A Preliminary Investigation of the Relationship between In-School Suspension and the Disruptive Classroom Behavior of Students with Behavioral Disorders
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 1997
A Preliminary Investigation of the Relationship between In-School Suspension and the Disruptive Classroom Behavior of Students with Behavioral Disorders
This study examined the effects of three types of in-school suspension programs on disruptive classroom behavior as well as the impact of classroom management techniques on assignment to in-school suspension. The participants were 36 students (ages 12–17) with behavioral or emotional disorders who were enrolled in a residential school for adolescents. There were four intervention phases. In the Timeout1 intervention, students (n = 17) served a 15-minute timeout. In the Timeout Plus Academic Task intervention, students (n = 19) served a timeout and completed an academic assignment. In the Problem-Solving intervention, students (n = 10) completed a problem-solving task pertaining to their in-school suspension assignment. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed no reliable differences in the in-school suspension rate or disruptive classroom behavior across the four phases. However, teachers' disapproval of student off-task behavior predicted assignment to in-school suspension. These results are discussed in terms of classroom management and teachers' use of aversive stimuli.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP. A., & TroutmanA. C. (1990). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
2.
BaconE. (1990). Using negative consequences effectively.Academic Therapy, 25, 599–611.
3.
BanduraA. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BowdringN. A. (1989). Student, parent, and faculty perceptions about in-school suspension at one urban high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
5.
CantrellR. P., StennerA. J., & KatzenmeyerW. G. (1977). Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and classroom teaching correlates of students' achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 190–197.
6.
CarneyD. M. (1985). A comparison of selected personality and behavioral variables of middle school students who have experienced out of school suspension, in school suspension, and a control group of non-excluded students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
7.
Children's Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? A report.Cambridge, MA: Author.
8.
ChobotR. B., & GaribaldiA. (1982). In-school alternatives to suspension: A description of ten school district programs.Urban Review, 14, 317–336.
9.
DiemR. A. (1988). On campus suspensions: A case study.High School Journal, 72, 36–39.
10.
DrabmanR. S., & SpitalnikR. (1973). Social isolation as a punishment procedure: A controlled study.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16, 236–249.
11.
EkstromR. B., GoertzM. E., PollackJ. M., & RockD. A. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study.Teachers College Record, 87, 357–373.
12.
EliasM. J., & ClabbyJ. F. (1992). Building social problem solving skills: Guidelines from a school-based program.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
EliasM. J., & TobiasS. E. (1996). Social problem solving: Interventions in the schools.New York: Guilford.
14.
FloydN. M. (1985). “Pick on somebody your own size.” Controlling victimization.The Pointer, 29, 9–17.
15.
GableR. A., HendricksonJ. M., YoungC. C., ShoresR. E., & StowitschekJ. J. (1983). A comparison of teacher approval and disapproval statements across categories of exceptionality.Journal of Special Education Technology, 6, 15–22.
16.
GaribaldiA. (Ed.). (1979). In-school alternatives to suspension: Conference report.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17.
GaribaldiA. M. (1995). Street academies and in-school alternatives to suspension. In WangM. C., & ReynoldsM. C. (Eds.), Making a difference for students at-risk: Trends and alternatives (pp. 99–118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
18.
GunterP. L., DennyR. K., JackS. L., ShoresR. E., & NelsonM. (1993). Aversive stimuli in academic interactions between students with serious emotional disturbance and their teachers.Behavioral Disorders, 18, 265–274.
19.
GunterP. L., JackS. L., ShoresR. E., CarrellD. E., & FlowersJ. (1993). Lag sequential analysis as a tool for functional analysis of student disruptive behavior in classrooms.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 138–148.
20.
HarmonW. F. (1989). The comparative effects of in-school suspension and home suspension on the learning climate in the secondary schools of Medina Valley Independent School District. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station.
21.
IwataB. A. (1987). Negative reinforcement in applied behavior analysis: An emerging technology.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 361–378.
22.
KennedyJ. B. (1984). Student perceptions of school climate and in-school suspension as a discipline technique in Junior high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
23.
KerrM. M., NelsonC. M., & LambertD. L. (1987). Helping adolescents with learning and behavior problems.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
24.
LynchA. L. (1984). A comparative study of three groups of junior high school students to evaluate the effects of different methods of suspension: In-school suspension without schoolwork, in-school suspension with assigned schoolwork, and out of school suspension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco.
25.
MadsenC. H.Jr., & MadsenC. K. (1981). Teaching discipline: A positive approach for educational development (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
MooreS. R., & SimpsonR. L. (1983). Teacher-pupil and peer verbal interactions of learning disabled, behavior-disordered, and nonhandicapped students.Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 273–282.
28.
Morgan-D'AtrioC., NorthupJ., LaFleurL., & SperaS. (1995). Toward prescriptive alternatives to suspensions: A preliminary evaluation.Behavioral Disorders, 21, 190–200.
29.
NeillS. B. (1976). Suspension and expulsion: Current trends in school policies and programs.Arlington, VA: National School Public Relations Association.
30.
PattersonG. R. (1982). Coercive family process.Eugene, OR: Castalia.
31.
PattersonG. R., LittmanR. A., & BrickerW. (1967). Assertive behavior in children: A step toward a theory of aggression.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 32, No. 5.
32.
PembertonR. R. (1986). A study of the effectiveness of in-school suspension as perceived by high school principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.
33.
PfiffnerL. J., RosenL. A., & O'LearyS. G. (1985). The efficacy of an all-positive approach to classroom management.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 257–261.
34.
PowersM. D. (1983). Training family day care providers to use behavior modification procedures: A case study (Research Report No. 143). Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 264 978)
35.
RhodeG., JensonW. R., & ReavisH. R. (1992). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies.Longmont, CO.: Sports West.
36.
RoseT. L. (1988). Current disciplinary practices with handicapped students: Suspensions and expulsions.Exceptional Children, 55, 230–239.
37.
RutherfordR. (1978). Theory and research on the use of aversive procedures in the education of behaviorally disordered and emotionally disturbed children and youth. In WoodF., & LankinK. C. (Eds.), Punishment and aversive stimulation in special education (pp. 41–64). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
38.
SalendS. J., & GordonB. D. (1987). A group-oriented timeout ribbon procedure.Behavioral Disorders, 12, 131–137.
39.
SaudargasR. A., & LentzF. E. (1986). Estimating percent of time and rate via direct observation: A suggested observational procedure and format.School Psychology Review, 15, 36–48.
40.
ShapiroE. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
41.
ShoresR. E., GunterP. L., & JackS. L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion?Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92–102.
42.
ShoresR. E., JackS. L., GunterP. L., EllisD. N., DeBriereT. J., & WehbyJ. H. (1993). Classroom interactions of children with behavior disorders.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 27–39.
43.
SidmanM. (1989). Coercion and its fallout.Boston: Authors Cooperative.
44.
SkibaR. J., & PetersonR. L. (1997, April). Zero tolerance for exclusionary discipline: Alternatives to suspension and expulsion. Workshop presented at the annual national convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Anaheim, CA.
45.
SmithS. J., & SolimaniG. (1985, April). Decreasing self-stimulating behaviors with profoundly mentally retarded, while acknowledging obstacles and frustration. Paper presented at the annual convention of The Council for Exceptional Children, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 257 303)
46.
SolnickJ. V., RincoverA., & PetersonR. (1977). Determinants of the reinforcing and punishing effects of time-out.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 415–428.
47.
StageS. A., & QuirozD. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior.School Psychology Review, 26, 333–368.
48.
StrainP. S., & EzzellD. (1978). The sequence and distribution of behavior disordered adolescents' disruptive/inappropriate behaviors.Behavior Modification, 2, 403–425.
49.
StrainP. S., LambertD. L., KerrM. M., StaggV., & LenknerD. A. (1983). Naturalistic assessment of children's compliance to teachers' requests and consequences for compliance.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 243–249.
50.
ThomasJ. D., PreslandI. E., GrantM. D., & GlynnT. L. (1978). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in grade-7 classrooms.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 91–94.
51.
WahlerR. G., & FoxJ. J. (1981). Setting events in applied behavior analysis: Toward a conceptual and methodological expansion.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 327–338.
52.
WhiteM. A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 367–372.
53.
WilliamsJ. (1979). In-school alternatives to suspension: Why bother? In GaribaldiA. M. (Ed.), In-school alternatives to suspension: Conference report (pp. 1–22). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
YellM. L., ClineD., & BradleyR. (1995). Disciplining students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A legal update.Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 299–308.
56.
ZelieK., StoneC. I., & LehrE. (1980). Cognitive-behavioral intervention in school discipline: A preliminary study.The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59, 80–83.
