otherwise, they cannot teach effectively. Even teachers who generally have control of their class and possess strong classroom management skills grow frustrated after encountering numerous class disruptions and abundant disrespect. Such environments have been linked to teacher stress and attrition.
Teacher burnout has become a critical concern for many interested in teacher attrition (Chan, 2006). In the United States, half of new teachers are leaving the profession within the first five years (Lambert & McCarthy, 2006). One of the major reasons for teacher attrition is job dissatisfaction, with almost 25 percent of these departures due to problems related to student misbehavior (Ingersoll, 2003). Youki Terada (2018) states:
Teacher stress is high partly because the demands of the job can lead to emotional exhaustion, which arises as teachers try to manage the emotional needs of their students in addition to their academic needs. Not all students come to school ready to learn, and distracted or disruptive students can quickly drain a teacher’s emotional energy.
According to Julian Stanley (2014), 91 percent of teachers experience high levels of stress, and as many as 41 percent of teachers leave their jobs within the first five years (Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014).
When examining the causes for unruly student behavior that hinders academic success, several factors deserve scrutiny. A majority of the research on school discipline suggests that poverty, lack of social skills, lack of parental involvement, disintegration of family structure, television and media, and students’ home environments contribute to disruptive behavior (Atkins et al., 2002; Bear, 1998; Skiba & Peterson, 2003). These are powerful—and sometimes impossible—factors for educators to overcome. Most schools find it challenging to manage disruptive student behaviors, such as violence, antisocial conduct, bullying, talking back, and absenteeism, with any level of effectiveness (Barbadoro, 2017).
Because these factors are beyond educators’ control, it is easy to point to them whenever disruption festers in classroom settings and when a negative school climate persists after failed attempts to repair it. I have been guilty of this myself. When I was a dean of students working in a Chicago suburban high school, I took it personally when students misbehaved or when the negative school climate didn’t improve. I viewed my successes and failures on the job as reflections of who I was as a person. On days when student behavior was good in the building and there were no fights, I felt proud. On days when I had to process numerous discipline referrals for disrespect and insubordination or constantly break up fights, I carried a negative attitude around with me. Unfortunately, for quite some time, I had far more bad days than good.
As a result, I started doubting myself. My self-esteem faltered. I questioned whether I could do anything to improve student behavior. The tendency to be hard on oneself is a human affliction, and I certainly suffered with it. I struggled so mightily because I cared so deeply about the students and the success of the school. Meanwhile, I suffered from another human affliction—the tendency to shift blame. The frustration of disrespectful students and murmuring teachers wore on me, as it often does on educators in similar situations. In an effort to protect my image, I shared the school’s statistics when teachers or community members mentioned the school’s failing reputation.
This south suburban high school in Chicago had a population of almost 1,200 students, and over 59 percent of the students were from low-income households, 20 percent had individualized education programs (IEPs), and 3 percent were homeless. The student population in this school was 94 percent African American, 3 percent Hispanic, and 1 percent white. The school’s average ACT score was 16.6, compared to the Illinois state average of 20.8 and the national average of 21 (Illinois Report Card, 2018). It became my standby to quote these facts when teachers complained about student misbehavior, a gang presence in the school, or the number of verbal and physical altercations that occurred regularly.
Zero Tolerance
At this time, zero tolerance was very popular. Many school districts adopted zero-tolerance policies to send the message that certain student behaviors were verboten. According to Russell J. Skiba and Kimberly Knesting (2001) of the Safe and Responsive Schools Project (now called the Equity Project), zero tolerance quickly spread among educators concerned about an epidemic of youth violence, and school boards across the country adopted zero-tolerance policies for a range of disruptive behaviors. Zero-tolerance policies were dramatically expanded by state legislatures and school districts to include not just weapons and drugs, but fighting and misbehavior (Peterson, 2005), which happened to be two of the most frequently referred behaviors at my school.
In accordance with zero-tolerance policies, schools took punitive measures in an attempt to get student behavior under control. According to Sandra M. Way (2003) and Jack P. Gibbs (1975), punishment can deter misbehavior either through experiencing a consequence or through knowledge about the punishments others have received. And school officials have long known that if students understand what types of behavior are prohibited and what consequences they will face for engaging in these prohibited behaviors, they will be more likely to conduct themselves appropriately (Yell, Rozalski, & Drasgow, 2001). Knowledge of the consequences can cause students to think twice about committing an infraction.
Adopting this school of thought, our institution implemented strict discipline policies. Suspensions increased. But behavior infractions increased as well. I found myself suspending students at an alarming rate. The school community’s belief that tougher disciplinary consequences would serve as a deterrent proved to be misguided. School research has thoroughly documented how ineffective out-of-school suspensions are. In fact, research suggests that such suspensions actually reinforce negative behavior. Suspensions increase the risk of disruption and lead to dropout and delinquency (Skiba & Peterson, 2003). Students at risk view suspension as an attack or rejection, become more aggressive, and disengage from school and teachers (Seita & Brendtro, 2003). Suspension fuels anger and seems to add to aberrant behavior (Parker, 2006).
Lacking this knowledge at the time, many educators were surprised when the punitive discipline codes proved futile. Others were caught in the matrix of attempting to follow the new standards while witnessing firsthand the dismal outcomes. In an attempt to work with teachers and enforce the discipline policy with fidelity, I suspended students left and right. I spent several years watching many students at risk constantly fail class, get suspended or expelled, commit sundry rule infractions, and drop out. My heart grew heavy, and I went home from work feeling guilty on a daily basis.
To be more effective at helping students at risk behave appropriately—and thus free them and their peers to learn—I wanted to learn the best methods for doing so and become skilled in their use. As part of earning my doctorate in educational leadership, I studied research, conducted a study of my own, and wrote a dissertation on the most effective methods to use with students at risk to decrease behavior referrals.
Counseling and Relationship Building
My experience and education research have revealed that the most effective methods involve authoritative counseling and building relationships with students (Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008; Wang & Neihart, 2015). While the teachers I’ve worked with don’t universally agree that this is the case, ample research and numerous publications indicate that building relationships with challenging students is key to improving behavior and promoting academic success (Boynton & Boynton, 2005; Juvonen, 2006; Rimm-Kaufman & Sandilos, 2018).
Building relationships with students increases engagement, motivation, test scores, and grade-point averages while decreasing absenteeism, dropout rates, and discipline issues (Brown, 2010; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Roorda, Koomen, Split, & Oort, 2011). Throughout this book, I share evidence-based strategies for building trusting relationships with students at risk and discuss how these relationships help students improve their behavior and academic achievement. The heart of the book is about disassembling the walls that challenging students put up and opening the lines
