Introduction.

Antisocial behavior in our schools is a serious threat not only to student safety but also to student learning. Generally, the more antisocial behaviors that occur in a school, the lower the academic performance within that school (Hawkins, Farrington, & Catalano, 1998; Herrenkohl et al., 1998; Huizinga & Jakob-Chien, 1998; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998; Verdugo & Schneider, 1999). There is general agreement that a safe school environment is necessary for developing optimal academic skills. For the most part, schools have emphasized reactive strategies, including increased security measures (e.g., metal detectors, fences, I.D. cards, security police) and aversive consequences in the hope of suppressing violence, vandalism and other antisocial behaviors (Sugai, Kameenui, & Colvin, 1993). However, such measures do not address the factors that help to cause antisocial behavior, and in some cases appear to result in an increase rather than a decrease in such behavior (Greenberg, 1974; Mayer & Leone, 1999).

This issue of ETC provides a snapshot o what we know, what is being done, and what needs to be done. First, Mayer identifies a number of factors within the school that appear to contribute to antisocial behavior. One theme that underlines many of these factors (e.g., academic failure experiences, unclear rules for student deportment, misuse of behavior management procedures) is an aversive or punitive classroom environment review of the research in this area leaves little to no questions that schools are very punitive for some students and contribute to student antisocial behavior. The remainder of his article emphasizes what educators can do to help prevent antisocial behavior.

Mattaini's article focuses on constructing cultures of non-violence. He refers to a system that relies on aversives to control antisocial behavior as a "culture of death," and describes a flexible, evidence-based strategy that includes concrete practical tools. It emphasizes community acceptability and feasibility, thus, leaving considerable room for local variation and creativity.

These two integrative discussion articles are followed by three empirical studies that are representative of the type of research currently being conducted in the field. The first, by Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, and Sprague is an evaluation of a consultative approach to assisting middle schools in implementing a school-wide behavior support program. Results showed increased positive reinforcement for appropriate student social behavior, and decreases in student aggression discipline referrals, and in harassment among males. In addition, student perceptions of school safety improved in target schools.

Generally, behavior interventions for antisocial behaviors are more effective when functional assessments are conducted to help determine the behaviors' possible causes. In the next article, Kinch, Lewis-Palmer, Hagan-Burke, and Sugai investigated the efficiency, accuracy and usefulness of functional assessment information obtained from middle school students and their teachers. The results indicated that middle school students and teachers, who experienced higher rates of their students' misbehavior, were able to provide useful and reliable functional assessment information.

Finally, the article by Sprague et al., evaluated an intervention package for elementary and middle schools that was designed to improve school safety and the social behavior of students. Treatment schools generally showed a greater reduction in office discipline referrals, and their students showed improved social skill knowledge than those in comparison schools.

All the above studies emphasize the use of positive interventions while reducing punitive methods of control. Since the early foundational studies that were done in this area by Mayer and his colleagues (1979; 1983; 1987; 1993), the biggest challenge continues to be developing a support system that not only encourages adoption but also continued implementation of these strategies. Thus, one emphasis of the above approaches has been to provide user-friendly programs for adoption. Another emphasis has been to determine what supports from the natural environment can be drawn upon to motivate educators to implement and maintain program implementation.

The support provided must be strong enough to overcome the immediate outcome of using punitive control. The use of punitive methods of control provides educators with immediate relief if they are effective at all. For example, schools that rely upon suspensions and expulsions not only get rid of the troublesome behavior, but also the disruptive youngster for a period of time. However, these youngsters tend to get further behind academically, which is more punitive for the student, resulting in more antisocial behavior that results in more punitive consequences. Such interactions can eventually escalate until serious delinquent behavior occurs, or the student drops out of school: Problems that negatively impact society.

In summary, the emphasis of the following pages is on prevention of violence and other antisocial behavior. These articles suggest ways of reducing a reliance on shortsighted, reactive approaches to student discipline and replacing them with approaches that address the causes of antisocial behavior.

References

Greenberg, B. (1974). School vandalism: Its effects and paradoxical solutions. Crime Prevention Review, 1, 105.

Hawkins, J. D., Farrington, D. P., & Catalano, R. F. (1998). Reducing violence through the schools. In D. S. Eliot, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A new perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Herrenkohl, T., Maguin, E., Hill, K., Hawkins, J., Abbott, R., & Catalano, R. (1998). Childhood and adolescent predictors of youth violence. Seattle: University of Washington, Seattle Social Development Project.

Huizinga, D., & Jakob-Chien, C. (1998). The contemporaneous co-occurrence of serious and violent juvenile offenders and other problem behaviors. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayer, G. R., & Butterworth, T. (1979). A preventive approach to school violence and vandalism: An experimental study. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 57, 436-441.

Mayer, G. R., Butterworth, T., Nafpaktitis, M., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1983). Preventing school vandalism and improving discipline: A three-year study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 355-369.

Mayer, G. R., Nafpaktitis, M., Butterworth, T., & Hollingsworth, P. (1987). A search for the elusive setting events of school vandalism: A correlational study. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 259-270.

Mayer, G. R., Mitchell, L, Clementi, T., Clement-Robertson, E., Myatt, R., & Bullara, D. T. (1993). A dropout prevention program for at-risk high school students: Emphasizing consulting to promote positive classroom climates. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 135-146.

Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (1999). A structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 140-146.

Sugai, G., Kameenui, E., & Colvin, G. (1993). Project PREPARE: Promoting responsible, empirical and proactive alternatives in regular education for students with behavior disorders. Unpublished data: Eugene: University of Oregon, College of Education.

Verdugo, R., & Schneider, J. (1999). Quality schools, safe schools: A theoretical and empirical discussions. Education and Urban Society, 31(3), 286-308.