Direct comparisons between residential and community students on school performance measures in a...

Behavioral Interventions, Vol. 10, No. 2, 69-77 (1995)

DIRECT COMPARISONS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY STUDENTS ON SCHOOL

PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL SETTING

JamesVincent, Jack J. Kramer, Mark Shriver and Rob Spies University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 116 Bancroft Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the school performance of residential youth who attended a public school setting. Direct comparisons were made between the residential youth and students in the community on a number of school measures. Results from a multivariate analysis of covariance indicated that the residential students had significantly lower grades, participated in significantly fewer extracurricular activities, and exhibited more problematic behaviors such as tardies and absences. These findings were consistent with previous research which found that many residential youth have a number of behavioral, social, and academic dificulties that interfere with school functioning. A number of recommendations were made regarding educational placement for residential youth.

Youth placed in residential treatment centers often experience a number of social, academic, and behavioral difficulties. Identification of specific characteristics of residential youth may be important in the development of effective treatment strategies and remedial programs in school settings (Duchnowski, Johnson, Hall, Kutash, & Friedman, 1993; Silver e t al., 1992; Wurtele, Silson, Prentice-Dunn, 1983). Silver e t al. (1992) reviewed 27 residential treatment facilities across four states and found that the majority (e.g., two-thirds) of youth met the criteria for Conduct Disorder (CD) as defined by the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-III- R; American Psychiatric Association, 1987, p. 53). This includes a number of behaviors that often violate the basic rights of others including stealing,

Address correspondence to: James Vincent, MA, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Educational Psychology, 116 Bancroft Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0345, USA.

James Vincent, M.A. is a doctoral candidate in School Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Jack J. Kramer, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of School Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Mark Shriver, Ed.% is currently a doctoral candidate in School Psychology at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. Rob Spies, Ed.% is currently a doctoral candidate in School Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

CCC 10724847/95/02006949 01995 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

70 J. Vincent et al.

property destruction, fire-starting, lying, running away and fighting. Other common diagnoses included Anxiety (26%), Depression (19%), and Attention Deficit Disorder (12%).

There are a number of factors that contribute to the development of behavioral and emotional problems for adolescents in residential settings. Previous research demonstrated that these youth are often raised in families with higher levels of marital discord, stress, insularity, and coerciveness (McMahon & Wells, 1989; Patterson, 1986). Patterson (1986) places primary importance on “negative reinforcement” when describing these families. According to this theoretical model, aggressive behaviors are reinforced when they result in the removal of an aversive event (e.g., demand situation). Others have described families of residential youth as disengaged, chaotic, and less cohesive when compared to a normative sample (Silver, et al., 1992).

Residential youth often have a long history of school failure and have difficulties adjusting to the structure of the classroom (McMahon & Wells, 1989; Patterson, 1986). Previous research suggests that these students exhibit poor academic skills, high rates of problematic behaviors, and social skill deficits. (Duchnowski et al., 1993; McMahon & Wells, 1989; Patterson, 1986; Silver et al., 1992; Wurtele et al., 1983). Too often, residential youth experience multiple placements that disrupt educational programing and contribute to poor school performance. For example, Wurtele et al. (1983) report that 35% of residential youth have experienced one to two previous placements; 34% have experienced three to four placements; and 25% have been placed in five or more previous living arrangements during a 5-year period.

The potential challenges presented by residential youth often necessitate the most restrictive educational environment that includes “on-campus” programs (Duchnowski et al., 1993; Miskimins, 1990; Small, Kennedy, & Bender, 1991). At the same time, professionals have argued that residential youth need exposure to more normalized events in the community and school in order to make a successful transition to their natural environments (Gutterman & Blythe, 1986; Hobbs, 1966; Quay, 1986; Stokes & Baer, 1977; Termini, 1991). According to Gutterman and Blythe (1986), “the ecological model clearly identifies the goal of residential treatment as treating children through linkage with, rather than separation from, their indigenous environments.” Determining the most appropriate educational placement for residential youth is problematic due to the paucity of research examining the social and academic functioning of these students across a continuum of school settings.

The purpose of the current paper was to evaluate the school performance of the residential youth who attended a public school setting. The program was unique in that it served primarily female students, a population that has been

Direct comparisons 71

sorely neglected in the literature. School performance was evaluated by comparing residential youth with community students on a number of dependent measures including grade point average (GPA), social behaviors, and problematic behaviors. Gathering these data may aid professionals when making educational placement decisions and developing remedial programs for residential youth.

METHOD

Subjects

Residential group The participants included 73 youth who were residents of residential

treatment facility in the Midwest and integrated into a public school setting. The majority of these youth were in the 8th (22%), 9th (31%), and 10th (29%), grades while the remainder were in the 7th (8%), 11th (7%), and 12th (3%) grades. All of the residents were made state wards and placed into the residential center for severe emotional and behavioral difficulties. Preference was given to those youth who had experienced physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.

No information was available regarding specific diagnoses of the youth. Review of records did, however, reveal a number of common problems. Approximately 90% of the youth experienced physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; 82% had run away on at least one occasion; and 59% had been identified by law enforcement officials for delinquent behaviors. Other common problems included drug/alcohol abuse (74%), truancy (65%), and a past history of suicidal behaviors (42%). Approximately 10% of the youth received special educational services.

Normative group The normative group consisted of 105 students from the surrounding

communities. The majority of these students were male (59%). The community students were distributed across the following grades: 7th (20%), 8th (l8%), 9th (15%), 10th (18%), 11th (13%), and 12th (16%) grades.

Settings

Residential treatment center The residential treatment center was located in a rural setting in the Midwest.

The facility consisted of five treatment units each serving up to 15 adolescents.


Four units served females and one unit provided treatment exclusively for males. The average length of placement was approximately 9 months. The primary treatment approach was Positive Peer Culture (PPC: Vorrath & Brendtro, 1985). PPC is a comprehensive residential program that relies on peer pressure to develop a social environment that supports prosocial behaviors and values. Within this approach, staff actively reinforce helping behaviors (e.g., convincing a peer not to runaway) while negative peer interactions are labeled “weak” or “hurtful”.

School setting

Residents attended a small public shoo1 located approximately 7 miles from the facility. The school was located in a small rural farming community of approximately 200 people. The school served children of all ages including elementary, secondary, and high school grades. During the last academic year, the school served 282 students. The majority of these students were junior high and high school students (64%). The residentially placed students accounted for 41% of the enrollment of grades 7 thru 12. The remaining students lived in the surrounding community. The school also provided special educational programing including services for students identified with learning disabilities or behavioral impairments. During the last academic semester, eight residential and one community students were served by these programs during part of their school day. The remainder of the students in the school were enrolled in regular educational classes.

Dependent measures

School performance

A number of school performance measures were obtained by reviewing the school records of the students during the most recent academic semester. These measures included GPA using a 4-point grading system, number of absences, number of tardies, and number of extracurricular activities participated by each student. Extracurricular activities included participation in sports, cheer leading, band, and choir.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using a factorial multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with gender and group as the independent variables for the four


Table 1. Adjusted means and standard deviations of school performance measures across groups and gender.

Residential Community

Males Females Males Females M SD M SD M SD M SD

~ ~

GPA 1.55 0.60 1.99 0.82 2.66 0.84 3.01 0.65 Absences 2.60 4.96 3.23 2.11 1.56 1.58 2.08 1.90 Tardies 2.28 4.08 2.06 4.31 1.30 3.77 1.09 1.57 Activities 0.43 0.63 0.80 0.80 1.41 1.11 1.77 1.02

GPA= Grade point average.

dependent measures. Grade level was used as a covariate in order to control for the unequal distribution of grade level between the community and residential populations. In order to deal with the special problems associated with an unbalanced design, data were analyzed using the unique sources as a variability. This method has been recommended for analyzing data from unequal sample sizes (Stevens, 1992).

The data analyses involved a two-step process. First, the Pillais statistic was observed as a multivariate measure of significance. If this was significant at alpha .05, then each of the dependent variables were examined using univariate analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the adjusted means and standard deviations of each of the school performance measures across gender and group. The MANCOVA resulted in no significant interaction between group and gender, F(4,165)=0.0403, p=0.997. As a result, the main effects for group and gender were examined. Examination of group effects resulted in a significant MANCOVA effect, F(4,165)= 19.68, p = 0.001. Examination of the univariate analyses showed sigruficant group differences for grade point average ( p = 0.001), absences ( p = O.OOl), tardies ( p = 0.012), and extracurricular activities ( p = 0.001).

The MANCOVA yielded a significant gender effect, F(4,165) = 3.60, p = 0.008. Inspection of the univariate analysis of variance showed significant gender differences for grade point average ( p = 0.004), and number of extracurricular activities ( p = 0.032). The univariate analyses showed no significant gender differences for number of tardies and absences from school.


Table 2. Percentage of male and female students across grade point averages and group.


GPA Male Female Male Female

0.00-0.99 0.13 (N=2) 0.12 (N=7) 0.03 (N=2) 0.00 (N=O) 1 .00-1.99 0.60 (N=9) 0.36 (N=21) 0.13 (N=8) 0.07 (N=3) 2.00-2.99 0.27 ( N = 4) 0.40 ( N = 23) 0.48 ( N = 30) 0.38 ( N = 16) 3 . U . 0 0 0.00 (N=O) 0.12 (N=7) 0.37 (N=23) 0.55 (N=23)

GPA = Grade point average.

Table 3. Percentage of male and female students participating in extracurricular activities.


Number of Activities Male Female Male Female

0.66 ( N = 10) 0.31 ( N = 18) 0.20 ( N = 12) 0.05 (N=2) 0.27 ( N = 4) 0.60 ( N = 35) 0.46 (N=28) 0.44 ( N = 19) 0.07 ( N = 1) 0.07 ( N = 4) 0.15 (N=9) 0.25 ( N = 11) 0.00 ( N = 0) 0.00 ( N = 0) 0.15 ( N = 9 ) 0.23 ( N = 10) 0.00 (N=O) 0.00 (N=O) 0.04 ( N = 3 ) 0.00 ( N = 0) 0.00 ( N = 0) 0.02 ( N = 1) 0.00 (N=O) 0.02 ( N = 1)

Table 2 presents the percentages of residential and community students across four levels of grade point average. This table shows that 47% of the residential youth maintained average to above average GPAs (equal to or greater than 2.00). Within the residential sample, over half (e.g., 52%) of the female students received average to above average GPAs, while the majority of males earned below passing GPAs (e.g. 73%). In contrast, 88% of the community students received passing grades. Approximately 84% of the male community students maintained average GPAs, as compared to 92% of the female students.

Similar trends were noted with number of extracurricular activities. Table 3 shows that approximately 62% of the residential students participated in at least one activity during the most recent semester. Approximately 34% of the male population participated in one or more activities compared to 68% of the residential females. Similar comparisons show that 86% of the community students participated in at least one activity. Approximately 80% of the male

Direct cornparisom 75

and 95% of the female community students participated in one or more extracurricular activities.

DISCUSSION

The results from the current study suggest that when compared to a normative sample, many of the residential students experienced academic, social, and behavioral problems in the public school setting. This finding is consistent with previous research describing the academic and behavioral difficulties of residential youth (Duchnowski et al., 1993; McMahon & Wells, 1989; Silver et al., 1992; Wurtele et al., 1983). At the same time, a si&icant proportion of the residential students demonstrated adequate school performance and participated in at least one extracurricular activity. There were some gender differences noted within the residential population with the female students earning significantly higher GPAs and participating in more activities. This finding is consistent with previous gender differences found with residential populations (Silver et al., 1992) and suggest that female residents may be better equipped to deal with the demands of a regular educational setting.

Determining the most appropriate educational placement for residential youth may have long-term implications on academic, social, and emotional development (Wurtele et al., 1983). The benefits of exposing students to realistic demands must be tempered by careful consideration of current adaptive behaviors and skills (Curry, 1991). Placing ill-prepared students into a mainstream school environment may result in a number of failure experiences in the classroom and social environment. These experiences may produce lowered self-esteem and increased tension between the residential and school agencies (Carl & Jurkovic, 1983). At the same time, indiscriminate placement into the most restrictive setting (e.g., on-campus programs) may deprive many residential students of the social and academic benefits associated with a public school setting.

Currently, there are no criteria available to assist professionals in making placement decisions for residential students. Many times, students are placed in “on-campus” programs with no opportunities for public school experiences (Duchnowski et al., 1993; Miskimins, 1990; Small et al., 1991). Maintaining exclusionary policies may have serious implications for residential youth who must eventually make the difficult transition from a highly restrictive setting to their natural environment (Quay, 1986; Stokes & Baer, 1977; Whittaker & Pecora, 1984; Wurtele et al., 1983). In order to ease this transition, residential


programs must provide a continuum of educational placement options of varying restrictiveness that are based on careful assessment of behavioral, academic, and social functioning (Lerner, Dawson, & Horvath, 1980). Although many residential youth may require a highly restrictive educational setting (e.g., on-campus program), they should be afforded the opportunity to attend a public school setting (e.g. partial or full integration) as they meet specific behavioral and educational goals.

The current authors offer the following recommendations when considering educational options for residential youth. First, mental health professionals should not rely solely on exclusionary policies nor should they indiscriminately place students into mainstreamed regular educational classrooms. Secondly, residential programs and school officials should work collaboratively to provide a continuum of educational placement alternatives that vary in restrictiveness ranging from on-campus programs (most restrictive) to integration into regular educational classes in a public school setting (least restrictive). Thirdly, placement decisions should be based on careful assessment of social, behavioral, and academic functioning. Finally, students should be provided the opportunity to attend a normalized learning environment as they meet specific behavioral and academic goals.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manua. Df menta disorders (3rd ed.), Washington, DC: Author.

Carl, D., & Jurkovic, G. J. (1983). Agency triangles: Problems in agency-family relationships. Family Process, 22, 441-451.

Curry, J. G. (1991). Outcome research on residential treatment: Implications and suggested directions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 348-356.

Duchnowski, A. J., Johnson, M. K., Hall, K. S., Kutash, K., & Friedman, R. M. (1993). The alternatives to residential treatment study: Initial findings. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 11-26.

Gutterman, N. B., & Blythe, B. J. (1986). Toward ecologically based intervention in residential treatment for children. Social Service Review, 60, 633-643.

Hobbs, N. (1966). Helping disturbed children: Psychological and ecological strategies. American Psychologist, 21, 1105-1 1 15.

Lerner, J., Dawson, D., & Horvath, L. (1980). Cases in learning and behaviorproblems: A guide to individualized education programs. Salem, WI: Sheftield Publishing Co.

McMahon, R. J., & Wells, K. C. (1989). Conduct Disorders. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of childhood disorders @p. 73-132). New York: Guilford Press.

Miskimins, R. W. (1990). A theoretical model for the practice of residential treatment. Adolescence, 25, 867-890.

Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41,432- 444.


Quay, H. (1986). Residential treatment., In H. Quay & J. S . Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (3rd ed., pp. 558-580). New York John Wiley,

Silver, S. E., Duchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., Friedman, R. M., Eisen, M., Prange, M. E., Brandenburg, N. A., & Greenbaum, P. E. (1992). A comparison of children with serious emotional disturbance served in residential and school settings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, I , 4 3 5 9 .

Small, R., Kennedy, K., & Bender, B. (1991). Critical issues for practice in residential treatment: The view from within. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 327-338.

Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.

Termini, A. M. (1991). Ecologically based interventions in residential and school facilities: Theory or practice? Adolescence, 26, 387-398.

Vorrath, H. H., & Brendtro, L. K. (1985). Positivepeer culture, New York Aldine. Whittaker, J., & Pecora, P. (1984). A research agenda for residential care. In T. Philpot (Ed.),

Group care practice: the challenge of the next decade @p. 71-86). Surrey, England Business Press International.

Wurtele, S. K., Wilson, D. R., & Prentice-Dun, S. (1983). Characteristics of children in residential treatment programs: Findings and clinical implications. Journal of Clinical Child PSyChOlOgy, 12, 137-144.

Direct comparisons between residential and community students on school performance measures in a...

Documents

Transcript of Direct comparisons between residential and community students on school performance measures in a...