Costa Johansen, Theresa dissertation

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).

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.,

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

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

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.

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

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’

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

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, &

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;

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

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.

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).

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

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
outcomes for students.

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.

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?

34
2. How do teachers report that factors such as school culture, climate, history and student
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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Costa Johansen, Theresa dissertation

Costa Johansen, Theresa dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to Costa Johansen, Theresa dissertation

Similar to Costa Johansen, Theresa dissertation (20)

Costa Johansen, Theresa dissertation