This document is Theresa Ann Costa Johansen's doctoral dissertation examining teacher-level factors that influence student discipline decisions. It provides background on zero tolerance policies and their links to increased exclusionary discipline practices. Exclusionary discipline has been associated with negative student outcomes. The study aims to understand how teacher perceptions of self-efficacy, collective efficacy, student behavior, and school climate relate to classroom and schoolwide discipline practices. It uses mixed methods to gather data from a California middle school on discipline rates and teacher surveys and interviews. The goal is to provide insight into how teacher and school factors may influence discipline practices and student outcomes.

1. i
Teacher-Level Factors That Influence Student Discipline Decisions, or
“You Can’t Back a Middle School Kid Into the Corner”
By
THERESA ANN COSTA JOHANSEN
B.A. (California State University, Chico)
M.A. (California State University, Chico)
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
Educational Leadership
in the
OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
Approved:
______________________________
Cassandra Hart, Chair
______________________________
Michal Kurlaender
______________________________
Heather M. Edwards
Committee in Charge
2016

2. Copyright © Theresa Ann Costa Johansen 2015

3. ii
DEDICATION
I’ve come to a frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element in the classroom.
It’s my personal approach that creates the climate. It’s my daily mood that makes the
weather. As a teacher, I possess a tremendous power to make a child’s life miserable or
joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or heal.
In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or
de-escalated and a child humanized or dehumanized. (Ginott, 1993, p. 15)
I wish to first thank my parents, Ron and Ruth Costa, who have provided support and
patience for my intellectual curiosity since birth—truly, my lifelong teacher examples. Thanks
to my husband, Erik, and children, Meghan, Madison and Dane, for love, encouragement,
support, and patience with my endless days of writing and not being available to watch an entire
new season of Duck Dynasty, cook dinner, or attend volleyball, football, or basketball games.
Thanks to every student whom I have ever taught, for helping me to become a better teacher and
principal. Finally, thanks to my sister, Cheryl, who held the pearls before my eyes—pearls of
wisdom, pearls of hope, and pearls of faith.

4. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express my appreciation to the staff at the study site, who allowed me to hear their
stories, and to the students whom they teach.
I also express my appreciation to my colleagues at the California Department of
Education and Butte Community College who listened patiently to endless hours of research. I
especially thank Sean (for help with monomethod data triangulation), Mike, Jennifer, Terry, Ray
(a.k.a. Raymont), Paul, Joe, Kay, and Hamed for encouragement, examples, gentle reminders,
and exhortations to excellence, not to mention many good laughs along the way.
My thanks to the principals, superintendents, teachers, and staff members in Los Angeles
Unified, Pomona Unified, Pasadena Unified, El Rancho Unified, Downey Unified, and Whittier
City Elementary, and my many new “dissertation friends” at Los Angeles Unified School
District and Pomona Unified (they know who they are) for their questions, comments,
recommendations, suggestions, and, most important, for constantly reminding me why we do the
work that we do: to improve outcomes for all students!
My dissertation chair, Dr. Cassandra Hart, provided patient guidance throughout this
process, particularly relating to the use of STATA! Committee members Dr. Michal Kurlaender
and Heather M. Edwards, Esq., gave guidance, support, and reflective feedback.

5. iv
ABSTRACT
Student misbehavior in the school setting and exclusionary discipline practices have been
linked to a host of negative student and teacher outcomes. While many factors likely contribute
to student misbehavior in a school and classroom setting, this research used qualitative and
quantitative methods to examine teacher-level factors associated with classroom and schoolwide
disciplinary practices, including teacher perceptions of self-efficacy for classroom management,
teacher opinions regarding which types of student behaviors warrant disciplinary referrals,
teacher beliefs relating to student misbehavior and consequences, and teacher perceptions of
administrative support and school climate.
Research questions focused on (a) the relationships among teacher-level perceptions and
beliefs about self and collective efficacy, student behavior and school climate, and how these
perceptions are associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices; and (b) how
teachers report factors such as school culture, climate, history, and student demographics that
potentially influence schoolwide discipline practices and subsequent discipline outcomes for
students.
Together, the qualitative and quantitative findings for this study provide evidence of a
relationship between teacher-level perceptions and beliefs about self-efficacy and collective
efficacy and about student behavior and school climate; these perceptions influence classroom
and schoolwide discipline practices. The findings yielded insight into how perceptions of school
culture and climate may influence schoolwide discipline practices and subsequent discipline
outcomes for students.
Key words: classroom management, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, expulsion, student
discipline, suspension, zero tolerance, willful defiance

6. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x
Chapter
1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY...................................................................................................1
Zero Tolerance Policies .......................................................................................................3
Links to NCLB/Accountability Movement and Data Reporting .........................................4
Current Practice in California: Suspensions/Expulsions and Section 48900(k)..................4
Negative Outcomes of Exclusionary Discipline..................................................................7
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................9
Justification of the Study and Purpose...............................................................................11
Importance of the Study.....................................................................................................11
Research Questions............................................................................................................13
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................13
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...........................................................................................14
Student Discipline: Historical Practice ..............................................................................14
Classroom Management and Student Discipline Theories ....................................15
Classroom Management Research.........................................................................17
Efficacy Theories...............................................................................................................23

7. vi
Theoretical Framework for Self-Efficacy and Classroom Management ...........................27
Linking Teacher Efficacy, Classroom Management, and Student Discipline...................29
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................31
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................33
Overview of the Study .......................................................................................................33
Setting, Sample, and Population........................................................................................34
School History and Teacher Demographics ......................................................................42
Discipline Practices at Valley Oak Middle School............................................................43
Aggregated Student Discipline Data..................................................................................48
Potential Areas of Research Bias.......................................................................................50
4. QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND RESULTS....................................................52
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................52
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................53
Measures ............................................................................................................................54
Teacher Perception Scales .................................................................................................54
Teacher Background Variables..........................................................................................57
Analytical Methods............................................................................................................58
Results................................................................................................................................58
Self-Efficacy for Classroom Management.............................................................58
School Collective Efficacy ....................................................................................60
School Climate and Discipline...............................................................................61
Schoolwide Behavior Expectations .......................................................................63
Administrative Support..........................................................................................64

8. vii
Student Discipline and Office Referral..................................................................66
Willful Defiance and Suspension...........................................................................67
Correlation Analysis ..........................................................................................................69
Discussion..........................................................................................................................72
Findings for Research Question 1..........................................................................72
Findings for Research Question 2..........................................................................74
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................74
5. QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND RESULTS ......................................................76
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................76
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................77
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................77
Theme 1: Perceptions of Self.............................................................................................79
Classroom Management.........................................................................................79
Student-Teacher Relationships ..............................................................................80
Self-Efficacy and Self-Reflection..........................................................................82
Theme 2: Perceptions of Students......................................................................................84
Student Needs ........................................................................................................84
Beliefs About Behavior..........................................................................................87
Family and Community .........................................................................................89
Theme 3: School Practices.................................................................................................91
School Climate.......................................................................................................91
School and Classroom Structure............................................................................93
Schoolwide Discipline Practices............................................................................94

9. viii
Summary of Major Findings..............................................................................................97
6. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................100
Background of the Study .................................................................................................100
Conclusions......................................................................................................................101
Findings for Research Question 1........................................................................101
Findings for Research Question 2........................................................................103
Implications for Practice..................................................................................................105
Implications for Policy.....................................................................................................107
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................108
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................................................109
Concluding Remarks........................................................................................................111
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................112
APPENDICES
A: Diagrams.....................................................................................................................120
B: Student Discipline Survey...........................................................................................122
C: Interview Questions ....................................................................................................133
D: Demographic Data of Top 15 Counties for Suspension Rates ...................................135

10. ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Meta-Analysis Results for Four Management Factors ......................................................21
2. Suspension Rates per 100 Students for 15 Counties in California With Highest
Suspension Rates, 2011–2014 ...........................................................................................37
3. Suspension Rates for Large Urban Counties in California, 2011–2014............................38
4. Suspension Rates for Valley Oak Middle School..............................................................39
5. Suspension and Demographic Data for Schools in Five Counties With the Highest
Suspension Rates, 2013-2014............................................................................................41
6. Steps and Consequences in the Valley Oak Middle School Step System .........................47
7. Student-Level Discipline Data for the Valley Oak Middle School, 2013-2014:
Grade Level, Month, and Consequence.............................................................................49
8. In-School Suspensions, Out-of-School Suspensions and Referrals to Administration
at the Target School, by California Education Code Offense, Academic Year
2013-2014 ..........................................................................................................................50
9. Results for the Self-Efficacy for Classroom Management Scale.......................................59
10. Results for the School Collective Efficacy Scale ..............................................................60
11. Results for the School Climate and Discipline Scale.........................................................62
12. Results for the Schoolwide Behavior Expectations Scale .................................................63
13. Results for the Administrative Support Scale....................................................................65
14. Results for the Student Discipline and Office Referral Scale............................................66
15. Results for the Willful Defiance and Suspension Scale.....................................................68
16. Correlations Among Scales................................................................................................70

11. x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Cycle of negative mastery experiences and diminished perceptions of
self-efficacy for classroom management .........................................................................120
2. Cycle of positive mastery experiences and enhanced perceptions of self-efficacy
for classroom management ..............................................................................................121

12. 1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Student misbehavior in the school setting and exclusionary discipline practices have been
linked to increased rates of school violence (Skiba & Peterson, 1999), an increase in antisocial
behavior (Greene, Ablon, & Martin, 2006), teacher stress and burnout and high rates of teacher
attrition (Berliner, 1986; Brouwers & Tomic, 2000), diminished levels of student achievement,
decreased levels of school safety, disrupted learning opportunities for all students, high rates of
suspension and expulsion (Skiba & Peterson, 1999), increasing levels of student involvement
with the juvenile justice system (Fabelo et al., 2011), increased dropout rates and gang
involvement (Fabelo et al., 2011) and an overall decrease in educational attainment, graduation,
and progress (Oliver, Wehby, & Reschly, 2011). According to Oliver et al. (2011), teachers
make more requests each year for assistance with managing disruptive student behavior than for
any other teaching or instructional category.
Student misbehavior can be broadly defined as any type of behavior that disrupts learning
or the school environment for self or others. It can range from the minimal level (e.g., being out
of one’s seat without permission) to the maximum level (e.g., inflicting bodily harm on another
student or possession of a weapon on school property). Generally, teachers have identified five
broad categories of student misbehavior: (a) aggression or illegal behavior such as physical or
verbal attacks or possession of contraband; (b) immoral acts, including cheating, lying, stealing,
or destroying school property; (c) defiance of authority, such as refusing to do what a teacher
asks, violating the school dress code, or chewing gum; (d) class disruption, such as calling out,
being out of one’s seat without permission, throwing things, or disturbing other classmates; and

13. 2
(e) “goofing off,” which could include a host of behaviors ranging from not doing assigned tasks
to daydreaming during class (Charles, 1989).
To complicate the topic, several researchers have demonstrated that student behavior is a
function of multiple student- and teacher-level factors. These include the student’s neurological,
cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development (Bregman, Zager, & Gerdtz, 2005;
Greene et al., 2006; Perry, 2009); parenting approaches and traumatic life experiences (Perry,
2009); the student’s physical or academic needs (Greene et al., 2006); the environment of the
classroom or school, the curriculum, and the manner in which the curriculum is taught (Sprague
& Horner, 2011); teacher beliefs about student behavior (Morin & Battalio, 2004); teacher
classroom management practices (Brophy & Evertson, 1976; Wolfgang & Glickman, 1999); and
perhaps most important, the relationships between the student and the teacher and between the
student and other students in the classroom or school (Schlossberg, 1989; Sprague & Horner,
2011).
While most school teachers and administrators agree on what defines egregious acts of
school violence and inappropriate behaviors, such as possession of drugs or firearms and causing
physical injury, the lesser infractions result in the majority of school disciplinary actions
(Charles, 1989), such as teacher-generated office discipline referrals, which frequently lead to
recommendations for suspension or a consequence that removes the student from the classroom
for a period of time. The following sections in this chapter review current student discipline
practices in the United States and California to provide a basis for understanding the negative
consequences of existing practices. The chapter also provides the context and rationale for this
research.

14. 3
Zero Tolerance Policies
Much of what is referred to as school discipline today has been sharply defined in the
past 25 years by the notion of zero tolerance. Originally a concept that grew out of community
policing theories and federal drug policies, this approach to school discipline was implemented
nationwide as part of the Federal Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 in an attempt to curb violence
and illegal behavior on school campuses (Skiba, 2000; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Driven by
several highly publicized incidents of students bringing weapons on campus, the approach was
intended to bring clarity to the types of consequences required if a student brought a gun, knife
or drugs to campus, or committed an assault. According to a report by the National Center on
Education Statistics, Violence in America’s Public Schools in 1996-1997, “94% of all schools
had Zero Tolerance policies for weapons; 87% had these policies for alcohol; and 79% required
mandatory suspensions for violence or tobacco” (as cited in Skiba, 2000, p. 3).
In the United States, it seemed that, with each highly publicized incident of school
violence or shootings, the implementation of zero tolerance policies increased (Skiba & Peterson,
1999). With every report regarding a school shooting or an incident of weapons on campus,
school violence, or increasing school crime, the immediate response was to call for “tougher
policies” and stricter student control strategies (Skiba, 2000). As a result, zero tolerance policies
were implemented in schools in a sequential, lock-step manner, with each infraction linked to a
predetermined consequence. This approach to student discipline sometimes appeared to lack
common sense and lead to expulsions for such acts as unauthorized use of pagers and laser
pointers (Skiba, 2000) to almost daily newspaper articles about students being suspended or
expelled for possessing nail clippers (a weapon), shooting another student with a paper clip
(defiance of school authority), being in possession of cough drops (possession of drugs), sharing

15. 4
Midol©
tablets with classmates (possession and distribution of drugs), and a 6-year-old
suspended for kissing his classmate (sexual harassment; Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
Links to NCLB/Accountability Movement and Data Reporting
In conjunction with these philosophical changes in approaches to student discipline and
zero tolerance, the federal government, as part of the accountability movement and the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), required schools to report data on “persistently
dangerous” schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Under the Unsafe School Choice
Option (U.S. Department of Education, 2004), districts were to report student discipline data and
provide parents school choice options if the school was deemed to be unsafe. In April 2002 the
California State Board of Education adopted guidelines that stipulated what student-level data on
suspensions and expulsions would be reported, how these data would be reported to the state
department, and what definition would be used to determine whether a school was “persistently
dangerous” (California Department of Education, 2002). Under this increasing level of
accountability and a heightened level of awareness of the devastating consequences of student
misbehavior and school violence, school leaders were under ever-increasing pressure to
implement zero tolerance policies and show that students were under control. The goal was to
send a clear “get tough” message to students that any type of behavior that disrupted learning
would not be tolerated (Skiba, 2000).
Current Practice in California: Suspensions/Expulsions and Section 48900(k)
Currently in California, student behavior that may result in a suspension or expulsion is
spelled out in California Education Code §§ 48900(a)–(r), which includes a range of behaviors
from possession of drugs to intoxication, possession of a firearm or knife, causing physical harm,

16. 5
harassment, bullying, and (the most frequently used portion), § 48900(k): “disrupted school
activities or otherwise willfully defied the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators,
school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties”
(California Education Code, 2015). Data from the California Department of Education for the
2011-2012 academic year indicate that there were 709,596 separate incidents of suspension in
that school year. Of these, 48% were issued for “disruption or willful defiance” and would fall
under § 48900(k) of the Code (California Department of Education, 2011-2012).
It should be noted here that this number represents incidents, not days. Suspensions
typically range in length from 1 to 5 days; thus, 709,596 does not represent the number of school
days of suspension but rather the total number of separate incidents of suspension for that year.
The number of days of suspension would be more than the 709,596 incidents. To put this
number into perspective, most districts in California operate on 180 instructional school days. At
a rate of 709,596 incidents in a year, approximately 3,942 incidents of suspension took place in
California on every instructional day of the school year 2011-2012.
In an effort to mitigate the growing number of students who are suspended or expelled,
several key policy changes have been made in an attempt to limit the authority of school officials
and the use of exclusionary discipline consequences in California. These policy changes have
targeted use of California Education Code § 48900(k) and subsequent suspensions or expulsions
for “willful defiance” (California Education Code, 2015).
The first policy change enacted was Assembly Bill (AB) 1729, approved in 2012. This
legislation resulted in California Education Code § 48900.5(a)–(b)(9), requiring that suspension
or expulsion be utilized only after “other means of correction” have failed (California School
Boards Association, 2014, p. 11). Essentially, this legislation was designed to require school

17. 6
officials to seek other options for assisting students with behavior problems before using
exclusionary discipline practices such as suspension and expulsion. In addition, this legislation
limits the authority of school officials to suspend for first offenses unless the student’s “presence
at school causes a danger to persons” (California Education Code, 2015, § 48900 a-b 9).
The second critical policy change, approved in September 2014, was AB 420. This bill
amended California Education Code § 48900(k) to eliminate suspension and expulsion as
disciplinary options for students in Grades K through 3 and eliminated the authority of school
officials to recommend for expulsion any student in Grades K–12 for “disrupting school
activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of those school personnel engaged in
the performance of their duties” (California Education Code, 2015, § 48900 a-b 9). Effectively,
this bill makes it very difficult for school officials to expel a student on the basis of willful
defiance.
Because approval of this bill is relatively recent and has likely affected discipline
practices only for the 2014-2015 school year, it is too early to review data and determine whether
the policy has changed discipline practices at schools.
State legislation notwithstanding, there continues to be little consistency in addressing
student behavior and discipline needs in schools. In a survey conducted by EdSource in spring
2012, school administrators expressed concern regarding the lack of resources, direction, and
support for addressing student behavioral needs (Freedberg & Chavez, 2012). Additional data
from that survey indicated that school administrators struggled with the definition of “willful
defiance” and “disruption of school authorities” as written in California Education Code
§ 48900(k) and expressed a desire for a clearer definition of these offenses (Freedberg & Chavez,
2012). As previously stated, slightly more than 48% of the suspensions in California for the year

18. 7
of this survey were categorized as § 48900(k) offenses (Freedberg & Chavez, 2012). This
survey clearly points to the need for uniform alternative approaches to managing school
discipline and the lack of supplemental community resources for assisting school personnel in
addressing student behavior and discipline needs (Freedberg & Chavez, 2012).
In addition to requests for clarity on the part of school administrators, there is increasing
concern by a variety of groups regarding the negative ramifications of zero tolerance policies and
how these policies are carried out in schools. Based on a variety of research studies and data
collection procedures, it is becoming increasingly clear that existing approaches to student
misbehavior can have a significant negative impact on individual student learning outcomes,
learning by other students, teacher stress, and the overall educational environment of the
classroom and school community (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Fabelo et al., 2011; Skiba, 2000).
Negative Outcomes of Exclusionary Discipline
Traditional zero tolerance responses to student discipline create very real negative
consequences for students who are excluded from the classroom and the school. Students who
are suspended or expelled are much more likely to fall behind academically, are far more likely
to have a learning disability, are more likely to drop out of school (Losen & Gillespie, 2012), and
are at increased risk of becoming involved with the juvenile justice system (Fabelo et al., 2011).
Current research estimates that students who have been suspended or expelled are 5 times more
likely to drop out and 11 times more likely to turn to crime. These data have led researchers to
name this phenomenon the “school to prison pipeline” (Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen & Gillespie,
2012).
In Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion From
School Losen and Gillespie (2012) provided the following data summaries for the 2009-2010

19. 8
academic year: More than 3.5 million students in Grades K–12 nationwide were suspended at
least once, including 17% of Black students, 8% of Native Americans students, 7% of Latino
students, 5% of White students, and 2% of Asian American students. It is important to note that,
nationwide, Black students represented 18% of the total school enrollment but received 35% of
the out-of-school suspensions and 41% of the expulsions in 2009-2010. Of all students with
disabilities, 13% were suspended in 2009-2010. However, the rate was even higher for Black
students with disabilities, as 25% of Black students with disabilities were suspended in this same
year. Perhaps most telling of all, while school enrollment in 2009-2010 was almost evenly
divided between males (49%) and females (51%), male students in Grades K–12 received 64%
of in-school suspensions, 69% of out-of-school suspensions, and 74% of expulsions (Losen &
Gillespie, 2012).
Data from this report and others like it (Fabelo et al., 2011; Skiba, 2000) highlight the
disproportionate manner in which school discipline is carried out in schools across the nation and
questions whether something other than student misbehavior could be driving implementation
and use of student discipline policies, particularly with regard to suspension and expulsion.
It is compelling to note that, according to several studies, suspension and expulsion do
little to improve student behavior, and there is little evidence that implementation of these
exclusionary policies has done anything to improve school safety (Skiba, 2000). In fact, such
policies may be negatively correlated with improved levels of school safety and student
perceptions of a positive school climate (Heaviside et al., 1998, and Mayer & Leone, 1999, as
cited in Skiba, 2000).
Given the documented negative impact of existing policies on student achievement
outcomes and additional research that indicates that current practice does not achieve what

20. 9
school administrators and policy makers hope to achieve (safer schools), it is prudent to examine
research on strategies that do work to improve student behavior, improve learning outcomes, and
create safer school environments. What follows is an examination of the potential factors that
may be associated with teacher-level decision making related to student discipline.
Statement of the Problem
Although much research has been conducted on the negative impact of existing student
discipline practice (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Fabelo et al., 2011; Skiba, 2000), little research
has been conducted on teacher-level factors that may be associated with student discipline
practice, including how or when teachers decide to write an office discipline referral, teacher
perceptions of self-efficacy for classroom management, determination of what constitutes willful
defiance, and how or why teachers assign consequences such as suspension for various
disciplinary infractions.
Research that focuses on this area indicates that teacher perceptions of student
misbehavior can have a significant impact on classroom and school climate, as well as overall
school discipline practices (Giallo & Little, 2003; Gibbs & Powell, 2012). Teacher perceptions
of student misbehavior and teacher beliefs regarding their ability to influence or mitigate student
behavior can vary widely (Gibbs & Powell, 2012). Fundamentally, a teacher’s interpretation and
attribution for misbehavior can significantly impact how the teacher decides to address student
misbehavior (Giallo & Little, 2003). Thus, while one teacher may define gum chewing, dress
code violations, or lack of a pencil as “willful defiance of valid school authority” and write an
office discipline referral or recommend suspension, another teacher may have a more proactive
approach to addressing these issues, such as a “spit it out” signal, a dress code reminder, or a box
of extra pencils for students.

21. 10
One critical factor that may significantly affect classroom management and subsequent
student discipline decisions is a concept referred to as teacher self-efficacy. Teacher self-
efficacy is generally defined as “the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the
capacity to affect student performance” (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977,
p. 137). Very simply, efficacy refers to the level of confidence that a person has regarding his or
her ability to perform a certain task. While multiple studies have reported correlations among
teacher self-efficacy, student achievement, and learning outcomes (Kagan, 1992; Poulou, 2007;
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), little research has been conducted on the
relationships among teacher self-efficacy, classroom management, and student discipline
outcomes. It is at the interface of teacher perceptions of self-efficacy, teacher perceptions of
student misbehavior, and teacher discretion around subsequent student discipline decisions that is
the focus of this study.
Since the classroom teacher functions as the key determinant in who receives an office
discipline referral and the subsequent consequences associated with that referral, it is essential to
examine factors that drive teacher practice, beliefs, and decision making related to student
discipline. While many factors likely contribute to student disciplinary practices, this study
examines the relationships among teacher-level perceptions and beliefs about efficacy, student
behavior, school culture, and how these perceptions may be associated with classroom and
schoolwide discipline practices. These factors include perceptions of self and collective efficacy,
opinions regarding what constitutes student misbehavior, and the impact of consequences on
student behavior. It was hypothesized that teachers with higher ratings of self and collective
efficacy would be less likely to write office discipline referrals and assign exclusionary
consequences such as suspension and expulsion for behaviors typically identified as “willful

22. 11
defiance.” The null hypothesis was that there would be no relationship between these
perceptions and beliefs and subsequent classroom and schoolwide discipline practices.
By better understanding the relationships between these key teacher-level factors and
how these factors are associated with student discipline practices, school leaders and teachers can
design and implement effective student discipline programs and appropriately address student
behavioral needs within the context of the classroom, without resorting to exclusionary
consequences. Such changes would likely minimize the days that students are suspended from
school and maximize educational opportunities for all students, including those who struggle
behaviorally and those whose learning may be disrupted when other students misbehave.
Justification of the Study and Purpose
This study used correlation and qualitative techniques to explore teacher disciplinary
practices in one small school in an anonymous California school district. The study will provide
schoolteachers a broader basis for understanding the various factors that influence their decisions
regarding student discipline and provide school leaders with a clear understanding of teacher
beliefs and practices relative to student discipline. Both of these will contribute to a foundation
for understanding discipline beliefs and practices and assist administrators and teachers in
designing and implementing effective classroom management procedures and behavior
interventions for students.
Importance of the Study
Teachers, like all humans, bring their life experiences, personal beliefs, attitudes,
perceptions, and self-efficacy beliefs to bear on their decisions in the classroom, including how
they respond to student misbehavior (Morin & Battalio, 2004). Thus, it is not student behavior
alone that determines the disciplinary course of action or outcome; rather, it is interactions of the

23. 12
student, the teacher, the teacher’s beliefs about the student and the student’s behavior, and the
teacher’s perception of the misbehavior that drive the final consequence or disciplinary action.
As a result, a teacher’s personal beliefs regarding his/her ability to create a positive outcome for
the student will influence the discipline approach that the teacher takes and ultimately affect
what happens for the student.
According to Tschannen-Moran and McMaster (2009), “One of the most interesting and
important reasons for scholars and school leaders to pay attention to teachers’ self-efficacy is the
role it plays in teachers’ implementation of new teaching strategies presented through
professional development” (p. 231). If the goal of professional development is to alter the
manner in which teachers practice, it is essential to understand how self-efficacy may be
associated with classroom management, including student discipline and instructional practice.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among teacher-level
perceptions and beliefs about efficacy, student behavior, and school culture, and how these
perceptions may be associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices. These
include perceptions of self and collective efficacy, opinions regarding what constitutes student
misbehavior, and the impact of consequences on student behavior. It was hypothesized that
teachers with higher ratings of self and collective efficacy would be less likely to write office
discipline referrals and assign exclusionary consequences such as suspension and expulsion for
behaviors typically identified as “willful defiance.” The null hypothesis was that there would be
relationships between these perceptions and beliefs and subsequent classroom and schoolwide
discipline practices.
While not comprehensive, studies such as this one will begin to yield valuable
information regarding the relationships among teacher efficacy, classroom management, and

24. 13
student discipline practices. Ideally, this study will contribute to the research base on how
teacher efficacy and student discipline beliefs may drive classroom management practice and
provide insights into how to design and implement professional development aimed at improving
classroom management, student discipline, and subsequent achievement outcomes.
Research Questions
1. What are the relationships between teacher-level perceptions and beliefs about self and
collective efficacy and student behavior and school climate, and how are these perceptions
associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices?
2. How do teachers report that factors such as school culture, climate, history, and student
demographics potentially influence schoolwide discipline practices and subsequent discipline
outcomes for students?
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 2 reviews past empirical and theoretical studies that influenced the framing of
the study, including a history of student discipline practice in the United States and theories of
self-efficacy, collective efficacy, school discipline, and classroom management. Chapter 3
describes the study design, including the setting and sample, provides a rationale for selecting the
school site, and provides background information on current schoolwide discipline practices, in
addition to school culture, climate, and history. Chapter 3 also acknowledges potential areas of
research bias. Chapters 4 and 5 provide a description of data collection instruments, how these
instruments were created or modified, and how quantitative and qualitative data were collected
and analyzed. Chapter 4 reports results from the analysis of the quantitative data; Chapter 5
reports results from the analysis of the qualitative data. Chapter 6 provides conclusions,
implications, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.

25. 14
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter presents an overview of student discipline practices and classroom
management research, existing efficacy theories, and a summary of the potential links among
classroom management, student discipline practice, and teacher efficacy. The first section
provides a broad historical overview of student discipline practices in the United States,
summarizing the research on classroom management. The second section provides an overview
of existing efficacy theories. The third section explains the theoretical framework for self-
efficacy and classroom management. The fourth section provides a summary of the potential
links among teacher self-efficacy, classroom management, and student discipline practice.
Student Discipline: Historical Practice
Historically, schools in the United States have relied on a “spare the rod and spoil the
child” approach to discipline, literally allowing for corporal punishment, defined as the
“intentional application of physical pain as a method of behavior change” (Greydanus, 2010,
p. 1) until the late 1980s in most states (Middleton, 2008). Although currently outlawed in all
but 19 states, there is evidence that, even as late as 2007, approximately 223,190 children were
administered corporal punishment by school officials (Office of Civil Rights, 2007). Examples
of corporal punishment administered included hitting, slapping, spanking, punching, kicking,
pinching, shaking, shoving, and choking, as well as use of wooden paddles, belts, sticks, and
pins. Corporal punishment in schools has been linked to prevailing societal and religious beliefs,
including the principle of in loco parentis, in which teachers and school officials are expected to
act “in the place of a parent” in working with minors (Dupper & Dingus, 2008, p. 244).

26. 15
Classroom Management and Student Discipline Theories
As a result of these early approaches to controlling and changing student behavior, as
well as the impact of student misbehavior on the learning environment, several researchers have
attempted to explain the sources of teacher beliefs and teacher practice relative to classroom
management, student behavior, and student discipline. Most have come to the conclusion that a
variety of factors influence how teachers perceive and address student misbehavior (Raths,
2001), including a teacher’s upbringing and prior experience (Buchman & Schwille, 1983;
Kennedy, 1997, as cited in Gursimsek & Goregenli, 2004) and what Lortie (1975) referred to as
the “apprenticeship of observation,” namely “the thousands of hours that prospective teachers
spend as students in close contact with teachers” (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981, p. 8).
Research by Wolfgang and Glickman (1999) regarding teacher beliefs and approaches to
student misbehavior and classroom management identified three generalized philosophies or
orientations that teachers hold relative to classroom management and how best to address student
misbehavior. “Non-interventionist” teachers hold that student misbehavior results from
“unresolved inner conflict” (Wolfgang & Glickman, 1999, p. 460) and that providing students
appropriate support, rather than telling them what to do, will assist them in learning how to
control their behavior. “Interactionists” are more inclined to allow students to face the natural
consequences of their behavior as they interact with others in their environment, including
teachers and other students. Interactionists focus on the relationships between teacher and
student and student and peers. “Interventionists” favor a behaviorist approach in which
misbehavior is seen as a result of external cues and responses to rewards or punishments.
Interventionists attempt to shape behaviors by rewarding desired behaviors and punishing or
withholding rewards for undesired behaviors (Wolfgang & Glickman, 1999).

27. 16
Unfortunately, even with abundant research to the contrary, it seems that, where school
discipline approaches are concerned, schools in the United States tend toward an interventionist
approach that relies heavily on the concept that rewards, consequences, and punishments will
teach students to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior and motivate them to engage in
appropriate behavior. Exclusionary, zero tolerance policies are fundamentally grounded in an
interventionist approach to school discipline. Although school staffs in a majority of states have
stopped spanking students, they have turned instead to handing out gold stars, check marks,
stickers, ice cream, detentions, suspensions, and expulsions, with very little research to show that
this approach actually leads to desired outcomes and creates safer schools (Skiba, 2000; Sprague
& Horner, 2011).
Most discipline approaches have also tended to be behaviorist and reactionary in nature.
Rather than focusing on proactive ways to understand the causes of and prevent misbehavior,
many teachers, principals, and school staff members wait for something to happen before
responding. When something does happen, the response tends to be punitive or exclusionary in
nature, as in detention, loss of recess, loss of privileges (e.g., field trips, sports, extracurricular
activity), or suspension or expulsion (Sprague & Horner, 2011). As a result, rather than seeing
the number of disciplinary incidents decrease, as would be expected if the approach worked,
nationwide data indicate that the number of disciplinary incidents is increasing, particularly in
the area of “willful defiance” (Skiba, 2000). The following subsection provides a review of
classroom management research, and research that highlights the critical links between
classroom management and student achievement.

28. 17
Classroom Management Research
Over the course of several years, research studies by Haycock (1998), Berliner (1986,
2004), Sanders and Horn (1994), Hattie (1992), and Cahen and Davis (1987) have identified the
profound effect of the classroom teacher on student learning, student achievement, and overall
student success. As part of a meta-analysis on teacher effect size, Marzano, Marzano, and
Pickering (2003) noted, “The dynamics of how a teacher produces such an effect are not simple”
(p. 3). They explained that research points to three key functions that a teacher performs in the
classroom that make the difference between student achievement and the lack thereof. These
key roles or functions are (a) making wise choices about the most effective instructional
strategies to utilize, (b) organizing classroom curriculum and lessons to maximize student
learning, and (c) utilizing effective classroom management techniques. According to Marzano et
al. (2003), all three of these teacher roles are essential to student learning; if even one is not
performed effectively, students are likely to struggle with learning. Marzano et al. (2003) and
others make the case that, without a strong foundation of classroom management, effective
instructional strategies and strong curriculum design are unlikely to have the desired impact. In
other words, if the classroom is not managed effectively and efficiently, learning and
achievement by students are likely to be diminished. Thus, classroom management is the
foundation on which effective instruction and a strong curriculum are built. Together, these key
functions serve to scaffold and support enhanced student learning and achievement.
In California, classroom management has been recognized as such a critical skill area for
teachers that, in 2009, when standards for the teaching profession were developed by the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, standards specific to classroom management
were included in the document (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2009).

29. 18
Current classroom management standards and expectations for the teaching profession include
the ability to (a) employ classroom routines, procedures, norms, and supports for positive
behavior to ensure a climate in which all students can learn; (b) establish and maintain learning
environments that are physically, intellectually, and emotionally safe; and (c) promote social
development and responsibility within a caring community where each student is treated fairly
and respectfully (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2009).
These standards, together with others that focus on student learning and instructional
decision making, form the basis of the teaching profession and define quality teaching. The
standards for classroom management are considered so essential that all newly credentialed
teachers in California are required to participate in a Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
program that focuses initially on the fundamentals of classroom management.
Effective classroom management does not guarantee appropriate student behavior and
student achievement; however, without effective classroom management it is virtually
impossible to deliver on improved student learning outcomes. In order to maximize student
learning, a teacher must master the nuances of classroom management. Unfortunately, in far too
many classrooms, such is not the case. Following is a brief overview of the research on
classroom management.
In the early 1970s, Jacob Kounin (1977) conducted the first large-scale, systematic study
of classroom management. Kounin analyzed videotapes of 49 first- and second-grade
classrooms and coded the behavior of students and teachers. Upon completion, he identified
several important dimensions of effective classroom management. These included (a) something
he called “withitness,” (b) smoothness/momentum during lessons, (c) letting students know what
the behavior expectations were, and (d) variety and challenge in assignments (Marzano et al.,

30. 19
2003). Kounin’s dimension of “withitness” was expanded to indicate “a keen awareness on the
part of the teacher of disruptive or potentially disruptive behavior” (Marzano et al., 2003, p. 5).
Simply, “withitness” could be described as the ability to anticipate what students might do in any
given situation and the ability to design processes or procedures to mitigate the potential for
disruptive behavior, keeping the lesson on track and the students focused on the task.
Brophy and Evertson (1976) conducted a study to analyze classroom management. This
study included 30 elementary teachers whose students had consistently shown better-than-
expected gains and 38 teachers whose student performance was more typical. This study
focused on a variety of teacher-level factors; however, classroom management was subsequently
identified as a critical aspect of effective teaching. “Classroom management skills are of
primary importance in determining teacher success . . . a teacher who is grossly inadequate in
classroom management skills is probably not going to accomplish much” (Brophy & Evertson,
1976, p. 27).
Some 20 years later, Brophy (1996) conducted a second major study of classroom
management. This study included in-depth interviews and observations of 98 teachers, some of
whom had been identified as effective classroom managers and others who were not. The study
showed that effective classroom managers utilized different classroom management strategies
with different types of students, while ineffective managers tended to utilize the same strategies,
irrespective of the situation or the student (Marzano et al., 2003).
In 1990, Wang, Haertel, and Walberg combined the results of three prior studies on
classroom management. Their study included a content analysis of research reviews, reports,
handbooks, and journal articles; a comprehensive survey of educational leaders focused on
variables that influence student achievement; and an analysis of 91 research syntheses. The end

31. 20
result of this large-scale study was a determination that “classroom management was rated first
in terms of its impact on student achievement” (Marzano et al., 2003, p. 6).
Marzano et al. (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of the effect size for classroom
management strategies and found that four key management factors had a strong impact on the
number of disruptive behaviors in a classroom: (a) rules and procedures, (b) disciplinary
interventions, (c) teacher-student relationships, and (d) mental set. These factors, when utilized
as strategies for classroom management, were identified as having a significant impact on
diminishing classroom disruptions and decreasing the number of incidents of disruptive behavior
(Table 1). On the basis of this meta-analysis, Marzano et al. (2003) noted that “students in
classes where these effective management techniques are employed have achievement scores
that are 20 percentile points higher than students in classes where effective management
techniques are not employed” (p. 10), making a very strong case for the powerful impact of
classroom management on student achievement and the statistically significant links between
classroom management and subsequent student behavior.
As part of the analysis of teacher classroom management, Brophy (1996) and Brophy and
McCaslin (1992) evaluated the approaches that effective teachers and ineffective teachers
utilized to address problem students. Both studies demonstrated that ineffective teachers tended
to rely on strategies aimed at controlling students, including punishing, threatening, yelling,
blaming, criticizing, scolding, and sarcasm. These strategies had a tendency to lead to “grudging
compliance” on the part of the disruptive students. In contrast, effective teachers were inclined
to make eye contact, control through proximity or touch, use humor, cue appropriate behavior,
praise peers, ask questions, and involve parents (Bear, 1998). Brophy noted that the more

32. 21
Table 1
Meta-Analysis Results for Four Management Factors
Percentile
Average Number Number decrease in
Factor effect size of subjects of studies in disruptions
Rules and procedures -.763 626 10 28
Disciplinary interventions -.909 3,322 68 32
Teacher-student relationships -.869 1,110 4 31
Mental set -1.294 502 5 40
Note. Source: Classroom Management That Works, by R. Marzano, J. Marzano, & D. Pickering,
2003, Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
*All effect sizes are significant at .05.
effective teachers utilized “systematic and sustained actions which combined preventive
strategies, operant learning strategies, and strategies that fostered the child’s social decision-
making and problem-solving abilities” (as cited in Marzano et al., 2003, p. 48).
It is clear that effective classroom managers not only utilize strategies to address the
immediate behavior but employ an approach that aims to turn the situation into a learning
opportunity for the student, to help the student to reflect on behavior and subsequently develop
self-regulation and self-control (Bear, 1998). The effective classroom manager perceives
behavior as a learned skill, something that can be taught, and something that is subject to change.
Conversely, an ineffective classroom manager approaches student discipline from a punitive
viewpoint and looks for quick wins and suppression of the disruptive behavior at the expense of
willing compliance and long-term learning on the part of the student.

33. 22
These findings are in keeping with work by Woolfolk Hoy, Rosoff, and Hoy (1990), who
found that teacher beliefs regarding pupil control ideology and beliefs regarding how to motivate
students tend to lie along a continuum, from custodial at one extreme to humanistic at the other
extreme. Woolfolk Hoy et al. (1990) characterized teachers with a custodial control ideology as
teachers who perceive students to be “irresponsible and undisciplined individuals who must be
managed and controlled” (p. 139), while teachers at the humanistic end are more inclined to view
the school as an “educational community” where students learn cooperation and self-discipline.
Woolfolk Hoy et al. (1990) noted links between efficacy and locus of control by pointing
to research that indicates that teachers with a high level of custodial orientation tend to be
external in their locus of control (Henderson, 1982; Ludlin, 1980; Nachtschiem & Hoy, 1976;
Voege, 1979). They also cited research by Barfield and Burlingame (1974) that linked a
custodial orientation with a lower sense of efficacy. Bandura (1997) suggested that teachers with
lower levels of efficacy are likely to adopt a custodial view or pupil control ideology of
schooling and education and may become angered by student misbehavior. Bandura speculated
that this anger is likely to result in the use of coercive disciplinary strategies and development of
a cynical attitude regarding student motivation and ability. Thus, it could be hypothesized that
teachers with a lower sense of self-efficacy perceive students as needing to be controlled,
manipulated, or punished.
Conversely, Woolfolk Hoy et al. (1990) asserted that teachers with high perceptions of
self-efficacy are more inclined to work with students to resolve conflicts, promote self-
regulation, and handle misbehavior in a positive manner. They explained that “teachers with a
greater sense of both personal efficacy and general teaching efficacy seem more trusting of
students and more able to relinquish control and share responsibility for solving classroom

34. 23
problems with their students” (p. 146). The following section reviews research on efficacy
theories and provides the theoretical framework for self-efficacy and classroom management that
frame this study.
Efficacy Theories
Teacher efficacy is generally defined as “the extent to which the teacher believes he or
she has the capacity to affect student performance” (Berman et al., 1977, p. 137). It has also
been described as “teachers’ belief or conviction that they can influence how well students learn,
even those who may be difficult or unmotivated” (Guskey & Passaro, 1994, p. 4). Very simply,
efficacy refers to the level of confidence that a person has regarding his or her own ability to
perform a certain task.
Julian Rotter formulated the basis for the construct of self-efficacy in 1966 with the
introduction of his social learning theory. Essentially, Rotter asserted that personality (behavior)
is an interaction between the individual and the environment. Rotter (1966) proposed that the
way a person thinks and the manner in which a person interacts with his/her environment form
the basis for personality and subsequent behavior. He asserted that, if a person changes how he
thinks or changes the environment, behavior will undoubtedly change as well. This concept, of
changing the way one thinks or changing the way one responds to the environment forms the
foundation for the theory of self-efficacy. Rotter (1966) refined this theory when he examined
the concepts of internal versus external control. The essence of his social learning theory focuses
on how much perceived control one has over affecting life outcomes, including personal beliefs
and subsequent behaviors.
Ten years later, in 1976 the RAND Corporation, as part of a study on teacher beliefs,
discovered that teacher efficacy, or a teacher’s confidence in the ability to promote students’

35. 24
learning (Armor et al., 1976) was one of the few teacher characteristics directly related to student
achievement (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The RAND Change Agent Study (Berman et al.,
1977) explored this theory when two items were added to an existing survey on teacher beliefs.
The items examined teacher beliefs relative to the ability to influence student outcomes. The two
items that were added to the survey were: (a) RAND Item 1: “When it comes right down to it, a
teacher really can’t do much because most of a students’ motivation and performance depends on
his or her home environment”; and (b) RAND Item 2: “If I try really hard, I can get through to
even the most difficult or unmotivated students” (as cited in Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p.
204).
Data from the addition of these two items produced extraordinary results and amounted
to the birth of a concept that would later be known as teacher self-efficacy. From the earliest
RAND studies, it was clear that teacher self-efficacy had a strong positive correlation to
improved student performance and project implementation (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
Rotter’s theory, together with the RAND research, led to investigations and measurement of a
construct originally referred to as “teacher locus of control” (Armor et al., 1976).
In 1977, Albert Bandura formulated his social cognitive theory; Bandura is generally
credited with the birth of self-efficacy theory. Most of the research on teacher self-efficacy is
grounded in Bandura’s 1977 theoretical framework. Bandura described self-efficacy as “beliefs
in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given
attainments” (1977, p. 3). He divided the concept into two types of expectations: outcome
expectations and efficacy expectations. Outcome expectations are defined as “a person’s
estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes”; for example, “If I do X, then I
think Y will happen” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). Efficacy expectation is “the conviction that one

36. 25
can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes,” for example, “I think I
have the ability to do X, to make Y happen,” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). This distinction is made
because people can believe that a certain course of action will lead to certain outcomes but may
not believe that they themselves have the skills necessary to carry out the activity. As an
example, one can believe that teaching to the state algebra standards will lead to better learning
achievement for students but doubt one’s ability to teach those standards. If this is the case,
one’s behavior is unlikely to change (Bandura, 1977).
Bandura (1997) also identified and described four sources or types of experiences that
play a role in the development and maintenance of self-efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, psychological and emotional states, and verbal persuasion. Bandura speculated that
teachers make judgments about their self-efficacy on the basis of these four sources: (a) by
verbal encouragement from peers, coworkers, and supervisors (verbal persuasion); (b) by
observing other teachers or people modeling behaviors (vicarious experiences); (c) by
experiencing a level of emotional or physiological arousal as they engage in teaching practices
(psychological and emotional states); and (d) by engaging in a teaching experience that leads to
the desired outcomes (mastery experience; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Of these,
mastery experiences appear to be the most salient in influencing teacher self-efficacy beliefs.
Research conducted subsequent to Bandura’s work further defined two dimensions of
teaching efficacy: general teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy. General teaching
efficacy is focused on the ability of teachers in general to teach and influence students in spite of
external factors that can negatively affect learning and achievement (Fives, 2003). This
dimension can be understood as “a teacher’s general belief that the education system is capable
of fostering achievement despite negative influences external to the teacher” (Rich, Lev, &

37. 26
Fisher, 1996, p. 1016). For the purposes of this study, general teaching efficacy is more
narrowly defined as “collective efficacy,” which is the “shared perceptions of teachers in a
school that the efforts of the faculty as a whole will have positive effects on students” (Goddard,
Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000, p. 480). As a construct, it may also be closely linked to perceptions of
school climate. In this study, collective efficacy was measured using a modified form of the
Collective Efficacy Scale (CE-SCALE) developed by Goddard et al. (2000) and described in
Chapter 4.
Personal teaching efficacy includes two components: (a) the ability to perform certain
actions, and (b) the power of those actions to influence student learning (Fives, 2003). Soodak
and Podell (1996) defined personal teaching efficacy as “a teacher’s belief about his or her
ability to perform the actions needed to promote student learning or manage student behavior
successfully” (p. 406). In most of the early work on teacher efficacy, these two constructs or
measures were combined into one score and referred to as “teacher efficacy” (Tschannen-Moran
et al., 1998).
Because personal teacher efficacy focuses specifically on the teacher’s belief about his or
her ability to influence students, rather than a belief about teachers in general, this dimension of
self-efficacy is accepted as being most closely aligned with Bandura’s original definition (1977,
1986, 1993, 1997). For the purposes of this research, this dimension was measured using the
survey instrument developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and described in
Chapter 4.
Subsequent research has demonstrated that a teacher’s confidence in his or her ability to
execute certain actions that lead to student learning is one of the few attitudinal characteristics
that predict not only teacher practice but student outcomes as well (Kagan, 1992; Poulou, 2007;

38. 27
Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Ross (1998) conducted a review of empirical studies on teacher
efficacy and concluded that teacher self-efficacy predicts a wide variety of critically important
educational variables, including student achievement and motivation (Ashton & Webb, 1986;
Berman et al., 1977; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Poulou, 2007; Ross, 1992), student self-esteem
and prosocial attitudes (Borton, 1991; Cheung & Cheng, 1997), school effectiveness (W. K. Hoy
& Woolfolk, 1993), teachers’ adoption of innovations (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992), the
success of program implementation (Guskey, 1988), teachers’ referral decisions for special
education (Meijer & Foster, 1988; Soodak & Podell, 1993), teachers’ professional commitment
(Coladarci, 1992), teachers’ classroom management strategies (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 1990),
teacher absenteeism (Imants & Van Zoelen, 1995), and teacher stress (Bliss & Finneran, 1991;
Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988).
Gibbs and Powell (2012) noted that teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy beliefs
can be “powerful determinants of both their professional commitment, as well as outcomes in
terms of children’s learning and achievement” (p. 565). They asserted that the higher the
collective efficacy beliefs in a school, the less likely the school is to practice exclusionary
discipline, potentially establishing a link among collective efficacy, perceptions of school
climate and administrative support, and the use of alternative student discipline practices.
Theoretical Framework for Self-Efficacy and Classroom Management
The primary theoretical underpinnings of this research study rely on Bandura’s social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977). Essentially, each time a teacher has a positive mastery
experience (in this case with student behavior), the teacher processes that event cognitively and
analyzes both the teaching task and personal teaching competence, which combine to create
“teacher self-efficacy.” This increased self-efficacy leads to various consequences that relate to

39. 28
the teacher’s goals, persistence with a given task, effort, and willingness to engage in the
experience again. These consequences of the mastery experience subsequently affect
performance. The converse is true for a negative mastery experience, which influences efficacy
in a negative manner, decreasing the level of self-efficacy and decreasing the likelihood that the
teacher will engage or persist in the behavior again. Thus, self-efficacy functions as a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Each positive mastery experience increases the likelihood that the teacher
will engage in that activity/process again and increases the level of self-efficacy and the potential
for a positive outcome.
With regard to classroom management practices, it is posited that every teacher engages
in some type of classroom management practice, some of it effective and some of it ineffective.
The teacher’s classroom management practice drives a great deal of student behavior (Marzano
et al., 2003). When the teacher implements effective classroom management practices, the
likelihood of positive student behavior outcomes increases. Because students are behaving, the
number of office discipline referrals decreases and the teacher is able to assist students with self-
regulation and internal control. Positive instructional opportunities increase and disruptive
student behavior decreases (Marzano et al., 2003). The teacher is also less likely to rely on
exclusionary discipline practices such as suspension or expulsion. The fact that students are
behaving according to the teacher’s expectations creates a positive mastery experience for the
teacher, which promotes increased levels of self-efficacy for classroom management. Again,
each time the teacher utilizes a classroom management strategy that improves behavior outcomes
and decreases the need for office discipline referrals or exclusionary consequences, mastery
experiences increase and positively affect the teacher’s self-efficacy.

40. 29
Conversely, when a teacher implements classroom management practices poorly, there
will be a host of negative student behavior outcomes, including increased levels of disruption,
which lead to an increase in office discipline referrals and exclusionary consequences. Thus, the
teacher begins or continues to rely on external consequences to manage student behavior and
experiences a negative mastery experience. These negative mastery experiences negatively
affect the teacher’s self-efficacy for classroom management and the teacher becomes less
inclined to try new classroom management approaches (see diagram in Appendix A).
Linking Teacher Efficacy, Classroom Management, and Student Discipline
Research on self-efficacy has revealed that a teacher’s beliefs regarding his/her ability to
“positively influence aspects of children’s educational development” (Gibbs & Powell, 2012,
p. 565) have broad implications regarding academic and behavioral outcomes for students.
Morin and Battalio (2004) explained, “Teachers are front-line workers in the behavior
change process” (p. 251). As such, teachers are called on daily to utilize their skills, knowledge.
and expertise to help students to behave acceptably. When students misbehave, a variety of
factors are involved in the teacher’s decision-making process, including “personal beliefs about
one’s own efficacy” (Pajares, 2002, p. 252). When students act out, disrupt the learning process,
defy the teacher, and negatively influence others, the classroom culture is negatively affected,
which may damage the teacher/student relationship and negatively affect student learning for all
students in the room. Such behavior also increases the potential for teacher stress, burnout, and a
diminished sense of self-efficacy (Morin & Battalio, 2004). Teachers with a diminished sense of
self-efficacy are unlikely to adopt new discipline or classroom management strategies (Brouwers
& Tomic, 2000).

41. 30
Conversely, when teachers perceive themselves to be competent classroom managers, it
appears that the students’ ability to self-regulate and engage in prosocial behavior increases
(Gibbs & Powell, 2012). Thus, if the teacher believes that he/she is capable of addressing
student behavior needs, the students perceive themselves as capable of behaving acceptably.
Discipline issues decrease and student learning increases. In conjunction, teachers with high
levels of personal teaching efficacy are more likely to persist in attempts to change or improve
because they have a history of positive outcomes (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Essentially,
teachers with greater efficacy levels have an instructional advantage: They already believe that
they can make changes that have positive outcomes, are more willing to try new teaching
strategies, and, as a result, are more likely to manage a classroom and learning environment
successfully (Gibbs & Powell, 2012; Guskey & Passaro, 1994).
Morin and Battalio (2004) summarized these ideas by explaining that teachers bring their
experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and efficacy to bear on each incident of student misbehavior. As a
result, a teacher’s own personal beliefs regarding his/her ability to create a positive outcome for
the student will influence the teachers’ discipline approach and ultimately affect what happens
for the student. These authors also speculated that teacher efficacy works somewhat like a “self-
fulfilling prophecy.” When a teacher believes that he/she is capable of influencing and
effectively addressing student misbehavior, he/she is more likely to take a proactive approach to
student misbehavior. This proactive approach will likely create a positive outcome for the
student and teacher— what Morin and Battalio (2004) referred to as a “mastery experience.”
This mastery experience causes the teacher to be more willing to try the proactive approach
again. Each time the teacher uses a proactive discipline strategy and observes a positive

42. 31
outcome, self-efficacy increases and the teacher continues to be inclined to use the proactive,
positive strategy (Guskey, 1986; Morin & Battalio, 2004).
The studies reviewed in this chapter suggest that a teacher’s beliefs about his/her ability
to “positively influence aspects of children’s educational development” (Gibbs & Powell, 2012,
p. 565) have broad implications regarding academic and behavioral success for students.
Educational leaders who understand these beliefs, including their sources and their impact on
classroom management, can support development of these beliefs with the ideal outcome being
increased achievement for students, improved job satisfaction for teachers, and a reduction in job
stress and teacher turnover (Gibbs & Powell, 2012).
Chapter Summary
Existing research on student misbehavior and school discipline indicates that current
practices result in a host of negative and unintended consequences for students, including
disenfranchising students from the school community, increasing the rates at which students drop
out, increasing involvement with the juvenile justice system, and seriously limiting educational
attainment and academic achievement for significant numbers of students nationwide.
This study was designed to examine the relationships between teacher-level perceptions
and beliefs about efficacy, student behavior, and school culture, and how these perceptions may
be associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices. These include perceptions of
self-efficacy and collective efficacy, opinions regarding what constitutes student misbehavior,
and the impact of consequences on student behavior. In addition, this study was designed to
analyze how teachers reported that factors such as school culture, climate, history, and student
demographics potentially influence schoolwide discipline practices and subsequent discipline
outcomes for students.

43. 32
While it is not comprehensive, a study such as this one will begin to yield valuable
information regarding the relationships among student discipline practices, teacher efficacy, and
classroom management and provide insights for teachers and school leaders regarding how to
design and implement effective behavior intervention programs for students.

44. 33
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
Overview of the Study
Teachers, like all humans, bring their life experiences, personal beliefs, attitudes,
perceptions, and self-efficacy beliefs to bear on every decision made in the classroom, including
how they respond to student misbehavior (Morin & Battalio, 2004). Thus, student behavior
alone does not determine the disciplinary course of action or outcome; rather, it is an interaction
of the student, the teacher, the teacher’s beliefs about the student and the student’s behavior, and
the teacher’s perception of the misbehavior that drives the final consequence or disciplinary
action. As a result, a teacher’s personal beliefs regarding his or her ability to create a positive
outcome for the student will likely influence the approach that the teacher takes to discipline and
ultimately determine the disciplinary consequences for the student.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among teacher-level
perceptions and beliefs about efficacy, student behavior, and school culture, and how these
perceptions may be associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices. These
include perceptions of self and collective efficacy, opinions regarding what constitutes student
misbehavior, and the impact of consequences on student behavior. This study investigated the
following research questions:
1. What are the relationships among teacher-level perceptions and beliefs about self and
collective efficacy, student behavior and school climate? How are these perceptions associated
with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices?

45. 34
2. How do teachers report that factors such as school culture, climate, history and student
demographics potentially influence schoolwide discipline practices and subsequent discipline
outcomes for students?
The research questions were addressed using a combination of quantitative and
qualitative methods based on data collected from a single school site. Chapters 4 and 5 provide
details on the methods and results of the quantitative and qualitative portions of this study,
respectively. The remainder of this chapter presents the rationale for selecting the target school
site and provides background information on the school’s demographics, discipline policies, and
current discipline statistics.
Setting, Sample, and Population
The study site, Valley Oak Middle School (pseudonym), is a small, Grades 6–8 middle
school in rural California. It is the only middle school in this K–8 elementary school district.
The site met the following criteria: (a) a middle school, as very little research has been conducted
on the impact of student discipline practices at the middle school level, (b) a school with higher-
than-statewide average rates of suspension, (c) a school located in a district with student
demographics similar to districts with higher-than-statewide averages for suspension, and (d) a
school staff that was interested and willing to participate in the study. The selection process
involved a review of statewide discipline and demographic data at the county, district, and school
levels. Rationale for selecting Valley Oak Middle School is provided below.
Prior to explaining how the study site was selected, it should be noted that it is difficult to
identify a “representative school” or “representative district” in the state, as district and school
configurations vary considerably from county to county and even within the same county.
Currently, there are approximately 1,050 school districts in California, exclusive of independent

46. 35
charter schools, which are often considered separate districts. Some of these districts enroll as
few as six students (Alpine County Office of Education), while others, such as the Los Angeles
Unified School District, enroll approximately 654,000 students, representing more than 10% of
the K–12 population in the state (California Department of Education, 2013-2014).
An additional level of complexity involves district configurations within respective
counties. Some counties, such as Mariposa County, have as few as two districts: one unified (K–
12) district and one county office of education district. Other counties have multiple districts of
various configurations. Los Angeles County is home to 87 independent school districts,
inclusive of independent charter districts. In every county, some districts are unified, which
means that the grade configuration encompasses kindergarten, or sometimes pre-kindergarten,
through Grade 12 and adult transition grades for students with disabilities. Other districts in
California are strictly elementary districts, generally Grades K through 8, and still others are high
school districts, incorporating Grades 9 through 12. Both of these configurations may also be
referred to as “union districts,” which is not the same as a unified, K–12 district. Within each of
these districts, there is a variety of school types, including elementary schools (usually K–6 or
K–8), middle schools (frequently Grades 6–8 or 7–8), and high schools, typically Grades 9–12.
In order to identify potential middle school study sites, I focused on K-8 districts and then
middle schools in those districts with a grade configuration of 6-8, as opposed to unified or high
school districts and K-8 schools. However, these restrictions proved difficult in some
comparison areas.
The first step in the study site selection process was to review state-level student
discipline data for academic year 2011-2012. Discipline data are collected via the California
Longitudinal Pupil Achievement System (CALPADS) retrieved through the California

47. 36
Department of Education DataQuest website (California Department of Education, 2015). For
that academic year, the statewide average suspension rate was 5.7 suspensions per 100 students.
Thirty-one counties in California exceeded this statewide average.
Table 2 provides the suspension rates for the 15 counties in California with the highest
suspension rates for the 2011-2012 school year through the 2013-2014 school year. It should be
noted that, even when the rate of suspension for a county is high, there was a great deal of
variation in suspension rates within the county, based on the district of interest. For instance, in
Lake County, the county with the highest county-level rate of suspension for 2011-2012, one
district had a rate of 2 suspensions per 100 students, well below the statewide average, and one
district had a rate of 24 suspensions per 100 students, more than 4 times the statewide average.
The demographic composition of these 15 counties runs somewhat counterintuitive when
one examines counties, districts, and schools with higher-than-average rates of suspension. It
could reasonably be predicted that a large urban district would fit the harsh discipline profile;
however, the less-populated rural counties and smaller districts within those counties tended to
exceed the statewide averages for suspension and expulsion.
For comparison purposes, for 2011–2014, diverse urban counties such as Alameda,
Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, and San Francisco had suspension rates
lower than the statewide average (Table 3).
Discipline data for the 15 counties with the highest rates of suspension were compared to
demographic data to determine what school-age demographic characteristics these top counties
might have in common. Although total K–12 student enrollment counts vary considerably
among these counties, the 15 counties tend to be rural and located in the interior of California
along the Central Valley. These counties also have comparatively high rates of poverty, where

48. 37
Table 2
Suspension Rates per 100 Students for 15 Counties in California With Highest Suspension Rates,
2011–2014
County 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Amador County 8.7 8.5 8.4
San Joaquin County 8.8 9.3 7.9
Tuolumne County 8.9 8.6 9.5
Trinity County 9.1 10.2 5.6
Butte County 9.4 8.6 7.7
Stanislaus County 9.7 8.7 7.1
Yuba County 10.1 9.2 8.2
Solano County 10.5 9.4 9.0
Merced County 10.6 7.0 6.8
Del Norte County 10.6 12.4 8.7
Mendocino County 10.8 9.5 8.8
Mariposa County 11.3 10.1 11.0
Madera County 11.3 9.1 8.0
Imperial County 11.3 9.3 5.4
Lake County 12.5 10.2 9.5
Statewide average 5.7 5.1 4.4
Note. Source: DataQuest 2011-2014, by California Department of Education, 2014.
approximately 50% to 70% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, used as a
measure of poverty for the K–12 population.

49. 38
Table 3
Suspension Rates for Large Urban Counties in California, 2011–2014
County 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Amador County 8.7 8.5 8.4
San Francisco 2.5 2.2 1.5
Santa Clara 3.7 3.2 3.1
San Diego 4.1 4.1 3.4
Orange 4.3 3.2 2.8
Los Angeles 4.4 3.5 2.8
Ventura 5.2 4.2 3.4
Alameda 5.5 4.4 3.8
Statewide average 5.7 5.1 4.4
Note. Source: DataQuest 2011-2014, by California Department of Education, 2014.
The primary ethnicity of students in these counties tends to be White (Not Hispanic) or
Hispanic. With the exception of Solano County, the counties tend to have very small
populations of African Americans. Some have significant populations of American
Indians/Alaska Natives and most tend to have very small populations of Asians, Filipinos, and
Pacific Islanders. English Language Learner populations vary considerably by county, from 1%
to slightly more than 40% of the student population. The county where the study site is located
fits this profile but has a relatively low percentage of English Language Learners in comparison
to other counties. Again, it should be noted that a great deal of variation can be found in
demographics when analyzing separate districts within each county. Appendix D provides the
school-age demographic data for these counties.

50. 39
Selection of the target county for this study was based on demographic data and access to
staff. Once a county was selected, district-level demographic and discipline data were reviewed,
as each county contains multiple school districts. Data were reviewed for several districts in the
top 15 counties, including the county where the study site is located. Appendix D lists
demographic data for districts in these counties.
The study site district exceeds the statewide average for suspensions; in 2011-2012 the
district’s suspension rate was more than double the statewide average. Although rates for the
district decreased in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, the rates were still almost double the statewide
average. Suspension rates for Valley Oak Middle School were higher than both the statewide
and district averages. In the three most recent school years for which data are available, the
school had more than triple the state rate of suspension of students. Table 4 provides the
suspension rates for California, the school district, and Valley Oak Middle School in each of
these school years.
Table 4
Suspension Rates for Valley Oak Middle School
Suspension rates
School year California Target district Target school
2011-2012 5.7 15 30
2012-2013 5.1 10 18
2013-2014 4.4 10 17
Note. Suspension rate calculated as number of students suspended divided by total enrollment x
100. Source: DataQuest 2011-2014, by California Department of Education, 2014.

51. 40
To determine whether the demographics of the target school site were similar to those of
other middle schools with higher-than-average suspension rates, Valley Oak’s suspension and
demographic data were compared to those of similar schools in the five counties with the highest
rates of suspension (Table 5). In districts with no separate middle schools, K–8 schools
encompassing Grades 6, 7, and 8, were used as comparison sites. (Because this study was
designed to focus on middle schools with a more traditional structure [e.g., Grades 6–8], high
schools, specialized academies, charter schools, community day schools, nonpublic schools,
opportunity schools, and continuation schools were excluded from this analysis.) While not a
perfect match, the study site is similar in demographics to other schools with higher-than-average
rates of suspension.
Although California is in the process of changing the achievement testing system for
students, the most current achievement data for the study site were reviewed. Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) test data for 2012-2013 indicated that approximately half of the
students enrolled in Valley Oak Middle School met the Proficient or Advanced targets for
English/Language Arts (49%) and Mathematics (45%; California Department of Education,
2013-2014). (Achievement data is not provided for 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 due to a significant
change in standardized assessments for students in California. It was not possible to compare
current standardized assessment data to years prior to 2013-2014.)
In summary, while there is unlikely to be a single “representative school site” on the basis
of discipline and demographic data, it is clear that the study site was similar in both areas to
other middle schools in the state with higher-than-average rates of suspension. In addition to
demographic and suspension data, the school staff and administration expressed an interest in
participating in the study, which proved crucial to conducting the research. Although district

52. 41
Table 5
Suspension and Demographic Data for Schools in Five Counties With the Highest Suspension
Rates, 2013-2014
Data category State Study site A (E) B (M) C (M) D (E) E (E)
Suspension rate 4.4 17 15 24 29 10 23
K–12 population 6 million 400 700 180 470 200 140
African American 6% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2%
American Indian/
Alaskan Native 1% 5% 2% 46% 1% 3% 2%
Asian 9% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Filipino 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Hispanic 53% 35% 35% 46% 61% 12% 24%
Pacific Islander 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
White 25% 40% 50% 2% 35% 80% 64%
ELL 23% 8% 20% 27% 16% 2% 2%
FRPM 59% 81% 81% 96% 75% 67% 35%
Note: E = elementary school, M = middle school, ELL = English Language Learner, FRPM =
free/reduced-price meals.
staff is aware that existing student discipline data indicate higher-than-average rates of
suspension, the district has not engaged in any concerted effort to examine the data and
implement alternative student discipline strategies. The trustees, administration, and employees
in the district welcomed the study and were genuinely interested in understanding what drives
student discipline decisions and how to create systems that support improved classroom
management and student behavior.

53. 42
The initial criteria for selecting a study site were (a) a middle school, (b) located in a
district with higher-than-statewide average for suspensions, (c) higher-than-statewide average for
suspensions, (d) demographics of the school somewhat similar to other schools with higher-than-
statewide average for suspensions, and (e) interest and willingness of at the site to participate in
the study. Although Valley Oak Middle School comprised a relatively small sample size, with a
maximum of 23 potential participants, it met all of these criteria.
School History and Teacher Demographics
Although this study was designed to focus on teacher beliefs relative to student discipline
and student behavior, as the study progressed, it became increasingly clear that staff perceptions
relative to the students, their families, and the community might have a significant impact on the
behavior expectations and discipline practices at the school site. It also became clear that teacher
demographics, school history, and culture might be related to schoolwide discipline practices.
The staff members at the school site (both certificated and classified) were primarily
White and middle class (based on status as college graduates with 4 or more years of college and
a minimum of a bachelor’s degree). In 2011-2012, 91% of the 21 teachers at the school site
reported their ethnicity as White, with the remaining 9% not reporting ethnicity (Ed-Data, 2011-
2012). Fourteen teachers were females and 7 were males. Both administrators were females.
Based on anecdotal staff conversations, very few, if any, of the teaching staff actually
lived in the community. Many staff members were related to each other and to persons who
began working in the district in the mid- to late 1960s. Because of these relationships, many
staff members shared a common upbringing, personal and professional mindset, common
educational experience (many attended and received their teaching credentials from the same
college or university), and similar life experiences. Some had more than 50 years of historical

54. 43
links to this school and district. As a result, teacher beliefs, perceptions, and experiences with
students and their family members spanned several generations, and many of the teachers at the
school currently had taught parents, children, and grandchildren in the same family.
These data indicated that the demographics and life experiences of the teaching staff were
likely to be quite different from the majority of the students whom they taught and the families
whom they served.
Discipline Practices at Valley Oak Middle School
This section provides information about discipline practices at the study site during the
2013-2014 school year. Schoolwide discipline practice information was collected by reviewing
discipline referral forms, discipline policies, and procedural guidance provided to staff on the
discipline forms. Additional clarification regarding discipline practices was provided in the
interviews.
Based on interviews with teachers and administrators, visits to classrooms, and review of
school documents related to discipline procedures, it appeared that school staff had made
attempts to establish both classroom and schoolwide behavior expectations. Several of the
classrooms had posters indicating expected behavior norms and procedural information for
common classroom routines such as submitting work, taking turns speaking, packing up at the
end of class, and so forth. It was also evident that the school utilized a token economy as a
means to reward desired behavior. When students complied with expected behavioral norms and
procedures, they were given “Oak Leaves” (laminated construction paper leaves) as tokens,
which could be redeemed for items such as pencils, candy, extra time on the computer, or other
rewards and privileges. “Oak Leaves” could be taken from a student who misbehaved.

55. 44
In addition to a system of rewards, school staff utilized a complex system of alphabetized
levels, in conjunction with numerical steps, to identify which types of behaviors constituted a
teacher-level intervention, with a subsequent negative consequence, and which types of
behaviors were to be referred to the administration for review and determination of a negative
consequence.
Consequences could range from teacher-assigned sanctions, after-school or lunch-period
detention; a period in the “Alternative Education Program” (AEP), which functioned as a single
period of suspension or time out; in-school suspension, usually a full day in the AEP room; or
out-of-school suspension, in which the student was not allowed to come to school for a period of
time, usually 1 to 5 days. The most severe consequence the administration could assign was
expulsion, with a recommendation to the governing board that the student no longer be allowed
to attend the school. This consequence was typically reserved for students who accumulated
more than 20 days of suspension or who committed the most serious offenses listed in California
Education Code § 48900 (e.g., weapons, drugs, illicit substances, harassment, hate crimes,
fighting, violence or causing physical injury, robbery and extortion; California Education Code,
2015).
The first part of the level system consisted of Levels A, B, and C, designed to address the
most common types of misbehavior that occur in the classroom. The level system was intended
to provide teachers options for managing and addressing the types of behaviors that generally fall
under the teacher’s purview. Teachers were expected to address student behaviors that ranged
from talking during instruction, interrupting instruction, excessive noise, defiance, profanity,
obscene gestures, harassment, cheating, throwing objects, using electronic devices, possessing
inappropriate items, tardies, dress code violations, and being unprepared for class.

56. 45
Teachers had discretion when assigning a consequence. Options included warnings, loss
of privileges or rewards (Oak Leaves), grading penalties, changes in seating assignment,
telephone calls to parents, notes parents, assignment of “teacher detention” (after school in the
classroom with the teacher), writing “study paragraphs” that focused on the specific infraction
(e.g., why it is important to do classwork), and assignment of community service (e.g., picking
up trash on the playground, cleaning the classroom).
With strict interpretation of the levels, teachers had three options. The first offense was
designated Level A and constituted a warning. The second offense was designated Level B and
became an after-school detention with the teacher or a lunch detention in the AEP room. If a
student did not attend the assigned detention, he/she was assigned two after-school detentions in
the AEP room. The third offense was designated as Level C and the student was assigned a
period in the AEP room, a telephone call was made to parents, and a “Student Study Team”
meeting was held. Student Study Team meetings were typically a conference with parents,
student, teachers, and administrators in which all parties attempted to understand the behavior
and work with the student to create a plan to mitigate inappropriate behaviors.
According to administrators, teachers were advised that the assignment of levels was not
mandatory but was provided as a suggestion for how to address common student misbehavior.
Teachers were given the option of addressing these types of misbehaviors utilizing their own
classroom management system; however, it was communicated that, if a student was struggling
behaviorally and the teacher had not documented actions taken in an attempt to address the
misbehavior, the teacher could not later send the student directly to the administration for these
behaviors. Thus, teachers sometimes found themselves in a difficult situation: If they used the
level system, a student might escalate quickly through the system. If the teacher chose not to use

57. 46
the system and did not document attempts to mitigate the behavior, the teacher was responsible
to address the behavior and enforce consequences.
It should be noted that the assignment of levels to a student was not necessarily tracked in
any coordinated manner, and the offenses did not have to be similar for a student to advance
through the system. For example, Level A could have been the result of a student bullying
another student, Level B for using a cell phone, and Level C for using profanity, a seemingly less
serious offense than bullying, yet it would result in the assignment of the third level.
The administrators at Valley Oak Middle School explained that the levels were
cumulative from teacher to teacher, but teachers had no knowledge of each individual student’s
status on the “level metric.” This frequently resulted in a student escalating through the system
quickly, as a Level C referral functioned as a “third strike” regardless of the offense. After the
third level, all behaviors resulted in placement on the Step Schedule.
The steps also represented a form of progressive consequences, where each incident of
misbehavior resulted in an additional consequence assigned by an administrator. Table 6
summarizes the step system.
As a student progressed through the step system, consequences became more restrictive
and the student spent less time in the classroom. The level and step systems included the proviso
that, students who participated in any of the more common illegal activities would be subject to
immediate intervention by an administrator and most likely suspended for 1 to 5 days. Students
who continued to accrue suspensions or commit serious offenses such as possession of weapons
would eventually be recommended for expulsion. Ultimately, the level and step systems proved
to be a very complex, including consequences for classroom offenses, consequences for offenses

58. 47
Table 6
Steps and Consequences in the Valley Oak Middle School Step System
Step Consequence
Step 1 1 day of Saturday School
Step 2 1 day of out-of-school suspension
Step 3 2 day out-of-school suspension
Step 4 3 day out-of-school suspension
Step 5 4 day out-of-school suspension
Step 6 5 day out-of-school suspension
Step 7 5 day out-of-school suspension and recommendation for expulsion
that took place in “common areas” such as the playground or cafeteria, and consequences for
offenses such as tardies or incomplete class work. This complexity is reviewed in Chapter 5.
At some point the district had participated in a program called BEST (Building Effective
Schools Together). Grant funding from the California Department of Education was utilized to
train a cadre of trainers who worked with districts to train school employees in the fundamentals
of positive behavior supports. All training was designed to assist schools to develop and
implement schoolwide behavior expectations, strategies for teaching rules and expectations, and
a system for positive reinforcement (Walter & Wood, 2007).
Based on the administrator’s recollection, staff members from every school in the district
had participated in the BEST training program in 2007. The training was provided through the
county office of education and the district sent a group of administrators and teachers to be
trained. While several persons from the study site had been trained, no funding at the district or
site level had been established for systematic implementation and no additional training took

59. 48
place. Thus, some of the staff at the study site had completed at least a minimum level of
training regarding utilization of BEST strategies and establishing schoolwide behavior
expectations but there was no consistent approach to ongoing training or implementation.
Aggregated Student Discipline Data
Aggregated student discipline data were taken from reports generated by the school office
for monthly board reporting. These reports included referrals to the administration, in-school
suspensions, and out-of-school suspensions. All of these reports were identified by California
Education Code § 48900 offense, grade level of the student, and the month in which the incident
occurred. These discipline data reports were subsequently disaggregated by hand sorting and
counting and uploaded into a spreadsheet based on number of offenses and type of offense
committed by students in each grade and in each month. Table 7 summarizes discipline
incidents that took place at Valley Oak Middle School each month, the type of consequence that
was assigned, and grade level of the student who committed the offense. Based on these data,
seventh-grade students had committed the majority of the behavioral offenses and had been
assigned the majority of in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, and administrative
referrals in the 2013-2014 school year. These data indicated that discipline incidents and
assignment of consequences peaked during the March and May.
It is evident that the majority of incidents were the result of what teachers and
administrators refer to as “willful defiance.” Table 8 disaggregates the data by California
Education Code offense for the 2013-14 school year. At Valley Oak Middle School, 510 of the
633 total discipline incidents (81%) were coded as “willful defiance.” Chapters 4 and 5 explore
a teacher’s perception of “willful defiance” and provide quantitative and qualitative links to
perceptions of willful defiance and the subsequent assignment of disciplinary consequences.

60. 49

61. 50
Table 8
In-School Suspensions, Out-of-School Suspensions and Referrals to Administration at the Target
School, by California Education Code Offense, Academic Year 2013-2014
Code violation f
§ 48900
(a)(1) Threatened to cause physical injury to another person 94
(a)(2) Willfully used force or violence upon another person 6
(b) Possessed, sold, or otherwise furnished firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object 1
(c) Unlawfully possessed, used, sold, or otherwise furnished, any controlled substance 5
(f) Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property or private property 1
(g) Stole or attempted to steal school property or private property 5
(i) Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual profanity or vulgarity 2
(k) Disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully defied school authority 510
(r) Engaged in an act of bullying, including bullying committed through electronic means 7
§ 48900.4
Intentionally engaged in harassment, threats, or intimidation, directed against school
district personnel or pupils 2
Total reported discipline incidents for the 2013-2014 school year 633
Potential Areas of Research Bias
Having taught middle school for 13 years, I am certain that I have some type of research
bias relative to teaching, classroom management, and student discipline, particularly at the
middle school level. Originally a strong proponent of zero tolerance policies (Skiba, 2000), I
have empathy for teachers who struggle with classroom management and become frustrated by
what appears to be “willful defiance” on the part of many middle school students. As a teacher, I
understand and can align with a pupil control ideology (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 1990) that expects

62. 51
students to come to school ready to learn and behave appropriately. It has taken me years to
intellectually understand that behaviors such as social skills can be explicitly taught and learned,
just like mathematics and reading (Kavale & Mostert, 2004).
Conversely, having spent more than 15 years in school administration, I have witnessed
first-hand how a handful of teachers write the majority of office discipline referrals and how
completely inappropriate certain student discipline decisions and consequences can be. At the
middle school and high school levels, I experienced the difficulty of attempting to alter
perceptions of student behavior and schoolwide discipline practices (Gibbs & Powell, 2012) and
began to wonder what drives teacher decision making regarding student discipline and classroom
management (Giallo & Little, 2003). I have seen the devastating impact of student discipline
policies and practices on students, including my own children (Losen & Gillespie, 2012).
As a result, I sit on a research “fence.” I know that classroom management is a critical
skill for positive student learning outcomes; at the same time, a part of me wishes that all
students just knew how to behave and came to school ready and able to focus on learning. I also
wish that teachers and administrators were not required to spend so much time on student
discipline and could instead focus on teaching and learning.
Both of these lenses have the potential to impact my analysis and interpretation of the
data collected in this study. Nonetheless, this study should yield valuable information regarding
the relationships among student discipline practices, teacher efficacy, and classroom
management and provide insights for schoolteachers and educational leaders regarding how to
support teachers in addressing student behavior needs and how best to design and implement
effective behavior intervention programs for students. Ideally, these efforts will result in
improved achievement outcomes for students.

63. 52
CHAPTER 4
QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND RESULTS
This study examined the relationships among teacher-level perceptions and beliefs about
efficacy, student behavior, and school culture, and how these perceptions may be associated with
classroom and schoolwide discipline practices. These include perceptions of self and collective
efficacy, opinions regarding what constitutes student misbehavior, and the impact of
consequences on student behavior. It was hypothesized that teachers with higher ratings of self-
efficacy and collective efficacy would be less likely to write office discipline referrals and assign
exclusionary consequences such as suspension and expulsion for behaviors that are typically
identified as “willful defiance.” The null hypothesis was no relationships among these
perceptions and beliefs and subsequent classroom and schoolwide discipline practices.
This chapter explains how the instrument for collecting quantitative survey data was
created, how validity and reliability were determined, how data were collected and analyzed, and
how the quantitative data findings related to the research questions.
Data Collection
Data were drawn from an online survey designed to measure self-efficacy, collective
efficacy, opinions regarding which types of student behaviors warrant disciplinary referrals,
beliefs relating to student misbehavior and consequences, and teachers’ perceptions of
administrative support and school climate. In November 2014, prior to finalizing the online
survey instrument, two beta versions of the survey were created and requests for participation
were emailed to eight credentialed individuals employed at other sites in California. Feedback
from these participants allowed me to refine both the questions on the survey and the format of
the survey and to create a streamlined process for quantitative data collection.

64. 53
In late November 2014, teachers and administrators at Valley Oak Middle School were
provided a brief orientation to the research project at a regularly scheduled staff meeting. It was
explained to all staff members that participation in the study would be voluntary. Prior to
participating in the survey, all potential survey participants were assigned a unique, confidential
identification code known only to the researcher. In December 2014, 23 school employees were
sent an email invitation to participate in the study via SurveyMonkey™ (2015). The last question
in the survey requested each participant to provide an email address to indicate interest in
participating in the interview portion of the research.
To the 23 email invitations that were sent to staff requesting participation in the online
survey, 20 employees responded. One response set was deleted from data analysis because the
person answered only the Experience question and did not provide responses to any other
questions; this left 19 response sets for analysis.
In addition to questions regarding perception of efficacy, administrative support, school
climate and willful defiance, the survey instrument collected data on the number of years the
teacher had been teaching and the courses the teacher was currently assigned to teach. All data
were stored in a password-protected electronic format.
Instrumentation
Two existing scales were utilized to measure efficacy as part of the online survey. The
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) long form, developed by Megan Tschannen-Moran
and Anita Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and verified for validity and reliability, was utilized to measure
teacher self-efficacy. The Collective Efficacy Scale (CE-SCALE) short form, developed by
Goddard et al. (2000), was used to measure collective efficacy. Some items were removed from
the CE-SCALE because they were redundant or duplicated items on the TSES.

65. 54
In addition, key survey questions that focused on school climate and support were taken
from the School and Staffing Survey 2011-2012 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, 2012), and researcher-developed questions were designed to measure
perceptions of willful defiance and disciplinary consequences. The final online survey is
included as Appendix B.
Measures
When the survey was closed and data collection was complete, I created a scale for each
set of questions. The sections below explain how the scales were created and subsequently
utilized for quantitative data analysis.
Teacher Perception Scales
To measure perceptions of self-efficacy for classroom management, school and
community collective efficacy, school climate and discipline practices, schoolwide student
behavior expectations, administrative support, perceptions of willful defiance, and discipline
practices, questions with Likert-type response scales were utilized. This section identifies the
sources of survey questions and explains how the response variables were coded and how the
scales were created. In each of these areas, scales were determined by grouping like questions
into categories. Appendix B contains a complete copy of the survey.
To analyze perceptions of efficacy, two existing scales were utilized to measure two
forms of efficacy. Questions from the TSES Long Form (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001) were used to measure self-efficacy for classroom management. Participants were asked to
utilize a 4-point scale to identify how much control they perceived they had, ranging from no
control to a great deal of control, on questions such as establishing routines to keep activities

66. 55
running smoothly in the classroom, calming a student who is disruptive or noisy, and preventing
a few problem students from ruining an entire lesson.
Questions from the CE-SCALE Short Form (Goddard et al., 2000) were used to measure
school and community collective efficacy. Some items were removed from the CE-SCALE
because they were redundant or duplicated items on the TSES. For this scale, participants were
asked to review the question and provide a response ranging from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Questions on this scale included items such as, “Teachers at this school do not have
the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems,” “Teachers at this school believe every
student can learn,” and “Learning is more difficult at this school because students are worried
about their safety.”
For both scales, responses indicating high degrees of self-efficacy for classroom
management or collective efficacy were coded as 1 and responses indicating a lower sense of
self-efficacy for classroom management and collective efficacy were coded as 0. On the Self-
Efficacy for Classroom Management scale, all responses of a great deal of control were coded as
1 and all responses of moderate control, minor control, and o control were coded as 0. The
maximum possible score for the self-efficacy scale was 8, representing the sum of all variables
coded as 1, a response of a great deal of control.
For the School and Community Collective Efficacy scale, the assignment of a specific
code varied based on the phrasing of the question and whether the response indicated a positive
sense of collective efficacy. For example, for the prompt “The opportunities in this community
help ensure that these students will learn,” responses of somewhat agree or strongly agree were
coded as 1, indicating a positive sense of collective efficacy. Responses of somewhat disagree
or strongly disagree were coded as 0, indicating a diminished sense of collective efficacy.

67. 56
However, for the prompt “Teachers at this school do not have the skills to deal with student
disciplinary problems,” responses of somewhat disagree or strongly disagree were coded as 1
and responses of somewhat agree or strongly agree were coded as 0 due to the negative phrasing
of the question. The maximum possible score for the Collective Efficacy scale was 10.
Survey questions and subsequent scales that focused on school climate and administrative
support were taken from the School and Staffing Survey 2011-2012. These included the scales
for School Climate and Discipline Practices, Schoolwide Student Behavior Expectations, and
Administrative Support. On these scales, the majority of the variables were framed in the
positive, such as, “Existing school-wide discipline strategies effectively address most problem
student behaviors,” for which responses of somewhat agree or strongly agree were coded as 1
and responses of somewhat disagree or strongly disagree were coded as 0. In the few instances
in which the variable was framed in the negative (e.g., “The level of student misbehavior at this
school interferes with my teaching”), a response of somewhat disagree or strongly disagree was
coded as 1 and somewhat agree or strongly agree was coded as 0.
Two prompts in these scales focused on zero tolerance policies and the impact of
suspension and expulsion: (a) “In general, Zero Tolerance policies have been an effective
strategy for reducing inappropriate behavior on campus,” and (b) “Consequences like suspension
and expulsion have been effective at reducing student misbehavior.” These variables were coded
on the basis of existing research, reviewed in Chapter 2, indicating that neither approach has
been shown to be particularly effective at improving student behavior. Thus, for these two
variables, responses regarding effectiveness of somewhat disagree or strongly disagree were
coded 1 and responses of somewhat agree or strongly agree were coded as 0. The maximum

68. 57
scores were 9 for the School Climate and Discipline Practices subscale, 7 for the Schoolwide
Student Behavior Expectations subscale, and 8 for the Administrative Support subscale.
To measure perceptions of willful defiance and subsequent disciplinary decisions, I used
existing student referral forms and discipline documents to identify some of the most common
reasons teachers provide for assigning office discipline referrals or disciplinary consequences,
including class disruptions, chewing gum, arguing, profanity, and dress code violations. These
scales provided a list of student behaviors and asked participants how often each type of
behavior would likely result in an office discipline referral or a recommendation for suspension
on the basis of willful defiance. For both scales, responses of rarely or never were coded as 1
and responses of always or often were coded as 0. The maximum scale score for both scales
was 9.
Teacher Background Variables
In addition to scales designed to measure teacher perceptions, I collected data on what
core subjects the teacher was assigned to teach and the number of years the teacher had been
teaching. The Core Subjects variable was determined by which class assignments generally
constitute the “core” for middle school students and which class assignments are usually
considered “elective” in nature, or something other than the core. For this study, Core Subjects
were identified as English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, History/Social Studies, and
General Elementary (primarily self-contained). General Elementary was included to incorporate
Grade 6, as most teachers assigned to teach sixth grade teach the core. All other subjects were
designated as “Other Subjects.” These included Art/Music, Vocational, Physical Education,
Independent Study, Community Day, and Administration. For this variable, Core Subjects were
assigned a code of 1 and Other Subjects were assigned a code of 0.

69. 58
Initially, categories for experience in the survey included benchmarks at 1–5 years, 6–10
years, and 11 or more years. However, because the staff was almost evenly split between 1–10
years and 11 or more years, experience was recoded using a dummy variable that categorized
teachers according to whether they reported 11 or more years of teaching experience or 10 or
fewer years of teaching experience. Responses indicating 1–10 years of experience were coded
as 0 and responses indicating 11 or more years were coded as 1. Administrators who responded
with “at least three years of teaching and some administrative experience” were coded as having
11 or more years of experience, based on other information provided during on-site research.
Analytical Methods
After the variables were coded as 1 or 0 and the scales were created, I ran a Pearson’s r
correlation analysis using STATA®
(Gould, 2015) to determine whether there were any
correlations between any of the scale pairs, such as perceptions of self-efficacy for classroom
management; perceptions of collective efficacy, school climate, and administrative support;
teachers’ beliefs regarding suspension/expulsion; and beliefs regarding what constitutes willful
defiance. Summary statistics for all measures in aggregate scales are presented next.
Results
Self-Efficacy for Classroom Management
This set of questions was designed to measure the participants’ perceptions of self-
efficacy for classroom management and asked participants to respond relative to how much or
how little control they perceived they had specific to classroom management scenarios.
Questions covered general classroom management, establishing routines and expectations, and
addressing the needs of disruptive students. Results for this scale are presented in Table 9.

70. 59
Table 9
Results for the Self-Efficacy for Classroom Management Scale (N = 19)
Measure Mean
Overall scale 5.16
Controlling disruptive behavior 0.58
Making behavior expectations clear 0.89
Establishing routines 0.89
Getting students to follow rules 0.68
Calming a disruptive student 0.26
Establishing clear class management system 0.84
Preventing a few students from ruining lesson 0.58
Effectively responding to a defiant student 0.42
Note. 1 on item responses = a great deal of control and 0 = moderate, minor or no control.
Maximum scale score = 8.
The maximum scale score for this scale was 8, with a mean of 5.16. On average, this
means that participants indicated for roughly five items on this scale that they had a great deal of
control. Participants indicated a high degree of self-efficacy and perceived control regarding
establishing class management systems (84%), establishing routines (89%), and making behavior
expectations clear (89%). However, fewer reported feeling a great deal of control regarding
their ability to calm or control disruptive students (26%), respond to defiant students (42%), or
prevent a few students from ruining a lesson (58%). Responses to these questions indicated a
lower degree of self-efficacy, particularly related to calming a disruptive student. Responses on
this scale highlight an interesting dichotomy, in that most participants felt quite confident in their

71. 60
ability to establish classroom routines but fewer felt confident in their ability to address the
behavior needs of students in those classrooms.
School Collective Efficacy
This scale was designed to measure staff perceptions of collective efficacy, a reflection of
staff beliefs relative to the school community, and the collective ability of the staff to address
student learning and behavior needs, in addition to beliefs regarding the families of the students
in the school and the community as a whole. Results for this scale are presented in Table 10.
Table 10
Results for the School Collective Efficacy Scale (N = 19)
Measure Mean
Overall scale 6.16
Community opportunities 0.42
Teachers believe every student can learn 0.89
Students come to school ready to learn 0.63
Home life here provides advantages 0.05
Teachers do have the skills for discipline (16% said they do not have skills) 0.84
If a student doesn’t want to learn, teacher does not give up (16% said teacher gives up) 0.84
Teachers have the skills for meaningful learning (0% said they do not have the skills) 1.00
Students worry about their safety 0.74
Students are motivated to learn (37% said they are not motivated)* 0.63
Drugs and alcohol in community make learning difficult (11% said drugs and
alcohol do not make learning difficult) (0.89)
Note. Questions with information in parentheses indicate questions that were reverse coded. Item
mean scores reflect the share that endorsed the reverse-coded wording. Maximum scale score =
10.

72. 61
The maximum score for this scale was 10, with a mean score of 6.16. In response to the
these questions, participants consistently indicated high levels of collective efficacy relative to
their colleagues’ skills in addressing student learning and discipline needs. For instance, 84%
rejected the notion that teachers lacked the necessary skills for discipline, 89% perceived that
teachers believe that all students can learn, and 100% indicated a belief that teachers at the
school have the necessary skills to produce meaningful student learning. Conversely, regarding
the family and community, only 5% of participants indicated a belief that home life provides
advantages for learning and only 42% indicated a belief that the community provides educational
advantages or opportunities for students. Also, 89% of participants indicated a perception that
drug and alcohol use in the community makes learning difficult for students.
School Climate and Discipline
The School Climate and Discipline scale asked participants to respond to questions
regarding collection and analysis of student discipline data, schoolwide discipline beliefs and
practices, and measures of school climate. Results for this scale are presented in Table 11.
The maximum scale score for school climate and discipline was 9, with a mean score of
6.21. On this scale, 95% of the participants indicated a belief that some system was being used
to track and analyze student discipline data and 100% indicated the perception that necessary
materials were available for staff. Also, 84% perceived that rules were consistently enforced,
74% indicated that colleagues shared similar values around the school’s central mission, and
74% indicated that students with behavioral struggles were provided a structured system of
support to learn appropriate behaviors. All of these responses indicated positive perceptions of
school climate and schoolwide discipline practices.

73. 62
Table 11
Results for the School Climate and Discipline Scale (N = 19)
Measure Mean
Overall scale 6.21
A system to record discipline data 0.95
Necessary materials are available 1.00
Rules are consistently enforced 0.84
Structured system of student behavior support 0.74
Shared central mission and values 0.95
Zero Tolerance policies are not effective (47% said that they are effective) 0.53
Student misbehavior does not interfere with teaching (42% said that they do
interfere with teaching) 0.58
Tardies and cuts do not interfere with teaching (37% said that they do interfere
with teaching) 0.63
Note. Questions with information in parentheses indicate questions that were reverse coded when
creating the scale. Item mean scores reflect the share that endorsed the reverse-coded wording.
Maximum scale score = 9
Regarding the effectiveness of zero tolerance policies and practices, 47% of the
participants indicated a belief that zero tolerance policies were effective for reducing
inappropriate student behaviors; however, 42% indicated that noise, horseplay, and fighting
interfered with their ability to teach and 37% indicated that tardies and cuts interfered with their
teaching. These results present an interesting paradox, as the entire discipline system at Valley
Oak Middle School is founded on the premise that zero tolerance policies will reduce student
misbehavior and maximize teaching and instructional time. Although almost half the

74. 63
participants indicated that these policies are effective, almost half reported that student
misbehavior continues to disrupt the instructional environment.
Schoolwide Behavior Expectations
This scale was designed to measure schoolwide behavior expectations and how
consequences for unacceptable behaviors are established and enforced. The maximum scale
score for this measure was 7, with a mean of 5.42. Results are presented in Table 12.
Table 12
Results for the Schoolwide Behavior Expectations Scale (N = 19)
Measure Mean
Overall scale 5.42
Schoolwide behavior expectations established 0.95
A system is in place for teaching behavior expectations 0.74
Consequences are established and consistently enforced 0.63
Problem behaviors are clearly defined 0.74
Teachers have a responsibility to teach behavior expectations 1.00
Schoolwide discipline strategies effectively address problem behaviors 0.74
Suspension and expulsion are not effective at reducing misbehavior 0.63
Note. Maximum scale score = 7.
Overall, 100% of the participants indicated a belief that teachers have a responsibility to
teach behavior expectations and 95% indicated that behavior expectations for the school have
been established. Seventy-four percent indicated that the school has a system in place for
teaching the desired behaviors, 74% perceived that problem behaviors are clearly defined, and

75. 64
74% indicated a belief that current discipline strategies are effectively addressing most of the
problem behaviors. All of these responses indicate positive perceptions of schoolwide behavior
expectations.
However, when queried as to the effectiveness of consequences such as suspension and
expulsion to reduce student misbehavior, 63% indicated a belief that these practices were
ineffective. Similar to the findings regarding zero tolerance policies, this contrast or potential
contradiction is interesting because the existing discipline system at Valley Oak Middle School
is built almost entirely on an increasingly punitive system of detention, suspension, and
expulsion. On the one hand, the majority of participants (74%) indicated that the existing
discipline system is working; conversely, a majority (63%) indicated that the consequences
utilized as part of the discipline system are ineffective.
Administrative Support
The Administrative Support scale was designed to measure participants’ perceptions of
administrative support as it relates to student discipline. The maximum scale score for this
measure was 8, with a mean of 5.11. Results are presented in Table 13.
On this scale, participants consistently indicated positive levels of administrative support,
particularly related to teaching and enforcing school rules (84%) and providing administrative
“back up” in difficult discipline situations (95%). All participants indicated that the principal
knows what kind of school he/she wants and has communicated this vision to staff. These
responses taken together indicate very positive perceptions of administrative support.
However, when queried about receiving training for classroom management and training
focused on addressing student behavioral issues, 79% of the participants indicated that they did
not receive frequent training in either of these areas.

76. 65
Table 13
Results for the Administrative Support Scale (N = 19)
Measure Mean
Overall scale 5.11
There is consensus among administrators on willful defiance 0.79
Administrators should teach and reinforce behavior expectations 0.84
I am regularly involved in setting school discipline policy 0.68
I frequently receive training for addressing student behavior struggles 0.21
The principal has a vision for the school and communicates this vision 1.00
Student discipline data is used to make schoolwide discipline decisions 0.42
I frequently receive training to improve classroom management strategies 0.21
My principal enforces school rules and backs me up when I need it 0.95
Note. Maximum scale score = 8.
These findings link to findings from the Self-Efficacy for Classroom Management Scale,
where 89% of the participants indicated a belief in their ability to make behavior expectations
clear and establish routines but 74% indicated that they did not feel confident in their ability to
calm a disruptive student, 58% reported a lack confidence in their ability to respond to a defiant
student, and 42% felt less confident in their ability to control disruptive behavior and prevent a
few students from ruining a lesson. Taken together, these findings may indicate links between
receiving training and the development of a teacher’s efficacy, capacity, and confidence in the
ability to address specific, individual student behavior needs within the context of the classroom.
It is interesting that, in response to the question regarding the use of discipline data to
make schoolwide discipline decisions, 58% of the participants indicated that this was not

77. 66
happening; however, on the scale for School Climate and Discipline, 95% responded that there
was a system in place to record, track, and review student discipline data. This variation in
responses may highlight a subtle yet crucial difference between collecting the student discipline
data and actually using those data to make schoolwide discipline decisions.
Student Discipline and Office Referral
This scale listed common student offenses and asked participants to indicate whether they
would write an office discipline referral for the offense or send the student to the office. The
maximum score for this scale was 9, with a mean of 7.42. Results are presented in Table 14.
Table 14
Results for the Student Discipline and Office Referral Scale (N = 19)
Measure Mean
Overall scale (would not write a referral for the listed behavior) 7.42
Disrupting the classroom (26% would write a referral) 0.74
Forgetting supplies (0% would write a referral) 1.00
Chewing gum (0% would write a referral) 1.00
Profanity (47% would write a referral) 0.53
Tardiness (0% would write a referral) 1.00
Arguing with the teacher (42% would write a referral) 0.58
Not following school dress code (26% would write a referral) 0.74
Not completing assignments or turning in work (0% would write a referral) 1.00
Being off task or not following teacher directions (16% would write a referral) 0.84
Note. Questions with information in parentheses indicate questions that were reverse coded.
Item mean scores reflect the share that endorsed the reverse-coded wording. Maximum scale
score = 9.

78. 67
Overall, 74% to 84% of the participant responses indicated an unwillingness to assign an
office discipline referral for any of the following offenses: classroom disruptions, dress code
violations, or being off task or not following teacher directions. All participants indicated that
they would not write a referral for forgetting supplies, gum chewing, tardiness, or not completing
or turning in homework. This finding is intriguing because teachers routinely employ a
“homework detention” approach for students who do not complete and submit classroom
assignments. Based on conversations with school administrators, it was clear that, while the
teacher may not be writing a formal “office discipline referral,” he/she is still assigning an
exclusionary consequence for class work that is incomplete or not submitted.
As measured on this scale, there were only two areas where participants were inclined to
write a referral: the use of profanity (47%) and arguing with the teacher (42%). Once again, this
finding may link to other findings that indicate how a teacher may perceive or interpret student
behavior and subsequently assign a disciplinary consequence.
Willful Defiance and Suspension
This scale was designed to test what behaviors participants classified as “willful
defiance” and were most likely to recommend suspension as a consequence. The maximum
scale score was 9, with a mean of 7.16. Results are presented in Table 15. Similar to the results
from the Office Referral Scale, participants were disinclined to classify the majority of these
behaviors as “willful defiance” and recommend suspension.
On this scale, only two offenses were likely to result in a perception of willful defiance
and subsequent recommendation for suspension. The first, arguing with the teacher (63%),
matched responses on the Office Referral Scale, where arguing with a teacher was perceived as

79. 68
Table 15
Results for the Willful Defiance and Suspension Scale (N = 19)
Measure Mean
Overall scale (would not recommend willful defiance suspension for the listed behavior) 7.16
Disrupting the classroom (53% would recommend) 0.47
Forgetting supplies (5% would recommend) 0.95
Chewing gum (0% would recommend) 1.00
Profanity (26% would recommend) 0.74
Tardiness (5% would recommend) 0.95
Arguing with teacher (63% would recommend) 0.37
Not following school dress code (11% would recommend) 0.89
Not completing assignments or turning in work (0% would recommend) 1.00
Being off task or not following teacher directions (21% would recommend) 0.79
Note. Questions with information in parentheses indicate questions that were reverse coded.
Item mean scores reflect the share that endorsed the reverse-coded wording. Maximum scale
score = 9.
“willful defiance” by at least 63% of the participants and would likely result in a referral and a
recommendation for suspension.
In contrast to the results on the Office Referral Scale, where 74% of participants did not
consider classroom disruption to be grounds for an office referral, on this scale 53% of the
participants classified disrupting the classroom as “willful defiance” and were inclined to
recommend suspension. Both of these findings provide potential links to the research related to
how a teacher perceives and interprets a student’s behavior and makes a subsequent disciplinary
decision on the basis of those perceptions. These findings may also provide an explanation as to

80. 69
why the teacher elects to move beyond the office discipline referral to suspension for infractions
that he or she interprets as a form of “willful defiance.”
Correlation Analysis
Subsequent to coding the variables and creating each scale, I utilized STATA software to
run a Pearson’s r correlation to determine whether there were relationships between any of the
scale pairs designed to measure teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy and collective efficacy, in
addition to school climate, administrative support, student behavior expectations, and willful
defiance and consequences. These correlations are presented in Table 16. The p values for
correlations are presented beneath the correlation coefficient. All scales are coded so that higher
values indicate a desired response.
To analyze these data, I looked for p values of .1 or less. While p < .05 is the traditional
threshold for establishing significant relationships, for this analysis I utilized a slightly lower
standard for p values due to the small sample size. The results showed three positive correlations
and one negative correlation.
The first positive correlation (r = .6179, p = .0048) was between perceptions of
schoolwide student behavior expectations and positive perceptions of school and community
collective efficacy. This correlation demonstrated a positive relationship between higher ratings
for schoolwide behavior expectations and positive perceptions of school and collective efficacy.
Essentially, the higher a participant’s ratings for schoolwide behavior expectations, the more
likely he/she was to give positive ratings for school and collective efficacy.
The second positive correlation (r = .5808, p = .0091) indicated a positive relationship
between perceptions of willful defiance and subsequently writing an office discipline referral.
Participants who were less likely to interpret student behaviors as willful defiance were also less

81. 70
Table 16
Correlations Among Scales
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
Self-Efficacy Class
Management 1.0000
2
School &
Community
Collective Efficacy -0.0273 1.0000
(.9117)
3
School Climate &
Discipline Practices
0.3376 0.1716 1.0000
(.1575) (.4824)
4
Schoolwide Behavior
Expectations
-0.1742 0.6179 0.3664 1.0000
(.4758) (.0048) (.1229)
5
Administrative
Support 0.2521 0.1681 0.3353 0.3482 1.0000
(.2978) (.4915) (.1605) (.1441)
6
Student Discipline &
Office Referral 0.3605 -0.0084 -0.1502 0.0591 0.3082 1.0000
(.1294) (.9729) (.5394) (.8101) (.1993)
7
Perceptions of
Willful Defiance 0.2205 -0.2671 -0.1629 -0.2980 0.2809 0.5808 1.0000
(.3644) (.2689) (.5051) (.2152) (.2440) (.0091)
8 Years of Experience 0.0572 -0.3152 0.0674 -0.4656 0.1924 -0.0047 0.4351
(.8162) (.1886) (.7838) (.0445) (.4301) (.9848) (.0626)
9
Teaching Core
Subjects 0.0572 0.0085 -0.2173 -0.0970 -0.2996 -0.1824 -0.2063
(.8162) (.9724) (.3715) (.6928) (.2127) (.4547) (.3967)
Note. p values are given in parentheses below the correlation coefficients.

82. 71
likely to write an office discipline referral for these behaviors. This correlation may highlight
links to the research that indicates that teachers ultimately perceive and frame a discipline
situation significantly influences the types of consequences that the teacher will impose on the
student.
The third positive correlation (r = .4351, p = .0626) was between years of experience and
perceptions of willful defiance. The more years of experience a teacher had, the less likely he or
she was to perceive certain types of behavior as willful defiance.
One negative correlation was detected. This correlation indicated that the more
experience a teacher had, the less likely he or she was to perceive that schoolwide behavior
expectations had been established and were being enforced (r = -.4656, p = .0445). This may
indicate that more experienced teachers have a different understanding of “schoolwide behavior
expectations” and may define them differently from less experienced teachers. It may also be a
reflection of having worked in the profession for a longer period of time and experiencing a
variety of disciplinary approaches for addressing student misbehavior. Conversely, this may be a
reflection of the reality that a novice teacher may simply have less experience with schoolwide
behavior expectations as a whole.
Because a p value of .15 is approaching marginal significance and is suggestive of a
correlation, I also reviewed the correlation data for p values in this range and identified two
additional areas of marginal significance. It should be noted that these correlations should be
viewed tentatively; a larger sample size would permit more precise measurements.
There was a slight positive correlation (r = .3664, p = .1229) between a participant’s
perception that schoolwide behavior expectations had been established, were being taught, and
were being reinforced and his/her perceptions of a positive school climate and positive school

83. 72
discipline practices. This correlation may indicate links between clear student behavior
expectations and how these expectations may influence teachers’ perceptions of the school
climate.
The second area of marginal significance was a positive correlation (r = .3605, p = .1294)
between a participant’s perceptions of self-efficacy for classroom management and his or her
inclination to write an office discipline referral for common classroom behavior issues. This
positive correlation hints at the potential link between a teacher’s positive perceptions of self-
efficacy and his or her disinclination to assign an exclusionary consequence or referral for
common classroom infractions. This was an area that I had hoped to explore in depth by
examining the number of office discipline referrals each teacher wrote and the reasons for the
referral; however, because I was unable to secure office discipline referral data by teacher, I was
unable to determine any explicit, definitive findings. This area certainly warrants additional
research with a larger sample to investigate whether the finding carries statistical significance.
Discussion
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What are the relationships between teacher-level perceptions
and beliefs about self and collective efficacy, student behavior and school climate, and how are
these perceptions associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices? The
quantitative data indicated that the fewer behaviors a participant classified as “willfully defiant,”
the less likely he or she was to write an office discipline referral. Also, teachers with more years
of teaching experience were less inclined to interpret common student misbehaviors as a form of
willful defiance. Together, these findings establish potential links among years of teaching

84. 73
experience, perceptions of willful defiance, and subsequent assignment of a consequence such as
an office discipline referral.
There was a slight positive correlation between a participant’s perception of self-efficacy
for classroom management and assignment of an office discipline referral for behavioral
infractions. Thus, the higher a participant’s rating of self-efficacy for classroom management,
the less likely he or she was to write an office discipline referral.
Both of these findings point to a potential relationship between years of teaching
experience, a teacher’s self-efficacy, how he/she interprets student behavior, and the subsequent
assignment of an office discipline referral.
Although data from the Administrative Support Scale indicated that 79% of staff
responded that “there is consensus among administrators and teachers about what constitutes
willful defiance,” there appeared to be some variability among staff members regarding what
types of behaviors would be interpreted as willful defiance and would merit a referral or
suspension. Responses indicated disagreement regarding whether the teachers would identify the
following behaviors as a form of willful defiance that would merit a referral or a
recommendation for suspension: arguing with a teacher (42% would refer, 63% would
recommend a suspension), using profanity (47% would refer, 26% would recommend a
suspension), and disrupting the classroom (26% would refer, 53% would recommend
suspension). For all other typical classroom behaviors, there appeared to be more consensus, as
very few staff members indicated that they would write a referral or recommend suspension for
forgetting supplies, chewing gum, tardiness, not following the dress code, not completing work,
or being off task. None of the other areas listed in Research Question 1 yielded statistically
significant relationships.

85. 74
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How do teachers report that factors such as school culture,
climate, history and student demographics potentially influence schoolwide discipline practices
and subsequent discipline outcomes for students? Quantitative findings for this question were
very limited. However, there was a slight positive correlation and potential positive link between
a participant’s perception that schoolwide behavior expectations had been established and his/her
perceptions of a positive school climate and positive discipline practices. This correlation may
indicate links between clear student behavior expectations and how these expectations influence
teachers’ perceptions of the school climate. Because school climate plays a critical role in
student, and likely in staff behavior, this area warrants additional research.
Although no statistically significant correlation was identified between school collective
efficacy and schoolwide discipline practices, it should be noted that, on the School Collective
Efficacy scale, the majority of participants indicated that the student’s home life and community
did little to support the student academically. This finding is examined in detail in the qualitative
data analysis.
One finding that was surprising and not originally a focus of this research was the
negative correlation between a participant’s years of teaching experience and his/her perception
that schoolwide behavior expectations had been established. This area may also prove critical
for future research and provide insights into understanding how years of teaching experience
may or may not influence a teacher’s decision making relative to student discipline.
Chapter Summary
In summary, the quantitative survey data indicated a few key correlations between
teachers’ perceptions and student discipline. Chapter 5 details how qualitative data were

86. 75
collected and analyzed, and presents findings related to the research questions based on interview
data. Chapter 6 triangulates all of the data, provides a summary of the research findings, and
presents implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research.

87. 76
CHAPTER 5
QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND RESULTS
Recognizing that the online survey would produce a very small sample (maximum 23
participants), I decided to collect a set of qualitative data by interviewing credentialed (teaching)
employees, administrative employees, and classified (nonteaching) employees. Interviews were
intended as a way to understand the feelings, beliefs, and interpretations of staff at the school site
relative to student discipline and student behavior (Merriam, 2009). This chapter explains how
the interview questions were developed and how the interview data were collected and analyzed,
followed by a presentation of the results and a summary of key findings from the interviews.
Instrumentation
A pilot set of interview questions was developed based on the literature and existing
surveys regarding student discipline. Questions were designed to investigate how teachers
establish classroom behavior expectations, perceptions of student behavior, the perceived impact
of disciplinary consequences, strategies for ensuring appropriate classroom behavior, and
thoughts on administrative support and school climate. Sample questions were the following:
1. Why do you think students behave for some teachers and not for others?
2. How do you determine appropriate consequences for students when they misbehave?
3. What is the best way to ensure consistent, positive behavior in your classroom?
Prior to conducting the interviews at the study site, four pilot interviews were conducted
with teachers and administrators from a different site to determine whether any of the questions
were confusing or provided data that were not relevant (Merriam, 2009). Based on feedback
from the pilot participants, a final set of interview questions (Appendix C) was developed.

88. 77
Data Collection
Interview participants were recruited from among the respondents who had completed the
online survey analyzed in Chapter 4. When a staff member at the study site completed the online
survey, the last question in the survey asked whether the respondent was interested in
participating in an interview. Staff members who indicated an interest were asked to provide
contact information. Eight survey respondents indicated interest and six responded to a follow-
up contact to schedule an interview date. Ultimately, six interviews were scheduled and
conducted over a 2-day period. Participants were given the option of meeting off site, at a
private location, or at the school. All participants chose to meet at the school site. These
interviews were conducted in person by the researcher. The interview format was semistructured
(Patton, 2002) and designed to address the research questions, to facilitate conversation, and to
provide interviewees an opportunity for follow-up and discussion.
Data Analysis
All interviews were digitally recorded; I also recorded interview field notes to capture
key ideas and significant responses that could inform coding and subsequent transcript analysis.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcriptionist. After each interview, I
reviewed field notes and summarized any key concepts that emerged. Organizing the data into a
few categories and themes by coding the transcripts enabled made the data manageable and
identified emerging ideas and trends.
Prior to conducting the interviews, I utilized information and common themes from the
literature review to design the interview questions and select a potential set of codes or
categories. These broad categories included rules and procedures, behavior interventions,
consequences, teacher-student relationships, school climate, efficacy, and administrative support.

89. 78
After completing all interviews, I read my field notes and wrote my initial impressions,
thoughts, and ideas regarding potential themes or categories. Some of the categories that
emerged from the field notes matched my original set from the literature review, while others did
not.
Several days later, based on a second review of the field notes, I created a preliminary set
of categories. These very broad categories included teacher and administrative beliefs, teacher
and administrative behavior, causes of student misbehavior, how to improve behavior, family
and community, and who gets in trouble.
For each set of field notes, I created a matrix of these categories and began to record
words, phrases, or comments from the field notes that seemed to fit into each category. I read
the field notes a third time, looking at the matrix, and subsequently refined the categories,
eliminating and in some cases combining or collapsing categories from the first analysis.
I read each transcript twice and hand coded it. After comparing the field notes to the
transcripts of the interviews, I created a matrix of 10 broad categories. I read through the
transcripts a third time, tracking how often key words or phrases appeared, and recorded the
frequencies of common words or phrases on the matrix. I made notes in the margins to identify
thoughts, perceptions, or statements that appeared to be significant but did not appear in other
interviews or did not match any of the selected categories. Based on this iterative coding
process, I settled on a set of nine broad categories: classroom management, student-teacher
relationships, student needs, school climate, beliefs about home and community, beliefs about
students and their behavior, school or classroom structure, teacher self-efficacy, and schoolwide
discipline practices.

90. 79
These groups or “buckets” of ideas persisted through each level of analysis and served as
the final set of categories. Going back to original notes made during analysis of the field notes, I
could see that all of these categories fit into three very broad themes: (a) perceptions of self as
teacher and individual behavior, (b) perceptions of students and student behavior, and (c)
perceptions of school practices and organizational behavior.
The first theme, perceptions of self as teacher or school staff member, provides an
understanding of how participants perceive the work that they do and their self-efficacy as it
related to what they can or cannot not control in the classroom, contributes insights into how
they understand and frame the student/teacher relationship, and in some instances, indicates
evidence of self-reflection and metacognition (Flavell, 1979). The second theme, perceptions of
students, discusses how school staff members perceive and interpret student behavior, sheds light
on participant beliefs regarding what drives behavior and the impact of consequences, and
indicates what participants believe about the students’ families and the community where the
school is located. The third theme, school practices, shows how participants understand and
work within the context of the school structure and how they perceive administrative support,
school climate, and the discipline practices that are embedded in the operations of the school.
Theme 1: Perceptions of Self
Under the theme of perceptions of self and individual behavior, findings are discussed in
three key areas: classroom management, student-teacher relationships, and self-efficacy.
Classroom Management
Several participants pointed out that classroom management encompasses a variety of
organizational skills and experience in understanding and anticipating what students might do.
(Due to the small sample size, the years of teaching experience, the work assignment for the

91. 80
interview participants is not revealed. Numbers are utilized to indicate when different
participants are speaking.) When asked to explain how they establish classroom behavior
expectations, the participants clearly indicated use of routines, teaching and reinforcing
processes, incorporating consistent schedules, creating procedures for everything, and having
expectations right when students walk in the door.
We have expectations set up, like how you take care of a broken pencil, and we remind
. . . there’s a green drawer where sharpened pencils are kept. There’s a little container on
the side of my desk where they put their broken pencil and trade it out. A “broken pencil
routine.” Even something that little, I mean, it just takes the distractions out of everyday
little situations that come up. They just know how to handle it and it gets done quickly
without me having to intervene in every little thing. (Participant 2)
This participant also spoke at length about the need to be proactive, to have expectations
posted, and to constantly reinforce the expectations and procedures. She explained that she
makes behavioral expectations explicit and teaches the desired behaviors from the first day of
school, providing the students feedback about what is working and what is not.
There’s a lot of practice at the beginning of the year. First day of school, we go through
like a PowerPoint of expectations and what the procedures are for doing different things.
We have class rules and expectations posted, so there’s a “you’ll need” poster where it
shows where your backpack goes . . . the class rules are over on the other wall.
(Participant 2)
It was clear from participants’ responses that all had a thorough understanding of what it
takes to establish and maintain classroom behavior expectations. Each participant expressed a
level of confidence in his or her own ability to establish behavioral norms and ensure consistent
classroom management. These findings are consistent with responses to the online survey and
align with research on the topic of classroom management.
Student-Teacher Relationships
When asked why student behavior varies from one teacher to another, the first comment
that participants made was unanimous: “teacher personalities.” They described and explained

92. 81
what they meant by the term. Responses included whether or not a teacher takes the time to
respect and build bonds with students, whether or not the teacher or staff member creates a safe
place for students, and whether or not the teacher or staff member genuinely cares about
students.
There’s personalities that either you connect to or you don’t connect to, and that occurs in
a classroom where some students, for whatever reason, are put off by a teacher or
administrator’s personality. (Participant 4)
If they feel a teacher is not respecting them, then that’s when they act out and they think
it’s okay for them to be disrespectful back, is when they get into trouble. (Participant 1)
Some participants identified a situation in which the teacher seems to be very set in his or
her ways, which they noted can automatically create a conflict between the student and the
teacher. Participants expressed a belief that the teacher has the control in these situations and
explained how the results can become a “no win situation” for both the student and the teacher.
Some teachers, it’s a “my way or the highway. I have a way of what I’m going to do and
what I expect from you and if you don’t meet my expectations, then you’re out of here!”
(Participant 6)
One participant put it eloquently when she explained that middle school students often
test the teacher but the teacher or staff member should take the following under advisement.
You can’t back a middle school kid into a corner because they’re not gonna give up.
That’s where we have a few problems. They can’t lose face in front of their friends so
you’re never going to win. And I think we have a few people [staff members] who don’t
know that yet. (Participant 1)
Participant 4 commented that teachers or staff members can sometimes become so
entrenched in managing classrooms a certain way that they cannot see through their own
behavior and take the time to build rapport and bonds with the students.
Their mindset, their way of thinking is difficult to change and so their idea is, you know,
it’s got to be punitive, it’s my way or the highway, so they’re automatically gonna be
stomping on kids, without taking the time to build that connection. (Participant 4)

93. 82
Finally, several participants stated that it is essential to care genuinely about the students,
to love them, to create safe learning environments, and to be willing to admit that even the
teacher or school authority can make mistakes and should be willing to admit when they are
wrong.
I don’t think the students feel safe. It’s like, “I’m the boss and I’m telling you that this is
how it is and if you don’t do this, I’m gonna toe the line. (Participant 3)
I think the kids knowing that the teachers care about them is probably the one other most
important thing. (Participant 1)
If we can show grace and mercy and we can admit when we’re wrong to a student . . . if
I’ve recognized I’ve made a mistake, I will go to a student and say, “My reason for doing
this was right, my method was wrong. Please forgive me for that.” (Participant 6)
In summary, participant responses in this area indicated a keen sense of awareness that it
is critical for the teacher or staff member to look for and build bonds with students, to create safe
environments for students, and to establish rapport with students that show them that the staff
member cares about them and is willing to admit to being, essentially human. Every participant
expressed a belief that, by building relationships with students and establishing positive bonds
and rapport with students, classroom management would improve and would likely create the
conditions to influence student behavior positively.
Self-Efficacy and Self-Reflection
The last key area under this theme involves perceptions of self-efficacy and individual
self-reflection related to classroom practices. While none of the interview participants
specifically used the terms self-efficacy or metacognition, and only two used the word reflection,
it became apparent in analyzing their responses that they were describing a form of self-efficacy
and the process of reflecting on existing classroom and schoolwide discipline practices. These
responses included evidence of beliefs regarding what the individual could or could not control
and explicit evidence of self-reflection by one participant.

94. 83
Participant 2 talked through her own reflection on student discipline and classroom
management:
I think it is a matter of, consistency and having expectations. Putting some thought
behind what your expectations, what your rules are, what your procedures will be, and
you know, being reflective on those. Every year, some little quirky situation might arise
where I say, “Oh, we really need a procedure for that, too.” So I’ll have to create
something new and I look for ideas. And so, just years of doing that and reflecting and
fine tuning. (Participant 2)
Participant 2 also expressed a desire to participate in professional development focused
on classroom management and stated that it might be good to have a “whole staff self-
reflection,” particularly as it relates to students who are considered to be “frequent flyers”
(students who continue to escalate through the Level System in spite of increasingly punitive
consequences).
Participant 4 discussed a teacher’s “mindset” and noted that it is a reflection of what the
teacher believes about the student and what he or she can control.
The teacher controls a lot of what happens. But, you know, I think it goes, first of all to
their belief system, of how can I really change the behavior of this kid? (Participant 4)
Participant 5 spoke about feeling “empowered” to manage student behavior needs and
remembered that in a district where she had worked previously, she did not feel this way.
I do feel a hundred percent supported by the administration here. So that’s a huge thing.
My one year in [another district], I did not have support from the administration and that
almost made discipline problems feel a hundred times worse. Because if I didn’t feel
empowered to handle them . . . (Participant 5)
It is interesting to note that, while interview participants expressed a level of confidence
in establishing classroom routines and addressing the behavioral needs of students, responses to
the online survey indicated that staff members felt confident in their classroom management
skills but experienced much less control in the area of addressing the needs of a disruptive
student or preventing the disruptive student from ruining the entire lesson. Additional comments

95. 84
related to self-efficacy and self-reflection are discussed under the next theme as they relate to the
areas of student need and beliefs about what drives or improves behavior
Theme 2: Perceptions of Students
The second theme to emerge from the interviews was perceptions of students and student
behavior. Findings under this theme are related to the key areas of how teachers understand
individual student needs that potentially influence a student’s behavior, teachers’ beliefs
regarding potential approaches to mitigate or shape student behavior, and family and community
factors or dynamics that may contribute to student behavior. Under this theme in particular, it
was sometimes difficult to distinguish what constituted a “belief about student need” from a
“belief about student behavior,” as the two appeared to be inextricably linked in some responses.
This link may reflect the reality that a student’s needs—psychological, physical, emotional, or
academic—are likely to drive the behavior of the student and ultimately influence how the
teacher or school staff member frames, understands, and responds to that student’s behavior.
Student Needs
Several interviewees suggested that student misbehavior was likely a result of individual
student needs that were not being met or addressed in the school setting or at home. This
included the perception that misbehavior was often the result of an unmet academic need, in
addition to unmet emotional needs. Under the key area of student needs, participants stated that
unaddressed academic needs frequently drive student behaviors and articulated that, when a
student has to choose between presenting to peers as “dumb” or presenting to peers as “bad,”
most students will choose “bad” (Greene, 2008).
The academic need most frequently alluded to but never specifically stated was a
student’s inability to read at grade level and the subsequent inability to access the core

96. 85
curriculum required in a typical middle school classroom. The most current achievement data
for the study site indicated that slightly less than half of the students were performing at
Proficient or Advanced, as measured by the California Standard Tests for English Language Arts
and Mathematics (California Department of Education, 2013-2014). Thus, achievement data
support the perception that approximately half of the students were not academically equipped to
meet the demands of the existing curriculum and assessments currently required in California
schools as a result of NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
The curriculum could be academically engaging and relevant, but if a student’s not
equipped or not given the supports to engage in that, misbehaving is sometimes a better
option for them. (Participant 4)
The majority of our students that have chronic problem behaviors, there’s an academic
issue. (Participant 3)
Participant 1 expressed a belief that the school could do more to provide academic
interventions for students and suggested that a combination of intervention classes and
enrichment courses might better meet student academic needs, bolster achievement, and improve
behavior. However, she did not specifically state that changing instructional practices to address
academic needs might positively influence student behavior.
In summary, while most participants identified that unmet academic needs were likely to
affect student behavior, only a few suggested that this might indicate a subsequent need to
improve instructional practices, pedagogy, or curriculum delivery. This is surprising in light of
research that indicates strong links among curriculum, pedagogy, instructional approaches, and
student behavior (Beyda, Zentall, & Ferko, 2002).
While not identified as a “need” per se, responses to queries about who (what type of
student) gets in trouble almost always indicated boys. Responses in this area also frequently
linked a student’s gender to additional behavior factors or needs, such as a learning disability

97. 86
(Participant 3), a condition such as ADHD (Participant 2), a lack of impulse control (Participant
1), and Native American boys as being particularly subject to discipline (Participant 1).
Participant 2 echoed this belief, noting that misbehavior was especially common among
males with medical and behavioral conditions.
Those who might have either a medical behavioral condition or just some, something
that’s behaviorally different, find it hard to hold it together for all seven periods of the
day. (Participant 2)
Her perception that males were disproportionately represented among students who posed
behavior challenges was echoed by five of the sixed interview participants, in addition to school,
district, and state-level data regarding what type of student is suspended most frequently.
Again, while not explicitly stated or addressed, the identification of students from a
specific gender or ethnic category, or students with specific learning or medical conditions
potentially indicates that the needs of these student subgroups are not being adequately addressed
in the typical classroom setting at the target school. There is a wealth of compelling research
indicating that academic and behavior needs of these key student subgroups are not being
addressed nationwide and the subsequent educational impact of disproportionate suspension and
expulsion rates for these students (Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen & Gillespie, 2012; Skiba, 2000).
The third and most profound area of need identified as a driver of student behavior was
emotional need. This key area was the most heartbreaking to hear, as participants reflected on
areas of need and what type of student gets in trouble. Participant 6 responded with the
following statements in response to several questions throughout the interview:
The hurt and the pain that you hear coming out of these kids, it’s, it’s heartbreaking. . . . I
do try to take each individual student into account and where they’re at emotionally,
physically, and nutritionally when they are reacting in a situation. . . . I try to undo a little
bit, and instill something to them emotionally that says, “You have value, you have
worth. (Participant 6)

98. 87
Participant 6 went on to explain poignantly that she has personally experienced the
devastating impact of a school system that does not value different types of students and a
system that does little to acknowledge the worth of every student, including their academic
potential. She explained that her personal experiences of having been classified as a “non-
college-bound student” affected her schooling in both middle and high school, where she was
repeatedly discouraged from participating in college preparatory courses and passed over for
scholarship opportunities.
Participant 3 stated that unmet emotional needs were key indicators that the existing
Level System was ineffective and articulated the links between an ineffective discipline system
(Level System) and the fact that the same students are disciplined repeatedly.
If the system was working, we wouldn’t have these frequent flyers [repeat offenders]—
we have a lot of them, students with emotional baggage, emotional needs that are not
being met. (Participant 3)
Several participants indicated, in light of what they understood about student academic
and emotional needs, that it might be wiser from a discipline perspective to focus time, energy,
and resources on designing effective interventions to address these areas of need, rather than
persisting in the use of a highly punitive system that relies on exclusionary consequences.
Beliefs About Behavior
Findings in this area were primarily linked to reflections on what additional factors might
drive student behavior, as well as what it might take to alter or mitigate behavior. Responses
indicated a dichotomy, with one side very heavily weighted on an “interventionist” approach that
attempts to shape behaviors actively by rewarding desired behaviors and punishing or
withholding rewards for undesired behaviors (Wolfgang & Glickman, 1999), and on the other
side a reflective or “noninterventionist” approach involving understanding and questioning what
actually works to alter a person’s behavior (Wolfgang & Glickman, 1999). It was interesting

99. 88
that the same participant might respond to one question with an interventionist approach and to
another question with a very reflective, noninterventionist comment or answer.
When responding to questions about the effectiveness of consequences and how staff
members determine appropriate consequences, some participants reduced behavior management
to a simple system of rewards, like training animals
It goes against my grain, as a parent: “No, I’m not gonna reward you for doing what you
are supposed to do, I’m gonna reward you when you go above and beyond that.” But, it’s
like training the dog or a killer whale: you got to reward them when they do what you
want them to do. (Participant 4)
Conversely, several participants articulated that increasingly harsh types of punishment
were unlikely to alter behavior and have the desired impact. Although Participant 4 expressed
the belief that rewards would bring about desired behaviors, she also recognized that punishment
was unlikely to improve behavior.
Some of the barriers are people who . . . have that mindset that, if we just punish the kids
and punish the kids and punish the kids, we’ll get what we want out of them. (Participant
4)
One frustrated staff member responded,
We just keep suspending and expelling the same 10 kids. We expel them, send them to
Community Day School, and then they get suspended from Community Day School!
(Participant 2)
Participant 4 linked her response regarding consequences back to student need:
A lot of our kids who are our biggest behavior problems have seen it all. They’ve been
verbally abused, they’ve been physically abused, they’ve been emotionally abused.
That’s why we are seeing the behaviors that we are seeing. But there’s nothing—we’re
not gonna punish those behaviors out of them, because so what? They don’t sit in class
for a day, big deal, you know? We can’t do anything big enough to these kids to change
their behavior. It’s not effective. (Participant 4)
A few participants responded in ways indicating an understanding that behavior can be
both taught and learned and explained how they explicitly teach behavior and work with students
to reflect on their own behavior. These statements were coupled with responses that showed

100. 89
evidence of beliefs that behavior was best viewed as something external to the student. In other
words, while the staff member might perceive the behavior to be unacceptable or bad, the staff
member was also willing to locate the behavior outside of the student and recognize poor
behavior did not make the student bad.
We have [a procedure for taking care of the class and materials] and I teach students to be
thoughtful, because I think it’s really just like the absence of thought process as they are
doing these behaviors and so I just kind of start coaching them along that way. And you
do see behavior changes and students generally being more able to take care of their
responsibilities on their own. (Participant 2)
I think a lot of these kids feel like they’re just bad kids. And so I, I try to . . . have a
conversation with these kids, pointing out something about them that is, a good thing and
letting them know that their behavior wasn’t right, but they are neat people and then find
something to praise them about. And I think too many of them don’t get that kind of
praise. (Participant 6)
The most salient finding to emerge from this key area was the contrast or dichotomy of
knowing and articulating that the existing system of punishments and rewards does little to
mitigate or address the root cause of poor student behavior, yet persisting in utilizing a system
that is exclusively based on punishment and rewards. Participant 4 summarized it best:
I think it goes, first of all to their belief system, of how can I really change the behavior
of this kid? And the funny thing is, the people that are most tied to it [Level System]
have seen the results of what happens when they build a connection with students.
They’ve heard stories about a kid, and then they get that student in their class and they
never have a problem with them. But then the next kid comes in and it’s all about the
hammer. (Participant 4)
Family and Community
The last key area to emerge under the theme of perceptions of students provided insight
into how staff members frame and understand the level of family and community support. Five
of the six participants identified lack of parental support for education and lack of parent follow-
through regarding discipline actions as key problems for any disciplinary system that the school
was trying to implement.

101. 90
The conditions they’re growing up in, they don’t value education, they don’t see the
importance of what we’re trying to do here. Typically, they’re in homes where parents
are not even high school graduates, many parents are incarcerated. . . . Parents don’t have
college degrees, basically in jobs that don’t require any skilled type of labor, it’s more
unskilled labor . . . no connection between how hard I work, how well I do in school, and
what my future’s gonna be. (Participant 4)
I also think that home thoughts and beliefs about school definitely kind of transfer into
how students feel about being at school, which impacts the climate, which impacts
behavior. (Participant 5)
I think a big barrier is parent follow-through with the consequences that are implemented
in the classroom and within the school. Students probably coming from a home environ-
ment where they’re not being taught the importance of doing their homework and they’re
not being taught how to manage their time and then they’re coming to school and being
punished. (Participant 6)
Taken together, these statements provide insight into how the staff perceives student
families in the community and specifically a mindset that few of the students are from educated,
supportive families. These comments may be reflective of staff perceptions or framing around a
“cultural deficit model” (Gonzalez, 2005; Yosso, 2005) and may provide staff members an
opportunity to blame something for student failure, both academic and behavioral, that is beyond
their control.
In contrast, Participant 3 articulated concerns regarding the lack of family empowerment,
and noted that do not even seem to know that they should expect better from the school or
district.
I feel like the community overall is kind of, underrepresented, kind of lower socio-
economic status community. And I don’t feel like, the families feel like it should be any
different or that they have the right or the ability to say, “This isn’t, this doesn’t seem
right.” (Participant 3)
I think there is a big level of disrespect that goes from staff to the students, and not
necessarily directly to the parent, but I definitely know it is about the parent. I’ve heard
teachers say things like, “They’ll never amount to anything” or, “Why even bother?
They’re not gonna accomplish anything.” (Participant 6)

102. 91
All of these comments reflect powerful messages regarding staff perceptions of the
students, their home life, family support, and social capital and, in some cases, allow the staff
member to locate responsibility for improved discipline outcomes outside of the teacher’s
control. These beliefs can become powerful drivers of how school staff members perceive,
respond to, and address student behavior and academic needs.
Theme 3: School Practices
The final theme that appeared in the interviews centered on perceptions of school
practices and organizational behavior, including school climate, how school structure might
impact student behavior, and the impact of existing schoolwide discipline practices.
School Climate
With regard to perceptions of administrative support, every participant indicated being
supported by the administration of the school regarding student discipline matters. Participants 6
and 2 reflected the belief that the administrators take time to learn details of a disciplinary
incident, are willing to consider student perspectives in discipline matters, and provide a
“positive administrative presence” on the campus.
Regarding school climate, most participants identified “rewards” as the most essential
factor in creating a positive place for students and a positive school climate. Rewards mentioned
included the Oak Leaves, rewards assemblies, and prizes and special field trips for students who
never got in trouble. As such, participants equated rewards as the primary manner by which to
build and foster a positive school climate. Two participants commented positively on the
implementation of the Civility Project, noting that this program was intended explicitly to teach
what it means to be civil and respectful and was designed to build a positive school culture.

103. 92
A student who hates coming to school because it’s a negative place to be is, is not going
to behave the way we want them to behave. So I think school climate and individual
classroom climate plays a big role. (Participant 4)
Conversely, one participant was keenly aware of the message that students send when
they are chronically absent and how this is also a reflection on school climate.
We have a bunch of kids who have missed more than 30 days of school. . . . I think we
have 200 students that have missed 10 days of school, and then there are like maybe 30
that have missed about 30 days of school. I mean, that’s a ton! (Participant 1)
The participant explained that chronic absences function as a “red flag” that something
about the school or school climate is not working and should be addressed. Coupled with this
sentiment, Participant 3 indicated that there may be for some students “a continuous perception
of a threat,” where students are likely to shut down when they do not feel safe or supported. This
participant indicated that these students were likely to experience a negative, punitive school
climate on a daily basis.
Responses in this area indicated another type of dichotomy: Some students (e.g., those
who get the rewards) are likely to perceive the school climate in a very positive way; however
for those on the receiving end of harsh consequences, the school is likely to feel negative and
punitive. Thus, some participants recognized the inherent tension between the existing punitive
discipline system and the reality that it is ultimately coercive in nature. Not addressed in either
scenario were students who behave but perceive a threat and potentially resent a climate of
coercion (Perry & Morris, 2014).
While no participant explicitly stated it, there was an underlying current that could be
termed lack of student voice regarding much of what goes on at the school.
I don’t think the students feel safe, I don’t think they feel comfortable in general here.
It’s like, “I’m the boss and I’m telling you that this is how it is and if you don’t do this,
I’m gonna toe the line.” (Participant 3)

104. 93
While this particular aspect of school climate was not explored in depth as part of this research, it
might provide an intriguing area for future research.
Overall, comments in this key area reflected a need to provide positive experiences for all
students, with an emphasis that it is critical for all staff members (teachers, classified staff, and
administrators) to work together as a team to establish schoolwide behavior expectations and to
provide input into how to create and maintain a positive school climate.
School and Classroom Structure
While preparing interview questions, and based on my own personal classroom teaching
experiences, I anticipated that participants would identify that school climate or structural and
procedural schools factors such as the curriculum, instructional approaches, class size, and the
time of year would likely influence student behavior. In my experience as a teacher and school
administrator, it is almost “cult knowledge” among teachers to fear the day after Halloween and
the day before the winter break in terms of how students might behave. Many teachers
intuitively learn that there are certain combinations of students whom they never, ever want in
their class! In reality, very few participants identified these factors as something that might
influence how students behave. Participant 4 noted that the type of class work that students are
asked to engage in might influence behavior:
I think interest in the subject, the types of tasks students are being asked to do. Are they
engaging? Are they thought provoking or are they sitting there, doing drill-and-kill kind
of worksheets? (Participant 4)
However, no other participants suggested that changing instructional delivery methods
(pedagogy), instructional tasks and assignments, or the academic content (curriculum) might
contribute to improved student behavior.
Participant 1 identified class composition (who is in the class) as a potential contributor
to behavioral issues.

105. 94
We had a teacher last year with a class and it was just a bad mix of kids, a bunch of kids
who shouldn’t be together, so, we just moved a few, because the mix wasn’t good.
(Participant 1)
One participant mentioned that it might be “difficult for a student to hold it together for a
seven-period day,” and one participant noted that a smaller class size helped to manage student
behaviors. However, no one identified class schedule, master schedule, time of year, time of day
(e.g., morning, after lunch), or location on campus (e.g., classroom, lunch room, playground, bus
lines) as factors to influence student behavior.
The failure to mention time of year was especially notable in light of discipline referral
data (reviewed in Chapter 3) that clearly indicated significant changes in the number of referrals
from month to month, with March and May being the months with the highest rates of discipline
incidents, including referrals, in-school suspensions, and out-of-school suspensions.
Schoolwide Discipline Practices
The last key area identified under school practices provided two crucial findings. The
first was a recognition on the part of staff members that the existing Level System, with
increasingly harsh punitive consequences, is unlikely to bring about desired changes in student
behavior.
Participant 2 commented that the existing system in some ways functioned as a reward
for students and might actually serve to reinforce undesired behavior.
Some students, when they’re suspended, get to go home and play video games or go out
and ride their bike around the neighborhood and no one’s telling them no or they can’t.
Not every parent is going to feel that suspension is a big deal. It kind of ends up being a
reward. (Participant 2)
Several participants also registered a concern that if they did not use the existing system,
as outlined in the Level System procedural documents, they might not be supported by the
administration when a particularly difficult situation arose.

106. 95
I have a little bit more freedom to conduct some of the discipline strategies in my
classroom . . . and sometimes that has come back to kinda bite me in the booty. . . . If a
student all of a sudden has this really explosive behavior and I’ve been handling things in
the classroom and not maybe documenting it . . . I’m at the point where I’m ready for
them to have two detentions and I didn’t keep track of what I had tried and so then it kind
of backfired on me. (Participant 5)
The same participant explained another situation in which she felt that the behavior
warranted more stringent consequences but, because she had not utilized the Level System, she
felt “stuck.”
I had a student lie to me and write on a computer and do a bunch of things that should
have bumped him into Level B . . . and because he hadn’t gone through Level A with me,
I was left with collecting Oak Leaves and calling home. (Participant 5)
These statements may also have indicated a belief that the Level System was the only
option and would lead to continued use even when it was not considered to be effective. In
contrast, Participant 4 observed that some staff members at the school never use the Level
System and never seem to need it.
In general, all participants recognized that the existing Level System was not working
and did not effectively address student behavior needs, but they seemed resigned to
implementing it. Several participants expressed a perception that they were required to
implement a rigid discipline system, built primarily on rewards and punishment, with little room
for teacher discretion.
The second crucial finding to emerge regarding schoolwide discipline practices was the
notion of the “unintended consequences” of the current discipline practices. As a researcher, I
had not anticipated this finding, and it opened a completely new avenue for investigation and
exploration.
One set of these unintended consequences focused on how the use of out-of-school
suspensions created an additional workload for teachers. Participant 2 spoke about the extensive

107. 96
work required to prepare homework for students when they are suspended and noted that it is
illogical to send a student home for 1 to 5 days and expect the student to continue to make
academic progress.
The other thing about suspension is the teachers spend a lot of time putting work packets
together of what the class is working on, for three days to a week’s worth of time . . . and
it doesn’t come back completed and the student is missing that whole section of what we
covered. . . . So instead of moving forward with the whole group, we’re trying to catch
this person up at the same time. (Participant 2)
An additional unintended consequence was a situation whereby the existing system
created some unanticipated benefits for students. Several participants identified that the AEP
classroom becomes a peer group during lunch detention and provides students a safe place to
bond with peers while they are being “punished” for not doing homework.
So they leave class early. They’re getting lunch early or they’re going and eating lunch
in AEP so, you know, those kids figure the system out quickly. They don’t have a ton of
friends. They don’t have people who they really sit with at lunch so, “Hey, if I don’t do
my homework in one of my classes, I’m gonna get to go eat lunch with Ms. S. I’m gonna
get lunch either delivered or I can get it first and now I’ve got this whole peer group;
even if I’m not allowed to talk to them, at least I’m eating lunch with somebody.”
(Participant 5)
I’ve even flat out said, “Would you prefer to sit here and eat your lunch than be outside
or in the lunchroom?” And, you know, they drop their gaze, they look down but they’re,
you know, very, very quietly nodding their head. And, it’s, it’s sad. (Participant 6)
Participant 5 commented that the lunch detention and homework detention function
somewhat like a vicious cycle, with students assigned to these consequences for what seems like
the entire school year.
It’s almost like they start the day with a strike against them if they’re already at the
suspension level. It’s also things like, “Oh, you didn’t do your homework so now you
have a homework lab.” And that is essentially a lunch detention. . . . So that kind of turns
into a vicious cycle of you have lunch detention, you go there, and you sit there and you
do nothing, so then you don’t have your homework and you probably didn’t do tonight’s
homework, so then you have lunch detention again the next day. (Participant 5)

108. 97
Overall, responses in this area, as in the other themes, indicated an understanding that the
Level System was ineffective and revealed two significant “unintended consequences” or
unintended outcomes from the existing system.
Summary of Major Findings
This section summarizes the primary results from the qualitative data. Implications of
these findings, together with the quantitative findings reported in Chapter 4, are discussed in
Chapter 6.
Research Question 1, asked, What are the relationships between teacher-level
perceptions and beliefs about self and collective efficacy, student behavior and school climate,
and how are these perceptions associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices?
Findings from the interviews related to Research Question 1 indicated that staff members were
confident in their ability to establish classroom rules and procedures and their ability to teach
students desired expectations, reflecting positive levels of self-efficacy related to classroom
management. Most of the participants also indicated that student behavior is a generally a
function of some unaddressed student need, which may include an academic need, emotional
need, or physical need such as hunger, pain, or a need for rest. Despite the identification of
academic needs as a potential driver of student misbehavior, few teachers stated that changes in
instructional practices or curriculum, or providing additional academic support for students,
might work to improve student behavior.
All participants indicated that the manner in which a teacher or staff member goes about
establishing rapport and building bonds or connections with students will have a critical
influence on subsequent student behavior. While participants did not identify improved
instructional practices as a way to influence student behavior positively, they recognized that

109. 98
improving rapport with students could have a positive influence on the classroom environment
and improve student behavior.
Regarding how these perceptions are associated with subsequent classroom and
schoolwide discipline practices, all participants expressed an understanding that the existing
Level System coupled with rewards was ineffective, and they identified several negative aspects
of the system. However, when pressed as to why they continued to use the system, participants
responded that it was the only option; a few expressed concern that if they did not use the
system, they might not receive administrative support regarding student discipline issues. This
finding potentially indicates a lower degree of self-efficacy as it relates to controlling discipline
practices and procedures and subsequent consequences administered to students.
Research Question 2 asked, How do teachers report that factors such as school culture,
climate, history and student demographics potentially influence schoolwide discipline practices
and subsequent discipline outcomes for students? Findings for this question provided evidence
of staff members’ beliefs that school climate is a critical feature that influences student behavior
and student discipline outcomes. One participant identified school attendance as a significant
indicator of school climate and pointed out that, when students are missing school extensively,
this provides evidence that something about the school is not working. Other participants noted
that school policies may contribute to a poor school climate; they observed that some students
may constantly perceive a coercive or “threat type” environment, given the existing discipline
system, and they mentioned that the need for safety can influence student behavior.
The participants did not specifically mention anything about the school history or student
demographics that might affect outcomes for students, but they frequently identified the lack of
family and home support, lack of parent education, and the socioeconomic status of parents as

110. 99
reasons student behavior was problematic and why the existing discipline system was unlikely to
work. These comments suggest that staff members perceived much of the control of student
behavior resides outside the staff member’s control or ability to influence, which may be
indicative of a “cultural deficit mindset” (Gonzalez, 2005; Yosso, 2005) whereby staff members
attribute inappropriate student behavior to poor parenting, lack of parental education, and an
overall lack of parental support for academic achievement and school discipline procedures.

111. 100
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The foundation of effective discipline lies in the achievement of “moral authority” based
in trust, affirmation, and caring relationships. (Durkheim, 1925, as cited in Perry &
Morris, 2014, p. 1085)
Background of the Study
Currently, there is a wealth of research to show that existing exclusionary student
discipline practices do little to improve behavior outcomes for students in the K-12 school
system. Instead, existing student discipline practices are linked to several negative outcomes,
including diminished levels of achievement for students who are suspended (Skiba & Peterson,
1999) and those who are not suspended (Perry & Morris, 2014). There is also strong evidence to
indicate that students who are suspended or expelled are at increased risk of repeating a grade
(Skiba & Peterson, 1999), dropping out of school (Skiba & Peterson, 1999), and becoming
involved with the juvenile justice system (Fabelo et al., 2011).
At a time when the number of students subjected to exclusionary discipline has continued
to increase (California Department of Education, 2010-2015; Losen & Gillespie, 2012), research
indicates that these discipline practices do little to address student behavioral needs (Greene et
al., 2006; Perry, 2009) and do little to improve school safety (Skiba & Peterson, 1999) or create a
positive school climate (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000).
In conjunction with the negative student outcomes mentioned above, there is compelling
research to indicate that schoolwide discipline practices are a complex combination of teacher
beliefs about student behavior (Morin & Battalio, 2004), teacher classroom management
practices (Brophy & Evertson, 1976; Wolfgang & Glickman, 1999), and the relationships
between the student and the teacher and other students in the classroom or school (Schlossberg,
1989; Sprague & Horner, 2011). This study utilized a combination of quantitative and

112. 101
qualitative research methods to understand teacher perceptions and beliefs relative to self- and
collective efficacy, student behavior, and school climate, and to investigate how these
perceptions may be associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices. Two
research questions were posed:
1. What are the relationships between teacher-level perceptions and beliefs about self-
and collective efficacy, student behavior, and school climate, and how are these perceptions
associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices?
2. How do teachers report that factors such as school culture, climate, history, and student
demographics potentially influence schoolwide discipline practices and subsequent discipline
outcomes for students?
Conclusions
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was, What are the relationships between teacher-level perceptions
and beliefs about self and collective efficacy, student behavior and school climate, and how are
these perceptions associated with classroom and schoolwide discipline practices?
Collectively, quantitative and qualitative findings provided evidence that student
behavior is more than just a function of what a student actually does (e.g., uses profanity,
violates the dress code, or sends a text during class hours). It is, instead, a complex relationship
between the teacher, the teacher’s needs, experiences, beliefs, perceptions, and subsequent
behavior, in conjunction with the student and the student’s needs, beliefs, perceptions, and
subsequent behavior.
The quantitative data showed that teachers with more years of teaching experience were
less inclined to interpret common student misbehaviors as a form of willful defiance. The less

113. 102
likely a participant was to perceive student behavior as “willfully defiant,” the less likely he or
she was to write an office discipline referral. Together, these two findings provided evidence
that a teacher’s behavior relative to assigning an office discipline referral is linked to how the
teacher understands and interprets the student’s behavior, in addition to the teacher’s years of
experience.
The quantitative data suggest a slight positive correlation, approaching marginal
significance, between the teacher’s perception of self-efficacy for classroom management and
the likelihood of assigning an office discipline referral for behavioral infractions. The higher the
teacher’s rating of self-efficacy for classroom management, the less likely the teacher is to write
an office discipline referral. This marginally significant positive correlation provides some
evidence that a teacher with higher ratings or perceptions of self-efficacy may feel more
confident in his or her ability to address student behavioral needs within the context of the
classroom and may be less inclined to assign an exclusionary consequence such as an office
discipline referral or a suspension for common classroom infractions.
Qualitative data for Research Question 1 indicated that teachers who were interviewed
were confident in their ability to establish classroom behavior expectations and norms, including
classroom rules, procedures, and routines. These teachers articulated that student misbehavior is
most likely the result of some unmet need in the student. They cited needs such as academic
needs and emotional needs, in addition to behavioral or medical conditions, which may influence
student behavior.
Another key finding from the qualitative data was the perception that the teacher is an
essential part of the “student behavior” equation. In other words, there is more involved than the
student when the student misbehaves. Student discipline is instead a function of how the teacher

114. 103
builds bonds with students and ultimately understands, interprets, and responds to the behavior
of the students. These findings provide evidence that some teachers recognize that there may be
external factors that influence student behavior, such as hunger, fatigue, trauma, or emotional
and academic needs that are not being met. Some teachers also understood that how they
structure a classroom and build relationships with students is likely to influence student behavior,
either positively or negatively.
As a result, quantitative and qualitative findings for Research Question 1 support the
assertion that student behavior and subsequent discipline practices are not necessarily aligned in
a linear, sequential relationship, where a student does x (the behavior), and the teacher responds
with y (the consequence). In actuality, student discipline practices are the result of complex
relationships between teachers’ perceptions of themselves and their efficacy, their years of
teaching experience, their understanding of what may drive student behavior and student needs,
their classroom management structures, and the bonds or relationships that they have built with
students.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How do teachers report that factors such as school culture,
climate, history and student demographics potentially influence schoolwide discipline practices
and subsequent discipline outcomes for students?
Quantitative findings for Research Question 2 were very limited. However, there was a
slight positive correlation and potential positive link between the teacher’s perception that
schoolwide behavior expectations had been established and his or her perceptions of a positive
school climate and positive discipline practices. Thus, participant teachers who indicated that
schoolwide behavior expectations had been established also indicated a perception of a positive

115. 104
school climate and positive schoolwide discipline practices. This correlation provides evidence
that the creation and maintenance of schoolwide behavior expectations are likely to contribute to
a positive school climate and implementation of positive schoolwide discipline practices. This
correlation may indicate links between clear student behavior expectations and how these
expectations may function to improve teachers’ perceptions of a positive school climate.
Because school climate plays a critical role in student (and likely staff) behavior, this area
warrants additional research.
Qualitative findings for Research Question 2 provided evidence of staff members’ beliefs
that school climate is a critical feature that influences student behavior and student discipline
outcomes. One participant identified school attendance as a significant indicator of school
climate and pointed out that absence is an indicator that something about the school is not
working for that student. Other participants noted that some students may constantly perceive a
coercive or “threat type” environment, given the existing discipline system, and they mentioned
that the need for safety can influence student behavior.
Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative findings supported the hypothesis of a
relationship between teacher-level perceptions and beliefs about self- and collective efficacy,
student behavior, and school climate, and these perceptions influence classroom and schoolwide
discipline practices. The study also provided some understanding of the connections between
these perceptions and beliefs and how these perceptions and beliefs may influence schoolwide
discipline policies and practices, including the rate at which teachers write office discipline
referrals, in-school suspension rates, and out-of-school suspension rates. Finally, the study
provided insight into the juxtaposition of self-efficacy for classroom management, school climate
and culture, and beliefs about the students, the community, and their home life, including student

116. 105
motivation, parental and community support, and the impact of incarceration, drugs, and alcohol
on the lives of the students in the community.
Implications for Practice
There are four primary implications and recommendations for practice that can be
gleaned from this research. The first recommendation is linked to teacher preparation, training,
and professional development. Teachers at the study site reported feeling unprepared for
addressing student behavior needs, specifically classroom disruptions. Also, 79% of the
participants indicated that they did not receive frequent training focused on addressing student
behavior struggles and strategies for improving classroom management. Subsequently, the first
recommendation for practice is to provide training to teachers focused on specific strategies and
tools that they can use to address common classroom misbehaviors and disruptions. Training
might include a focus on how to proactively establish a classroom management system and
effective procedures for anticipating and preventing student misbehavior. Additional training
and support should focus on providing teachers understanding of the links between curriculum,
instructional methodology, and subsequent student behavior. Practically speaking, if teachers
report feeling unprepared to address student disruptions and report not receiving training in how
to address student behavior needs, this will likely have a negative impact on student behavior and
student achievement at the school.
The second implication for practice derived from this study is the crucial link between
how teachers build bonds and relationships with students and how those relationships influence
and potentially drive student behavior. Linked to this are teachers’ perceptions of students and,
by extension, how teachers perceive student families and the community where the school is
located. To improve student behavior, teachers must build bonds and relationships with students

117. 106
and form positive bonds and links with student families, as well. Helping teachers to understand
these connections and providing teachers with specific training and strategies for improving
school and family connections have the potential to improve student behavior significantly and
to create a positive school climate.
Because there is compelling evidence that exclusionary discipline practices do little to
achieve the desired outcomes (Fabelo et al., 2011; Oliver et al., 2011; Skiba & Peterson, 1999), it
is clear that school personnel must seek alternatives to exclusionary discipline practices. At
Valley Oak Middle School, 633 disciplinary consequences were written during the 2013-2014
school year for a student population of approximately 400. These consequences included
administrative referrals, in-school suspensions, and out-of-school suspensions. As a result, the
third implication for practice is to increase staff awareness and understanding around the
unintended consequences and outcomes of an exclusionary discipline system. This would
require a two-fold approach to developing an effective student discipline system; one part would
require the staff to examine school- and district-level discipline and academic data, and the
second part would require the staff to use these data to research and adopt specific behavioral
and academic interventions designed to address student behavior and academic needs effectively.
The fourth recommendation for practice is for each school site to analyze carefully the
number of referrals and consequences assigned for “willful defiance,” as this category appears to
be overused and highly subjective. At the study site alone, in 2013-2014, this category of
misbehavior accounted for 81% of the student discipline consequences that were assigned to
students. In addition, survey results from this study indicated some variability among staff
members regarding what constitutes willful defiance. One option would be for school staff to
work with site-level administrators to develop a clear definition of what constitutes willful

118. 107
defiance and regularly review discipline data and incident reports to determine whether the
category is being overused or is being applied in a consistent manner by all staff members.
Implications for Policy
In addition to the above implications for practice at the school or district level, there are
several implications and recommendations for policy derived from this research that may be
utilized by the California legislature or the California Department of Education to improve
discipline outcomes for students. Because teachers and administrators in California report
feeling unprepared to address student behavior needs (Freedberg & Chavez, 2012), the first
implication for fiscal policy is to provide funding to districts to support professional
development and training for teachers and administrators that focuses on evidence-based
strategies designed to improve student discipline practices and address the very real behavioral,
academic, and emotional needs of students.
The second recommendation for policy is founded on the data that indicate that
disciplinary consequences are not evenly distributed throughout the K-12 population but rather
are disproportionately assigned to students of color, males, and students with disabilities. Data
from the study site indicate that disciplinary consequences are applied in a disproportionate
manner and are primarily assigned to males, students of Native American ethnicity, and students
with a disability. Interview responses indicated that participants were aware that discipline
consequences may be assigned more often to males, students of color, and students with some
type of a disability.
As a result of these data, it recommended that the California Department of Education
continue to collect and analyze statewide student discipline data and review these data for
evidence of disproportionality, including disproportionate impact on students of a certain

119. 108
ethnicity or gender or students with disabilities. Coupled with this recommendation would be
the provision of ongoing state-sponsored technical assistance and training for districts or school
sites that are identified as having disproportionate discipline data.
The final recommendation for policy is to continue to review data and potentially
increase restrictions related to the application of California Education Code § 48900(k), the
“willful defiance” category. The current statute limits the use of this section for students in
grades K-3 inclusive and places parameters around the use of this section as a reason or
recommendation for expulsion. However, the section continues to be one of the most widely
used and subjective categories for assigning a student disciplinary consequence. Assisting
school districts in developing a clear definition of what constitutes willful defiance and providing
parameters for its use are likely to improve discipline and academic outcomes for students in
California.
Limitations of the Study
The primary limitation of this study is that it precluded causal claims. Based on the
methodology utilized, it was possible only to show potential correlations among examined
scales, including experience, core subjects, self-efficacy for classroom management, collective
efficacy, school climate, schoolwide behavior expectations, administrative support, and
perceptions regarding office discipline referrals, suspension, and willful defiance.
In addition, with such a small sample size (19 participants), the study does not have a
great deal of statistical power. In analyzing the data, relationships may exist between the
variables that could not be detected due to the small sample size. Future studies with larger
sample sizes should explore the relationships between teacher-level factors and teachers’ beliefs
about student discipline.

120. 109
Further limitations include the fact that this study provides only a snapshot of teachers’
beliefs and perceptions in an attempt to analyze the relationships between self- and collective
efficacy, teachers’ beliefs relative to administrative support, school climate, willful defiance, and
school-level discipline practices. It does not provide a pre/post assessment of teachers’ beliefs
and perceptions, nor does it provide a valid measure of how these beliefs may have changed over
the course of a teacher’s career (Giallo & Little, 2003) or even how these perceptions and beliefs
may change over the course of a school year.
This study did not specifically analyze teachers’ classroom practices regarding student
discipline; instead, it was designed to uncover teachers’ perceptions and beliefs regarding
classroom management and how best to address disruptive students. Several researchers (e.g.,
Giallo & Little, 2003; Gibbs & Powell, 2012) have cited the need to include qualitative data,
such as classroom observations and in-depth interviews, in the study of teachers’ perceptions and
beliefs and how these may relate to actual classroom practices. While this study included a
limited number of teacher and administrative interviews, it did not include classroom
observations of teacher practices specific to classroom management or student discipline.
Future work should address these shortcomings and would likely provide additional
insight into what drives teachers’ decision making relative to student behavior and student
discipline practices.
Recommendations for Future Research
Five primary recommendations for future research are based on this study. The first
recommendation is to design a study that specifically measures actual teacher behavior as it
relates to writing a student discipline referral. This would include measuring (a) how many
referrals a teacher writes in a given period of time; (b) what type of behavior prompts the

121. 110
referral, such as arguing, classroom disruption, or use of profanity; (c) the date and time the
referral is written; and (d) who receives the referral (for example, is the student male, female, a
student with disabilities, of an identified ethnicity, age, and grade level?). Collectively, these
data would provide insights into which teachers write the majority of the referrals, why the
referrals are written, when in the school day or year the referrals are written, and what type of
students receives the majority of the disciplinary actions.
The second recommendation is to design a study that includes a rubric for evaluating how
teachers respond to a variety of student behavior challenges; the study would incorporate
classroom observations. Classroom observation data would provide specific information relative
to how teachers perceive and respond to classroom behavior challenges.
The third recommendation for further research is to include qualitative research that
focuses on how teachers perceive, interpret, and subsequently respond to inappropriate student
behavior. This study provided evidence that a teacher’s perception of student behavior is likely
to influence whether the teacher writes an office discipline referral. Research that triangulates
discipline referral data with classroom observations and teacher interviews would likely yield
valuable information regarding how to design professional development and training options for
teachers, both in preservice and once they are employed by a school district.
The fourth recommendation for future research is to focus on how students perceive and
understand teachers’ decisions regarding school climate, student behavior, and student discipline.
There is evidence that even students who do not receive exclusionary consequences are likely to
perceive a coercive school environment when the school utilizes harsh punishment as part of the
discipline process (Perry & Morris, 2014). Studies that focus on student voice and students’
perceptions of schoolwide discipline practices would allow school staff to design effective

122. 111
discipline processes and procedures, which could serve to minimize the negative aspects of
student misbehavior and improve overall outcomes for students.
The fifth recommendation for future research is to explore the negative correlation
between a participant’s years of teaching experience and the teacher’s perception that schoolwide
behavior expectations had been established. Research in this area could provide understanding
of how years of teaching experience may or may not influence a teacher’s decision making
relative to student discipline.
Concluding Remarks
This study examined how teachers frame and understand the behavior of the student in
the classroom and how these perceptions relate to the teachers’ attitudes about student discipline.
This included how the teacher frames the student’s needs, in addition to how the teacher
understands the student within the context of family and community. Specifically, this study
provided details about how teachers perceive their own behavior, the behavior of their students,
and the behavior of the school as an organization, and how all of these potentially influence
teachers’ responses to student behavior.
At a broader level, this study provided insight into the links between teachers’
perceptions and beliefs about behavior, including what teachers believe about the effectiveness
of consequences. Ultimately, the study supports prior research that indicates that student
discipline decisions are complex and may be affected by a variety of factors that have nothing to
do with what the student actually does. Data and findings from this study may be used to guide
school staff in selecting positive behavior interventions and designing student discipline systems
that increase opportunities for positive behavior outcomes and improved school climates.

123. 112
REFERENCES
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., . . . Zellman, G.
(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles
minority schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Barfield, V., & Burlingame, M. (1974). The pupil control ideology of teachers in selected
schools. Journal of Experimental Education, 46, 6-11.
Bear, G. (1998). School discipline in the United States. School Psychology Review, 27(1), 14-32.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert
teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 200-212.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs
supporting educational change: Factors affecting implementation and continuation.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Beyda, S. D., Zentall, S. S., & Ferko, D. J. K. (2002). The relationship between teacher practices
and the task-appropriate and social behavior of students with behavioral disorders.
Behavioral Disorders, 27, 236-255.
Bliss, J., & Finneran, R. (1991, April). Effects of school climate and teacher efficacy on teacher
stress. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
Borton, W. M. (1991, April). Empowering teachers and students in a restructuring school: A
teacher efficacy interaction model and the effect on reading outcomes. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

124. 113
Bregman, J., Zager, D., & Gerdtz, J. (2005). Behavioral interventions. In F. Volkmar, R. Paul, A.
Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders
(3rd ed., Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Wiley.
Brophy, J. E. (1996). Teaching problem students. New York, NY: Guilford.
Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental perspective.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brophy, J. E., & McCaslin, N. (1992). Teachers’ reports of how they perceive and cope with
problem students. Elementary School Journal, 93, 3-68.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-
efficacy in classroom management. Teaching & Teacher Education, 16, 239-253.
Buchmann, M., & Schwille, J. (1983). Education: The overcoming of experience. American
Journal of Education, 92(1), 30-51.
Cahen, S., & Davis, D. (1987). A between-grade levels approach to the investigation of the
absolute effects of schooling on achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
24, 1-2.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009). California standards for the teaching
profession. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/CSTP2009.pdf
California Department of Education. (2002). Unsafe school choice options. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/uscoattch1.asp
California Department of Education. (2010-2015). DataQuest [data file]. Retrieved from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2011-2012). DataQuest [data file]. Retrieved from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2013-2014). DataQuest [data file]. Retrieved from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2014). DataQuest.[data file]. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SuspExp/
California Department of Education. (2015). CALPADS dataguide v6.2 May 2015. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sp/cl/documents/dataguidev62-20150520.doc
California Education Code. (2015). §§ 48900–48927. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=48001-49000&file=48900-48927

125. 114
California School Boards Association. (2014). Policy advisories & briefs. Retrieved from
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/DistrictPolicyServices/Policy
AdvisoriesAndBriefs.aspx)
Charles, C. M. (1989). Building classroom discipline: From models to practice. New York, NY:
Longman.
Cheung, W. M., & Cheng, Y. C. (1997, April). A multi-level analysis of teachers’ self-belief and
behavior, and student’s educational outcomes. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of
Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.
Dupper, D., & Dingus, A. (2008). Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: A continuing
challenge for school social workers. Children & Schools, 30, 243-250.
Ed-Data. (2011-2012). Data K-12 California [data file]. Retrieved from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us
Fabelo, T., Thompson, M., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M., & Booth, E. (2011).
Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’
success and juvenile justice involvement. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments
Justice Center.
Fives, H. (2003, April). What is teacher efficacy and how does it relate to teachers’ knowledge?
A theoretical review. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Freedberg, L., & Chavez, L. (2012). Understanding school discipline in California: Perceptions
and practice. Oakland, CA: EdSource.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk.
Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 70-84.
Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behavior problems: The relationship between
preparedness, classroom experiences, and self-efficacy in graduate and student teachers.
Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 3, 21-34.
Gibbs, S., & Powell, B. (2012). Teacher efficacy and pupil behaviour: The structure of teachers’
individual and collective beliefs and their relationship with numbers of pupils excluded
from school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 564-584.
Ginott, H. G. (1993). Teacher and child: A book for parents and teachers. New York, NY:
MacMillan.

126. 115
Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Woolfolk, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure
and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37, 479-507.
Gonzalez, N. (2005). Beyond culture: The hybridity of funds of knowledge. In N. Gonzalez, L.
C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge (pp. 29-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gould, B. (2015). STATA: Statistical Analysis Software, Version 13.0 [Software]. Retrieved from
http://www.stata.com/
Greene, R. (2008). Lost at school: Why our kids with behavioral challenges are falling through
the cracks and how we can help them. New York, NY: Scribner.
Greene, R., Ablon, S., & Martin, A. (2006). Innovations: Child psychiatry—Use of collaborative
problem solving to reduce seclusion and restraint in child and adolescent inpatient units.
Psychiatric Services, 57, 610-616.
Greydanus, D. (2010). Corporal punishment in schools and its effect on academic success:
Testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives.
Retrieved from http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/04.15.10_greydandus.pdf
Gursimsek, I., & Goregenli, M. (2004). The relationship between normative-humanistic attitudes
and discipline beliefs in a Turkish pre-school teachers’ sample. Teacher Development,
8(1), 81-92.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of
instructional innovation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions.
American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap.
Washington, DC: Education Trust.
Henderson, C. B. (1982). An analysis of assertive discipline training and implementation of in-
service elementary teachers’ self-concept, locus of control, pupil control ideology, and
assertive personality characteristics (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health
of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372.
Imants, J., & Van Zoelen, A. (1995). Teachers’ sickness absence in primary schools, school
climate and teachers’ sense of efficacy. School Organization, 15(1), 77-86.

127. 116
Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 129-169.
Kavale, K., & Mostert, M. (2004). Social skills interventions for individuals with learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 31-43.
Kounin, J. S. (1977). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Huntington, NY:
Krieger.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Losen, D., & Gillespie, J. (2012). Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact of disciplinary
exclusion from school. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Civil Rights Remedies.
Ludlin, R. (1980). The selection and preparation of teacher librarians (Doctoral dissertation).
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Marzano, R., Marzano, J., & Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom management that works.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Meijer, C. J., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral change.
Journal of Special Education, 22, 378-385.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Middleton, J. (2008). The experience of corporal punishment in schools, 1890-1940. History of
Education, 37, 253-275.
Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and
achievement: A desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Morin, J., & Battalio, R. (2004). Construing misbehavior: The efficacy connection in responding
to misbehavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 251-254.
Nachtshiem, N., & Hoy, W. K. (1976). Authoritarian personality and control ideologies of
teachers. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 22, 173-178.
Office of Civil Rights. (2007). Student discipline data for 2006-2007. Retrieved from http://
ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations
Oliver, R., Wehby, J., & Reschly, D. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices: Effects
on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Retrieved from http://
campbellcollaboration.org
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved from
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html

128. 117
Parkay, F. W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the relationship
among teacher efficacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research & Development
in Education, 21(4), 13-22.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Perry, B. (2009). Examining child maltreatment through a neurodevelopmental lens: Clinical
applications of the neurosequential model of therapeutics. Journal of Loss and Trauma,
14, 240-255.
Perry, B., & Morris, E. (2014). Suspending progress: Collateral consequences of exclusionary
punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 79, 1067-1087.
Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: Student teachers’ perceptions.
Educational Psychology 27(2), 191-218.
Raths, J. (2001). Teacher beliefs and teaching beliefs. Early Childhood Research and Practice,
3(1), 31-38.
Rich, Y., Lev, S., & Fischer, S. (1996). Extending the concept and assessment of teacher
efficacy. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56, 1015-1025.
Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over
student outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 185-190.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching student achievement. Canadian
Journal of Education, 17, 51-65.
Ross, J. A. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.),
Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7, pp. 49-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of
randomized field trial. Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50-60.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.
Sanders, W., & Horn, P. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS)
database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
Schlossberg, N. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. Retrieved
from http://www.christenacleveland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Marginality-and-
Mattering-Key-Issues-in-Building-Community.pdf
Skiba, R. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center.

129. 118
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe
schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 372-376, 381-382.
Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special
education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 68-81.
Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401-411.
Sprague, J., & Horner, R. H. (2011). School wide positive behavioral supports. In S. Jimmerson,
M. Furlong, A. Nickerson, & M. Mayer (Eds.), The handbook of school violence and
school safety: From research to practice (pp. 447-462). New York, NY: Routledge.
SurveyMonkey. (2015). Online survey software and questionnaire tool. Retrieved from https://
www.surveymonkey.com/
Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional
development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new
teaching strategy. Elementary School Journal, 110, 228-245.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www
.ed.gov/esea
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Unsafe school choice option (non-
regulatory guidance). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/
unsafeschoolchoice.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Schools and
Staffing Survey, 2011-2012. Washington, DC: Author.
Voege, C. C. (1979). Personal values, educational attitudes, attitudes toward pupil control, of
staffs and boards of religious affiliated schools (Doctoral dissertation). New York
University, New York, NY.
Walter, C., & Wood, A. (2007). BEST: Building effective schools together. Retrieved from
http://www.calstat.org/
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content
analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 30-43.

130. 119
Wolfgang, C., & Glickman, C. (1999). Solving discipline problems. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their
beliefs about managing students. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6(2), 137-148.
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 81, 69-91.
Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education washed
out by school experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7-11.

131. 120
APPENDIX A
Diagrams
Figure 1. Cycle of negative mastery experiences and diminished perceptions of self-efficacy for
classroom management.

132. 121
Figure 2. Cycle of positive mastery experiences and enhanced perceptions of self-efficacy for
classroom management.

133. 122
APPENDIX B
Student Discipline Survey

134. 123

135. 124

136. 125

137. 126

138. 127

139. 128

140. 129

141. 130

142. 131

143. 132

144. 133
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Teachers
1. Tell me a little about yourself and your teaching experience.
2. How long have you been teaching?
3. How long at this school?
4. Tell about how you establish classroom behavior expectations for students.
5. Does it ever seem like students behave for some teachers/school staff and not for others?
If so, why do you think students behave for some teachers/school staff but not for others?
6. How do you decide when to write an office discipline referral or send a student to the
principal/assistant principal?
7. How many office discipline referrals do you think you write in a month? How do you
think the number of office discipline referrals you write would compare with the number
that other teachers at this school write?
8. How do you determine appropriate consequences for students when they misbehave?
9. How effective do you think consequences like detention, suspension and expulsion are at
reducing student misbehavior? Why do you think this way?
10. Reflecting on student discipline at this school, have you noticed any trends regarding
what type of student gets suspended?
11. What is the best way to ensure consistent, positive behavior in your classroom?
12. What can administrators do to support you in improving student behavior?
13. If you could change one thing about the current student discipline system, what would it
be and why?
14. What impact do you think school climate has on student behavior?
15. Is the school currently reviewing student discipline data? If so, how are these data being
used to guide student discipline practices?
16. If you have taught at other schools/districts, were you equally successful in managing
student behavior in both places? Why or why not?
17. Other thoughts, questions or comments that you thought of during the interview?

145. 134
Administrator
1. Tell me a little about yourself and your administrative experience.
2. How long have you been a school administrator?
3. How long at this school?
4. Tell about how you establish school wide behavior expectations for students.
5. Does it ever seem like students behave for some teachers/school staff and not for others?
If so, why do you think students behave for some teachers/school staff but not for others?
6. How do you think teachers decide when to write an office discipline referral or send a
student to the principal/assistant principal?
7. Do you see differences between teachers in the number of office discipline referrals that
they write? How do you account for these differences?
8. How do you determine appropriate consequences for students when they misbehave?
9. How effective do you think consequences like detention, suspension and expulsion are at
reducing student misbehavior? Why do you think this way?
10. Reflecting on student discipline at this school, have you noticed any trends regarding
what type of student gets suspended?
11. What is the best way to ensure consistent, positive behavior in the school?
12. What can administrators do to support improved student behavior?
13. What strategies have you used to support teachers who may be struggling with classroom
management or student discipline?
14. If you could change one thing about the current student discipline system, what would it
be and why?
15. What impact do you think school climate has on student behavior?
18. Is the school currently reviewing student discipline data? If so, how are these data being
used to guide student discipline practices?
16. If you have been an administrator at other schools/districts, were you equally successful
in managing student behavior in both places? Why or why not?
17. Other thoughts, questions or comments that you thought of during the interview?

146. 135
APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA OF TOP 15 COUNTIES FOR SUSPENSION RATES