition (Duncan & Murnane, 2011; Thompson et al., 2006). The schools many of these students attend are also beset with instructional, social, and structural challenges (e.g., fewer qualified teachers) that weaken the quality of the education they can provide (e.g., Jacob, 2007; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2004). As a result, it is little surprise that dropping out of school (the ultimate form of school disconnection) continues to be disproportionately high among poor ethnic minority students (Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004).

While feeling connected to school is especially critical during early adolescence (McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002; Way, Reddy, & Rhodes, 2007), most middle schools are organized in ways that impede students’ affiliation with school (Jackson, Davis, Abeel, & Bordonaro, 2000; Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Relative to the primary grades, middle school students face new demands associated with differences in teaching strategies, classroom organization, and school structure (Barber & Olson, 2004; Hill & Chao, 2009); these demands limit students’ opportunities to build close and trusting relations (Barber & Olson, 2004; Jackson et al., 2000). Recent analyses demonstrate the transition to middle school can have disruptive consequences on students’ educational prospects, where students who move to a middle school in Grade 6 or 7 experience a sharper decrease in their learning trajectories than their peers who attend K-8 schools (Rockoff & Lockwood, 2010; Schwerdt & West, 2013).

With the challenges facing students in under-resourced schools, more knowledge about how school connectedness operates in these settings can guide efforts designed to ensure theirsuccess. The present study aims to contribute to the literature by studying in-depth three main dimensions of school connectedness—adult support, school safety, and high academic standards (CDC, 2009)—from the viewpoint of adults working in a high-minority urban middle school. Empirically, there is less knowledge about school connectedness from the perspective of adults because most studies have focused on students. This is a notable shortcoming since school personnel are the ones charged with cultivating supportive classroom and campus environments that promote students’ affiliation with school. Three questions guide this study:

Research Question 1: What kinds of supports do school adults extend to their students?

Research Question 2: How do school personnel address safety concerns?

Research Question 3: In what ways are students held to high academic standards?

Background

Adult Support

Students spend significant time with teachers in school, and the quality of students’ relationships with teachers is a critical influence on their social, emotional, and academic development (Wentzel, 2009). Youth who believe their teachers dedicate their time and emotional support to helping them succeed are more likely to feel connected to school (Anderman & Freeman, 2004; Blum, Libbey, Bishop, & Bishop, 2004; National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2004). Perceptions of secure relationships with teachers have been positively linked to students’ grades (Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004), test scores (Bryk & Schneider, 2002), motivation to learn (Cornelius-White, 2007), and negatively associated with aggressive behavior (Ladd & Burgess, 2001), disciplinary infractions (Hamre & Pianta, 2001), and internalizing problems such as depression (Reddy, Rhodes, & Mulhall, 2003).

Despite the benefits of strong student–teacher bonds, most middle schools are structured in ways that make relationship building difficult ( Herlihy, 2007; Jackson et al., 2000). Routines and structures such as switching teachers every period, large classroom sizes, and increased emphasis on standardized tests often translate into diminished opportunities for personal contact between teachers and students (Herlihy, 2007; Hill & Chao, 2009; Way et al., 2007). Midgley and Edelin (1998) find that middle school youth attending schools that enacted reforms to increase student–teacher relationships (e.g., “schools within a school,” advisory periods) had fewer adjustment difficulties overall.

In addition to organizational constraints, the demands placed on urban schoolteachers can limit their ability to engage at-risk youth. Increasingly, teachers are called upon to address the problems many students bring with them to school that affect their learning such as food insecurity, physical and mental health concerns, homelessness, and other hardships relating to poverty (Berliner, 2006). Because of these burdens, some teachers grow weary in their ability to make a difference in students’ lives. Their burnout can manifest in meager teaching efforts, remedial expectations, and less rigorous curriculum (Farber, 2000). Some contend that current education policies, which emphasize standardized tests, scripted curriculum, and high-stakes accountability measures, only serve to exacerbate such burnout (Dworkin, 2001; Dworkin, Saha, & Hill, 2003).

School Safety

Central to students’ connection to school is a physically and emotionally safe environment (CDC, 2009). Longitudinal research with more than 15,000 students finds that youth who report feeling safe at school demonstrate better average educational and psychological functioning (Heaviside, Rowand, Williams, & Farris, 1998). Although schools are generally safe for many urban youth, they can also be settings in which some students are victimized or engage in violence (Graham, Bellmore, Nishina, & Juvonen, 2009; Nansel et al., 2001).

Real or perceived violence in school creates a climate of emotional unrest that disrupts the learning process (Astor & Meyer, 2001; Johnson, Burke, & Gielen, 2012). According to a report by the National Center for Education Statistics, the rates of violent school victimization were higher for middle school students than for high school students (Roberts, Zhang, & Truman, 2012). Compared to youth who have not been victimized, those who have been bullied or excluded by their peers have a greater likelihood of reporting psychosomatic symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and sleep disturbances (Fekkes, Pijpers, Fredriks, Vogels, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006;Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). Victimized students are also more likely to have inconsistent attendance, low levels of self-esteem and academic motivation, and to perform poorly on school-related measures (Buhs, 2005; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005).

School safety is a chief concern for less advantaged inner city schools. In these environments, students report greater fear of violence than their counterparts in rural or suburban settings; factors such as low teacher control of classroom environments, high student mobility, and violence can influence students’ sense of safety (Akiba, 2010; Milam, Furr-Holden, & Leaf, 2010). Urban schools also have to confront community problems such as gangs, vandalism, unemployment, and crime, which can infiltrate the culture of the school and constrain students’ sense of security on campus

How schools address safety concerns has critical implications for students’ connection to school. Previous work demonstrates that schools where students perceive greater clarity and fairness of rules tend to have fewer delinquent behaviors and peer victimization (G. D. Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005). Efforts to ensure safety have included the installation of metal detectors to prevent students from bringing weapons to school, rules and regulations regarding student dress (e.g., banning the wearing of colors affiliated with street gangs), and the use of police officers to monitor and address negative behaviors (Bracy, 2011). There has also been an increase in the enactment of zero tolerance policies that remove students who engage and perpetrate disruptive behavior (e.g., physical fighting; American Psychological Association [APA] Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008).

By removing disorderly students, the assumption of zero tolerance approaches is that they foster a more peaceful environment and deter those remaining from participating in troublesome behaviors (Public Agenda, 2004). Despite their widespread adoption, however, zero tolerance policies have not improved school safety or proven to be an effective strategy to address maladaptive behaviors (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008). Moreover, some studies have found that zero tolerance policies disproportionately punish minority students in urban areas (Skiba & Knesting, 2001; Verdugo, 2002). Skiba & Peterson (2000) argues that zero tolerance approaches are too coercive and only promote environments that are mistrustful and resistant. Consequently, scholars and practitioners have advocated for more restorative disciplinary strategies including replacing out-of-school suspensions with school service, or having in-school suspensions that are accompanied by academic work and tutoring (Casella, 2003; Gootman, 2001; Noguera, 2000).

High Academic Standards

Holding students accountable to high academic standards strengthens their sense of connection to school (CDC, 2009). Evidence indicates that when there is strong academic press, students on average spend more time on learning tasks, exert greater effort on their schoolwork, and demonstrate higher performance (Bondy & Ross, 2008; Lee & Smith, 1999). For instance, students placed in classrooms with teachers that espouse high-expectancy values advance greater in their average reading abilities relative to their peers in lower expectancy value classrooms (Rubie-Davies, 2007). Bondy and Ross note how “warm demanders” (p. 58) can push their students to excel in ways that still convey unconditional support. Weinstein, Gregory, and Strambler (2004) find that teachers who hold students to rigorous standards tend to perceive intelligence as malleable, and implement flexible and cooperative groupings that provide students with challenges as well as leadership opportunities.

Getting students to achieve at high levels require the support of school administrators. As leaders and managers, they set the school’s academic climate, ensure that the learning environment is orderly, and provide teachers with necessary supports to ensure high quality instruction (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010). Administrators also play a role in communicating high expectations to students, which can be achieved through student–parent meetings, school-wide award assemblies, and incentives that promote progress (Cotton, 2003).

It is important to note that administrators in poor urban schools typically face obstacles that hinder their ability to maintain learning environments committed to high standards. These include weak parental support, student discipline problems, and teachers who perceive themselves to be overworked and under-valued (Ingersoll, 2001; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2004). Principals also encounter structural challenges such as high rates of community crime and violence, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers (Jacob, 2007).

In all, disadvantaged urban schools encounter a myriad of challenges that inhibits their ability to establish conditions that foster school connectedness. These problems range from the student-level to the social and organizational structure of the school. Through a descriptive single case analysis (Yin, 2003), the present study deeply examines three distinct dimensions of school connectedness: adult support, school safety, and high academic standards. The objective is to generate a more nuanced understanding of how school personnel navigate the challenges and opportunities in creating environments that encourage students’ affiliation with school.

Theoretical Framework

Given that schools are multifaceted social organizations, with distinct values and norms, their culture has direct implications on how they promote connectedness. Schein’s (1992) theoretical work on organizational culture offers a useful framework for the current study. Schein (1996) defined culture as “a set of basic tacit assumptions about how the world is and ought to be that a group of people share and that determines their perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and, to some degree, their overt behavior” (p. 11). He contends that organizational culture manifests itself in three levels: observable artifacts, espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 1992).

Observable artifacts are the first and most surface level of organizational culture. Artifacts represent phenomena that can be seen, heard, or felt such as the school’s dress code, physical structure, and routines (e.g., weekly staff meetings). While artifacts may be observed and recorded, they are difficult to decipher on their own; therefore, it is essential to view these artifacts as embedded within a set of values.

Schein (1992) argues that people typically attribute their behaviors to their stated values; however, since values are not directly observable, there are likely differences between one’s stated and operating values. For instance, a teacher may state that she appreciates collaboration with other colleagues, but her record on the matter may suggest otherwise. School leaders play a role in the espoused values of a particular school. If an administrator is particularly influential, her values can effectively shape the school’s priorities and strategies toward teaching and learning.

The third and deepest level of organizational culture is the institution’s basic underlying assumptions. Schein argues that these assumptions stem from the organization’s espoused values and are so ingrained in the culture that they are taken for granted. Examples common in education include the notion that students learn better when they are grouped together by age (i.e., grade levels), or that bells should signal the beginning and end of instructional periods. Schein highlights how underlying assumptions are mutually reinforced and perpetuated by individuals within the organization. As such, assumptions remain largely unchallenged and can influence how group members perceive, think, and feel (Schein, 1992).

By situating the perspectives and behaviors of school personnel along levels of organizational culture, I seek to draw attention to how their values, cultural practices, and assumptions are linked to students’ connection to school. Using this framework, I aim to identify areas amenable to change that can strengthen the level of adult support at school, better ensure students’ safety, and increase all students’ abilities to meet rigorous standards.

Method

Study Site and Participants

Palmero Middle School was one of nine middle schools in the Golden City Unified School District (pseudonyms are used throughout), a largely urban community in California. The district is among the top 10 largest in the state, serving about 48,000 K-12 students. Palmero was a small Title I school that served an ethnically diverse, low-income population of seventh and eighth graders (Table 1). Roughly 56% of the students lived in Village Pines, an economically depressed and high crime area of the city about three miles from the school. Village Pines was known for its frequent occurrences of petty theft, street crime, drug activities, and gang-related violence. Since the Great Recession of 2007, however, a slew of real estate speculators and building contractors have been buying and fixing up abandoned homes in the area and reselling them as starter homes, which has helped to attract more middle-income families into the community.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics of Palmero Middle School, as Compared With the District and State.

	Palmero Middle School	District Average	State Average
Enrollment	367	644	797
Student–teacher ratio	30.3	28.7	22.7
Percentage of minority students	85.0	81.3	73.1
Largest racial/ethnic group	Latino (57.2%)	Latino (36.5%)	Latino (52.0%)
Truancy rate	19.4	3.8	28.5
Teachers—Average years of service	11.1	12.6	13.9
Teachers—Average years in the district	11.1	12.5	11.9
% of students who qualify for free-/reduced-price lunch	100.0	68.9	55.8
% of students who scored proficient in English Language Arts	34.2	50.0	58.1
% of students who scored proficient in Math	32.6	48.0	59.5
% of students who are classified as English Learners	19.6	22.7	22.3
2011 Academic Performance Index base score	641	770	778

Source. Ed-Data 2011-2012 (http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us) and DataQuest 2011-2012 (http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/).

Note. Truancy rate = number of truants/cumulative enrollment × 100. Academic Performance Index base score is the beginning point to measure the academic performance and growth of schools and districts based on students’ test scores.

At the time of this study, Palmero enrolled 367 students. Staff attributed the declining enrollment to the negative reputation Palmero had in the community, as being the worst middle school in the district with the lowest achieving and most problematic students. Latinos made up the largest racial/ethnic group in the school (57%), followed by African Americans (18%), Caucasians (19%), and Asians (5%). Roughly 20% of students were classified as English Learners, and all students were eligible for subsidized meals. Academically, 35% of students scored proficient or advanced in the state’s standardized exam in English Language Arts (ELA), and 34% scored proficient or advanced in Math.

Two administrators and 20 teachers worked at the school; both administrators and more than half of the instructional staff identified as Caucasian. The school employed a nurse to provide physical health and first-aid services once a week, and a guidance counselor for academic and general counseling support 5 days a week.

Data Collection

School personnel were recruited during the first staff meeting at the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. A total of 17 staff members volunteered to take part in the study: 13 (out of 20) teachers, the principal, vice principal, guidance counselor, and school nurse (Table 2). The sample comprised of 10 females and 7 males, with an average of 7 years working at Palmero and 12 years working in education. Fifty-three percent had completed a master’s degree program. Thirteen of the 17 participants identified as Caucasian (76%). All respondents were provided information regarding consent and confidentiality issues, and received a US$10 Starbuck’s gift card for their participation.

Table 2.

Characteristics of Study Participants (n = 17).

Name	Gender	Race/ethnicity	Role in school	Subject(s) taught	Master’s degree	Years at school	Years in education
Barry	M	Caucasian	Teacher	ELA	No	10	14
Cornell	F	Caucasian	Teacher	ELA, AVID	Yes	9	9
De La Salle	F	Caucasian	Teacher	GATE ELA	Yes	18	26
Gilbert	F	Caucasian	Nurse	—	No	11	12
Grocer	F	Caucasian	Teacher	ELA	Yes	9	9
Gunn	F	Caucasian	Teacher	SDC	Yes	4	8
Heller	F	Caucasian	Teacher	Art, ELA	No	12	12
Hofsteller	F	Caucasian	Teacher	Physical education	No	14	14
Jones	F	Caucasian	Librarian	Library science	Yes	3	4
Khang	M	Caucasian	Teacher	Pre-algebra, science	No	1	18
Mahler	F	Caucasian	Teacher	RSP	Yes	7	7
Martins	M	Caucasian	Teacher	SED	No	1	10
McPherson	M	Black	Counselor	—	Yes	3	10
Orlando	M	Latino	Teacher	Algebra	No	5	6
Rubio	F	Latino	Teacher	U.S. history	No	9	16
Tanner	M	Caucasian	Vice principal	—	Yes	2	3
Watson	M	Caucasian	Principal	—	Yes	2	28

Note. Participant names are pseudonyms. ELA = English Language Arts; AVID = Advancement via Individual Determination program targets students with average and above-average grades that have a desire to go to college; GATE = Gifted and Talented Education program provides academic opportunities for high (and low) achieving students; SDC = Special Day Class students receive specialized instruction from a Special Education Teacher, for designated periods during the day, as determined by the students’ Individualized Educational Plan (IEP); RSP = Resource Specialist Program, which is an additional support program provided by a Special Education teacher, helps students acquire skills to make reasonable progress in the Regular Education curriculum; SED = Severely Emotionally Disturbed students exhibit serious emotional disturbance (e.g., mood disorders) that adversely affect their educational performance. All definitions were obtained from California’s Department of Education website: www.cde.ca.gov

Individual interviews

Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were employed to examine participants’ perspectives on school connectedness. First, subjects completed a background survey that gathered information about their educational training, teaching schedule, and other school-related responsibilities (e.g., coaching basketball). Then, during the interviews, subjects described their primary roles, activities, and responsibilities. Depending on their role (e.g., teacher), they were then asked to convey the qualities of someone effective in their role, which led to a discussion of their personal strengths and areas for improvement. Following this, participants were asked to describe issues students confronted both within and outside of school (e.g., neighborhood violence). Finally, the remaining questions tapped participants’ viewpoints on the three key dimensions of school connectedness. All interviews took place on campus, either before or after school or during a planning period. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hr and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

Site and classroom observations

Classroom observations for each of the 13 teachers interviewed were conducted. I also performed school site observations of student–teacher and student–student interactions before school, during passing periods, during lunch, and after school were also. Field and reflective notes were recorded after each observation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Key document reviews

Documents that provided contextual and background information about Palmero were collected and analyzed (e.g., school accountability reports, student handbook). These documents allowed triangulation of data collected from other methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994); for instance, documents helped verify participants’ interview statements.

Data Analysis

Open and axial coding methods were applied in the examination of the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The analysis proceeded in three phases using Dedoose (a web-based application for mixed methods research). In the first phase, each participant’s interview transcript was read and re-read to become as familiar as possible with the subject’s personal conceptualizations and perspectives on school connectedness. School documents and field and reflective notes were also examined to search for evidence that supported or contradicted the respondents’ claims. In the second phase, participants’ responses specifically to questions about the three dimensions of school connectedness were analyzed, recording any salient patterns that emerged, respectively, for each dimension. To help reduce bias, four doctoral students also coded the subjects’ responses for emergent themes. Once their codes were completed, comparisons were made between the researcher and the other reviewers’ analyses, where major themes and concepts were discussed (Huberman & Miles, 2002). Coders met frequently to discuss the identification, definition, and assignment of categories until consensus was reached. In the final phase of the analysis, axial coding was applied to the data where themes generated during the first two phases of the analysis were re-examined to look for associations between them. Axial coding helped clarify distinctions among related constructs, and identify redundant themes that could be combined into fewer categories (Huberman & Miles, 2002; Merriam, 2003).

Results

For each research question, I report the recurrent themes and concepts found in the documentary evidence, interviews, and observational data. I use Schein’s (1992) organizing framework to highlight the values and assumptions that underlie each of the school connectedness dimensions analyzed in this study.

Research Question 1: What Types of Supports Do School Adults Extend to Their Students?

Most participants assumed that students faced an array of out-of-school problems that negatively affected their school performance (e.g., chronic health conditions). Therefore, staff espoused strong values for caring and addressing students’ needs through a variety of means (e.g., nurse check-ups). In several interviews, teachers described having an open-door policy as one way to help students. Participants reported encouraging students to drop-in whenever they needed support such as help on an assignment or advice about a personal problem. Students were also welcome if “they just want a place to color or read or just sit because they’re home lives are just so hectic.” The school nurse described the open-door policy this way:

My door’s always open. So, if they are having a bad day and they just need to come and be in my office, they’re allowed to do so. If they want to have lunch in my office, because some kids just don’t have anybody else there, or if there’s an issue that’s coming up where they need, let’s say pregnancy for example because it does happen . . . I want them to know that I’m there.

A majority of school personnel reported being sensitive to students’ emotional states and committed to helping them obtain appropriate supports (e.g., counseling). One teacher recalled an experience she had with a student:

She was very depressed and dark. I don’t remember if something happened but she started talking about suicide . . . We were able to get her into counseling. They confirmed that yeah, she had been planning to kill herself and so it’s like, God, if I had missed the signs, I don’t know what or how I would have felt!

Students’ mental health was an area of concern for the school. In fact, 1 year before this study, an eighth-grade female student had committed suicide. According to respondents, she was “a popular girl” but had experienced “challenges in her life with other students,” and that some individuals had “posted some not-so-nice things about her on their Facebook pages.” Participants commented how her death “shook up the school.” One respondent described it this way:

We had a girl hang herself last year. That was big! That was one of the biggest things we had to deal with. I’ve never dealt with suicide before. The next day, standing at the door seeing the kids in the hallway crying, I couldn’t function. I had to step out.

In addition to supporting students’ mental health, some adults took on a surrogate parent role and became more involved in students’ lives such as showing up to all of their sporting events or accompanying them to the hospital during a medical emergency. One teacher even served as a foster parent for one of her students. She remarked:

I was able to spend that extra time with her at home . . . there’s only so much that we can do at school. I was able to provide her with extra tutoring. I also think I gave her the social emotional support that her mother couldn’t give her at that time.

Other types of supports included providing students with school supplies, helping them explore a hobby (e.g., music), or connecting them with information (e.g., library books about divorce). Classroom observations also revealed that teachers positively reinforced students’ behaviors in a variety of ways such as providing them with “caught-you-being-good dollars” or verbally praising them for engaging in class. Several personnel extended material resources that facilitated students’ participation with school (e.g., school supplies).

It was not uncommon for school staff to feel that they served many roles in the lives of their students. One respondent said, “We’re a lot to these kids, we’re their food, we’re their health care . . . we’re their safe place.” Many participants presumed that they had to make up for the shortcomings in students’ lives. One teacher noted:

At this school, with these kids, we are not only their teachers, we are also their parents because we are having to teach them rules, how to treat people. We are teaching them manners, we are teaching them so many other things. At my school, teachers came in and they taught us. They didn’t have to teach us these things because we were taught them by our parents. That is not the case here.

Providing a variety of supports negatively influenced some respondents’ perceptions about students’ families. They assumed that families could not care for their children in adequate ways or assist them with their schooling. One participant framed the issue this way:

They have learned helplessness is the way I see it and when they get home the environments are not conducive to learning . . . My parents emphasized education very much . . . I don’t think they’re getting that at home . . . They don’t have the skills. If the parents could come to class, classes on parenting that would be fabulous. I think that should be mandatory.

Another respondent blamed the parents:

I hate to be the teacher that blames it on the parents, but, you know, it really does stem a lot from the parents . . . When you let your child go out of the house with dirty clothes looking the way that some of these kids do, that doesn’t help them, you know what I mean? I don’t want to say neglect, but to me it’s neglect.

Many participants felt the supports they provided students helped strengthen the bonds between them. For instance, respondents cited how students continued to visit them after they had graduated, “friended them on Facebook,” and invited them to various events and celebrations (e.g., birthdays, baby showers). Still, a few respondents felt less successful in helping their students. Some perceived that “no matter what strategy” they tried, their “approaches were ultimately ineffective.” One teacher provided the following example:

I had a student who had a tough life. He had said his dad was abusive. He told me so much I had to go to CPS (Child Protective Services). Unfortunately, something happened outside of school and he ended up being arrested. I think I failed him by not giving him enough resources and not finding some ways of really knowing how to support his needs, which were totally outside of my experience.

Results suggested that Palmero’s staff espoused strong values of caring and prioritized building relationships with their students. The help they provided students were in response to the underlying assumption that students faced harsh economic, social, and health conditions. Because of these adverse circumstances and absence of resources, some participants believed that families were incapable of helping their children with basic needs (e.g., providing breakfast), educational matters (e.g., helping with homework), or engaging with the school to support their children’s academic progress (e.g., attending teacher–parent meetings).

Research Question 2: How Does the School Address Issues Related to School Safety?

Respondents assumed that most students felt physically and emotionally safe at school. They pointed to students’ participation in the afterschool program, dances, sporting events, and other activities as evidence that they felt safe on campus. One teacher observed:

You know they feel safe here because at the end of the day, they don’t want to leave . . . I mean there are times, we are literally saying, “You need to go home. You’re not supposed to be here anymore . . . We know you love us, but go home!”

Staff also expressed feeling safe at school. Compared with earlier years at Palmero, when there were “a lot of true hardcore gang members,” a majority of participants did not feel threatened by students. Similarly, they assumed their colleagues also felt safe because they “have not heard conversations about feeling unsafe,” or seen signs that would suggest otherwise.

Participants held an underlying assumption that bullying behaviors were “normal” and to be expected during middle school, so they instituted policies that removed students who perpetrated problematic behaviors (e.g., physical threats). Many respondents were supportive of removing misbehaving youth from school, and commented how the number of disruptive incidents on campus had decreased as many of the instigators were transferred out of Palmero. One staff member remarked,

I would say it’s more peaceful than a couple of years ago. It was really bad . . . It was just like a lot of unrest . . . There was just kind of a weird feeling in the hallway. You could tell the kids didn’t respect the adults as much. Now, it’s kind of calmed down. It’s a better feeling.

Although the frequency of disruptive incidents may have decreased, bullying continues to be a school-wide concern. Respondents admitted to seeing verbal, physical, and cyber bullying (e.g., threatening text messages), but felt that much of this behavior was under control due to the school’s strict disciplinary policies. Staff expressed little tolerance for bullying and felt that all instances of such behaviors should be addressed. However, observations revealed inconsistencies among staff in the recognition, referral, and addressing of bullying or disruptive behaviors. For instance, while some teachers addressed slurs (e.g., “faggot”) at the first instance, others were more lenient. Some teachers were also less strict regarding teasing or put-downs in the classroom. The following exchange illustrated this inconsistency:

Respondent:

I did have a student 1 year when I was pregnant . . . She just lost her mind and went crazy . . . She was like “I’m gonna kick that bitch in her stomach. She ain’t having that baby!” That was probably my biggest incident because I followed it up with the police.

Interviewer:

What happened to that student?

Respondent:

Nothing. In fact, I came back at the end of the year and then she came running over to see my baby. I was like, “Uh, excuse me. Get out of my face.”

Interviewer:

Why didn’t anything happen?

Respondent:

I’m not sure. I don’t know why. That happens from time to time.

While physical altercations or students getting disciplined for making threats were not observed in this study, name-calling and teasingwere evident in classroom and school observations. These incidents rarely escalated because security personnel or teachers were often nearby. According to the principal, fighting rarely occurred on campus but the fights that have occurred were “very public displays” and occurred mostly “in the quad, during lunch where everybody can see.” In turn, these conflicts “tarnishes our image, both in the eyes of the people who go here and the outside the world.” According to respondents, these fights contributed to the decreasing enrollment at Palmero.

To foster safety on campus, the vice principal enacted a zero tolerance approach mainly because of the demographics of the student population. He expressed that when compared with a more “middle-class school” where a student who threatened another student “might be given a detention, here they get suspended.” Similar to staff, students supported these zero tolerance approaches. Based on a recent survey study of the school’s climate, students remarked “there were too many fights” and that the school should “have stricter rules about fighting,” and “expel the kids who fight because it gives the school a bad reputation.”

In addition to the strict discipline policies, staff pointed to the school’s security personnel and school resource officer as additional supports that kept the environment safe. Site observations affirmed participants’ reports about security personnel’s monitoring of students. These individuals patrolled the school grounds regularly and were called upon to escort students; some even counseled those who were sent outside the classroom temporarily for “time-outs.”

When asked what contributed to a safe school environment, respondents pointed to many factors including having a smaller school population where “it’s harder for the kids to fall through the cracks;” a clean and aesthetically pleasing physical environment (e.g., no graffiti); a “consistent disciplinary policy and administrators willing to follow through;” and the removal of misbehaving students, so that “they are not allowed to poison the waters.” Overwhelmingly, participants identified adult monitoring as the most important strategy in ensuring a safe school. One respondent stated:

Being present out in the hallways, in the classrooms, getting to know the kids . . . I believe that helps a lot because the kids, they know the teachers are gonna be standing out there, so it limits the stuff that could go on if there was nobody in the hallway . . . you know any disruptions, fights that kids are thinking about.

Research Question 3: In What Ways Are Students Held to High Academic Standards?

Most school personnel reported personally holding high expectations for students and believing that every child in the school could learn and succeed. A sign posted in the teachers’ lounge read, “Do you believe all students can learn at high levels? Do you accept responsibility to ensure that all students learn?” For Palmero, high expectations generally meant a strong college-focused culture. Based on classroom observations, the school placed a high value on college, promoting a postsecondary degree as a critical asset in life.

Several artifacts conveyed Palmero’s college-for-all ethos. A majority of classrooms displayed college banners and posters that conveyed the value of education, persistence, and hard work; for instance, one poster read, “People are born to succeed, not to fail.” There were also several college field trips to nearby universities, and an end-of-the-year college tour, where students visited schools across the state. However, these activities were restricted only to those who met the eligibility requirements including passing all assigned courses and having no suspensions in the fourth academic quarter.

The principal actively promoted the value of going to college. He advocated for having “only a college preparatory track” and operated under the assumption that “all students are going to college.” The school’s website prominently displayed the campus motto: “The road to college begins here.” The principal described the school’s focus on college this way:

I think the feeling has been if we care for our students and we make a home for them here, then that’s all they need and that everything will be fine . . . We need to also push them in directions that maintain high academic expectations because our kids are very capable of high achievement, but I don’t think they have ever been really pushed . . . There has been a little bit of the feeling, well they come from a tough neighborhood so we need to take care of their personal needs first, and so if they get an education then fine . . . We need to send both overt and subtle messages to students about their potential.

While a strong value was placed on preparing students for college, respondents remarked how some of their colleagues did not share the same level of expectations, mainly because of their beliefs about low-income minority youth. Participants commented how some of their co-workers were non-engaging in their instructional approaches, did not hold themselves accountable for their students’ failures, or give students second chances to learn from their mistakes. One teacher explained:

I don’t think their lessons are engaging or challenging. I think they’re putting through the motions of just, “here’s a worksheet or open your book, read this chapter, and answer these questions.” They’re dry, they’re boring, they just talk on and on and on and on. Kids need to be engaged, they need to be up and moving and doing something!

The principal agreed that it was a struggle for some of his staff to believe that all students, despite their backgrounds, were capable of achieving at high levels. He said:

. . . This is a piece that we are struggling with, how to institutionalize here, across the board, that we have high expectations for students . . . it’s just a subtle belief maybe that, because of where our students come from or their lower ability levels, that they don’t have the wherewithal to achieve at high levels. I don’t believe we have a unified belief here that all students can learn. I think that’s one of our big issues.

Teachers looked to administrators for leadership and support in promoting high standards. Many praised the principal for helping communicate high expectations to students such as publicly awarding them for their academic or citizenship progress, and requiring above-average grades to participate in end-of-the-year activities. Respondents also praised the vice principal for removing problematic students from campus so that teachers could focus on teaching and learning.

By contrast, some respondents were critical of the administration. They felt that they focused exclusively on students on either sides of the achievement distribution (i.e., the highest and lowest performing students), neglecting those in the middle. For instance, two teachers expressed that their students did not even know the principal’s name or what he looked like, which, for them, signified that the principal was “out of touch” with the average student.

When asked whether they believed that students recognized the importance of education, participants remarked how puberty and other developmental changes during adolescence made it difficult for students to fully understand the value of education. One staff member commented:

They’re kind of in that in-between where they don’t see the future yet and they’re barely out of kind of being handheld through things . . . They just kind of get a little lost and caught up in the socialization of everything.

Participants also noted how differences in cultural values between those at school and those at home contributed to students’ performance in school. For example, one teacher observed:

A lot of them are thinking that they are doing their best and I do think a lot of them are trying the best that they know how, but they don’t have the skills . . . You have these parents continually say they are going to do these things for their children, I will make sure they do their homework, and then the next day they come in and it’s not done . . . I can’t change the parents and that is the problem.

Others acknowledged that raising teenagers was not easy for any parent, and that many of the students’ families “have very little resources” or “understand where to get resources”; thus, school staff had to be “flexible and compassionate.” This flexibility was exhibited when the school relocated its Parent Night from Palmero to a community center in Village Pines. Since administrators and faculty were previously unsuccessful in getting families to come to the school, relocating the event helped address the transportation issues many parents/guardians cited as getting in the way of their attendance. Related to this, participants also commented on the necessity of providing food to recruit parents to school functions, because “anytime there was food, they would come to those.” The guidance counselor offered this perspective:

The parent has a choice to make: do I go work four hours, get taxes taken out of that, and wait a week for that check to come, or do I go to my kid’s school and get two bags of groceries right now and not have to worry about going to the store or where the next meal is coming from? You have to give to get . . . let’s make the incentive greater.

Discussion

The present study aims to advance knowledge about school connectedness by closely examining its important dimensions from the perspectives of urban school personnel working with low-income ethnic minority youth. The observed artifacts, values, behaviors, and assumptions of teachers, administrators, and support staff reveal important insights on how adults support students, keep them safe at school, and hold them accountable to rigorous academic standards. Through an in-depth single case analysis, this study highlights the opportunities and challenges in strengthening underrepresented students’ connection to school. Three main themes are discussed below.

The Tension Between Supporting Students and Perpetuating Deficit Views of Families

Findings reveal that school officials are responsive to the family, economic, and community problems students face. Data suggest that adults are committed to providing students with instructional, emotional, material, and other types of supports to help improve their experience at school. Providing these supports help build caring and trusting relationships, which are critical in strengthening students’ bonds to school. As one teacher said, “if they need supplies, if they need, you know, a backpack or whatever, I’m there.”

Results also indicate that provision of these supports reinforces deficit views about students’ families. Because staff offers students food, clothing, and school supplies, among other things, school personnel perceive themselves as making up for the deficiencies in students’ lives. This perception, in turn, can lead to unfounded views about the capacity of students’ families. Many teachers, for instance, assume that families do not value education, cannot provide their children with basic needs, or care about their overall well-being. As one teacher said,

I think some of my strengths are I truly truly care about what happens to these kids, because I feel like a lot of their home environments, I feel like there is not somebody that cares . . . it really bothers me how I see how some of these kids are treated.

Perceptions of parental disregard among poor and ethnic minority families are pervasive in many schools (Diamond, Randolph, & Spillane, 2004; Garcia & Guerra, 2004). To a large degree, these deficit assumptions reflect middle-class biases that often create a wedge between families and schools and result in decreased parental involvement (Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Lott, 2001). This divide between schools and families can negatively influence students’ academic performance and self-concept (Bazron, Osher, & Fleischman, 2005).

A large body of research confirms that ethnic minority families place a high value on education (e.g., Garcia Coll et al., 2002; Hill & Craft, 2003). However, far too many schools see family engagement as traditionally school-based (e.g., vising classes, talking to teachers), which dismisses other important forms of parental support (e.g., encouraging literacy in the home, enforcing rules regarding the completion of homework; Jeynes 2003). Desimone (1999) found that traditional measures of parental involvement (e.g., attending Parent Teacher Association [PTA] meetings) were more predictive of achievement for European American and middle-income students than for Latino, low-income, or African American students. Furthermore, studies have also noted how the children of low-income families have demonstrated an ability to flourish academically, socially, and psychologically despite the dearth of resources at home (e.g., Conger & Conger, 2002; Crosnoe, Mistry, & Elder, 2002). Therefore, given that parents’ participation in their children’s lives at school has positive effects on multiple outcomes (Jeynes, 2003), it may be important for Palmero’s staff to reconceive their notions of parental involvement in schools and critically examine their assumptions about families, as they may unintentionally convey a privileged standpoint and alienate parents rather than welcome them to school (Hill & Craft, 2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Lott, 2001).

Striking a Balance Between Caring for Students and Holding Them Accountable to High Academic Standards

Findings highlight how the school’s emphasis on building caring relationships can come at the expense of holding students accountable to high standards. Many teachers assume their students come from unfavorable backgrounds, which, in turn, lowers their educational expectations and standards for them. As one teacher observed about her colleague,

We have to cut, cut, cut. Remedial, remedial, remedial. Because if they are remedial enough, then they will have success. Really? What about raising the bar and believing they will get to it? Give them work that is challenging and thoughtful!

Previous work has shown that students tend to characterize “nice” teachers as the least effective because they readily accepted sub-standard work (Wilson & Corbett, 2001). In their interviews of nearly 400 inner city low-income adolescents, researchers found that students appreciated teachers that consistently checked on homework, called parents, and who helped them combat their habits of slacking off and ignoring assignments. For school officials at Palmero, striking this balance between addressing students’ needs and upholding high standards remains a difficult endeavor.

Administrators play an instrumental role in providing the guidance and supports to ensure that students are held accountable to achieve at high levels. With leadership from the principal, Palmero’s teaching staff equates rigor with preparing students for college. School documents, interviews, and observations revealed that a high value was placed on making sure that students were on the “road to college.” However, it remains unclear from the data whether school personnel have actually reached a consensus of what college readiness means in the middle grades. While studies have been conducted at the high school level about getting students prepared for postsecondary opportunities (e.g., Adelman, 2006), what college readiness entails in middle school and how to promote it remains an empirical question. With increasing attention on college readiness (e.g., Conley, 2007), research on how preparing students for the rigors of college-level work manifests in classroom and school-wide practices, may help shed light on effective strategies and interventions.

Examining School Disciplinary Practices and Policies

Findings reveal that school personnel are supportive of zero tolerance disciplinary approaches that remove troublesome youth from school. Because observations reflected inconsistencies among teachers in how they address students’ behaviors, it may be worthwhile for Palmero’s staff to examine the underlying assumptions behind their disciplinary policies, and to collect and analyze data about which students are being removed for misconduct, and how their behaviors are being addressed and improved.

Similar to other middle schools, the issue of bullying is particularly salient for Palmero. Respondents readily assume that bullying behaviors are “typical” of early adolescence. Such assumptions may reduce awareness about the nature, prevalence, and sensitivity to the deleterious consequences of bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). Classroom observations suggest that teachers are unclear as to what constitutes bullying and the appropriate responses to address such behaviors. Likewise, interview and observational data suggest that there are no stated policies for following up with victims of bullying or the bystanders who witness such events. Because of the psychological costs of peer victimization, clarifying policies, routines, and practices that counsel and empower students to report bullying behaviors may help improve their sense of safety and affiliation with school (Rigby, 2007).

Limitations and Conclusions

How schools organize themselves is indicative of their shared beliefs, espoused values, and fundamental assumptions (Schein, 1992). Although the present study offers a nuanced description of how under-resourced urban middle school personnel navigate distinct dimensions of school connectedness, it has important limitations. These include the focus on a single school site, the relatively small purposive sample size, and the self-selecting nature of the participants, which limit generalizability. Despite these limitations, this study expands the literature by providing a detailed examination about multiple facets of school connectedness from the viewpoints of school staff serving an at-risk population.

Guided by Schein’s (1992) organizational frame, results from this work emphasize a need for Palmero’s personnel to engage in self-reflection and examination. Findings suggest that teachers, administrators, and support staff should strive not only to address the varied needs of students but also to challenge them to achieve at high levels. Staff should be encouraged to stay critical of their assumptions of poor and ethnic minority families, because their beliefs may unintentionally perpetuate negative stereotypes and discourage parents from being more actively involved in their child’s schooling. The present study also affirms that researchers should account for the importance of families in supporting students’ bonds to schools. Finally, this work challenges Palmero’s school personnel to question the degree to which they place value and rely on exclusionary disciplinary measures, as they may propagate misguided assumptions, cultural biases, and deficit thinking about the behaviors of poor urban youth of color.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by dissertation grants from the University of California, Davis and the University of California All-Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity (UC/ACCORD).

Author Biography

Manuelito Biag, PhD, is a research associate at the John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education. Broadly, his research examines schools as context for children’s cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development. He is particularly interested in the links between students’ health and academic trajectories.

References

Adelman

(2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Akiba

(2010). What predicts fear of school violence among U.S. adolescents? Teachers College Record, 112, 68-102.

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852-862.

Anderman

L. H.

Freeman

T. M.

(2004). Students’ sense of belonging in school. In Maehr

Pintrich

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivating students, improving schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley (Vol. 13, pp. 27-63). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Astor

R. A.

Meyer

H. A.

(2001). The conceptualization of violence-prone school subcontexts: Is the sum of the parts greater than the whole? Urban Education, 36(3), 374-399.

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. A.

(2004). Assessing the transitions to middle and high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(1), 3-30.

Bazron

Osher

Fleischman

(2005). Creating culturally responsive schools. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 83-84.

Berliner

(2006). Our impoverished view of educational reform. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 949-995.

Blum

R. W.

(2005). School connectedness: Improving the lives of students. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

10.

Blum

R. W.

Libbey

H. P.

Bishop

J. H.

Bishop

(2004). School connectedness: Strengthening health and education outcomes for teenagers. Journal of School Health, 74, 231-232.

11.

Bondy

Ross

D. D.

(2008). The teacher as a warm demander. Educational Leadership, 66(1), 54-58.

12.

Bracy

(2011). Student perceptions of high-security environments. Youth & Society, 43(1), 365-395.

13.

Bryk

A. S.

Schneider

(2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

14.

Bryk

A. S.

Sebring

P. B.

Allensworth

Luppescu

Easton

J. Q.

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

15.

Buhs

E. S.

(2005). Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school adjustment: Self-concept and classroom engagement as mediating processes. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 407-424.

16.

Casella

(2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105, 872-892.

17.

Catalano

R. F.

Oesterle

Fleming

C. B.

Hawkins

J. D.

(2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74, 252-261.

18.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School connectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors among youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/pdf/connectedness.pdf

19.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

(2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361-373.

20.

Conley

D. T.

(2007). The challenge of college readiness. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 23-29.

21.

Cornelius-White

(2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educaitonal Research, 77(1), 113-143.

22.

Cotton

(2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

23.

Crosnoe

Johnson

M. K.

Elder

G. H.

(2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77, 60-81.

24.

Crosnoe

Mistry

R. S.

Elder

G. H.

(2002). Economic disadvantage, family dynamics, and adolescent enrollment in higher education. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 690-702.

25.

Desimone

(1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter? Journal of Educational Research, 93, 11-31.

26.

Diamond

J. B.

Randolph

Spillane

J. P.

(2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35, 75-98.

27.

Duncan

G. J.

Murnane

(Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and chidren’s life chances. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

28.

Dworkin

A. G.

(2001). Perspectives on teacher burnout and school reform. International Education Journal, 2, 69-78.

29.

Dworkin

A. G.

Saha

L. J.

Hill

A. N.

(2003). Teacher burnout and perceptions of a democratic school environment. International Education Journal, 4, 108-120.

30.

Farber

B. A.

(2000). Treatment strategies for different types of teacher burnout. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 675-689.

31.

Fekkes

Pijpers

F. I.

Fredriks

A. M.

Vogels

Verloove-Vanhorick

S. P.

(2006). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A prospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117, 1568-1574.

32.

Furrer

Skinner

(2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.

33.

Garcia

S. B.

Guerra

P. L.

(2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36, 150-168.

34.

Garcia Coll

Akiba

Palacios

Bailey

Silver

DiMartino

Chin

(2002). Parental involvement in children’s education: Lessons from three immigrant groups. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 303-324.

35.

Gini

Pozzoli

(2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123(3), 1059-1065.

36.

Gootman

(2001). The caring teacher’s guide to discipline: Helping young students learn self-control, responsibility, and respect. Thousand Oak, CA: Corwin.

37.

Gottfredson

G. D.

Gottfredson

D. C.

Payne

A. A.

Gottfredson

N. C.

(2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 42, 412-444.

38.

Graham

Bellmore

Nishina

Juvonen

(2009). “It must be me”: Ethnic diversity and attributions for peer victimization in middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(4), 487-499.

39.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.

40.

Heaviside

Rowand

Williams

Farris

(1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools: 1996–97 (NCES publication #98-030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

41.

Herlihy

(2007). Toward ensuring a smooth transition to high school. Washington, DC: National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research.

42.

Hill

N. E.

Chao

R. K.

(2009). Families, schools, and the adolescent: Connecting research, policy, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

43.

Hill

N. E.

Craft

S. A.

(2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 74-83.

44.

Huberman

A. M.

Miles

M. B.

(2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Ingersoll

(2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Education Research Journal, 38, 499-534.

46.

Jacob

B. A.

(2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 129-153.

47.

Jackson

A. W.

Davis

G. A.

Abeel

Bordonaro

(2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.

48.

Johnson

S. L.

Burke

J. G.

Gielen

A. C.

(2012). Urban students’ perceptions of the school environments’ influence on school violence. Children & Schools, 34(2), 92-102.

49.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2003). A meta-analysis—The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202-218.

50.

Juvonen

Nishina

Graham

(2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349-359.

51.

Klem

A. M.

Connell

J. P.

(2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262-273.

52.

Ladd

G. W.

Burgess

K. B.

(2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72, 1579-1601.

53.

Lareau

Horvat

E. M.

(1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race, class and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72, 37-53.

54.

Lee

V. E.

Smith

J. B.

(1999). Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 907-945.

55.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

56.

Lott

(2001). Low-income parents and the public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 247-259.

57.

Merriam

(2003). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

58.

Midgley

Edelin

K. C.

(1998). Middle school reform and early adolescent well-being: The good news and the bad. Educational Psychologist, 33, 195-206.

59.

Milam

A. J.

Furr-Holden

C. D. M.

Leaf

P. J.

(2010). Perceived school and neighborhood safety, neighborhood violence, and academic achievement in urban school children. The Urban Review, 42(5), 458-467.

60.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

M. D.

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychological adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

62.

Nasir

N. S.

Jones

McLaughlin

M. W.

(2011). School connectedness for students in low-income urban high schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 1755-1793.

63.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2004). Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education: A two-tiered education system. Washington, DC: Author.

64.

National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.nap.edu/books/0309084350/html/

65.

Nishina

Juvonen

Witkow

M. R.

(2005). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will make me feel sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34, 37-48.

66.

Noguera

P. A.

(2000). Listen first: How student perspectives on violence can be used to create safer schools. In Polakow

(Ed.), The public assault on America’s children (pp. 130-156). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

67.

Orfield

Losen

Wald

Swanson

(2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

68.

Public Agenda. (2004). Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today’s public schools foster the common good? Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/files/teaching_interrupted.pdf

69.

Reddy

Rhodes

J. E.

Mulhall

(2003). The influence of teacher support on student adjustment in the middle school years: A latent growth curve study. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 119-138.

70.

Rigby

(2007). Bullying in schools and what to do about it: Revised and updated. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://extension.fullerton.edu/professionaldevelopment/assets/pdf/bullying/bullying_in_school.pdf

71.

Roberts

Zhang

Truman

(2012). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2011 (NCES 2012-002/ NCJ 236021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

72.

Rockoff

J. E.

Lockwood

B. B.

(2010). Stuck in the middle: Impacts of grade configuration in public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 1051-1061.

73.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

(2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high- and low-expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 289-306.

74.

Ryan

A. M.

Patrick

(2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.

75.

Schein

E. H.

(1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

76.

Schein

E. H.

(1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 229-240.

77.

Schwerdt

West

M. R.

(2013). The impact of alternative grade configurations on student outcomes through middle and high school. Journal of Public Economics, 97, 308-326.

78.

Skiba

R. J.

Peterson

R. L.

(2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 335-347.

79.

Skiba

R. J.

Knesting

(2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 2001(92), 17-43.

80.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

81.

Thompson

D. R.

Iachan

Overpeck

Ross

J. G.

Gross

L. A.

(2006). School connectedness in the health behavior in school-aged children study: The role of student, school, and school neighborhood characteristics. Journal of School Health, 76, 379-386.

82.

Verdugo

(2002). Race-ethnicity, social class, and zero-tolerance policies: The cultural and structural wars. Education and Urban Society, 35, 50-75.

83.

Way

Reddy

Rhodes

(2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3-4), 194-213.

84.

Weinstein

R. S.

Gregory

Strambler

M. J.

(2004). Intractable self-fulfilling prophecies. American Psychologist, 59, 511-520.

85.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2009). Students’ relationships with teachers. In Meece

J. L.

Eccles

J. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling and human development (pp. 75-91). New York, NY: Routledge.

86.

Wilson

B. L.

Corbett

H. D.

(2001). Listening to urban kids: School reform and the teachers they want. Albany: State University of New York Press.

87.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.