Posted: June 17th, 2015
The Implications of Gang Violence against Alternative Education Teachers: A Phenomenological Study
In the U.S., violence in schools is a critical concern for policy makers and planners since it affects both students and teachers. Previously, extensive focus has been on student directed violence in the general school setting. This study extended the focus of gang related violence to alternative education teachers. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore alternative education teachers’ perceptions of violence directed towards all teachers and the impact of using classroom management techniques (CMT) in the school environment. The research questions sought to determine the perceived impact of classroom infraction reporting, zero-tolerance discipline removal, and family effectiveness training of teacher directed violence in the classroom. The study gathered the perceptions of 15 alternative education teachers who teach for the San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJCOE) that need gang-awareness training. Primary data was gathered using interviews, while data analysis was conducted through thematic analysis – the identification of common themes, and their associations to the implications of gang violence directed against alternative education teachers. The outcome of this study demonstrated the importance of gang awareness training for teachers in the alternative education classroom. The findings support the hypothesis that gang awareness training reduces violence against alternative education teachers, improves the safety of everyone in the classrooms and in the learning community.
Key words: gang activities in schools, teacher directed violence, teacher safety, gang awareness programs.
Gangs Definition and Prevalence. 3
Signs and Risk Factors of Gang Involvement in the Classroom.. 6
Gang Awareness Training in Schools. 7
Teacher Safety and Safety Implications in the Classroom.. 8
Statement of the Research Problem.. 9
Significance of the Problem.. 12
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.. 17
Gangs Historical Perspective. 17
Impact on Academic Performance. 19
Impact on School and Learning Climate. 20
Impact on Funding and Confidentiality Laws. 21
Alternative Schools and Teachers. 22
Violence Directed at Teachers. 23
Gang Intervention Programs. 27
Teacher Emotional Intelligence. 29
Classroom Management Techniques (CMT) 30
Appendix A: list of schools in san joaquin county.. 67
Appendix B: Thematic Analysis framework.. 70
Appendix C: Interview Questions. 71
Appendix E: Collected Data for Implications of Gang violence.. 76
Appendix F: Synthesis Matrix.. 78
Table 1: List of Schools in San Joaquin County of Education School District 67
Table 2: Identification of Themes from Text 70
Table 3: Data for Implication of Gang Violence. 76
Figure 1: Framework for Prevention and Intervention Strategies. 31
Figure 2: Research Design Flow Chart 43
Figure 3: Key Stages in Thematic Data Analysis. 49
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
The prevalence and seriousness of gang problems have fluctuated over time, with gang activity escalating during some periods and diminishing during others. The last three decades of the 20th century were characterized by a major escalation of youth gang problems throughout the globe (Benbenishty & Astor or, 2008). Recent estimates suggest that there are currently more than 16,000 active gangs in the United States, and gang members number close to 1 million individuals and are responsible for over 600,000 crimes per year (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2011).
The presence of gangs in schools compromises the safety, well-being and academic progress of students, and disrupts peace and safety in communities and schools, leaving many families torn apart. Youth gangs pose an even greater problem for alternative schools and alternative educators that serve the highest risk students in public schools. This is especially true in impoverished sections of major cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2011). However, gangs can be found throughout the United States – in rural communities, suburbs, as well as inner cities. Gang members reside across all socio-economic backgrounds and boundaries regardless of age, gender, race, economic status, and academic achievement (National School Safety and Security Services, 2011).
Over the years, concern for the rise in school crime and violence in the alternative education community has led to a search for new strategies to ensure the safety and security of children and teachers in schools. Previously, alternative education schools adopted coercive strategies to combat violence. Common strategies were installing metal detectors at school entrances to prevent entry of weapons into the school compound; zero tolerance policy supporting student removal from school; the use of police officers and security guards to patrol and monitor students; and treating violence in school as criminal acts (Noguera, 1995). These strategies failed since they produced prison-like schools, interrupted learning and created an environment of mistrust and resistance (Esbensen et al., 2002).
New gang prevention strategies, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), Violence Education Gang Awareness (V.E.G.A.), Gang Resistance Education (G.R.E.A.T.) and Training, Community Youth Gang Services (CYGS), and Substance Abuse Narcotics Education (S.A.N.E.) have focused on humanizing schools. The programs aim to develop life skills such as social competence, problem solving, and individual responsibility to assist students avoid the peer pressure to join gangs (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011) (NGIC). Common classroom management strategies used in these programs are removing zero tolerance disciplining, encouraging disciplinary reporting and the strengthening of families (NGIC, 2011). However, these new gang awareness programs have had mixed results in controlling gang activities and their impact on school safety and learning. Esbensen et al. (2002) compared two studies by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) on the G.R.E.A.T. program – a cross-sectional study in the second year of the program and a two-year longitudinal research. Esbensen et al. (2002) find the cross sectional study had no statistical differences between G.R.E.A.T. and non-G.R.E.A.T. students while the longitudinal study had positive social attitudes for G.R.E.A.T. students. Esbensen et al. (2002) recommend greater involvement of the classroom teacher and active rather than passive learning for better outcomes.
The effectiveness of the new gang prevention programs for alternative education teachers has been hampered by the lack of research and data. Little research has been done on the gang activities and methods of reducing the potential harm to alternative teachers, students, and staff. Another issue hampering the understanding and comparison of gangs in the U.S. are the considerable variations in gang terminologies used by different federal and local agencies responsible for suppressing and intervening gang activities in schools (Decker & Pyrooz, 2010). While much research has been conducted on the impact of gang awareness training on violence in school, a gap exists in the literature regarding the impact that gang-awareness training programs have on teacher-directed violence in alternative education schools.
Gangs Definition and Prevalence
A consensus regarding a universally accepted definition of gangs remains elusive with considerable semantic differences emerging among researchers (Decker & Pyrooz, 2010). One reason for the definitional variation is youth gang structures are constantly evolving, counteracting stereotypical views of traditional gangs (Esbensen et al., 2002; Gottfredson, 2013). Another reason is the belief that gangs are confined to urban areas yet modern youth gangs are rapidly proliferating into suburban and rural areas (Egley, Howell, & Moore, & Moore, 2010; Howell, Egley, & Gleason, 2002; Klein & Maxson, 2006). The lack of a definitional uniformity hampers national comparisons across federal and local agencies dealing with the suppression and intervention of gangs and gang related activities to develop effective gang-intervention policies (Decker & Pyrooz, 2010).
In the U.S., gangs have the highest global ratings in prevalence and volumes of criminal activities, partly because of nearly nine decades of research and systematic collection of data on gangs and gang related activities, which is not comparable to any other country (Howell, 2010). Gangs are prevalent in the U.S. to the extent that every city with a population of more than a quarter of million has gangs, and 80 percent of the cities with populations of more than 100,000 have gang activities constituting up to 48 percent of the violent crimes (NG I C, 2011).
Gang Presence in Schools
Statistics of student gang members in the U.S. has increased over the past twenty-five years. In the mid-1990s, 28 percent of the national sample of students reported the presence of gangs in their schools dropped to 17 percent in 2000 but rose again to 23 percent in 2007 (Dinkes, Kemp, Baum, & Snyder, 2009). In 2010, 45 percent of high school students acknowledged the presence of gangs in their schools or knew students who consider themselves gang members (Arciaga et al., 2010). In 2013, the percentage of gang members aged between 15 and 17 years was 25 percent and the average age of all gang members was between 17 and 18 years, which are within the school-going age bracket (NCPC, 2013). The steadily increasing population of student gang members and the intensity of their operations is a growing problem in schools (Issurdatt, 2011). The current findings suggest that an increase in gang activity is contributing to violence in schools and against educators. Gang related violence persists despite decades of research targeted at understanding gang dynamics, and improving teacher safety.
In schools, involvement in gangs has direct and indirect consequences on the academic performance and progress of gang members (National Crime Prevention Council, 2013) (NPC). Most teachers agree students involved in gangs earn poor grades (Wilson, 2011). Dinkes et al. (2009) attributes poor academic performance to: (a) prolonged or frequent absenteeism from school or class; (b) students’ safety concerns in school; (c) difficulties in transferring to other schools; (d) higher likelihood of dropping out of school; (e) placement in juvenile homes; and/or (F) probation. The presence of gangs in school increases the potential for violence against anyone in the learning environment and influences student referrals to alternative education programs to address their unique learning challenges better (Cunningham et al., 2008).
According to Topping (2013) author of Bad Act Your Age!: A Cultural Construction of Adolescence, high schools are a feeder for the prison system, identifying and adultifying students, particularly boys, as early as kindergarten. Reddy et al. (2009) closely links the activities of gangs in schools to increasing levels of truancy and dropout rates among both gang and non-gang members. Involvement in crime and fear of rival gang members assaulting them are among the leading causes of school absenteeism and dropout rates for gang members. There is a direct relationship between dropping out of school and doing time in jail therefore, “if we want to begin to break the ties between school and jail, we must first create educational systems fostering kids’ identification with school and encourage them not to abandon it” (p. 231). For non-gang members, the fear of victimization and bullying leads to increased truancy and dropout rates (Reddy et al., 2009).
Gang presence in school also has a negative impact on the school and learning climate. Debarbieux and Baya (2008) observe schools with high levels of gang presence as having poor or disabling learning environments. Gang members develop a negative attitude towards school authorities perceiving everything in the school including teachers as awful. They also harbor feelings of hatred and rejection of anything representing order. The school system mirrors the penal system set up to monitor and control behavior. Thus, gang members are adverse to attending school and leery of authority. Ferguson (2001) contends,
The schools experience of African American boys is simultaneously replicated in the penal system through processes of surveillance, policing, charges, and penalties. The kids recognize this; the names they give to disciplinary spaces are not just coincidence. They are referencing the chilling parallels between the two…” (p. 233).
Signs and Risk Factors of Gang Involvement in the Classroom
Students who are involved in gangs often show a marked behavioral shift from their normal behavior and level of functioning. Allen, Conrad and Hanser (2010) point to several warning signs of gang involvement in school. They include unexplained frequent or prolonged absenteeism in class; a sudden unexplained drop in grades or the lack of interest in school activities; acquiring new friends who the teacher finds may have questionable character or belongs to a gang; possessing drugs or alcohol in school or having a sudden unexplained increase in personal income. Other signs include using hand gestures when communication with friends; changes in dressing that reflect gangster-style clothing, branding tattoos or having gang related symbols or graffiti on personal items such as books; changes in health that is associated with drug or alcohol intake and complaints of receiving threat messages from unidentified individuals.
Arciaga et al. (2010) further note community and family demographics influence gang involvement while. Debarbieux and Baya (2008) specifically cite family factors such as weak structures (single-parent families and multiple family transitions or remarriages), poverty, weak family bonds, and financial stress diminish effective parental control and supervision of a family to increase chances of youth joining gangs. The lack of education and parental direction to condone violence at home or outside the home and parental or older sibling involvement in gangs greatly exposes youths to gang involvement (Debarbieux & Baya, 2008).
Gang Awareness Training in Schools
Howell (2010) posits current research on gangs in schools has resulted in very few rigorously tested and evaluated programs designed to prevent the growth of gangs. The complexity of a multi-disciplinary (psychology, sociology and criminology) research on gangs has reduced the effectiveness of developing practical solutions (Howell, 2010). The NPC (2013) states before developing strategies to counterweight gang presence and attraction in schools or in the classroom, it is important for both school administrators and teachers to be aware that gangs exist, and to recognize warning signs and risk factors of gang members and gang activities. For teachers and administrators to recognize the presence of gangs, gang awareness training through after-school or in-service training, seminars with experts in criminology, psychology, and regular interaction and communication with law enforcement and community officials is important.
Gang awareness training for teachers greatly increases their ability to reduce the number of students joining gangs or participating in gang activities (Martin & Loomis, 2013). Gang awareness training enables teachers to acquire more skills to improve supervision of their classrooms to manage gang related activities. Supervision includes recognizing and addressing risk factors before a student joins a gang or becomes a hardened gang member, developing punishment that is more effective, and promoting conflict resolution among the students in class (Galand & Philippot, 2007).
Teacher Safety and Safety Implications in the Classroom
Current studies including Espelage et al., (2013) study on teacher-directed violence in school systems find that previous research focus has been on protecting the students while neglecting teacher safety. Espelage et al. (2013) argues that teachers play a vital role in today’s school systems. The study places emphasis on the importance of information on the rate and the scope of violence directed towards teachers. It also proposes the development of effective interventions and policies on teacher safety to promote positive classroom learning environments, and recruitment and retention of qualified and experienced teachers. Robers et al. (2013) compared the indicators of crime and safety in American schools and found these factors when present increased the prevalence of teacher directed violence. In the 2007-2008 academic year, 10% of city schoolteachers, 7% town schoolteachers and 6% rural schoolteachers were with injury, and 5% city schoolteachers experienced actual physical attacks. Espelage and Horne (2008) and Reddy et al. (2012) found that while teacher directed violence takes several forms, intimidation, victimization and physical attacks from gangs or gang-related activities are becoming more prevalent in neighborhoods with heavy gang presence.
Klassen and Chiu (2011) analyzed teacher directed violence and concluded victimized teachers show greater fear, physical and emotional implications, and a greater impaired work performance. Klassen, Usher and Bong (2010) add that, teacher victimization also leads to job-related stress and to dissatisfaction with and loss of commitment to the profession. On the other hand, Espelage et al. (2013) observes while teacher directed violence is prevalent, teacher preparation is important to prevent or manage the violence. Teachers who are well equipped with evidence-based techniques or are aware of gang presence and gang activities increased their abilities to mitigate and manage potentially violent behaviors. However, Espelage et al. (2013) posits that schools do not have sufficient prevention and intervention strategies to improve teacher’s safety in school even after the occurrence of a violent confrontation. Further, teaching preparation programs do not adequately prepare teachers on ways to handle teacher-directed classroom violence (Klassen & Chiu, 2011).
Statement of the Research Problem
Despite decades of research, systematic data collection and implementation of new prevention programs, gang related violence and gang activity still presents a critical challenge to public safety and education in the U.S. (Howell, 2007). The composition of gangs includes a disproportionately high percentage of youths between the ages of 15 and 17 years who are within school-going ages and attend school (NCPC, 2013). In schools, gang members socialize, recruit new members, and engage in violent acts and sales of drugs, which compromise the safety of both members and non-member gang populations in schools (Arciaga et al., 2010).
Gang activities affect the academic performance of all students because it may lead to referral to alternative education, dropping out of school or causes safety concerns for the teacher (Dinkes et al., 2009). Since academic achievement is the traditionally persistent theme in education, policy makers and school administrators have placed more emphasis on the safety and educational needs of the students at the expense of the teachers (Dinkes et al., 2009). On the other hand, teachers’ safety concerns have received little attention. They have official complaint channels and law enforcement agencies as the only avenues to address their safety concerns (Espelage et al., 2013).
Safety or the perception of safety is important for teachers to supervise the class effectively, to create a positive learning culture and to ensure the delivery of quality education this is an incentive to attract and to retain experienced teachers (Espelage et al., 2013). While some students who are involved in gangs attend alternative classes to ensure continuity in their education, their dropout numbers and their engagement in violent criminal activities are still high. Evidence suggests this violence results from the teachers’ fear of confronting gang members. These same teachers are also afraid to share their views with school administrators and law enforcement due to fear of retaliation (Espelage et al., 2013).
According to Galand and Philippot (2007), it is incumbent on CMT to include teacher awareness training and prevention training. This should be included in the teachers’ orientation. These programs must clearly state the classroom rules and policies. This provides a standard for modeling positive student behaviors. So far, the current training in classroom management for alternative schools has failed to achieve the desired levels of teacher safety in classrooms where gang members are present (Klassen & Chiu, 2011). The problem is more pronounced in public schools as compared to private schools where these intervention programs have shown better results. Howell (2010) found the presence of gang awareness programs in classrooms, notably G.R.E.A.T and ART have been ineffective at reducing teacher directed violence. Espelage et al., (2013) believes the need for more research on preventive and intervention safety strategies is required to understand the limitations of the present teacher safety strategies.
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore alternative education and the impact of CMT on teachers’ perceptions of violence directed toward alternative education teachers and the impact on teachers safety without effective CMT.
The central research question is, “How do alternative education teachers understand and use CMT to reduce violence against alternative school teachers?” The sub questions are:
- How has your reporting of classroom infractions as a discipline report affected violence in your classroom?
- What is your experience of the impact of zero-tolerance discipline removal on violence in the classroom?
- What is your experience with family effectiveness training as a technique to reduce violence directed at teachers? Elaborate on the impact of teacher effectiveness training as it relates to your past classroom experiences.
- How has the use of CMT affected your classroom over time? Provide some examples of situations before and after using CMT in the classroom.
- What in your experience have been the most effective strategies you have used to reduce violence directed at teachers?
- Explain your understanding of how these strategies have improved your ability to deliver subjects in the classroom.
Research on gang prevention and gang intervention programs provide significant resources to understanding the most comprehensive approach to gang intervention in education settings. This is particularly important in the U.S., where gang violence is pervasive in almost all the states. In every 200 Americans, one is a gang member according to (NG IC, 2011). Gangs are responsible for 48 percent of violent crime in many states, and up to 90 percent in Arizona, California and Texas. They pose significant public safety concerns for the U.S. government because of the associated physical, economic, and psychosocial consequences to gang members, their families, their communities and the states at large (Hazen, 2010).
Research that clarifies gang violence in the schools is imperative to understanding the issues of school safety for both students and teachers. Gangs in schools have negative implications for learning and safety. Student gang members have higher school dropout rates, limiting their economic choices and the likelihood of reaching self-sufficiency in adulthood (Applied Survey Research, 2011). For teachers, gang violence has physical and emotional implications. Victimized teachers have higher job-related stress, dissatisfaction and loss of commitment to the profession (Klassen, Usher & Bong, 2010; Klassen & Chiu, 2011). Creating a clear understanding of gang awareness training for teachers is significant to equip teachers with the skills and the knowledge to handle youth gangs in schools. This research will provide a better understanding of the current safety strategies used in the classroom to create a safe teaching and learning environment free of gang activities. It will also offer a model for improving teachers’ classroom management skills and the safety of teachers and students in the alternative education classroom.
Alternative Education Programs: School-based programs separated from general classroom with the aim of reducing negative influences and learning challenges of student gang members.
Alternative Schools: Schools meant to serve students who cannot fit in regular schools, because of safety, disciplinary, or behavioral concerns.
Alternative schools: Schools that cater to the needs of students vulnerable to academic or behavioral failure. They include continuation schools, community day schools and county-run community schools.
Classroom management: It is coordinating the activities in the classroom that promote learning and reduce disruptive behaviors by students. It involves a number of Classroom Management Techniques (CMT) – removing zero tolerance disciplining, encouraging disciplinary reporting and the strengthening of families. The aim of CMT is to develop life skills such as social competence, problem solving, and individual responsibility to assist students avoid the peer pressure to join gangs (NGIC, 2011).
Emotional Intelligence (EI): The use of social awareness, non-verbal cues, and empathy; it is social intelligence involving individuals’ ability to monitor and discriminate their own and others feelings and emotions to guide their action and thinking (Maraichelvi & Rajan, 2013).
Gang Awareness Programs: Preventive and intervention classroom programs targeting student gang members aimed at reducing or preventing violence and gang related activities in schools to improve academic achievements.
Gang awareness training: Training on identification of the signs and risk factors of involvement in gangs.
Gang awareness: Knowledge of the existence of a gang and gang related activities.
Gang involvement: Associating and identifying with gangs or actively participating in gang activities (Benhorin & McMahon, 2008).
Gang violence: Criminal and non-political acts of violence committed by a group of individuals who regularly engage in criminal activity against innocent people or physical hostile interactions between two or more gangs (US Legal, 2014).
Gangs: Groupings of youthful individuals having a group identity and engage in delinquent and criminal activities (Terrance et al. 2007).
Phenomenological study: a method of inquiry founded on the philosophy that reality is made up of events as they are perceived or understood. It is based on experience from the perspective of the individual where it brackets taken-for-granted assumptions and usual ways of perceiving actions in classroom situations.
Risk Factors: Unpleasant factors such as familial, economic, and psychosocial predisposing a student to join gangs in school.
Teacher Safety: The reduction of violence directed against teachers including disrespectful behavior, bullying, intimidation, verbal threats or gestures, theft, property damage and physical assault orchestrated by student gang members in the classroom (Espelage, et al., 2013). This includes improving classroom management skills by:
- Setting the bar for student behaviors
- Making collaboration and mentoring a part of teacher development
- Role playing and practicing classroom management strategies. Here we can work with mentors or colleagues to improve the safety of teachers and students.
- Letting technology help improve the classroom situation
- Learning how to handle student meltdowns by asking the student to sit outside or to go to the office
- Locking classroom doors during class and when working alone
- Keeping classroom doors and windows uncovered so that activity can be easily observed from the hallways.
Trauma: A very upsetting experience that can lead to one suffering psychological damage.
Zero Tolerance: The automatic violation of given rules that will result in consequences.
The study is delimited to alternative education schools in the SJCOE.
This is a five-chapter study. Subsequent to this introductory chapter, the researcher conducted a review of literature, methodology, reporting of data/results, and implications, conclusions and recommendations for further research. The report ends with references, and appendices, which includes an interview sample and approvals. Chapter II draws from related literature reviews to discuss historical perspective of gangs; gangs in school; alternative education school and teachers; violence directed at teachers; gang intervention programs and CMT. Chapter III discusses research design, population, sampling, instrumentation, data collection and analysis, and research limitations. Chapter IV analyzes and presents the results of this analysis, and discusses the study findings and the results. Collected data will be displayed using figures, tables and narratives. Chapter V presents the overview of the study, summary of findings, conclusion, recommendations, and identifies areas for further research.
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to review existing literature on gangs and gang-related violence in schools and the safety implications for the classroom teacher. The chapter aims to broaden the understanding of the impact of gang violence in the classroom on teacher performance and student learning. The review is systematic and sectional. The first two sections discuss historical perspectives of gangs and gangs in school. The third and fourth sections discuss alternative education schools and teachers, and violence directed at teachers. The fifth and sixth sections discuss gang intervention programs and CMT. The seventh section provides theoretical perspectives of gangs and their management. The chapter concludes with a synthesis of the main points discussed and identifies the following gap. The gap is the variance between the existing state and the desired state of alternative education teacher safety, and ideal classroom management conditions. The objective is to close the gap by examining records and reflection of physical violence in the general school environment. It also includes focusing on the classroom environment, and teacher directed violence from gang activities. Dinkes et al. (2009), Arciaga et al. (2010), and Howell (2010) examined physical violence in the general school environment without a specific focus in the classroom environment while Espelage et al. (2013) examined teacher-directed violence in general without focusing on the contribution of gangs and gang-activities to teacher-directed violence.
Despite more than a decade since the inception and practice of classroom gang prevention and intervention techniques, evidence suggests the existing techniques have had little impact on gang presence in schools (Arciaga, Sakamoto & Jones, 2010, Howell, 2010; NCPC, 2012). The NGIC (2011) and the NCPC (2013) have shown an increase in gang activities at both the national and the local school levels, and a subsequent increase in the negative impact of gangs on learning and safety of teacher and students. The NGIC (2011) emphasizes the pervasiveness of gangs in almost all states in the U.S. estimating one in every 200 Americans is a gang member. Further, a disproportionately high number of gang members are teenage boys and girls as estimated by the NCPC (2013). The NCPC (2013) further estimates 25 percent of gang members nationally are within the ages of 15 and 17, and the average ages of all gang members is between17 and 18 years.
In school, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (2010) contends that 35 percent of middle school and 45 percent of high school students were either gang members or witnessed gang related activities in their schools. Howell (2010) attributes the rise in student gang members to two factors. First, the development of too few rigorously tested and evaluated gang intervention and prevention programs. Second, the multi-disciplinary research involving diverse fields of psychology, sociology, and criminology failing to come up with a comprehensive solution. Klein and Maxson (2006) insist that knowledge of the prevalence of gangs in schools and the surrounding community is critical. The current statistics and findings suggest an urgency for school administrators and teachers to develop enhanced gang awareness and prevention programs. This initiative will prove to be instrumental at managing the impact of gang activities, improve safety in the classroom and reduce teacher directed violence. Gangs in school have a negative impact on academic performance, on school and learning climate, and on funding and confidentiality laws.
Impact on Academic Performance
Students spend a considerable amount of their time in schools making them preferred centers for socializing and advancing gang activities (Holmes, Tewksbury, & Higgins, 2012). Curry, Decker and Egley (2008) support this observation stating schools present opportunities for interaction of gang members and rival gang members during class changes, lunch hours, assemblies and school events, which could lead to violent confrontation for gang members with intentions to engage in violent behavior. The increased potential for violent gang interaction at school and perpetration of criminal activities raise critical safety concerns for gang members, other students, and the teaching staff. This produces a negative effect on the safety and academic progression of students, and student gang members (Cahill & Hayeslip, 2010). Howell (2010) supports this observation with recent statistics that indicate a rise in gang-related activities taking place in or around schools. This includes some of the most dangerous gang related activities such as physical assault and drug abuse.
Involvement in gangs directly affects the academic performance of student gang members as evident in dropping grades or persistent poor performance (NPC, 2013). Dinkes et al. (2009) examined the factors contributing to poor performance of student gang members in school. Student gang members have frequent and, at times, prolonged absenteeism from school disrupting their continuity of learning. Absenteeism results from poor health due to drug abuse or physical assault, suspension from school, arrests or placement in juvenile homes. Student gang members also fear for their safety in school, especially from rival gang members, which is a key reason for absenteeism (Dinkes et al., 2009). Because the students fear for their safety, they may transfer to another school district or dropout of school altogether. Another key reason students join gangs is the perception of economic self-sufficiency due to proceeds from gang activities. Economic sufficiency shifts the focus of gang members from learning to gang activities and contributes to their high dropout rates (Dinkes et al., 2009). The effect of gang activities in school extends to non-gang members, who fear for their safety because of victimization and bullying, contributing also to their school transfers or dropout rates (Reddy et al., 2009).
Impact on School and Learning Climate
Gang and gang activities in school have a negative impact on the school and learning climate (Cunningham, Cohan, & McGinnis, 2008). In most cases, schools with a high-level presence of gang members have a poor or disabling learning environment. Reddy et al. (2009) observes it is highly likely for student gang members to develop a negative attitude towards school and school authorities. They perceive school and teachers as awful and have feeling of hatred and rejection for anything presenting order. Debarbieux and Baya (2008) contend that the negative attitude of student gang members contributes to a disabling learning environment. It leads to poor-student-teacher relationships, increases student and teacher victimization raises safety concerns and disrupts learning.
Gang activities in school will also affect the learning climate by increasing cases of self-reported violence or threatening messages to students, which could affect them psychologically and shift their focus from learning to protecting themselves; thereby, disrupting their concentration in class (Cornell & Mayer, 2010). In addition, the student gang member considers school to be a form of incarceration or a center for socializing with fellow gang members, reducing the effectiveness of the school as a learning center (Cornell & Mayer, 2010). Student gang members socializing with their peers on school grounds or in the community increases safety concerns for other students and teachers and contribute to the formation of a poor learning environment (Debarbieux & Baya, 2008).
Impact on Funding and Confidentiality Laws
Arciaga et al. (2010) stress schools with an established reputation of having gang problems have a greater likelihood of losing students, school funding and violation of confidentiality laws. Gang presence in schools could lead to the loss of students because of school-choice laws, which gives parents the discretion to remove their children from schools they perceive to have persistent gang problems leading to a significant reduction in student population. A decrease in student population could also lead to a school losing or getting reduced funding, which could affect school learning activities. While schools normally share information with law enforcing agencies about gang-related activities in school, student gang members perceive this reporting as a violation of their confidentiality. This perception usually leads to increased gang-violence in the form of retaliation to the school or to the teacher involved contributing to increased safety concerns for teachers and students. However, Issurdatt (2011) argues that schools are training institutions and have the responsibility for sharing this information with law enforcement for infractions of policies and procedures relating to gang and gang activities in schools, which are critical to prevent further violence and retaliation.
Alternative Schools and Teachers
The guiding philosophy of alternative education schools is the traditional system of education. This system is broken and inadequate to meet the diverse and rapidly changing needs of students in today’s society (WestEd, 2008). Alternative education schools provide support services for students at risk of dropping out of school and for students who need to succeed outside the mainstream. They ensure students struggling within the regular high school who are in danger of expulsion, academically deficient, on probation, or have severe behavioral or discipline problems receive a quality education (EdSource, 2008).
According to the Legislative Analyst Office (2007), alternative education schools have existed in California since the 1900s. Originally, alternative education schools offered a flexible approach to education for employed students above the age of 16. Today, alternative education schools acts as a dropout prevention strategy to students at risk of dropping out of school. The California State Law authorizes three types of alternative education schools. (a) Continuation schools that offer programs to assist academic deficient students catch up; (b) court and community schools that serve students with serious behavioral and discipline problems; and (c) county-run community schools that serve adjudicated or expelled students. The State Law also permits school districts to operate independent study programs as an alternative to regular attendance.
In 2008, California had 294 community schools serving an estimated 30,300 students expelled for on disciplinary grounds, on probation or referred from the justice juvenile system (EdSource, 2008). Because they serve students with severe discipline issues, community schools have a higher percentage of gang members. Teachers in alternative education community schools thus are exposed to higher risk of teacher-directed violence. Despite some alternative education teachers receiving training in gang intervention and in CMT, they lack the authority to punish violent behavior and enforce or encourage positive behavior in the classroom without involving the school administrators (Espelage et al., 2013).
Teacher directed violence is an actual or threatened use of physical force against the teacher with a likelihood of or leading to injury, death or psychological harm (Hicks, 2014, p. 3). Teacher directed violence is a behavioral violation of the educational mission or climate of respect schools actively pursue (Mooij, 2012). The fear of violence or abuse directed against the teacher is a fundamental concern for the classroom teacher. The concern is compounded by current educational research and is disproportionate to existing policies that focus on student learning achievement and safety with peripheral mention of the safety concerns for teachers (Reddy et al., 2009). For teachers in alternative education classrooms without gang awareness training, the concern is real because of a greater likelihood of gang-motivated violence (Younghusband, 2009).
In the U.S., statistics on violence directed against teachers shows an increasing trend. In 2013, Robers, Kemp and Truman (2013) conducted an analysis of crime and safety of teachers in elementary and secondary schools. The study examined three forms of violence – assault, threats of injury, verbal abuse and sexual abuse. The findings indicate seven percent to ten percent of teachers in city and rural areas of the nation respectively reported threats of injury. The findings also show five percent of teachers from city schools reported actual physical attacks (Robers, Kemp & Truman, 2013). While these statistics do not provide details of the violence, a study conducted by Estrada et al. (2014) on gang membership and school violence in California found that teachers in schools with higher gang presence experience significantly more cases of teacher directed violence. Student gang members perpetrate most acts of violence (Estrada et al., 2014). However, as Chen and Astor (2012) argue, schools and teachers would benefit from empirical research on teacher-directed violence and its causes to develop effective classroom strategies. This research seeks to explain through collected primary data, the implications of gang violence against alternative teachers at the SJCOE Schools.
Teacher directed violence extends to forms other than physical assault. Hicks (2014) categorizes violence directed against the teacher into two categories – covert and overt violence. Covert violence is an act of violence directed to the teacher involving disrespectful behavior such as verbal threats and name-calling, intimidation and damage to teacher’s reputation. On the other hand, overt violence is a more severe form. It involves damage to property, assault and threats with a weapon, which could result in victimization. Altogether, violence against teachers is significant and teachers at all grade levels could be victims (Hicks, 2014).
American Psychological Association (APA) (2011) argues that teacher directed violence has reached unprecedented levels. The study, “Understanding and Preventing Violence Directed against Teachers” finds 253,100 reported being threatened or assaulted by students. There are approximately 3.7 million elementary and secondary school teachers in the U.S. (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013), 253,100 represents 6.8 percent. Further, seven and eight percent of primary and secondary education teachers respectively have been victims of violence in schools (APA, 2011). Ozdemir (2012) measured violence against teachers and found 24.1% of teachers surveyed had experienced emotional violence, 14.7% verbal violence, 6.3% physical violence and 4.6% sexual violence. Further, the literature supports the claim that male teachers experienced a far greater number of physical acts of violence than their female colleagues. While, female teachers account for a greater numbers of verbal and emotional episodes of violence. Younghusband (2009) further contends that of those surveyed, female teachers are twice as likely (61%) as male teachers (33%) are to experience violence perpetrated by students because there are twice as many female as male teachers. These acts of violence are greater in secondary schools compared to elementary schools, which Estrada et al (2014) attributes it gang related violence among students aged between 15 and 18 years. The acts of violence are also greater in boys’ than in girls’ at schools. Male students, either individually or in groups, perpetrate most of gang related violence in schools (Kauppi & Porhola, 2012). In fact, male student gang members account for up to 90 percent of gang related violence in schools (NPC, 2013).
Wet (2012) studied the causes of teacher-directed violence perpetrated by students and found three key causes; a teacher intervening a bullying incidence, ineffective classroom management and lack of positive morals and values in the surrounding community. Student bullies are usually undisciplined and lack parental or societal support. Ineffective or no school or classroom management strategies encourage violence and the lack of positive models in the school ecology. Student bullies are also ones who may not respond to individuals in authority. Other causes are student negative personal traits, low parental monitoring and involvement, prior victimization, poor school engagement and poor student-teacher relationship (Chen & Astor, 2012). These behaviors are similar to the warning signs of student involvement in gangs as discussed by Klein and Maxson (2006). Another cause is teacher perceived lack of authority outside of the classroom and very little authority inside the classroom to punish violent behaviors (Younghusband, 2009). Knowing the causes of teacher-directed violence will greatly assist teachers in understanding and developing more effective gang awareness and intervention programs to reduce episodes of teacher directed violence (Mooij, 2012).
Most teachers who experience violence in schools, such as shootings or gangs-related violence are likely to experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Sinski, 2013). Gang related violence in schools is one of the major causes of trauma among teachers (Sinski, 2013). Gang violence leads to severe emotional behaviors, such as confusion, pain, fear, depression, anger, and at times, acute anxiety. Affected teachers may leave the teaching field or experience a reduction in their ability to supervise and to manage classroom activities (Frisby, 2013). The findings suggest that if PTSD is not managed effectively, the quality of the teachers’ life may deteriorate rapidly. When PTSD is left untreated, it might become permanent. Teachers with untreated PSTD could suffer from over-reactivity, defensiveness, paranoia, or other health related problems. This could affect their ability to manage even normal classroom activities (Sinski, 2013).
Teachers’ attitudes change significantly due to traumatic conditions and this negatively affects student-learning outcomes in the learning environments. Students may find that their teachers are withdrawn, inflexible, sarcastic, emotionally unsound, defensive, and less willing to participate in the classroom learning (Unruh, 2011). Similar to other trauma victims, teachers might develop PSTD symptoms differently, where some teachers can experience nightmares that may remain for a long time. Some may engage in regular use of medication to carry out their duties within and outside schools. Some teachers can undergo critical trauma or anxiety, which causes them not to want to return to the schools where these stressors occurred. Most teachers with PSTD believe that their careers have been notably altered (Howell, 2011).
Although some teachers who have experienced traumatic and violent incidents with students or gangs in schools have sought compensation for physical/mental injuries, most teachers do not report their traumatic conditions after violent encounters in school (Flores, 2010). To reduce violence that may result in initiate traumatic conditions, teachers are advised to offer a range of opportunities for influence engagement in the school learning environment (Kataoka & Langley, 2012). They should also sustain reasonable academic standards and understand student behaviors to prevent forcing them into “flight or fight” reactions (James & Gilliland, 2012). These actions help to create a positive, safe environment that fosters student learning in the classroom. They also improve the student chances for success in the classroom and in the learning ecology (James & Gilliland, 2012).
A significant number of teachers experience violence perpetrated by students in the classroom that does not promote a positive classroom learning environment, and recruitment and retention of qualified and experienced teachers (Martin & Loomis, 2013). According to Klassen & Chiu (2011), analysis of implications of teacher directed violence, victimized teachers show greater fear, physical and emotional harm and impaired work performance. Teachers feel they lack the authority to punish violent behavior and enforce or encourage positive behavior in the classroom without involving the school administrators. Due to lack of autonomy, Espelage et al. (2013) found instances of teachers avoiding students, becoming disengaged with learning activities and their processes, and the teaching profession. These are additional findings to support the need to develop new models to reduce the teacher- directed violence in the classroom.
Teacher directed violence could lead to job-related stress, dissatisfaction and a loss of commitment to the profession (Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010). A loss of commitment to the profession is evident in more than a third of teachers leaving the profession attributing it to dissatisfaction with teaching and the inability to reduce the rate of teacher-directed violence (Klassen & Chiu, 2011). For the school, the implications include increased teacher compensations due to the requirement to hire and to pay substitute teachers in addition to absent teachers based on the effects of violent student gang-member behavior (Espelage et al., 2013).
Gang awareness training for teachers greatly increases their capability to prevent, intervene or suppress the involvement of students in gang activities (Martin & Loomis, 2013). Gang awareness training enables teachers to increase supervision of the classroom, to recognize and address risk factors before a student joins a gang or becomes a hardened gang member, to develop a more effective punishment and promote conflict resolution among the students in class (Galand & Philippot, 2007). The aim of gang awareness training is to equip teachers with the knowledge and the skills to better understand and identify warning signs and risk factors of student involvement in gangs to reduce cases of teacher directed violence (Lokmic, Opic, & Bilic, 2013). However, Wilson, Douglas and Lyon (2011) fault the effectiveness of the current gang awareness training for teacher because of the persistence teacher-directed violence. Espelage et al. (2013) argues the increase in teacher directed violence goes beyond training in gang awareness to insufficient preventing and intervening strategies to improve teachers safety in school. Further, most teaching preparation programs do not adequately prepare teachers in alternative education in the ways to handle teacher-directed classroom violence (Klassen & Chiu, 2011).
Teacher Emotional Intelligence
While current studies on EI have not explicitly studied the relevancy of EI in teaching and managing alternative education classrooms with student gang members, EI of teachers could improve management of student gang-members and teacher-directed violence in the classroom (Edannur, 2010; Wong, Wong, & Chau, 2010). Teaching in alternative education classrooms is stressful and requires emotionally competent teachers (Palomera, Fernandez-Berrocal, & Brackett, 2008). Teachers who exhibit EI are more caring to students, recognize student behaviors and needs, and respond to them accordingly, which improves their identification and handling of violence in the classroom (Hall & West, 2011; Ramana, 2013). EI also promotes teacher willingness to understand students, their learning styles and to adapt instructional methods; to work in teams and develop interpersonal relationships; to improve communication; and the ability to assess and analyze student behaviors (Chechi, 2012; Jha & Singh, 2012; Mehmood, Qasim, & Azam, 2013). Students who are taught to develop skills to master their emotions tend to reduce engagement in violent behaviors (Mehta, 2013; Maraichelvi & Rajan, 2013).
Classroom Management Techniques (CMT)
A classroom holds a group of students with varied interests and abilities. The function of the teacher is to organize and direct the group of students to maximize work involvement and to minimize disruptions (Doyle, 1990). In the classroom, effective management by the teacher should minimize disruption due to undesirable student behaviors or activities. CMT work to prevent, intervene or restore order during disruptive events (Brown, 2004). Wyrick (2006) proposes a framework for classroom management that reduces delinquency and allows for early intervention into CMT. The framework suggests CMT falls under three broad categories: prevention, intervention and suppression as illustrated in Figure 1. However, Howell (2010), and Klein and Maxson (2006) caution that current gang prevention and intervention techniques have not had rigorous evaluation and thus rate them as “promising”. Refer to Figure 1, for the prevention and Intervention Strategies.
Figure 1: Framework for Prevention and Intervention Strategies
Source: (Wyrick, 2006)
Primary CMT refer to services and support that target the entire classroom. These techniques aim to discourage gang membership by addressing risk and protective factors before they develop to the point of predicting gang involvement (Pedota, 2007). An important initial strategy is educating the entire class on preventive and protective strategies. Preventive strategies include a teacher educating the entire class about the dangers of joining gangs as well as on the ways to identify gangs. A teacher could encourage discussions in the classroom when incidences related to gangs happen in school or in the neighborhood as a strategy to exemplify the real problems of involvement in gangs (Marzano & Pickering 2003). A teacher could also call upon a reformed gang member to share with the class about the dangers of joining gangs. On the other hand, protective strategies include educating the entire class about protective factors such as joining community programs as part of after school program to occupy them (Pedota, 2007). This also includes structuring the lesson content to emphasize of the developing cognitive behavioral skills, social skills, refusal skills and conflict resolution skills (Marzano & Pickering 2003).
Prevention strategies could also target at-risk youth who have already developed early warning signs of problematic behaviors that indicate a greater vulnerability to join gangs (Wyrick, 2006). Allen, Conrad and Hanser (2010) suggest several warning signs that indicate student involvement in gangs. The classroom teachers should be vigilant of such signs. Sudden unexplained drop in grades shows the student’s concentration and focuses have shifted away from classroom and school learning activities. Sudden acquisition of new friends who are gang members or who the teacher perceives to be of questionable character points out to a change of character or behavior of the student and warning signs of early involvement in gangs. Sudden and unexplained increases in personal income or expenditures is also indicative of a student engaging in other income generating work , which could be associated with gang-related activities such as the selling of drugs. Possessions of drugs or alcohol in school, changes in dressing to gangster-like dressing or graffiti and student complaints of receiving threatening messages or prolonged absenteeism from class are all warning signs of involvement in gangs. Arciaga et al. (2010) indicate local demographic characteristics are strong warning signs for predicting gang presence in schools arguing in communities where gang presence are prevalent there is a greater likelihood of student involvement in gang activities. Family structure is another warning sign predicting a predisposition to gang involvement (Debarbieux and Baya, 2008). Single parent families and families with multiple transitions (re-marriages) and poverty diminish effective parental control and the development of strong family bonds leading to teenage boys and girls joining gangs for a sense of belonging, support and protection.
Emmer and Stough (2001) states that warning signs only indicate a need for further probing to confirm student involvement in gangs or to deter their involvement. As such, upon identifying warning signs, a teacher could follow up on the matter by requesting the at-risk student to remain behind after school. This provides the teacher with a private session to probe for the underlying reasons for the changes in attitude or attention in class. A teacher could also provide alternatives to gang involvement such as remedial and enriched educational programs for youth with academic problems (Brown, 2004). Other prevention strategies include using gang prevention programs such as D.A.R.E., V.E.G.A., G.R.E.A.T. and ART, (NCPC, 2012).
Gang intervention programs in the classroom target students who have already joined gangs or display gang like behavior (Wyrick, 2006). In the classroom, intervention techniques aim to create a hostile environment for gang activities such as display, intimidation and boasting (Doyle, 1990). An initial important strategy is creating a positive learning climate in the classroom. A teacher could achieve this by establishing and consistently enforcing simple and clear behavioral rules. Each behavioral rule should have a list of possible consequences (Doyle, 1990). Gang members require a structure to guide their behavior and discipline for negative or disruptive behavior. Wyrick (2006) strongly emphasize that after disciplining a gang-involved student, a teacher should secretly request the student to remain behind after class to get private time with the student without the presence of other gang associates. The teacher should discuss with the student how gang behavior affects learning and constrains chances of completing school.
Another intervention strategy is preventing gang members from displaying physical behavior that depicts gang involvement. Emmer and Stough (2001) assert the importance of teachers forbidding outright gang-type graffiti on notebooks, papers, assignments or on any other surfaces during class intended to associate a student with gangs. A teacher could discourage the displaying of gang-like graffiti by cautioning students that punishment could include harsh measures such as reporting the matter to the school representatives or to law enforcement officer. A teacher could also develop rapport with gang-involved student, which is important to connect with the student and possibly influence the student to perceive the teacher as a role model. Rapport helps the teacher develop teacher-student trust, thereby making disciplining much easier.
Suppression techniques, such as the use of in-out-of school suspensions, tracking and reporting of attendance/grades, tracking of project participation, and awarding of and supporting conditions of probation/parole, target students who are deeply involved in gangs have severe disciplinary problems (Brown, 2004). However, Brown (2004) suggests such zero tolerance discipline techniques should only be considered for serious and chronic offenders when other prevention and intervention strategies have been seen as largely ineffective. This is especially true for court and community schools that provide the last chance to students with severe discipline problems before dropping out of school (LAO, 2007). While students who are deeply involved in gangs make up a small percentage of gang-involved students, their activities contribute significantly to gang violence in school and in the school’s neighborhood (Wyrick, 2006). In most cases, classroom suppression strategies include monitoring and reporting their activities to school authorities or to law enforcement agencies. In relation to this, the teacher could encourage other students to report behaviors of hardcore gang-involved students to enhance monitoring. Largely, classroom suppression strategies work to support law enforcement strategies since these students typically have previous records of arrests and incarceration and are candidates for targeted enforcement and prosecution (Wyrick, 2006).
According to the strain theory, students who behave or act violently have justifiable reasons, but due to structural constraints, they resort to unlawfulness to achieve their goals. When a student desires a certain goal, he or she justifies attainment of the goal by whatever means possible. However, when the student is unable to achieve the goal in rightful ways, it leads to desperation and the achieving it in unlawful ways. For instance, poverty generates adversities within families that might result in nonviolent students adopting violent behavior towards teachers, parents, or peers. Violent behavior increases the possibility of their involvement in gangs (Smith & Langenbacher, 2013). The strain theory is relevant to support the researchers’ examination of the structural barriers of poverty, the environment and other variables that contribute to student involvement in gangs. These variables may influence the student’s ability to achieve success through legitimate means. The result is to use illegitimate or violent means to achieve success. Understanding structural barriers assists teachers in alternative education to develop more effective gang awareness and prevention programs. Instead of blaming students’ for their behaviors, teachers should investigate to determine the underlying structural causes to prevent their continuing violent behaviors.
Strain theory explains the connections between social-economic stressors and school violence. Strain theory’s principles comprise the differences between future or immediate methods and strategies to meet such goals (Smith & Langenbacher, 2013). This difference can result from limited or blocked opportunities or insufficient abilities and skills of the student. Regular exposure to severe conditions, such as fear of victimization and shootings, increases tension in students. This is observed from students in dysfunctional family environments and those in low-income neighborhoods. Moreover, the loss of certainly treasured incentives, such as: self-esteem, death of loved one, and girlfriend, may lead to violent behaviors within alternative education schools, which teachers need to understand and discriminate from gang-related violence.
Levin and Madfis’s (2009) study on mass murder and cumulative strain links structural elements such as socio-economic status, and place of residence to increased episodes of violence. The study found a direct correlation between poverty-stricken areas and the levels of neighborhood violence. More so, alternative education schools situated in low-economic areas contain students who commit crimes most likely using weapons. The study contends that, high-crime communities are more likely to select and retain strained individuals, and produce socio-economic stressors that foster criminal acts. In fact, past studies have shown the level of school violence correlates directly with neighborhood violence. The violence generates fear, and causes youths to revise forces, acquire weapons and enhance their violent acts, which increases safety concerns for both students and teachers in school (Levin & Madfis, 2009).
Learning theory states that violent behavior is acquired or is learned using imitation and observation of certain violent-related behaviors taking place in the immediate environment (Saltmarsh, Robinson, & Davies, 2012). The imitation of violent-related behaviors will rely on whether the event observed has a positive reward for their activities or not (Saltmarsh, Robinson, & Davies, 2012). If an individual has been rewarded for violent behavior, he or she tends to repeat that behavior. On the other hand, if the event or behavior does not have any benefits or rewards, he or she will reduce the imitation of the event. However, behavior cannot only be imitated from certain event, but can be acquired immediately when certain violent events takes place, which generalize the effect (Saltmarsh, Robinson, & Davies, 2012).
Moreover, exposure to certain violent events not only facilitates the observation and imitation of the violent act, but also the consequences of these behaviors (Rocque, 2012). As a result, the behavioral models that contribute significant variables such as socialization agents, media, friends, teachers, and parents, are vital for learning theory. For instance, positive strengthening generated from praises from peers could facilitate violent acts. Youth violent behavior performed is reinforced when parents do not condemn these violent behaviors of their children (Poipoi & Agak, 2011). The objective of learning theory is to examine the contribution of socializing agents, positive feedback, and parental complacency in condemning violent acts towards other students in school.
Control theory suggests that adolescents who have weak bonds with school and parents are at higher risks of participating in violent behavior. This behavior includes delinquency and violence delinquency within and outside the learning community. Jain (2011) argues that control theory is expressed as: The more weakened the groups to which the individual belongs, the less he or she depends on them, the more he or she consequently depends only on himself or herself and recognizes no other rules of conduct other than what are found in his or her private interests. Unlike other theories of crime professing to describe why and how a person offends, control theory provides the explanation why a person obeys certain rules. This theory offers a justification of why a person’s behavior abides by behaviors expected or set by a society.
Control theory focuses on the childhood developmental processes through which internal limitations advance. However, social control theories mainly address the external variables and the effectiveness of those variables. The theory also states that crime and deviance take place due to insufficient limitations and constraints. Moreover, control theory posits that the fundamental view of human nature consists of the notion of free will, and the opportunity for offenders to choose, as well as the responsibility for their behaviors (Diamond & Vartiainen, 2012). Therefore, control theory focuses highly on the classical school of criminology instead of the determinist or the positivist perspective.
Mostly, control theory suggests shared beliefs, behaviors, and values in social norms. Even members of certain societies who violate social norms or break laws probably have a common belief that these rules must be followed. Deviance and crime are perceived as expected behaviors that the society has not limited (Diamond & Vartiainen, 2012). Control theory also explains conformity, mostly the method in which a person is socialized to abide by these social norms and rules. Therefore, control theory concentrates on how the existence of close and effective bonds with others may free a person from social limitations, and as a result, enable him or her to participate in delinquency (Williams, 2012). On the other hand, other major theories of crime concentrates on how close and effective bonds with delinquent peers or ineffective or negative bonds with peers may result in or force a person to commit delinquency.
Despite the nation-wide implementation of CMT in public schools, evidence suggests this model has not reduced gang related activities in the classrooms (Dinkes et al., 2009; Arciaga et al., 2010; Howell, 2010). Furthermore, the current literature on gang related violence in public schools shows that CMT has not significantly reduced gang related violence against alternative education teachers (Klassen & Chiu, 2011; Espelage et al., 2013).
The findings also show a gap in the literature on gang related violence directed at teachers. [due to the findings that suggest the existing CMT policies and procedures for alternative education teachers do not provide the required training necessary to reduce criminal activity and improve teacher safety in the learning environment (Espelage et al., 2013)]. Based on these findings, the CMT has been ineffective at reducing the implications of gang related violence directed against alternative education teachers. This study seeks to overcome the CMTs shortcomings by improving the value of the existing model.
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methods and procedures this study adopted to conduct research. The chapter begins with a restatement of the purpose of the study, research questions, and then, it discusses the adopted research methodology. The discussion delineates the research design, target population, sampling procedure, research instrumentation, planned data collection and analysis, data triangulation, and limitations of the research. The chapter concludes with a brief mention of the adopted phenomenological research approach, and the interview method used to collect the perceptions of the selected alternative education teachers from SJCOE about the perception of CMT and the teacher directed violence in the classroom. The research also tests the feasibility of solutions to reduce the gang related violence directed at alternative education teachers.
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore alternative education and the impact of CMT on teachers’ perceptions of violence directed toward alternative education teachers and the impact on teachers safety without effective CMT.
The central research question posed by the study was. “How do alternative education teachers understand and use CMT to reduce violence against alternative school teachers?” The sub questions were:
- How has your reporting of classroom infractions as a discipline report affected violence in your classroom?
- What is your experience of the impact of zero-tolerance discipline removal on violence in the classroom?
- What is your experience with family effectiveness training as a technique to reduce violence directed at teachers? Elaborate on the impact of teacher effectiveness training as it relates to your past classroom experiences.
- How has the use of CMT affected your classroom over time? Provide some examples of situations before and after using CMT in the classroom.
- What in your experience have been the most effective strategies you have used to reduce violence directed at teachers?
- Explain your understanding of the how these strategies have improved your ability to delivery subjects in the classroom.
A research design is a systematic plan describing the methods and procedures a study employs to carry out research. It aligns data, data collection instruments and data analysis methods to the purpose and objectives of a study (Kelly, Lesh, & Baek, 2008). Typical research designs in social and behavioral research are quantitative, qualitative or a mix of the two (Creswell, 2009). Ideally, a quantitative design focuses on gathering observations from a sample and reducing them into smaller measurable units to test a hypothesis and generalize outcomes to a larger population (Babbie, 2007). Qualitative design focuses on observing the sample elements in their natural environment to gather comprehensive data to develop a theory or to explain a social phenomenon in detail (Creswell, 2009 This research seeks to understand the implications of violence directed against alternative education teachers’ from the perspective of the alternative education teacher. Furthermore, this study seeks to explicate the meaning, structure, and essence of the alternative education teachers’ lived experiences with ineffective CMT, gang member presence, gang member activities, violence, and teacher safety.
A qualitative phenomenological design was used to achieve the objectives of this study by answering the “how” and “what” questions about teachers’ perceptions of gang related violence in the learning community. The results of which will provide insight into the student gang member and the alternative education teachers’ activities in learning and teaching in classrooms with formal CMT. These findings offer evidence for improving national gang-awareness training techniques for implementing at SJCOE district to reduce gang violence (Maxwell, 2008; Silverman & Marvasti, 2008). Secondly, since the context and challenges of teaching gang awareness programs changes over time, the qualitative design was appropriate to include and describe any new or emerging themes the study would not have anticipated while developing the research and study variables (Stake, 2010; Kelly & Lesh, 2012).
The qualitative research was conducted using interviews. Interviews were appropriate because they allow scheduling of sessions at the participant’s most convenient time. This affords the participant the freedom to answer questions in detail and the interviewer the opportunity to probe for clarification on unclear points (Yin, 2009; Creswell, 2014). With participant’s consent, the interviewer can also record sessions to provide an accurate account of the interview session during analysis (Berg & Lune, 2011). In addition, gathering lived-experiences was useful to gain an insight into teachers understanding of the relationship between gang awareness training and teacher directed violence in the classroom.
The research design involved five key steps. Step one, identifying the design concept. Step two, selecting participants. Step three, selecting research methods. Step four, developing research procedure. Step five, designing quality controls as suggested by Chenail (2011). Refer to Figure 2 for the steps in the research design.
Figure 2: Research Design Flow Chart
| Identifying the design concept |
| Selecting Participants |
| Selecting Research Methods |
| Developing Research Procedure |
| Designing Quality Control |
Source: (Chenail, 2011, pp.1718-1720)
As illustrated in Figure 2, the research design began by identifying an appropriate design concept. The design concept depended on the purpose of this study, which was to discover and explore teachers’ perspectives of teacher safety and the implications of gang related violence directed against alternative education classroom. Based on the study objectives, the phenomenological research design was the most appropriate. The next step was the identification of the research population and the methods required to access participants, to recruit, and to sample. The third step involved the selection of the phenomenological research method. This research method gave the researcher the opportunity to collect in-depth information from research participants (Merriam, 2009). The fourth step was outlining the research procedure. In particular, the purposive sampling was used to select participants perceived to have information relevant and useful to achieve the purpose of the study. This step also outlined procedures for gathering, coding, presenting and analyzing data linking to the purpose and objectives of the study. The final step was ensuring the research methods and procedures have key indicators to maintain rigor in terms of reliability, validity and trustworthiness of outcomes.
A research population is a group of elements having characteristics distinguishing them from other groups, which a study aims to observe and describe (Kelly & Lesh, 2012). The research population for this study was all alternative education teachers in the State of California. According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO: 2007), California has three types of alternative schools that cater to the needs of students vulnerable to academic or behavioral failure. These are continuation schools, community day schools and county-run community schools. Together, California has 850 alternative education high schools (EdSource, 2008). In addition, the California State Law allows school districts to operate independent study programs as alternative to regular classrooms. The Education Data Partnership (Ed-Data) indicates California has 284,000 teachers in Grades K1 to K12 but it does not specify the actual number of alternative education teachers (Ed-Data, 2012).
The target population for this study was all teachers teaching in the alternative education classrooms in SJCOE. The SJCOE has 41 alternative Court and Community schools whose names are prefixed with the letter “one” (refer to Appendix A). The 41 alternative schools are appropriate since they serve students with severe behavioral or disciplinary problems, which include gang members (EdSource, 2008). The SJCOE also has other alternative programs operated by school districts. This study includes teachers in these programs because they mainly serve students with academic difficulties. Teachers from the 41 alternative education schools in the SJCOE contains presents the sample frame the researcher used to select the final participating teachers.
This study used purposive sampling technique to identify alternative education teachers to participate in research. Purposive sampling was appropriate for three reasons. (a) It allowed the researcher to select only those teachers who fit into the selection criterion to improve the quality of teacher responses. The researcher does this by focusing on particular characteristics of the research population that were of interest, which will enable the participants to answer the research questions (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). (b) It does not place emphasis on the randomness of the sample nor the generalization of the findings to a larger population (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). (c) The purposive sampling procedure allows maximum variation strategy to select a sample reflecting various combinations of demographic characteristics including age, teaching experience and gender to ensure diversity of views. This technique allows the researcher to address the questions specific to the characteristics of gang related violence directed at alternative education teachers (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2006).
The sampling process began by a formal request to conduct research for the 31 Court and Community schools in SJCOE. Upon timely and affirmative response from 19 schools, the school administrators were approached to assist in identifying alternative education teachers who fit the selection criteria. The selection criteria were, the teacher (a) is currently teaching in alternative education classrooms; (b) has received formal training on gang violence in the classroom; and (c) has at least five years teaching experience in alternative education classrooms. Out of 121 alternative education teachers in SJCOE, 32 fit the selection criteria. Of the 32, eight were not available during the time planned for research, three declined participation while six were not selected in line with the maximum variation strategy because they had similar demographic and professional characteristics.
The sample size selected for the study was 15 teachers who fit the selection criteria. This sample size was determined based on Patton’s (2011) suggestion that a qualitative sample size is between 1 and 40 sample units (alternative education teacher). This sample is sufficient to achieve the research objectives of addressing the issue of violence directed against alternative education teachers in the SJCOE district. Teachers will provide this information through the response to five research questions. In addition, the sample was not definite since the researcher could stop whenever new categories, themes or explanations from the research stop emerging from the responses (Patton, 2010). This phenomenon of repeating themes is known as data saturation. However, the research intent in this study is to sample all 15 teachers.
McMillan and Schumacher (2001) support this suggestion, espousing through purposive sampling, a researcher could select a smaller sample in the suggested range 1 to 40. This would enable the researcher to gain a more in depth understanding of the collected data and to yield greater insights into gang violence. Further, while the sample size is important in quantitative research, the determination of the number of participants in qualitative research depends more on their accessibility, availability and information richness than on the sample size (Teddlie & Yu, 2007).
Research instrumentation refers to the tools and the processes a study uses to collect data from research participants (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The main data collection tools available for research are questionnaires, interviews, observations, focus group discussions, experiments, and participants, whose choices depend on the research questions and the research design selected (Berg & Lune, 2011). In a phenomenological study, interviews and a focus group are more appropriate. Although a focus group would have yielded in depth information and multiple insights, it was difficult to assemble 15 teachers at the same venue and time because of conflicting work schedules and individual responsibilities. Instead, this study employed interviews (Appendix C) of participant teachers in the SJCOE district. The development of the interview questions was guided by the research questions and findings from literature reviews on common themes on teacher directed violence. The lived experience interview contains 20 questions. Answers to these questions will provide alternative education teacher experiences, attitudes, and perceptions as conceptual and theoretical categories of participants. During the interviewing process, the researcher seeks to challenge emerging patterns in CMT, teacher violence, and teacher safety.
Noting the importance of validity as a key indicator of the quality of research, this study employed several methods of inquiry to ensure the instrument is reproducible, reliable, and the collected data is valid for this study (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2006). This research made use of literature to develop the instrumentation and to test the study’s findings and the use maximum variation strategies to ensure sampling included teachers of different demographic profiles (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006). To improve the validity of the research findings, this study ensured adequate and systematic use of original data during analysis by quoting responses, collecting relevant views, including deviant cases to test interpretations, and uses respondent validation to check for accuracy to address the concern of researcher having the sole power of interpretation (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2006).
Data collection refers to the actual process of gathering data. After selecting the 15 sample participants who met the selection criteria, they were contacted by email with their permission. The email detailed the purpose of the study, the significance of their voluntary participation and the period of the study. The plan for interviews began by contacting each of the selected teachers to arrange for the time he or she found convenient to meet. Preliminary research suggests that the most convenient time for teachers is afterschool while others are during weekends.
The interview process began by a formal introduction by the interviewer. The interviewer then informed the respondents of the purpose of the study. Issues of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval were less relevant since this research did not include vulnerable population (children, women, prisoners and disabled individuals) and the research posed minimal risks to the participants, which were not greater than those the study population encounter in daily life (American University, 2014).
The interviewees were allowed to choose a convenient method to conduct interviews. They had the choice of face-to-face, Skype or telephone interviews and recordings. Those preferring face-to-face, gave their preferred location and time; those preferring telephone gave telephone numbers and preferred time; and those preferring Skype gave their Skype addresses and preferred time. Once interview scheduling was complete, the interviewees were informed of ethical considerations, including the assigning of numbers to ensure their anonymity, using the data for the sole purpose of the study, and assuring them the collected data would be kept private and confidential. The interviewees then signed informed consent. This was an ethical act, as data collected from the public is not at any cost expected to be released to the public to access it without consent of the participants (Maxwell, 2008).
Data analysis in qualitative research involves summarizing data collected from research and presenting findings in such a way to communicate the most important observations (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006). Data analysis consisted of thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a procedure involving describing, summarizing, and categorizing the mass of words generated by the interviews. It also identifies patterns, relationships, and develops major and minor themes to explain teachers’ perception of risk to their safety in the classroom with ongoing gang awareness training. The thematic analysis followed five key linear stages as suggested by (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). Refer to Figure 3 below for the five steps in the thematic data analysis.
Figure 3: Key Stages in Thematic Data Analysis
| Familiarization |
| Identification of Themes |
| Indexing |
| Charting |
| Mapping & Interpretation |
Source: (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000, p. 116)
Data triangulation is the cross verification of findings. In triangulating data, this study utilized inter-rater reliability. It involved a third party looking at the data independently to determine whether the data gives the same findings. It did not need to be for all respondents but at least one. The objective was to check whether different sources of data give the same findings (Hussein, 2009). Data triangulation took place during interpretation of the findings. It also involved cross verification of data from interviews, literature reviews, and respondent validation. The researcher used data triangulation to check the accuracy and the truthfulness of results (Hussein, 2009).
Limitations are methodological characteristics constraining a researchers’ ability to generalize or interpret findings (Berg & Lune, 2011). This research had two limitations. The first was the selection of a small purposive sample of 15 teachers in one location to understand the implications of classroom teachers’ safety in alternative education classrooms with gang awareness programs. This limited the researchers’ ability to generalize findings to the entire population of alternative education teachers in California. To generalize the results of a study, the researchers should have selected at least 30 random observations from a defined sample frame (Kelley & Maxwell, 2003). The second was using non-random purposive sampling to select participating teachers. Thus, the findings from this study cannot be statistically supported beyond the sample population. The results are however, transferable to all alternative education teachers and classrooms in the district where connections can be made between study elements, environmental conditions, and teacher experiences.
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore alternative education teachers’ perceptions of violence directed toward teachers and the impact of using CMT. The research adopts a qualitative method with a phenomenological design to collect descriptive data. The target population is alternative education teachers from 41 SJCOE district, who have had gang awareness training and have taught for at least five years. The researcher collected data using the interview transcript (Appendix C). For analysis, the study used a thematic based approach (Appendix B: Thematic Analysis Framework) to make sense of the selected alternative education teacher experiences.
Allen, J. M., Conrad, J. J., & Hanser, R. D. (2010). Juvenile justice: A guide to theory, policy and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
American Psychological Association. (2011). Understanding and preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice and policy agenda. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
American University. (2014, May 28). Research that does not require IRB review. Retrieved from American University Website: http://www.american.edu/irb/noreview.cfm
Applied Survey Research. (2011, May 28). Healthier San Joaquin County community assessment. Retrieved from The San Joaquin County Community Health Assessment Collaborative Website: http://www.healthiersanjoaquin.org/
Arciaga, M., Sakamoto, W., & Jones, E. F. (2010). National Gang Center Bulletin No. 5: Responding to gangs in the school setting. Washington DC: National Gang Center.
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2008). School violence in an international context: A call for global collaboration in research and prevention. Proceedings of the IV World Conference: Violence at school: Violence in context? Lisbon, Portugal, June 2008.
Benhorin, S., & McMahon, S. D. (2008). Exposure to violence and aggression: Protective roles of social support among urban African American youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(6), 723-743.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th Ed.). New York: Pearson Inc.
Bradley, M. C., Lansing, J., & Stagner, M. (2013). Connecting at-risk youth to promising occupations. Mathematical Policy Research, 2-14.
Brown, D. F. (2004). Urban teachers’ professed classroom management strategies reflections of culturally responsive teaching. Urban Education, 39(3), 266-289.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2013. June 2014 Report.
Burnett, G. (1999). Gangs in Schools. ERIC Digest.
Cahill, M., & Hayeslip, D. (2010). Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Findings from the evaluation of Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency programs gang reduction program. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Chechi, V. K. (2012). Emotional intelligence and teaching. International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences, 2(2), 297-304.
Chen, J.-K., & Astor, R. A. (2012). School variables as mediators of personal and family factors on school violence in Taiwanese junior high schools. Youth and Society, 44, 175-200.
Chen, W. Y. (2010). Exposure to community violence and adolescent internalizing behaviors among African American and Asian American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 403-413.
Chenail, R. J. (2011). Ten steps for conceptualizing and conducting qualitative research studies in a pragmatically curious manner. The Qualitative Report, 16(6), 1713-1730.
Clauss-Ehlers, C. (2012). Handbook of Culturally Responsive School of Mental Health: Advancing Research, Training, Practice, and Policy. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Cornell, D. G., & Mayer, M. J. (2010). Why does school order and safety matter? Educational Researcher, 39, 7-15.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cunningham, W., Cohan, L. M., & McGinnis, L. (2008). Supporting youth at risk: A policy toolkit for middle-income countries. Washington DC: World Bank.
Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A. (2008). Gang involvement and delinquency in a middle school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275-292.
Debarbieux, E., & Baya, C. (2008). An interaction construction of gangs and ethnicity: The role of school segregation in France. In F. Van Gemert, D. Peterson, & I. L. Lien, Street gangs, migration and ethnicity (pp. 211-226). Portland: Willan Publishing.
Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, C. (2010). Gang violence worldwide: Context, culture and country. In S. A. Survey, Small arms survey 2010: Gangs, groups and guns (pp. 129-155). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Diamond, P., & Vartiainen, H. (2012). Behavioral Economics and Its Applications. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., Baum, K., & Snyder, T. D. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom management techniques. Student discipline strategies. Research and Practice, 113-127.
Edannur, S. (2010). Emotional intelligence of teacher educators. International Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 115-121.
Ed-Data. (2015). Teachers in California. http://www.ed-data.org/article/Teachers-in-California-. Accessed 03/04/2015.
EdSource. (2008, April 4). California’s Continuation Schools. May 2008 Report. Retrieved from http://edsource.org/wp-content/publications/ContinuationSchools08.pdf.
Egley, A., Howell, J. C., & Moore, J. P. (2010). Factsheet: Highlights of the 2008 national youth gang survey. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Eisenbraun, K. D. (2007). Violence in schools: Prevalence, prediction, and prevention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 459-469.
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103-112.
Esbensen, F., Freng, A., Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., & Osgood, D. W. (2002). National evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) Program. In S. H. Decker & W. L. Reed (Eds). Responding to gangs: evaluation and research (pp. 140-167) Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
Espelage, D., & Horne, A. (2008). School violence and bullying prevention: From research based explanations to empirically based solutions. In S. Brown, & R. Lent, Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 208-217). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V. E., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon, S. D., & Reynolds, C. R. (2013). Understanding and preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice and policy agenda. American Psychologist, 68(2), 75-78.
Estrada, J. N., Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., & Benbenshty, R. (2014). Gang membership, school violence and the mediating effects of risk and protective behaviors in California high schools. Journal of School Violence, 13(2), 228-251.
Flores, R. (2010). Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problem. New York: DIANE Publishing.
Fox, N. A., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2011). Violence and development: How persistent fear and anxiety can affect young children’s learning, behavior and health. Early Childhood Matters, 8-14.
Frisby, C. (2013). Meeting the Psychoeducational Needs of Minority Students: Evidence-Based Guidelines for School Psychologists and Other School Personnel. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Galand, L. B., & Philippot, P. (2007). School violence and teacher professional disengagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 465-477.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gottfredson, G. D. (2013). What Can Schools Do to Help Prevent Gang Joining? CHANGING COURSE, 89.
Hall, C. P., & West, J. H. (2011). Potential predictors of student teaching performance: Considering emotional intelligence. Issues in Educational Research, 21, 145-161.
Hazen, J. M. (2010). Gangs, groups and guns: An overview. In Small Arms Survey, Small arms survey 2010: Gangs, groups and guns (pp. 84-99). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hicks, S. (2014). Violence directed towards teachers. Canada: Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Holmes, R. M., Tewksbury, R., & Higgins, G. (2012). Introduction to gangs in America. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
Howell, C. J. (2007). Menacing or mimicking? Realities of youth gangs. The Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 58, 9-20.
Howell, C. J. (2010). Gang prevention: An overview of research and programs. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-24.
Howell, J. (2012). Gang Prevention: Schools and Colleges. London: DIANE Publishing.
Hussein, A. (2009). The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work, 1-12.
Issurdatt, S. (2011). Practice perspectives: Gangs, a growing problem in schools. Washington DC: The National Association of Social Workers.
Jain, N. (2011). The Control Theory of Perpetration in International Criminal Law. Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 158, 2011 , 12(1): p.158.
James, R., & Gilliland, B. (2012). Crisis Intervention Strategies. New York: Cengage Learning.
Javidparwar, L., Hosseini, T. A., & Berjisian, R. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership performance in primary school managers of Isfahan. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(8), 1-10.
Jha, A., & Singh, I. (2012). Teacher effectiveness in relation to emotional intelligence among medical and engineering faculty members. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 667-685.
Jones, S. N., Waite, R., & Clements, P. T. (2012). An evolutionary concept analysis of school violence: From bullying to death. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 8, 4-12.
Jutersonke, O., Muggah, R., & Rodger, D. (2009). Gangs and violence reduction in Central America. Security Dialogue, 40(4/5), 1-25.
Jutersonke, O., Muggah, R., & Rodgers, D. (2009). Gangs, urban violence and security in Central America. Security Dialogue, 40(4/5), 373-397.
Kataoka, S., & Langley, A. (2012). Responding to Students with PTSD in Schools. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. , 21(1): 119-145.
Kauppi, T., & Porhola, M. (2012). Teachers bullied by students: Forms of bullying and perpetrator characteristics. Victims and Violence, 27(3), 396-413.
Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Sample size for multiple regression: obtaining regression coefficients that are accurate, not simply significant. Psychological Methods, 8(3), 305–321.
Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (2012). Handbook for research design in mathematics and science education. London: Routledge.
Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning and teaching. London: Routledge.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 114-129.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teacher’s collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464-486.
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Gang patterns and policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Klein, M. W., Weerman, F. M., & Thronberry, T. P. (2006). Street gang violence in Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 3(4), 413-437.
Legislative Analyst Office. (2007, April 2). Improving alternative education on California. February 2007 Report. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/alternative_educ/alt_ed_020707.pdf.
Levin, J., & Madfis, E. (2009). Mass Murder at School and Cumulative Strain: A Sequential Model. American Behavioral Scientist , 52; p.1227.
Lokmic, M., Opic, S., & Bilic, V. (2013). Violence against teachers: Rule or exception? International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 1(2), 49-56.
Maraichelvi, A., & Rajan, S. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence and the academic performance among final year under graduates. Universal Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 41-45.
Martin, D., & Loomis, K. (2013). Building teachers: A constructivist approach to introducing education (2nd ed.). Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, U.S.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman, & D. J. Rog, The handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214-253). London: Sage Publications.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Mehmood, T., Qasim, S., & Azam, R. (2013). Impact of emotional intelligence on the performance of University teachers. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 300-307.
Mehta, A. (2013). A study of how emotional intelligence reduces occupational stress among teachers. International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Management and Technology, 2, 19-28.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mishra, P. (2012). A study of the effect of emotional intelligence on academic achievement of Jaipur Senior Secondary students. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 3(4), 25-28.
Mooij, T. (2012). A Mokken scale to assess secondary pupils’ experience of violence in terms of severity. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(5), 496-508.
Muchembled, R., & Birrell, J. (2012). A history of violence (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2013). Number and percentage distribution of teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools, by selected teacher characteristics: Selected years, 1987-88 through 2011-12. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.10.asp.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (2010). National survey of American attitudes and substance abuse XV: Teens and parents at Columbia University. New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
National Crime Prevention Council. (2012). Addressing gangs in our schools. Arlington VA: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
National Crime Prevention Council. (2013). 2012-13 crime prevention month kit: Keeping kids cool and confident and out of gangs. Arlington Virginia: National Crime Prevention Council.
National Gang Intelligence Center. (2011). National gang threat assessment: Emerging trends. Washington DC: National Gang Intelligent Center.
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2010). Persistent fear and anxiety can affect young children’s learning and development. Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Working Paper No. 9.
Noguera, P. A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: a critical analysis of responses to school violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 189-212.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1995). Gang suppression and intervention: Problem and Response. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Ozdemir, S. M. (2012). An Investigation of Violence against Teachers in Turkey. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(1), 51-62.
Palomera, R., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Brackett, M. A. (2008). Emotional Intelligence as a basic component in pre-service teacher training: Some evidence. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(2), 437-454.
Pedota, P. (2007). Strategies for effective classroom management in the secondary setting. Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(4), 163-168.
Poipoi, M., & Agak, J. (2011). Perceived Home Factors Contributing to Violent Behaviour among Public Secondary School Students in Western Province, Kenya. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research, 2 (1): 30-40.
Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2006). Qualitative research in health care: Analyzing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 320, [3 Ed.] 114-116.
Ramana, T. V. (2013). Emotional intelligence and teacher effectiveness: An analysis. Voice of Research, 2(2), 18-22.
Reddy, L. A., Espelage, D. L., & McMahon, S. D. (2012). Understanding violence against teachers through case analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 72-99.
Reddy, L. A., Newman, E., DeThomas, S., & Chun, V. (2009). Effectiveness of school-based prevention and intervention programs for children and adolescents with emotional disturbance: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 77-99.
Resnik, D. B. (2011, May 1). What is ethics in research & why is it important? Retrieved from National Institutes of Health Website: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/.
Robers, S., Kemp, J., & Triman, J. (2013). Indicators of school crime and safety 2012. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Rocque, M. (2012). Exploring School Rampage Shootings: research, theory, and policy. The Social Science Journal , 49: p.304-313.
Rogerson, C., & Scott, E. (2010). The fear factor: How it affects students learning to program in a tertiary environment. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 147-171.
Saltmarsh, S., Robinson, K., & Davies, C. (2012). Rethinking School Violence: Theory, Gender, Context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Silverman, D., & Marvasti, A. (2008). Doing qualitative research: A comprehensive guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Simon, T. R., Ritter, N. M., & Mahendra, R. R. (Eds). (2013). Preventing gang membership. CHANGING COURSE, 1-6.
Sinski, J. (2013). Classroom Strategies for Teaching Veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 25(1), 87-95.
Smith, T., & Langenbacher, M. (2013). Deviant Reactions to the College Pressure Cooker: A Test of General Strain Theory on Undergraduate Students in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Science , 8 (2): 88–104.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1997). Urban street gang enforcement. Washington DC: United States Department of Justice.
Unruh, S. (2011). Mexico’s Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Immigrant Children. The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education, 7(1): 1-13.
US Legal. (2014, May 24). Gang violence law and definition. Retrieved from US Legal Website: http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gang-violence/.
WestEd. (2008). Alternative education options: A descriptive study of California continuation high schools. Issue Brief April 2008.
Wet, C. (2012). Risk factors for educator-targeted bullying: A social-ecological perspective. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(2), 239-244.
Williams, K. (2012). Textbook on Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, C. M., Douglas, K. S., & Lyon, D. R. (2011). Violence against teachers: Prevalence and consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(12), 2353-2371.
Wong, C. S., Wong, P.-M., & Chau, S.-L. (2010). Emotional intelligence, student’s attitudes towards life and the attainment of education goals: An exploratory study in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Wyrick, P. A. (2006). Gang prevention: How to make the “front end” of your anti-gang effort work. United States Attorneys’ Bulletin, 54, 52–60.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Younghusband, L. (2009). How safe are our teachers? Education Canada, 49(3), 48-50.
Appendix A: list of schools in san joaquin county
Table 1: List of Schools in San Joaquin County of Education School District
| List of Schools | Address | Phone Number | |
| 1. | San Joaquin County Community School | 2707 Transworld Dr. Stockton |
468-9265 |
| 2. | Venture Academy | 2829 Transworld Dr. Stockton |
468-5940 |
| 3. | San Joaquin County Special Education School | 2707 Transworld Dr. Stockton |
468-9279 |
| 4. | San Joaquin County Juvenile Hall School | 2707 Transworld Dr, Stockton | 468-4847 |
| 5. | Career & Technical High School Programs | Stockton, CA 95213 | 468.4926 |
| 6. | San Joaquin Building Futures Academy/Youthbuild | 3100 Monte Diablo, Stockton | 468-8140 |
| 7. | one. Charter | 800 Douglas Road, Stockton | 953-3596 |
| 8. | one. Discover | 807 Shamrock, Stockton | 951-9535 |
| 9. | Youth Build | Stockton, CA 95213 | 468-9246 |
| 10. | GED Testing | 15405 Sunset St. | 842-3504 |
| 11. | Health Academy | 931 E. Magnolia, Stockton | 933-7360 |
| 12. | one. Merit | 2707 Transworld Drive, ESC Portable A, Stockton | 468-5918 |
| 13. | Excel Academy | 2720 Transworld Drive, Stockton | 227-2300 |
| 14. | one. Prospective | 2707 Transworld Drive, ESC Portable B, Stockton | 953-2190 |
| 15. | one. Lodi | 2248 Tienda Drive, Lodi | 334-9747 |
| 16. | one. Success | 702 Yale Avenue, Stockton | 461-0387 |
| 17. | one. Insight & Success | 702 Yale Avenue, Stockton | 461-0391 |
| 18. | one. Business Leadership Academy | 401 N. San Joaquin Street, Stockton | 468-8450 |
| 19. | one. Ambition | 321 Sun West Place, Manteca | 825-6751 |
| 20. | one. Choice | 2520 Pock Lane, Stockton | 461-0376 |
| 21. | one. Insight@ Choice | 2520 Pock Lane, Stockton | 461-0372 |
| 22. | one. Harmony | 1501 W. 11th Street, Tracy | 839-8145 |
| 23. | one. Lathrop | 16424 Harlan Road, Lathrop | 858-4389 |
| 24. | one. Insight@ Lathrop | 16424 Harlan Road, Lathrop | 858-2962 |
| 25. | one. Manteca | 1271 N. Main Street, Manteca | 825-5535 |
| 26. | one. Insight@Manteca | 1271 N. Main Street, Manteca | 825-5718 |
| 27. | one. Chartville | 100 N. Jack Tone Road, Stockton | 948-4131 |
| 28. | one. Ethics | 4140 E. Hammer Lane, Stockton | 953-3555 |
| 29. | one. Dream Academy | 4635 Georgetown Place, Suite B, Stockton | 464-3931 |
| 30. | one. Insight@ Expressions | 1111 E. Bianchi, Stockton
|
954-1492 |
| 31. | one. Explores | 635 Georgetown Place Ste B, Stockton | 474-2852 |
| 32. | one. Odyssey | 725 N. El Dorado Street, Stockton | 464-0289 |
| 33. | one. Insight@ Discover | 807 Shamrock, Stockton | 951-0549 |
| 34. | one. Field of Dreams | 7001 W. Mary Graham Lane, French Camp, Rooms #3 & 4 | 468-4544 |
| 35. | one. Reconnect | 620 Aurora, Stockton | 469-0853 |
| 36. | one. Frontier | 2200 N. El Dorado Street, Stockton | 462-7763 |
| 37. | one. Biddick | 7001 W. Mary Graham Lane, French Camp, Room #2 | 468-7541 |
| 38. | one. Camp | 535 W. Mathews Road, French Camp | 468-4095 |
| 39. | one. Cruickshank | 535 W. Mathews Road, French Camp | 468-4791 |
| 40. | one. TLC | 22 S. Van Buren, Stockton | 468-9494 |
| 41. | one. Vision | 430 N. Pilgrim Street, Stockton | 466-0853 |
Appendix B: Thematic Analysis framework
Table 2: Identification of Themes from Text
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3… etc. | |
| Theme 1 | Evidence from interview 1 | Evidence from interview 2 | Evidence from interview 3 |
| Theme 2 | Evidence from interview 1 | Evidence from interview 2 | Evidence from interview 3 |
| Theme 3 | Evidence from interview 1 | Evidence from interview 2 | Evidence from interview 3 |
The thematic framework has eight steps as listed below.
- Identification of themes
- Transforms themes into codes
- Conducts theme identification
- Explores data and extrapolates
- Develops solutions to real-world problems (included in questions on creating a positive classroom climate, etc.)
- Interpret the results and quantify (from the data table)
- Include the reults of analytics
- Interpretation supported by the empirical data
Appendix C: Interview Questions
Interview for Alternative Education Teachers
This is interview includes questions on the implication of gang violence against alternative education teachers by Joanne Sawyer teacher @ Cruickshank Juvenile Hall. The objective of this phenomenological study was to explore alternative education and the impact of CMT on teachers’ perceptions of violence directed toward alternative education teachers and the impact on teachers safety without effective CMT. The responses are anonymous and all participants selected to participate will not be known outside the researcher’s team. If complete anonymity is not possible, the researcher will inform the participants. The responses will be stored in a secure location in the interviewer’s office for at least three years after completion of the research at this location (Brandman University).
Respond to the following questions in at least one complete sentence.
Q1. What is your current professional position?
Q2. How many years of experience do you have in the field of education?
Q3. Tell me about any pre-service training you underwent involving youth gang indicators and risk factors.
Q4. Describe your experiences with youth gangs while serving in the capacity as a teacher.
Q5. Given the specific circumstances of alternative education at your school and your personal levels of training and experience as a teacher, are you capable of recognizing and identifying specific aspects of school that may foster youth gang development? Please elaborate on this question.
Q6. As a teacher, do you establish simple and clear rules for behavior in the classroom? If yes, what are those rules and possible consequences of not following them? If no, what do you think teachers should do to enforce the rules consistently?
Q7. Do you perceive that by failing to address gang problems administrators increase the risk of victimization in school settings for students, teachers, and staff members? Please elaborate.
Q8. Most of the current gang awareness and training program focus largely in the school and classroom environment. Do you believe regular parental (familial) involvement would improve the effectiveness of the programs? Please elaborate.
Q9. Tell me about your perceptions on recommending family strengthening/effectiveness training to improve parenting skills, build life skills in youth, and strengthen family bonds in relation to managing gang violence in schools.
Q10. Given that school personnel collect information of gang presence in the schools and report their activities to law enforcement personnel, what are your perceptions about the effectiveness of treating gang activities in school as a criminal activity?
Q11. Given that schools have removed zero tolerance disciplining, describe your perception of its impact on suppressing gang activities and on learning.
Q12. Currently schools use gang management techniques such as confidential reporting for students, reporting of weapons, controlling entrances and exits, and training code signals to suppress or intervene on gang activities in school. Do you believe these techniques have been successful in relation to the persistent gang violence in schools?
Q13. If your school district provides alternatives to gang involvement such as remedial educational programs for student gang members with academic problems, do you believe it would help to improve learning and safety in the classroom? Please elaborate.
Q14. Socio-economic factors are among the leading reasons influencing students to join gangs. Some school districts have programs to develop knowledge and life skills through vocational and apprentice training. Tell me about the relationship between life skills and classroom safety since life skills are long-term and aim to develop self-sufficiency in adulthood.
Q15. Gang activities evolve with time but gang training and awareness programs for teachers are either quarterly or annually. What are your perceptions about the effective period for developmental training on the effectiveness of the teacher to handle evolving the gang activities?
Q16. Does your school have a policy for responding to worst-case gang scenarios such as armed intruder, violent incident involving rival gangs, aftermath of a crisis in the school community and other serious crisis? If you are in such a scenario, describe how you would handle the situation.
Q17. Given that gang violence in schools have persisted, some even witnessing the most atrocious gang violence despite the presence of gang awareness and training, what are you perceptions about the weaknesses of the current programs.
Q18. One of emerging issues affecting effectiveness gang awareness and training is some modules contain significant amount of information that some teachers experience difficulty in transferring their new skills into practice and are require direct coaching. Describe the importance of direct coaching on how to apply their new skills.
Q19. Describe your perceptions about the effectiveness of the current gang awareness training on suppression of gang violence in school.
Q20. What are your suggestion on improving gang awareness and training programs to enhance learning and safety in the classroom?
Please respond to the following statements by circling choices that reflect your actual status.
| Gender:
1. Male 2. Female
|
Age (years)
1. 25-34 2. 35-44 3. 45-54 4. 55-64 5. 65 or older |
Education Level
1. BS/BA 2. MS/MS Ed. 3. PhD/Ed.D
|
Ethnicity
1. Caucasian 2. African American 3. Hispanic 4. Asian 5. Native American 6. Other
|
Appendix E: Collected Data for Implications of Gang violence
Table 3: Data for Implication of Gang Violence
| Questions | # Response | Very Likely | Somewhat Likely | Neutral | Somewhat Unlikely | Very Unlikely |
| 1. How has your reporting of classroom infractions as a discipline report affected violence in your classroom?
|
||||||
| 2. What is your experience of the impact of zero-tolerance discipline removal on violence in the classroom?
|
||||||
| 3. What is your experience with family effectiveness training as a technique to reduce violence directed at teachers?
Elaborate on the impact of teacher effectiveness training as it relates to your past classroom experiences. |
||||||
| 4. How has the use of CMT affected your classroom over time? Provide some Can examples of situations before and after using CMT in the classroom. | ||||||
| 5. What in your experience have been the most effective strategies you have used to reduce violence directed at teachers?
6. Explain your understanding of the how these strategies have improved your ability to delivery subjects in the classroom.
|
| Common Themes | Source #1 | Source #2 | Source #3 | Source #4 | Source #5 |
| Gang Presence in Schools
|
Arciaga et al. (2010). This author examines the prevalence of gangs in school and their persistence.
Article. |
National Crime Prevention Council (2013). This author analyzes gang presence in schools and preventive programs.
Article. |
Klein & Maxson (2006). This author examines gang patterns in schools and communities and preventive policies.
Book. |
Egley et al. (2010). These authors highlight surveys of on national youth gangs.
Article. |
Decker & Pyrooz (2010). This author describes gang violence – context, culture and country.
Book. |
| Jones, Waite, & Clements (2012). These authors explored the evolution of school violence from early forms of bullying to death.
Journal. |
Jutersonke, Muggah & Rodgers (2009). These authors studies urban gang violence and its extension into schools.
Journal. |
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (2010). This article examines the prevalence of drug and substance abuse by student gang members in school.
Article. |
Klein, Weerman & Thronberry (2006). These authors examine street violence and gang presence in school. | ||
| Effects of Gangs in Schools
|
Issurdatt, S. (2011). This author examines gangs in schools, their implications and preventive strategies.
Article |
Cahill & Hayeslip (2010). This author evaluates delinquency behavior and programs and gang reduction
Article. |
Debarbieux & Baya (2008). These authors studied gang construction and impact on learning.
Journal. |
Espelage & Horne (2008). Describes victimization & bullying, effects on performance and preventive strategies.
Book |
Holmes et al. (2012). These authors examine gangs in America: and the impact they had in schools.
Book. |
| Cornell & Mayer (2010). These authors studied the importance of school safety and order to learning and teacher safety.
Journal. |
National Gang Intelligence Center. (2011). This article analyzes the national gang threats and emerging trends.
Article. |
||||
| Signs and Risk Factors of Involvement in Gangs
|
Howell, C.J. (2010). This author reviews literature on gang formation and effective intervention to prevent gang formation and activities.
Article. |
Dinkes et al. (2009). This author examines indicators of school crime and safety.
Article.
|
Howell (2007). This author studies the reality and dynamics of gangs and gang formation.
Journal. |
Martin & Loomis (2013). This author describes the importance of teacher to classroom performance.
Book. |
Allen et al. (2010). These authors examine the theory, policy and practice of juvenile delinquents.
Book. |
| Teacher/Student Directed Violence | Estrada et Al. (2014). These authors study the mediation of school risk behaviors and attitudes mediate between gangs and school violence & victimization.
Journal. |
Younghusband (2009). This author studies the safety concerns for teachers in school and in the classroom and the various forms of teacher directed violence.
Journal. |
Hicks (2014). This author explores violence directed to the teacher, the causes and solutions.
Article. |
Chen & Astor (2012). These authors examine the role of school variables in mediation personal and family factors and school violence in Junior high schools.
Journal. |
Mooij (2012). This author analyses the effect violence in school to student and teachers.
Journal. |
| Wet (2012). This author examined the socio-ecological risk factors influencing educator-targeted bullying in schools.
Journal. |
Ozdemir (2012). This author examines the types of violence directed against the teacher in terms of gender, and among elementary and secondary school teachers
Journal. |
Kauppi & Porhola (2012). These authors examine forms of teacher bullying perpetrated by students and the behavior of the student bullies towards their peers.
Journal. |
Robers, Kemp & Triman (2013). These authors examined the indicators of violence in school and student and teacher safety in schools.
Journal. |
||
| Teacher Safety and Safety Implications in the Classroom
|
Espelage et al. (2013). This author examines violence directed against teachers and the implication of the violence on student learning & performance.
Journal |
Reddy, L.A. et al. (2012). This author carries out case analysis on violence directed against teachers.
Journal. |
Dzuka & Dalbert (2007). This author studies violence directed at teachers and implication of the violence.
Journal. |
Reddy et al. (2009). This author describes preventive and intervention programs for emotionally disturbed youth.
Journal. |
Klassen and Chiu (2011). These authors study teacher commitment to occupation and factors contributing to their quitting.
Journal. |
| Lokmic, Opic & Bilic (2013). This study examines student violence against the teacher and the influence of years of service. Journal | American Psychological Association (2011). These authors examine classroom violence directed against teachers and methods to prevent it.
Article |
Wilson, Douglas, & Lyon (2011). This study analyzes the prevalence and consequences of violence directed against the teacher.
Journal. |
Galand & Philippot (2007). These two authors explore the effects of teacher-directed violence to their professional disengagement.
Journal. |
Martin & Loomis (2013). These authors discuss a constructive approach for teacher to manage deviant behaviors in the classroom.
Book. |
|
| Emotional Intelligence and teacher student management | Hall & West (2011). This study examines emotional intelligence as predictor of teacher performance. Journal | Mehmood, Qasim &Azam (2013). This study examines emotional intelligence on teacher performance.
Journal. |
Chechi (2012). This study examines the relationship between emotional intelligence and classroom management performance.
Journal. |
Jha & Singh (2012). This study teacher effectiveness in relation to emotional intelligence. | Maraichelvi & Rajan (2013). This study analyzes the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance.
Journal. |
| Ramana (2013). This author analyzes the relationship between emotional intelligence and teacher effectiveness.
Journal. |
Mehta (2013). This author studies hoe emotional intelligence assists teacher to reduce occupational stress.
Journal. |
Wong, Wong & Chau (2010). These authors study how emotional intelligence improves student attitudes towards life.
Journal. |
Palomera et al. (2008). These authors examine the role of emotional intelligence on student personal, social and academic functioning.
Journal. |
Edannur (2010). This author studies the relationship between emotional intelligence and the gender and locality of teachers.
Journal. |
|
| Classroom Management | Wyrick (2006) examine classroom management techniques in terms of prevention, intervention and suppression.
Journal. |
Emmer & Stough (2001) emphasizes on preventive CMT as a more effective strategy than intervention or suppression strategies.
Journal. |
Brown (2004) examines culturally responsive CMT – personal relationships, effective communication, stating and enforcing expectations.
Journal. |
Pedota (2007) discusses strategies teachers could use to maximize classroom instruction while managing disruptions.
Journal. |
Doyle (1990) discusses Classroom management strategies – monitoring, establishing rules and consequences for breach of rules.
Journal. |
| Marzano & Pickering (2003) examines the importance of rules, communicating and enforcing them as effective CMT
Journal. |
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.