Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1976
A Motivational Environment for Behaviorally DeViant Junior High School Students 1 Ronald C. Heaton, 2 Daniel J. Safer, and Richard P. Allen Eastern Community Mental Health Center, Baltimore County Department of Health Nicholas C. Spinnato, Sr., and Fred M. Prumo Stemmers Run Junior High School, Essex, Maryland
A contingency management program was established in a junior high school to better manage and educate students having histories o f severe misconduct. School administrators selected 46 eighth-graders having multiple suspensions for misbehavior. Students (N = 32} in two o f the schools remained in traditional programs, serving as controls, whereas students (N = 14} in the third school participated in a token reinforcement program. Reinforcers provided in the afternoon were contingent upon achievement and discipline during morning academic periods. Home-based reinforcers were established to support school behavior. Compared with the control group, significant reductions in negative school behavior as well as greater increases in academic achievement were obtained for the treatment group, thus supporting the efficacy o f contingency management for adolescent school misbehavior. A major problem facing the junior high school educator is the seriously misbehaving student. As described in one study (Heaton, Safer, & Allen, Note 1), these students frequently come from the ranks o f the previously retained, are 2 or more years behind academically, and have demonstrated late elementary school misconduct. After entering junior high, their average absenteeism triples Manuscript received in final form March 9, 1976. 1Valuable assistance in developing the reinforcement program and curriculum materials was provided by William Brown, principal of the Anne Arundel County Learning Center. Thanks are also due: Dottle Dowling and Joe Gentile, the teachers in the program; John Jedlicka, principal of Stemmers Run Junior High; and Donnie Williams, research assistant. 2Requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald C. Heaton, Eastern Community Mental Health Center, 9100 Franklin Square Drive, Baltimore, Maryland 21237. 263 9 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New Y o r k , N.Y. 10011. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.
264
Heaton, Safer, Allen, Spinnato, and l'rumo
and suspensions for serious misconduct increase from an average of less than 1 during all of elementary school to an average of 3.5 for only the first 189years of junior high. While this group represents only 3% of the total junior high enrollment, they frequently exhibit such severe school misbehavior as to disrupt the educational process for all those present in their classroom. Furthermore, attempts to regulate their behavior require an inordinate amount of administrative time and energy and are largely unsuccessful. One method meeting with success in the solution of behavior problems in the school environment has involved the application of contingency management principles (Becker, 1971). Most initial attempts at systematic classroom contingency management focused on the single "target pupil" (Krumboltz & Thoresen, 1969; Patterson, 1965; Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 1962). More recent contingency programs using token (or point) reinforcement systems have been applied to entire classrooms (Axelrod, 1971; O'Leary & Drabman, 1971). When employed in regular classrooms, programs using tokens have been successful not only in controlling negative, disruptive behaviors (Wolf, Hanley, King, Lachowicz, & Giles, 1970; Harmon, Gelfand, & Nielson, Note 2), but also in improving academic and other positive school behaviors (Davis, Morris, & Price, Note 3). Contingency management systems have also been effective when applied to special classes for learning-disabled students (Broden, Hall, Dunlap, & Clark, 1970; Nolen, Kunzelmann, & Haring, 1967), emotionally disturbed children (Hewett, Taylor, & Artuso, 1969; O'Leary & Becker, 1967), and small classes containing children with multiple behavior problems (Kuypers, Becker, & O'Leary, 1968; Meichenbaum, Bowers, & Ross, 1968; Tyler & Brown, 1968; Cohen, Note 4). The bulk of reports on contingency management systems in the school have focused on the management of small numbers of children at the elementary school level. Thus far, little attention has been given to hard-core behavior problem students at the junior high level. Meichenbaum et al. (1968) worked in an institutional setting with 10 female adolescents and, using a reversal design, achieved an increase in appropriate class behavior when money was made contingent upon such behavior. Miller (1971) also worked with delinquents in one class and achieved an increase in academic performance while Edwards (1969) found a decrease in inappropriate responding for 10 behavior problem students in junior high. Finally, Cohen, Keyworth, Kleiner, and Brown (1974) established a behavioral program for expelled students aged 10 to 15 in a special school setting and reported that increased academic achievement resulted. As important as such demonstrations are, they do not provide direct evidence that these behaviorally deviant adolescents can be maintained in classes of a regular junior high while showing increased academic achievement and appropriate behavior. Another problem with much of the reported work on the use of tokens with entire classrooms is that there has been little control for natural recovery
Motivational Environment for Junior High
265
rates. As Axelrod (1971) has demonstrated in his recent review of school reinforcement programs, there is frequently a failure to show that the behavior changes were the result of the contingent token reinforcement program. Almost all research on token systems in the classroom has used a within-subject design. In such studies, the reversal to baseline procedure (Sidman, 1960) is used as a control procedure (ABAB design). As O'Leary and Drabman (1971)emphasize, however, such a procedure is adequate only if other factors (e.g., altered student interest or teacher behavior) do not influence the target behaviors and thereby prevent a complete return to baseline. 3 In addition, follow-up assessment of slowly changing phenomena such as gain in academic achievement cannot be easily evaluated by the within-subject design; for this, a matched control procedure is better. Of the reports of token systems used for the entire classroom, only three (Clark, Lachowitz, & Wolfe, 1968; Haring & Hauck, 1969; Wolf, Giles & Hall, 1968) were found which had control groups of children not exposed to the token program. None of these programs dealt with severe junior high behavior problems. The present study was designed to test the efficacy of a contingency management system operating within a normal school environment to better educate junior high students who have a record of serious misconduct. We hypothesized that contingency management would reduce the high level of misbehavior and maintain them in school. The outcome of the intervention was evaluated using a comparison population of matched students in nearby schools.
METHOD
Selection of Subjects The subjects were selected by the assistant principals in three junior high schools. These suburban schools had comparable student populations, being in the same general working-class socioeconomic area as supported by 1970 census tract information. Family and school background information gathered from each of the students' school records reflects this comparability (see Table I). Forty-six students were selected and eventually included in the study. The selection criteria devised by the assistant principals included all incoming eighth grade students who had been the most serious discipline problems for the 3Other procedural difficulties with the within-subject design have been reported by O'Leary, Becker, Evans, and Saudargas (1969) and by O'Leary and Drabman (1971).
266
Heaton, Safer, Allen, Spinnato, and Prumo Table I. Pretreatment Subject Data School A(N=10) a B(N=13) a C(N =15) a Mean
IQ Father's education Broken home WRAT Reading SSb Spelling SS Arithmetic SS Reading GL c Spelling GL Arithmetic GL Suspensions Office visits Absences
SD
Mean SD
Mean SD
Statistical significance
95.2 9.1 91.3 7.5 95.8 8.1 F(2,29) = < 1,n.s. 9.2 1.8 8.2 2.3 10.3 1.7 F(2,28) = 3.02, n.s. 30% 38% 15% x 2(2) = 1.25, n.s. 86.4 15.7 86.8 18.0 78.3 10.0 79.4 11.8 73.6 4.4 74.6 7.5 6.4 2.6 6.3 3.0 5.0 1.6 5.1 9.9 4.4 1.5 4.3 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.8 .9 5.9 3.5 10.3 5.6 32.2 32.4 36.4 16.7
83.3 12.2 78.4 9.0 78.6 6.4 6.1 2.2 5.2 1.6 5.2 1.1 3.8 2.8 9.8 7.5 45.1 22.4
F(2,38)= < 1, n.s. F(2,38)= < 1, n.s. F(2,38)= < 1, n.s. F(2,38) = < 1, n.s. F(2,38) = < 1, n.s. F(2,38) = < 1, n.s. F(2,35) = 2.93, n.s. F(2,35) = 1.61, n.st F(2,35)= < 1, n.s.
apretreatment data were unavailable for all subjects. bSS = Standard score. CGL = Grade level. teachers and administrators in their school. Specifically, incoming eighth-graders who had received two or more suspensions from junior high school for reasons other than smoking were selected for inclusion. Students who had been suspended only once but had seen the assistant principal for misconduct at least four times during their junior high careers were included. Table I shows the mean and standard deviation figures for pretreatment data. This included academic achievement levels as reflected by the standard scores and grade level scores obtained in reading, arithmetic, and spelling subtests of the Wide Range Achievement Test OYRAT, Jastak & Jastak, 1965). Table I also shows the mean and standard deviation figures for suspensions, office visits for discipline, and attendance for the selected students in each of the three schools for 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 3 . Statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA) revealed no significant school differences for any of the academic or behavioral measures. The school A population (N = 14) was chosen as the treatment group with subjects in schools B and C (N = 32) serving as controls. The selection of school A was in part made because of its proximity to the Community Mental Health Center offices of the three (R. H., D. S., R. A.) program consultants.
Dependent Measures Pre- and postmeasures of academic performance and school behavior were recorded during the 1973-1974 school year for comparison of the treatment and control groups. Academic changes during the year of the study ( 1 9 7 3 - t 9 7 4 )
Motivational Environment for Junior High
267
were measured as "change" scores on the WRAT. This standard achievement test was administered individually to each of the subjects at the beginning and again at the end of the school year. It provided achievement scores in reading, spelling, and arithmetic skills. Academic performance was also assessed by comparing grades or marks obtained by the students. In addition to these academic achievement measures, certain indices of school misconduct were also compared for treatment and control groups. Measured were the following: (a) office visits for discipline reasons, (b) attendance, (c) number of nonsmoking suspensions, (d) withdrawal from school associated with misbehavior, and (f) transfer to another school for discipline reasons. Finally, students and parents of students in the treatment program were given rating scales designed to assess their satisfaction with the treatment program as it affected the child's schooling and home behavior. Procedure
Before the 1973-1974 school year began, the selected students in school A were grouped into a single eighth grade section. One of the school's regular teachers instructed the class in English and social studies for the first two class periods and was then replaced by another of the teachers who taught math and Science during the last two morning periods. The classroom teacher was frequently assisted by an aide who helped with the mechanics of the contingency management system. The school's assistant principal and one guidance counselor allocated time in support of the program. Together with the three mental health consultants, these school-based personnel participated in a brief 4-day preparatory summer workshop at which time behavioral procedures and curriculum strategy were developed. Prior to the beginning of the school year, a meeting was held to inform the parents of the selected treatment students about the program and to obtain their consent for the child's participation. On the first day of school, the 14 students were told that their eighth grade section would be operating on a point system with points being given contingent upon appropriate academic performance and school behavior. Morning Program. The school day was divided into morning and afternoon sessions with the morning period devoted to the four major academic subjects. The contingency management system was used during these instructional periods with the aim of motivating task-appropriate behaviors and decreasing disruptive behaviors. Points were given contingently for starting, maintaining, and completing assigned work as well as for social behavior appropriate to the classroom. The points were frequently paired with the natural social reinforcers teachers use with students such as praise, smiles, and nods of approval. The teacher or the teaching aide recorded the earned points on the student's weekly point sheet.
268
Heaton, Safer, Allen, Spinnato, and Prmno
Academic tasks were generally assigned to students on an individual basis, with frequent use of programmed instructional aids. By pretesting with SRA achievement tests, the achievement level of the student was ascertained. During the school year, each student's expected achievement level was gradually increased with new academic tasks built on previous ones. Academic and behavioral goals were largely derived from weekly contracts negotiated by the individual student and his teacher for that subject. In case of serious misconduct in the school, the student received a disturbing and disruptive behavior (DD) slip. These DD slips were checked to record the appropriate infraction of the rules so that the student had a clear indication of which of his behaviors were deemed inappropriate. When the pupil received two DD slips within one school period, he was dismissed from the program and sent home until a mandatory parent conference with the assistant principal or his designate could be held. Afternoon Reinforcement Program. Following the morning instructional periods, students were able to choose their afternoon activities depending upon their behavior during the morning. That is, afternoon activities were used as reinforcers which could be purchased only by points earned in the morning sessions. The purchase price of these activities varied dependent upon the principle of supply and demand. During the afternoon, one of the larger rooms in the school designated as the "reinforcement room" was open to those project students who had enough points from the morning to gain entrance. This room contained various "fun corners" with games such as pool, table tennis, cards, and checkers. At times, soft drinks and candy also could be purchased and eaten in this room. Once a week, an auction was held in the reinforcement room. The students were able to bid their unused points on movie and dance tickets, bowling passes, food and candy items, and other materials donated by local businesses. Additionally, the afternoon reinforcement activities included admission to the special subjects being held in the school during the afternoon such as art, music, gym, and shop. The only requirement for admission to these minor subjects was that the student must have attended the full morning instructional period. Another afternoon option, the most popular reinforcer, was early dismissal from school with parental consent; this required 30 of a possible 32 points. Parent Program. Parents of children enrolled in the treatment program were encouraged to meet with one of the program consultants on an intermittent basis throughout the year. Approximately three-fifths of the parents actively participated in this program. These meetings were devoted to providing parents with information concerning their child's progress in the program and establishing home-based reinforcers to support appropriate school behaviors and academic accomplishment. The home reinforcers were negotiated in a family session. They included late privileges, TV privileges, weekly or daily allowances, and freedom from chores. These rewards were given contingent upon the student
Motivational Environment for Junior High
269
earning " g o o d " or "excellent" day slips and "good" or "excellent" week certificates based upon his school performance. Contracts negotiated with the child and his parents frequently required several certificates for large tangible rewards such as a 10-speed bicycle. Program for Controls. The 32 students selected as "controls" in this study remained in their regular school classes. They received the traditional curriculum appropriate to their academic level and were subject to the normal motivational and behavioral contingencies o f the school. These children were identified to school personnel as being highly vulnerable with a high potential for school dropout, low academic achievement, and continued deviant behavior. All customary mental health resources typically extended to this "high"-risk population continued to be available to these students.
RESULTS
Holding Power The ability to maintain behaviorally deviant students in junior high school was assessed by comparing the withdrawal rates for the treatment and control subjects. Additionally, attendance rates for the two groups were compared because these also reflect a program's success in maintaining student interest.
Table II. Leaving School, Attendance, and Discipline Rates for Treatment and Control Groups Group Measure Leaving school Students withdrawn from school Students placed on home teaching Students transferred to new school
Treatment (N = 14) Control (N= 32)
Statistical significance
1 0 0
7.1% 0 % 0 %
10 4 0
31.3% 12.5% 0 %
Total students leaving school
I
7.1%
14
43.8%
Attendance Total possible student days in school Total days absent Mean student absence ratio
2246 572 .2630
1.00 % 4300 25.5% 1512.5 26.3% .4155
100 % 35.2% 41.6% t(44) = 2,27, p < .025
Discipline Mean student discipline ratio
.0213
.1971
.0041
.0370
t(44) = 2.48, p < .01 t(44) = 2.84, p < .005
Mean student suspension ratio
•
= 5.94, p < .025
270
Heaton, Safer, Allen, Spinnato, and Ptumo
Table II contains the withdrawal and attendance rates for the treatment and control subjects. Of the 32 control students, 14 had already faced serious difficulties such that they left school. Of these 14, 10 had been permanently withdrawn from school while the remaining 4 were placed on home teaching, another method used in removing disruptive pupils from the classroom. Compared with this 44% rate of school departure exhibited by the contrOls, only 1, or 7%, of the treatment students left school, X2 (1) = 5.94, p < .025. This student was withdrawn and there were no treatment students placed on the home teaching program. No student in either the treatment or control group was transferred to a new school during the year. As can be noted from the comparable attendance rates for treatment and control students, the latter group missed approximately 15% more days of school than the treatment pupils. The absence ratio for the treatment pupils was .2630 compared with .4155 for the control students, t(44) = 2.27, p < .025. The absence rate was determined by the ratio of days attended to total number of days during which the student was on the school roles. This, of course, excludes the considerable amount of time lost due to leaving school, making the attendance difference a conservative one. Discipline A major indication of school misbehavior is visits to the assistant principal's office for serious misbehavior (see Table II). This "discipline rate" was computed as the ratio of days attended to the number of office visits for discipline reasons. The treatment subjects' ratio was .0213 compared to the control subjects' discipline ratio of .1971, t(44) = 2.48, p < .01. These figures indicate the probability of a student being sent to the assistant principal for misbehavior on each day he attended school. Over the school year, the assistant principal was required to deal with the serious misbehavior of control students on an average of 13 times, compared with 3 times for each treatment student. For the treatment group, an office visit was required whenever a student received two DDs in a single period. Of course, the treatment subjects were also sent to the office by nonprogram personnel whenever they were caught violating school regulations. Suspensions from school also revealed a difference between the behavior of students in the contingency management program and those remaining with their traditional educational program (see Table II). With the suspension rate being the number of suspensions divided by the total number of days the students were present, the control subjects had a .0370 rate compared with .0041 for the treatment pupils, t(44) = 2.84, p < .005. Thus, the two major measures of school misbehavior clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of this contingency management system in reducing disruptive behavior.
Motivational Environment for Junior High
271
Academic Progress The WRAT was readministered to all subjects who were attending school in the last month of the 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 7 4 school year. Because of the high rate of withdrawal and home teaching for the controls and absenteeism for both groups, only 12 controls and 10 treatment students were available during the short retesting period. Standard scores for each student in reading, arithmetic, and spelling were compared with his earlier scores and a change or gain score was computed for the subjects in the three academic areas. Table III shows the mean change scores for the two groups on each of the WRAT's subtests. A MannWhitney U revealed a significant (U = 27, p < .025) difference between the contingency management group and the control group, indicating greater gain in reading scores for the treatment students. Differences between the two groups in arithmetic and spelling were not significant. When the final grades o f the students were examined, it was discovered that 18% of the controls had received a failing grade in all four o f the core subjects whereas none of the reinforcement program students received this low academic rating. Using the same year-end grades, 65% of the controls had received all " D " (lowest passing grade) or "E" (failing) grades in the core subjects compared with 8% of the treatment group, ~(2 (1) = 9.98, p < .005. By chance, six of the treatment subjects were given the Gates-McGinitie Reading Comprehension Test by school A's reading specialist as part of his general assessment program. This was done initially in the fall o f 1973 and repeated near the end of the school year. All six of the children showed improved grade level expectancy scores in reading (Binomial, N = 6, p = .016). As shown in Table III, the mean difference was a gain of 1.93 years (SD = 1.10). That is, these students who had been involved in the token reinforcement approach to education had advanced almost 2 years in reading during 1 school year. Table III. Change Scores for Treatment and Control Groups on Achievement Tests Treatment Measure
N
Mean SD
WRAT Reading SSa 10 +7.50 Spelling SS 10 + .60 Arithmetic SS 10 +2.70 Gates-MacGinitie GL b= 6 +1.93 Standard scores. •GL=S S level. = Grade Cpre- and posttreatment comparison.
5.46 2.33 2.98 1.10
Control N
Mean
12 -1.83 12 +1.17 12 +3.17 -
SD
Statistical significance
11.73 4.25 5.34 -
U =27,p
A Motivational Environment for Behaviorally DeViant Junior High School Students 1 Ronald C. Heaton, 2 Daniel J. Safer, and Richard P. Allen Eastern Community Mental Health Center, Baltimore County Department of Health Nicholas C. Spinnato, Sr., and Fred M. Prumo Stemmers Run Junior High School, Essex, Maryland
A contingency management program was established in a junior high school to better manage and educate students having histories o f severe misconduct. School administrators selected 46 eighth-graders having multiple suspensions for misbehavior. Students (N = 32} in two o f the schools remained in traditional programs, serving as controls, whereas students (N = 14} in the third school participated in a token reinforcement program. Reinforcers provided in the afternoon were contingent upon achievement and discipline during morning academic periods. Home-based reinforcers were established to support school behavior. Compared with the control group, significant reductions in negative school behavior as well as greater increases in academic achievement were obtained for the treatment group, thus supporting the efficacy o f contingency management for adolescent school misbehavior. A major problem facing the junior high school educator is the seriously misbehaving student. As described in one study (Heaton, Safer, & Allen, Note 1), these students frequently come from the ranks o f the previously retained, are 2 or more years behind academically, and have demonstrated late elementary school misconduct. After entering junior high, their average absenteeism triples Manuscript received in final form March 9, 1976. 1Valuable assistance in developing the reinforcement program and curriculum materials was provided by William Brown, principal of the Anne Arundel County Learning Center. Thanks are also due: Dottle Dowling and Joe Gentile, the teachers in the program; John Jedlicka, principal of Stemmers Run Junior High; and Donnie Williams, research assistant. 2Requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald C. Heaton, Eastern Community Mental Health Center, 9100 Franklin Square Drive, Baltimore, Maryland 21237. 263 9 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New Y o r k , N.Y. 10011. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.
264
Heaton, Safer, Allen, Spinnato, and l'rumo
and suspensions for serious misconduct increase from an average of less than 1 during all of elementary school to an average of 3.5 for only the first 189years of junior high. While this group represents only 3% of the total junior high enrollment, they frequently exhibit such severe school misbehavior as to disrupt the educational process for all those present in their classroom. Furthermore, attempts to regulate their behavior require an inordinate amount of administrative time and energy and are largely unsuccessful. One method meeting with success in the solution of behavior problems in the school environment has involved the application of contingency management principles (Becker, 1971). Most initial attempts at systematic classroom contingency management focused on the single "target pupil" (Krumboltz & Thoresen, 1969; Patterson, 1965; Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 1962). More recent contingency programs using token (or point) reinforcement systems have been applied to entire classrooms (Axelrod, 1971; O'Leary & Drabman, 1971). When employed in regular classrooms, programs using tokens have been successful not only in controlling negative, disruptive behaviors (Wolf, Hanley, King, Lachowicz, & Giles, 1970; Harmon, Gelfand, & Nielson, Note 2), but also in improving academic and other positive school behaviors (Davis, Morris, & Price, Note 3). Contingency management systems have also been effective when applied to special classes for learning-disabled students (Broden, Hall, Dunlap, & Clark, 1970; Nolen, Kunzelmann, & Haring, 1967), emotionally disturbed children (Hewett, Taylor, & Artuso, 1969; O'Leary & Becker, 1967), and small classes containing children with multiple behavior problems (Kuypers, Becker, & O'Leary, 1968; Meichenbaum, Bowers, & Ross, 1968; Tyler & Brown, 1968; Cohen, Note 4). The bulk of reports on contingency management systems in the school have focused on the management of small numbers of children at the elementary school level. Thus far, little attention has been given to hard-core behavior problem students at the junior high level. Meichenbaum et al. (1968) worked in an institutional setting with 10 female adolescents and, using a reversal design, achieved an increase in appropriate class behavior when money was made contingent upon such behavior. Miller (1971) also worked with delinquents in one class and achieved an increase in academic performance while Edwards (1969) found a decrease in inappropriate responding for 10 behavior problem students in junior high. Finally, Cohen, Keyworth, Kleiner, and Brown (1974) established a behavioral program for expelled students aged 10 to 15 in a special school setting and reported that increased academic achievement resulted. As important as such demonstrations are, they do not provide direct evidence that these behaviorally deviant adolescents can be maintained in classes of a regular junior high while showing increased academic achievement and appropriate behavior. Another problem with much of the reported work on the use of tokens with entire classrooms is that there has been little control for natural recovery
Motivational Environment for Junior High
265
rates. As Axelrod (1971) has demonstrated in his recent review of school reinforcement programs, there is frequently a failure to show that the behavior changes were the result of the contingent token reinforcement program. Almost all research on token systems in the classroom has used a within-subject design. In such studies, the reversal to baseline procedure (Sidman, 1960) is used as a control procedure (ABAB design). As O'Leary and Drabman (1971)emphasize, however, such a procedure is adequate only if other factors (e.g., altered student interest or teacher behavior) do not influence the target behaviors and thereby prevent a complete return to baseline. 3 In addition, follow-up assessment of slowly changing phenomena such as gain in academic achievement cannot be easily evaluated by the within-subject design; for this, a matched control procedure is better. Of the reports of token systems used for the entire classroom, only three (Clark, Lachowitz, & Wolfe, 1968; Haring & Hauck, 1969; Wolf, Giles & Hall, 1968) were found which had control groups of children not exposed to the token program. None of these programs dealt with severe junior high behavior problems. The present study was designed to test the efficacy of a contingency management system operating within a normal school environment to better educate junior high students who have a record of serious misconduct. We hypothesized that contingency management would reduce the high level of misbehavior and maintain them in school. The outcome of the intervention was evaluated using a comparison population of matched students in nearby schools.
METHOD
Selection of Subjects The subjects were selected by the assistant principals in three junior high schools. These suburban schools had comparable student populations, being in the same general working-class socioeconomic area as supported by 1970 census tract information. Family and school background information gathered from each of the students' school records reflects this comparability (see Table I). Forty-six students were selected and eventually included in the study. The selection criteria devised by the assistant principals included all incoming eighth grade students who had been the most serious discipline problems for the 3Other procedural difficulties with the within-subject design have been reported by O'Leary, Becker, Evans, and Saudargas (1969) and by O'Leary and Drabman (1971).
266
Heaton, Safer, Allen, Spinnato, and Prumo Table I. Pretreatment Subject Data School A(N=10) a B(N=13) a C(N =15) a Mean
IQ Father's education Broken home WRAT Reading SSb Spelling SS Arithmetic SS Reading GL c Spelling GL Arithmetic GL Suspensions Office visits Absences
SD
Mean SD
Mean SD
Statistical significance
95.2 9.1 91.3 7.5 95.8 8.1 F(2,29) = < 1,n.s. 9.2 1.8 8.2 2.3 10.3 1.7 F(2,28) = 3.02, n.s. 30% 38% 15% x 2(2) = 1.25, n.s. 86.4 15.7 86.8 18.0 78.3 10.0 79.4 11.8 73.6 4.4 74.6 7.5 6.4 2.6 6.3 3.0 5.0 1.6 5.1 9.9 4.4 1.5 4.3 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.8 .9 5.9 3.5 10.3 5.6 32.2 32.4 36.4 16.7
83.3 12.2 78.4 9.0 78.6 6.4 6.1 2.2 5.2 1.6 5.2 1.1 3.8 2.8 9.8 7.5 45.1 22.4
F(2,38)= < 1, n.s. F(2,38)= < 1, n.s. F(2,38)= < 1, n.s. F(2,38) = < 1, n.s. F(2,38) = < 1, n.s. F(2,38) = < 1, n.s. F(2,35) = 2.93, n.s. F(2,35) = 1.61, n.st F(2,35)= < 1, n.s.
apretreatment data were unavailable for all subjects. bSS = Standard score. CGL = Grade level. teachers and administrators in their school. Specifically, incoming eighth-graders who had received two or more suspensions from junior high school for reasons other than smoking were selected for inclusion. Students who had been suspended only once but had seen the assistant principal for misconduct at least four times during their junior high careers were included. Table I shows the mean and standard deviation figures for pretreatment data. This included academic achievement levels as reflected by the standard scores and grade level scores obtained in reading, arithmetic, and spelling subtests of the Wide Range Achievement Test OYRAT, Jastak & Jastak, 1965). Table I also shows the mean and standard deviation figures for suspensions, office visits for discipline, and attendance for the selected students in each of the three schools for 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 3 . Statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA) revealed no significant school differences for any of the academic or behavioral measures. The school A population (N = 14) was chosen as the treatment group with subjects in schools B and C (N = 32) serving as controls. The selection of school A was in part made because of its proximity to the Community Mental Health Center offices of the three (R. H., D. S., R. A.) program consultants.
Dependent Measures Pre- and postmeasures of academic performance and school behavior were recorded during the 1973-1974 school year for comparison of the treatment and control groups. Academic changes during the year of the study ( 1 9 7 3 - t 9 7 4 )
Motivational Environment for Junior High
267
were measured as "change" scores on the WRAT. This standard achievement test was administered individually to each of the subjects at the beginning and again at the end of the school year. It provided achievement scores in reading, spelling, and arithmetic skills. Academic performance was also assessed by comparing grades or marks obtained by the students. In addition to these academic achievement measures, certain indices of school misconduct were also compared for treatment and control groups. Measured were the following: (a) office visits for discipline reasons, (b) attendance, (c) number of nonsmoking suspensions, (d) withdrawal from school associated with misbehavior, and (f) transfer to another school for discipline reasons. Finally, students and parents of students in the treatment program were given rating scales designed to assess their satisfaction with the treatment program as it affected the child's schooling and home behavior. Procedure
Before the 1973-1974 school year began, the selected students in school A were grouped into a single eighth grade section. One of the school's regular teachers instructed the class in English and social studies for the first two class periods and was then replaced by another of the teachers who taught math and Science during the last two morning periods. The classroom teacher was frequently assisted by an aide who helped with the mechanics of the contingency management system. The school's assistant principal and one guidance counselor allocated time in support of the program. Together with the three mental health consultants, these school-based personnel participated in a brief 4-day preparatory summer workshop at which time behavioral procedures and curriculum strategy were developed. Prior to the beginning of the school year, a meeting was held to inform the parents of the selected treatment students about the program and to obtain their consent for the child's participation. On the first day of school, the 14 students were told that their eighth grade section would be operating on a point system with points being given contingent upon appropriate academic performance and school behavior. Morning Program. The school day was divided into morning and afternoon sessions with the morning period devoted to the four major academic subjects. The contingency management system was used during these instructional periods with the aim of motivating task-appropriate behaviors and decreasing disruptive behaviors. Points were given contingently for starting, maintaining, and completing assigned work as well as for social behavior appropriate to the classroom. The points were frequently paired with the natural social reinforcers teachers use with students such as praise, smiles, and nods of approval. The teacher or the teaching aide recorded the earned points on the student's weekly point sheet.
268
Heaton, Safer, Allen, Spinnato, and Prmno
Academic tasks were generally assigned to students on an individual basis, with frequent use of programmed instructional aids. By pretesting with SRA achievement tests, the achievement level of the student was ascertained. During the school year, each student's expected achievement level was gradually increased with new academic tasks built on previous ones. Academic and behavioral goals were largely derived from weekly contracts negotiated by the individual student and his teacher for that subject. In case of serious misconduct in the school, the student received a disturbing and disruptive behavior (DD) slip. These DD slips were checked to record the appropriate infraction of the rules so that the student had a clear indication of which of his behaviors were deemed inappropriate. When the pupil received two DD slips within one school period, he was dismissed from the program and sent home until a mandatory parent conference with the assistant principal or his designate could be held. Afternoon Reinforcement Program. Following the morning instructional periods, students were able to choose their afternoon activities depending upon their behavior during the morning. That is, afternoon activities were used as reinforcers which could be purchased only by points earned in the morning sessions. The purchase price of these activities varied dependent upon the principle of supply and demand. During the afternoon, one of the larger rooms in the school designated as the "reinforcement room" was open to those project students who had enough points from the morning to gain entrance. This room contained various "fun corners" with games such as pool, table tennis, cards, and checkers. At times, soft drinks and candy also could be purchased and eaten in this room. Once a week, an auction was held in the reinforcement room. The students were able to bid their unused points on movie and dance tickets, bowling passes, food and candy items, and other materials donated by local businesses. Additionally, the afternoon reinforcement activities included admission to the special subjects being held in the school during the afternoon such as art, music, gym, and shop. The only requirement for admission to these minor subjects was that the student must have attended the full morning instructional period. Another afternoon option, the most popular reinforcer, was early dismissal from school with parental consent; this required 30 of a possible 32 points. Parent Program. Parents of children enrolled in the treatment program were encouraged to meet with one of the program consultants on an intermittent basis throughout the year. Approximately three-fifths of the parents actively participated in this program. These meetings were devoted to providing parents with information concerning their child's progress in the program and establishing home-based reinforcers to support appropriate school behaviors and academic accomplishment. The home reinforcers were negotiated in a family session. They included late privileges, TV privileges, weekly or daily allowances, and freedom from chores. These rewards were given contingent upon the student
Motivational Environment for Junior High
269
earning " g o o d " or "excellent" day slips and "good" or "excellent" week certificates based upon his school performance. Contracts negotiated with the child and his parents frequently required several certificates for large tangible rewards such as a 10-speed bicycle. Program for Controls. The 32 students selected as "controls" in this study remained in their regular school classes. They received the traditional curriculum appropriate to their academic level and were subject to the normal motivational and behavioral contingencies o f the school. These children were identified to school personnel as being highly vulnerable with a high potential for school dropout, low academic achievement, and continued deviant behavior. All customary mental health resources typically extended to this "high"-risk population continued to be available to these students.
RESULTS
Holding Power The ability to maintain behaviorally deviant students in junior high school was assessed by comparing the withdrawal rates for the treatment and control subjects. Additionally, attendance rates for the two groups were compared because these also reflect a program's success in maintaining student interest.
Table II. Leaving School, Attendance, and Discipline Rates for Treatment and Control Groups Group Measure Leaving school Students withdrawn from school Students placed on home teaching Students transferred to new school
Treatment (N = 14) Control (N= 32)
Statistical significance
1 0 0
7.1% 0 % 0 %
10 4 0
31.3% 12.5% 0 %
Total students leaving school
I
7.1%
14
43.8%
Attendance Total possible student days in school Total days absent Mean student absence ratio
2246 572 .2630
1.00 % 4300 25.5% 1512.5 26.3% .4155
100 % 35.2% 41.6% t(44) = 2,27, p < .025
Discipline Mean student discipline ratio
.0213
.1971
.0041
.0370
t(44) = 2.48, p < .01 t(44) = 2.84, p < .005
Mean student suspension ratio
•
= 5.94, p < .025
270
Heaton, Safer, Allen, Spinnato, and Ptumo
Table II contains the withdrawal and attendance rates for the treatment and control subjects. Of the 32 control students, 14 had already faced serious difficulties such that they left school. Of these 14, 10 had been permanently withdrawn from school while the remaining 4 were placed on home teaching, another method used in removing disruptive pupils from the classroom. Compared with this 44% rate of school departure exhibited by the contrOls, only 1, or 7%, of the treatment students left school, X2 (1) = 5.94, p < .025. This student was withdrawn and there were no treatment students placed on the home teaching program. No student in either the treatment or control group was transferred to a new school during the year. As can be noted from the comparable attendance rates for treatment and control students, the latter group missed approximately 15% more days of school than the treatment pupils. The absence ratio for the treatment pupils was .2630 compared with .4155 for the control students, t(44) = 2.27, p < .025. The absence rate was determined by the ratio of days attended to total number of days during which the student was on the school roles. This, of course, excludes the considerable amount of time lost due to leaving school, making the attendance difference a conservative one. Discipline A major indication of school misbehavior is visits to the assistant principal's office for serious misbehavior (see Table II). This "discipline rate" was computed as the ratio of days attended to the number of office visits for discipline reasons. The treatment subjects' ratio was .0213 compared to the control subjects' discipline ratio of .1971, t(44) = 2.48, p < .01. These figures indicate the probability of a student being sent to the assistant principal for misbehavior on each day he attended school. Over the school year, the assistant principal was required to deal with the serious misbehavior of control students on an average of 13 times, compared with 3 times for each treatment student. For the treatment group, an office visit was required whenever a student received two DDs in a single period. Of course, the treatment subjects were also sent to the office by nonprogram personnel whenever they were caught violating school regulations. Suspensions from school also revealed a difference between the behavior of students in the contingency management program and those remaining with their traditional educational program (see Table II). With the suspension rate being the number of suspensions divided by the total number of days the students were present, the control subjects had a .0370 rate compared with .0041 for the treatment pupils, t(44) = 2.84, p < .005. Thus, the two major measures of school misbehavior clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of this contingency management system in reducing disruptive behavior.
Motivational Environment for Junior High
271
Academic Progress The WRAT was readministered to all subjects who were attending school in the last month of the 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 7 4 school year. Because of the high rate of withdrawal and home teaching for the controls and absenteeism for both groups, only 12 controls and 10 treatment students were available during the short retesting period. Standard scores for each student in reading, arithmetic, and spelling were compared with his earlier scores and a change or gain score was computed for the subjects in the three academic areas. Table III shows the mean change scores for the two groups on each of the WRAT's subtests. A MannWhitney U revealed a significant (U = 27, p < .025) difference between the contingency management group and the control group, indicating greater gain in reading scores for the treatment students. Differences between the two groups in arithmetic and spelling were not significant. When the final grades o f the students were examined, it was discovered that 18% of the controls had received a failing grade in all four o f the core subjects whereas none of the reinforcement program students received this low academic rating. Using the same year-end grades, 65% of the controls had received all " D " (lowest passing grade) or "E" (failing) grades in the core subjects compared with 8% of the treatment group, ~(2 (1) = 9.98, p < .005. By chance, six of the treatment subjects were given the Gates-McGinitie Reading Comprehension Test by school A's reading specialist as part of his general assessment program. This was done initially in the fall o f 1973 and repeated near the end of the school year. All six of the children showed improved grade level expectancy scores in reading (Binomial, N = 6, p = .016). As shown in Table III, the mean difference was a gain of 1.93 years (SD = 1.10). That is, these students who had been involved in the token reinforcement approach to education had advanced almost 2 years in reading during 1 school year. Table III. Change Scores for Treatment and Control Groups on Achievement Tests Treatment Measure
N
Mean SD
WRAT Reading SSa 10 +7.50 Spelling SS 10 + .60 Arithmetic SS 10 +2.70 Gates-MacGinitie GL b= 6 +1.93 Standard scores. •GL=S S level. = Grade Cpre- and posttreatment comparison.
5.46 2.33 2.98 1.10
Control N
Mean
12 -1.83 12 +1.17 12 +3.17 -
SD
Statistical significance
11.73 4.25 5.34 -
U =27,p
