in the context of risk: supportive adults and the school engagement of middle school students

In the Context of Risk: Supportive Adults and the School Engagement of Middle SchoolStudentsAuthor(s): Michael E. Woolley and Gary L. BowenSource: Family Relations, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Jan., 2007), pp. 92-104Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4541650 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 12:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toFamily Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.31 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:46:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4541650?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Family Relations, 56 (January 2007), 92-104. Blackwell Publishing. Copyright 2007 by the National Council on Family Relations.

In the Context of Risk: Supportive Adults and the

School Engagement of Middle School Students*

Michael E. Woolley Gary L. Bowen**

Abstract: Many students in the United States, particularly those from lower income or racially/ethnically diverse

families, are exposed to clusters of risk factors that have a negative impact on school success. This study examined the association between the number of supportive and caring adults in the home, school, and neighborhood and the school engagement of students in early adolescence. Results revealed that students who reported such supportive adults in their lives also reported higher levels of psychological and behavioral engagement with their schooling. Additionally, including measures of environmental risk factors in analytical models of the school engagement of middle school students reduced otherwise statistically significant race/ethnicity differences to nonsignificance. Impli- cations for practice and policy are discussed.

Key Words: achievement gap, adolescence, middle school, risk and resilience, school engagement.

Early adolescence is a critical developmental period for

youth in high-risk environments (Jessor, 1993). School success for such risk-exposed middle school-aged adolescents is influenced by a complex web of proximal processes that include both social relationships and participation in various activities across the multiple environmental contexts of home, school, and neighborhood (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Richman, Bowen, & Woolley, 2004). Within this web of influences, youths exposed to clustered risk factors are anticipated to exhibit poorer developmental outcomes, including school outcomes.

Understanding the role of protective factors in building resilience for youth exposed to clustered risk is an

important foundation for formulating effective practice, programming, and policy to advance school success.

Although past research on both youth development and school success has given more attention to risk factors than protective factors, a growing body of research indicates that an important protective factor for youth at risk is the presence of supportive, attentive, and car-

ing adults across a variety of contexts (e.g., Scales & Gibbons, 1996; Wentzel, 1999).

The present study examined the impact of such

supportive adult relationships on the school engagement of a largely at-risk population of middle school students. We begin with a description of the theoretical perspective guiding the current research. We then discuss the emerging literature that explores the influence of supportive adults on child developmental outcomes. Next, we detail our methods and results, which used self-reported data from middle school students to examine the relationship between

supportive adults and indicators of psychological and behavioral engagement in school. Finally, we discuss the current findings, focusing on implications for practice and policy.

A Bioecological Resilience Perspective

Two theoretical perspectives informed the current research: Bronfenbrenner's (2005) bioecological the-

ory of human development and the eco-interactional

*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work and Research in New Orleans, Louisiana, January 2004.

**Michael E. Woolley is an Assistant Professor in the Schools of Social Work and Education, University of Michigan, 1080 S University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI

48109-1106 ([email protected]). Gary L. Bowen is a Kenan Distinguished Professor in the School of Social Work, University of North Carolina, 301 Pittsboro

Street, CB # 3550, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550 ([email protected]).



Supportive Adults and School Engagement * Woolley and Bowen 93

developmental (EID) perspective described by Rich- man et al. (2004). Bronfenbrenner's theory of human development presents both an informative

topology of the context of development and the processes by which those contexts affect development. The topology, often conceptualized as a Venn dia-

gram of concentric developmental contexts, includes the immediate environments in which a child ac-

tively participates. These nested environments affect

development through proximal processes, which Bronfenbrenner defines as "progressively more com-

plex reciprocal interaction[s] between an active, evolving biopsychosocial human organism and the

persons, objects, and symbols in [the child's] immediate environment . . . over extended periods of time" (2005, p. 6). Among those proximal processes are the relationships with key adults in that child's life.

Proximal processes may be either a risk to, or

protective of, positive development (Richman et al., 2004). Protective factors can play two potential roles: compensatory or interactive (Fraser, Kirby, & Smokowski, 2004). A compensatory effect is when the presence of a factor has a direct-or additive-effect by promoting positive outcomes regardless of risk exposure. By contrast, an interactive effect is when a factor has an impact only in the

presence of a specific risk, immunizing against that risk. Consequently, some children, despite cumulative risk exposure, display positive developmental outcomes, referred to as resilience. Combining the EID perspective with the bioecological theory provides an informative framework for research on at-risk youth. The results from such research can inform intervention and prevention planning to promote outcomes associated with positive youth development-for example, school success.

From a bioecological resilience perspective, middle school is a critical phase. The transition to middle school, and then from middle to high school, is a time when many students experience a significant decrease in school achievement (Alspaugh, 1998). Research has shown that struggles in middle school may put students on a trajectory toward school failure as such struggles are predictive of later dropping out of high school. For example, Farmer et al. (2003) found that negative peer group characteristics and aggressivity in middle school were predictive of increased likelihood of later dropout. On the other hand, Mahoney and Cairns (1997) found that involvement in extracurricular activities in middle

school was associated with lower likelihood of later

dropout. In the context of the crisis in noncomple- tion of high school across the country, which affects

minority and male students most severely (Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004), the need to iden-

tify the factors that most effectively promote school

engagement for middle school students, and implement policy and programming that capitalize on those factors, is as important as ever.

Adults as Protective Factors

Although the proximal processes that influence a developing child are numerous, a child's relation-

ships with adults in his or her immediate environments have a substantial impact. Such supportive adults provide social capital for youth. In Coleman's (1988) seminal discussion, social capital was defined as a product of the social environment that when

present or available increases the probability that individuals will achieve desirable outcomes. School outcomes research has applied the construct of social

capital to investigate how relationships with adults

support student school success. For example, Wentzel (1999) has shown not only that children develop positive behavioral and social patterns on the basis of their relationship with supportive adults but also that those patterns affect all aspects of that child's

development, including school performance. Went- zel asserted that such nurturing and supportive adults can be found within the various microsystems that children occupy, such as home, school, and neighborhood.

Adults in the Home

The impact of parenting on developmental outcomes, including school outcomes, has been the focus of considerable theory and research. For example, researchers (Steinberg, 1996; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989) reported that authoritative parenting and parental school involvement were associated with greater school engagement and greater academic success among adolescents. Similarly, Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (1996) showed that a child will develop positive academic aspirations if his or her parents possess positive feelings concerning academic efficacy. Additionally, Bandura et al. (1996) determined that the children of parents with high academic expectations were



94 Family Relations * Volume 56, Number 1 * January 2007

more likely to resist peer pressure and avoid deviant behaviors. More recently, Woolley and Grogan-Kaylor (2006) found that parents who are supportive, com- municate academic expectations, and are involved in their middle school student's education improve school outcomes across a continuum from behavior to grades.

Parents can also be a risk factor; neglect and lack of parental warmth and attention have been associated with school failure (Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter, 1997). However, there seems to be a developmental trajectory in which the most important adults in early childhood are in the home, with adults in other settings becom-

ing increasingly important in the middle school

years. Miller, Cowan, Cowan, Hetherington, and

Clingempeel (1993) found that variables such as

parenting style and warmth were predictive of behavior problems in preschool children but less so for middle school-aged youth. They concluded that school and neighborhood adults increasingly influence youth behavior.

Adults in the School

A growing body of research has revealed that student/teacher relationships are an important factor in school outcomes (Finn, 1993; Marks, 2000). For

example, Wentzel (1999) found that middle school students who perceived teachers as supportive and

caring reported higher levels of motivation to achieve in school. Similarly, Rosenfeld, Richman, and Bowen (2000) reported that supportive teachers

played a particularly important role in the school success of both middle and high school students.

Voelkl and Frone (2000) also found that students who perceived that school personnel saw them as

capable achieved higher levels of academic success. Likewise, Murdock (1999) found that adolescent student reports of teachers as being supportive and having positive expectations were the strongest predictors of positive school behavior; conversely, students who reported negative teacher expectations had higher dropout rates, even when controlling for prior academic achievement. In summary, it seems clear that students perform better when teachers support them and expect them to do well.

Research has shown that supportive and caring adults at school are especially important for the success of children from racially or ethnically diverse families (Johns, 2001). For example, when Black

parents feel that the school staff care about all children, positive school-family relationships result, which lead to better outcomes for students (Thompson, 2003).

The social climate of a school also has been identified as predictive of student behavior, psychosocial functioning, and academic performance. The influence of school climate on student outcomes may be direct as well as indirect, mediated through feelings of efficacy on the part of school staff to make a difference in the lives of students (Bowen, Rose, & Ware, 2006). Similarly, research reveals that school administrators who value and empower teachers create a climate in which teachers are attentive to and

supportive of the academic and social needs of students (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). Such findings support the conclusion that the social climate in a school is

primarily created by the adults present (Woolley, 2006).

Adults in the Neighborhood

Neighborhood effects research has shown that

neighborhood adults also affect youth development. For example, Sampson and colleagues (Sampson, 1997; Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999) reported a positive effect when adults in a neighborhood col-

lectively nurture and watch over the children.

Conversely, neighborhood indicators of social disor-

ganization among adults, such as crime and violence, have been shown to have a negative effect on children's school behavior and academic performance (Bowen & Van Dorn, 2002). In an innova- tive randomized neighborhood study, Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2004) found that male students who moved from a high-poverty neighborhood to a low-poverty neighborhood experienced increased achievement scores. Much research is still needed to outline the effect of neighborhood factors-particularly relationships with neighborhood adults-on school outcomes. However, accumulating evidence supports the conclusion that adults in the home, school, and neighborhood all influence school success.

School Engagement

For more than 20 years, student engagement in school has been conceptualized as a measurable outcome in research efforts and as a goal in the




development of school dropout prevention programs (Finn, 1993; Wehlage, 1989). In those en- deavors, engagement in school has been defined as

including both psychological and behavioral compo- nents (Finn). Psychologically, school engagement has included interest, feelings of connectedness, and motivation; behaviorally, engagement has included attendance, participation in educational activities, effort, and social interactions (Finn; Marks, 2000). Therefore, school engagement can be seen as a continuum of proximal school outcomes including behavioral, attitudinal, social, and psychological aspects that have been found to be predictive of more distal school outcomes such as grades and achievement scores. Of course, interventions designed to advance school success ultimately are intended to

improve those more distal outcomes. However, research has shown that impacting

more distal outcomes for students is difficult and often takes years of an effective program to show significant results; however, identifying more proximal outcomes to use as both evaluation outcomes and intervention goals is an effective strategy (Cook, Murphy, & Hunt, 2000). Specifically, research has shown that school engagement is consistently predictive of academic achievement. For example, Finn (1993) and Finn and Rock (1997) found that psychological and behavioral engagement in school was

predictive of academic achievement; this relation-

ship held across all demographic variables, including gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, and was a positive correlate for high-risk students. Likewise, Marks (2000) examined factors impacting psychological and behavioral engagement and found that at primary, middle, and high school levels, engagement in school was highly influenced by relationships with adults; this influence included social support and high expectations from teachers, as well as parental involvement in schooling. However, Marks did not find school engagement associated with student characteristics such as race/ethnicity or gender, after accounting for other factors. Similarly, Klem and Connell (2004) found that among middle school students, teachers who created a caring, struc- tured, and fair environment, with high expectations, had students with higher levels of school engagement, which was in turn associated with school achievement. Therefore, researching the factors that affect more proximal outcomes within the continuum of school engagement is a promising avenue to inform school success intervention efforts.

Current Study

The current study examined the relationship between the level of adult social support across key microsystems in the lives of a large sample of middle school students and their psychological and behavioral engagement in school. This relationship was examined in the context of students' environmental risk, and we expected that social capital assets in the form of adult support would have a direct and positive influence on school engagement. Importantly, we also appraised social capital assets as both a potential mediator, as well as a potential moderator, in the relationship between contextual risks and school

engagement. In the context of our literature review, the potential for variation in contextual risks, social

capital assets, and school engagement across gender and race/ethnicity was also examined, although we offered no explicit expectations about between

group differences.

Method

All data used in the current research were collected with the School Success Profile (SSP), an ecologi- cally oriented, self-report assessment instrument for use in school-based practice with middle and high school students (Bowen & Richman, 2001). The SSP has 220 questions about the risk and protective factors within five domains affecting school outcomes: school, family, peers, neighborhood, and health and well-being. Its reliability and validity has been demonstrated (Bowen, Rose, & Bowen, 2005). Individual student-level and group-level results from the SSP were used to inform prevention and intervention planning for students at risk of school failure. Further information about the SSP can be obtained from the Web site (SSP, 2006), which also provides training materials and best practices for the planning and implementation of practice activities informed by SSP data.

Sample

Between July 2001 and March 2003, a total of 9,041 middle school students (Grades 6 - 8), across 51 schools and five states were administered the SSP. These schools had contracted with the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina




at Chapel Hill for administration of the SSP. Those students were at a higher risk of poor school outcomes compared with a representative or cross- sectional sample of students because schools and

programs that use the SSP tend to include students at higher risk of school failure. Further, students tar-

geted for assessment and intervention were fre-

quently students already experiencing academic, behavioral, or social/emotional struggles. Therefore, for the schools and programs that administered the SSP, the students surveyed were a targeted sample, whereas for the authors, who aggregated these tar-

geted samples, it was a convenient and largely at-risk

sample. One of the study goals was to investigate differ-

ences by race/ethnicity; therefore, groups with sam-

ple sizes too small for group-level analyses were eliminated from the data set. (The groups eliminated included American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, multiracial, and other.) This reduced the sample size to 8,410 students. However, because of missing values on indicators needed to calculate the risk, social capital, or school engagement indexes, or on other necessary variables for the

analyses, an additional 646 cases were eliminated, leaving 7,764 students. Of those students, 2,576 (33.2%) were sixth graders, 2,570 (33.1%) were seventh graders, and 2,618 (33.7%) were eighth-grade students; the sample was evenly divided by gender, with 3,942 (50.8%) girls and 3,822 (49.2%) boys. The sample included three racial/ethnic groups, including 3,831 Black, 3,707 White, and 225 His-

panic/Latino students. Indicating the at-risk nature of this sample of students, 4,553 (58.6%) reported receiving the free or reduced-price lunch program, whereas 1,755 (22.8%) of the students reported repeating one or more grades.

Measures

The measures comprised individual SSP items and indexes of aggregated items. Two of those indexes, one measuring exposure to risk and the second measuring positive adult relationships or social capital, were our key independent variables. The third index contained SSP items measuring critical indicators of psychological and behavioral engagement in school-the dependent variable. The 20 items in both the risk and the social capital indexes had vary- ing response scales. Therefore, to calculate the number of factors for each student (out of a total of 20

possible), all items in each index were dichotomized to indicate the presence or absence of that factor. This proved necessary to create the indexes because the majority of items were already dichotomous, whereas others had ordinal response scales. There- fore, to aggregate each set of 20 indicators, all were converted to dichotomous measures.

The use of such cumulative risk, protection, or outcome indexes has become a standard practice in the school success and youth development literatures

(e.g., Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995; Pollard, Hawkins, & Arthur, 1999). Additionally, research findings have supported the conclusion that risk factors influence outcomes as a function of number or accumulation of those risk factors (Atzaba-Poria, 2004). Across multiple studies, such research has found that more risk factors are associated with poorer outcomes, supporting the

utility of measuring risk exposure as a cumulative index of known risk factors (e.g., Gerard & Buehler, 2004; Luthar, 1993; Sameroff, Barko, Baldwin, Baldwin, & Siefer, 1998).

Contextual risk index. The contextual risk index included 20 indicators for risk factors in a student's

neighborhood, school environment, family relation-

ships, and peer relationships (see Appendix A). Risk factors included such indicators as (a) threats to

safety and security, (b) high-risk peer affiliations, and (c) social stressors. Any student missing more than 10 of the risk indicators was eliminated from the analysis. When 10 or more of the risk items had valid values, a risk index score was calculated as a function of the number of items available (e.g., 4

reported risks out of 16 valid responses was converted to a risk score of 5 out of the possible 20).

Social capital assets index. The social capital assets index included 20 single-item indicators mea-

suring positive adult relationships, such as teachers, family members, and neighborhood adults (see Appendix B). Again, students missing data for more than 10 indicators were eliminated from the analysis. When 10 or more of the social capital items had valid values, a social capital index score was calculated as a function of the total number of items available.

School engagement index. The school engagement index included 11 survey items that repre- sented psychological or behavioral engagement in schooling. The psychological engagement indicators included three dichotomized items, such as "I look forward to learning new things at school" and "I




find school fun and exciting." The behavioral en-

gagement indicators included two items with ordinal

response sets: "What kind of grades did you make on your last report card?" (answer options ranged from mostly As and Bs = 4 to mostly Ds and Fs = 0) and "During the past 30 days, about how many hours on average did you spend studying or doing homework each school night?" (answer options ranged from none = 0 to I - 2 hours or more = 2). The remaining six indicators of behavioral engagement were dichotomous items, such as "Do you cur-

rently take part in any school activities that are not

part of class work, such as sports or school clubs?" and "My parent(s)/guardian(s) received a warning about my attendance, grades or behavior." The school engagement index was generated by summing the scores across these 11 items, with a possible range from 0 (low engagement) to 15 (high engagement).

Demographic indicators. Five demographic indicators were used in the analysis both for purposes of statistical controls and for conducting analysis in the context of gender and race/ethnicity. Gender was measured using an SSP item self-reporting gender. Race/ethnicity was measured using an SSP item with

response options including "Black/African Ameri- can," "Hispanic/Latino," and "White." An SSP item in which students report if they receive free or

reduced-price lunch at school was used as a proxy measure for socioeconomic status. Repeated one or more grades was measured with an SSP item asking students how many grades they had repeated in school, with response choices being "none," "one," "two," or "three or more." For the current analyses, this variable was dichotomized to indicate whether a student had repeated no grades or had repeated one grade or more. Finally, three grades were included in the analysis: sixth, seventh, and eighth. Sixth grade was the reference code in the analysis, with two dummy variables representing students in the seventh and eighth grades.

Results

All analyses were completed in SPSS Version 13 for Windows. Students reported a range of contextual risks from 0 to 18 out of the possible 20, with a mean contextual risk score of 5.0 (SD - 3.2). Stu- dents reported the full range of social capital indicators from 0 to 20, with a mean score of 14.6

(SD = 3.9). Students also reported the full range of school engagement from 0 to 15, with a mean of 11.5 (SD = 2.7).

Group Comparisons

The first stage of analysis considered potential variation in contextual risks, social capital assets, and school engagement by the gender and race/ethnicity of student respondents. Statistically significant differences in group mean social capital and school

engagement were found between boys and girls; however, girls (M = 4.9, SD = 3.1) and boys (M =

5.0, SD = 3.1) did not report differing risk exposure. However, in terms of social capital, girls (M = 15.0, SD = 3.7) reported statistically higher levels than boys (M - 14.2, SD = 3.92, t - -9.6, p < .000); and on the school engagement index, girls (M - 12.0, SD = 2.5) also reported statistically higher levels than boys (M - 11.0, SD - 2.8, t= -16.8, p < .000).

With respect to race/ethnicity, statistically significant differences in group mean risk exposure, social

capital, and school engagement were found between

subgroups in the analysis. White students reported the lowest risk level (M = 4.1, SD = 3.0), statisti-

cally lower than Hispanic/Latino students (M =

6.0, SD - 3.0, t = 8.8, p < .000) and Black students (M = 5.7, SD = 3.0, t = 21.4, p < .000), who were not significantly different. White students likewise reported the highest social capital levels (M = 15.3, SD = 3.9), again statistically different from both Hispanic/Latino students (M = 13.6, SD = 3.8, t = -6.2, p < .000) and Black students (M = 14.0, SD = 3.7, t =- -14.3, p < .000), who were not significantly different from each other. On the school engagement index, White students

reported the highest average level (M = 11.9, SD = 2.7), which again was statistically different from the school engagement of Hispanic/Latino students (M = 10.8, SD = 2.9, t = -5.6, p < .000) and Black students (M = 11.2, SD = 2.6, t = -11.4, p < .000), who again were not significantly different.

Regression Analysis

Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between exposure to contextual risks and the presence of supportive and attentive adults in the lives of middle school students. Although the




social capital assets and school engagement indexes were entered into the regression analysis in their full

range as calculated, the contextual risk index was used to identify students experiencing low, middle, or high levels of risk. Students reporting two or fewer (21.3% of students) of the 20 risk indicators were identified as experiencing low risk. Those who

reported more than two but not more than five risk indicators (37.2% of students) were considered middle-risk students, whereas those who reported more than five of the contextual risk indicators (41.5% of students) were considered high-risk students. These three risk groups were used to create

dummy variables for the middle- and high-risk student groups, with the low-risk group being the reference group in the analysis. Variables were entered in blocks in order to model changes in school engagement, with demographic and control variables entered in the first block, followed by dummy codes for the contextual risk level groups in the second block, and in the third block, the level of social capital assets.

As can be seen in Table 1, the first block of the

regression revealed that all demographic and control variables were significantly related to the level of school engagement. The analysis reference group comprised female, White sixth graders who were not

eligible for the lunch program and had not repeated a grade. Therefore, those students who were male, were eligible for the lunch program, had repeated

a grade, were seventh or eighth graders, or were Black or Hispanic/Latino had significantly lower levels of school engagement than the reference

group. Several findings are worth noting regarding

Block 2, where the risk group variables were entered. First, middle-risk (unstandardized P = -0.94, p < .000) and high-risk (unstandardized P = -2.03, p < .000) student groups had significantly lower levels of school engagement than did low-risk, exposed students. The inclusion of the variables

modeling risk exposure reduced the previously significant differences in school engagement between White and minority students to insignificance. How- ever, differences by gender, lunch program, re-

peating a grade, and grade in school remained

significant. In Block 3, when the social capital index was

entered, the most significant change in the model was that the coefficients for the risk groups dropped by approximately 50% (middle-risk group from

p = -0.94 to -0.51, high-risk group from P =

-2.03 to - 1.11) while remaining statistically significant (p < .000 for both). These results suggest that social capital assets mediate the negative influence of contextual risks on school engagement. Results also demonstrated that the variables in this

analysis accounted for a substantial portion of the variance in school engagement, with the R2 for the

Table 1. Regression Models of School Engagement

Block 1: Block 2: Block 3: Demographics Risk Exposure Social Capital

(R2 = 0.12) (R2 = 0.20) (R2 = 0.29)

Variable B SE 3 t B SE P t B SE P t

Constant 14.03 .106 131.85** 14.72 0.11 136.16** 10.34 0.18 59.25** Male -0.92 .057 -.17 -16.01** -0.87 0.06 -0.16 -0.71 0.05 -0.16 -13.70** Lunch eligible -0.66 .065 -.12 -10.16** -0.42 0.06 -0.08 -6.69** -0.39 0.06 -0.08 -6.57**

Repeated -1.33 .070 -.21 -19.12** -1.09 0.07 -0.17 -16.33** -0.94 0.06 -0.15 -14.79** Seventh grade -0.34 .070 -.06 -4.79** -0.26 0.07 -0.05 -3.93** -0.14 0.06 -0.03 -2.28*

Eighth grade -0.52 .070 -.092 -7.39** -0.42 0.07 -0.06 -6.22** -0.21 0.06 -0.04 -3.29**

Hispanic/Latino -0.53 .176 -.03 -2.99** -0.20 0.17 -0.01 -1.16 -0.08 0.16 -0.01 -0.48 Black -0.30 .064 -.06 -4.59** -0.01 0.06 -0.002 -0.19 0.07 0.06 0.01 1.18 Middle risk -0.94 0.07 -0.17 -12.65** -0.51 0.07 -0.09 -7.20**

High risk -2.03 0.08 -0.38 -26.78** -1.11 0.08 -0.20 -14.28** Social capital 0.23 0.01 0.34 30.83**

Note. Dependent variable for all models was the school engagement index. The reference groups for all models were female, not eligible for lunch program, no repeated grades, sixth grade, White, low-risk students. *p < .05. **p < .01.




final model in Block 3 explaining 29% of the total variance.

In a fourth block (not shown in Table 1), the interaction between social capital and contextual risks was examined in two ways. First, the interaction was modeled between the continuous variables for social capital assets and the contextual risks

(-= -.002, p = .244), then between the continuous variable for social capital assets and the risk

group levels (middle-risk 3 = -.008, p = .072, high-risk P = -.010, p = .209). In both ap- proaches, the interaction was not significant.

Discussion

The current study was designed to examine the influence of supportive adult relationships on the school engagement of youth who are exposed to environmental risk. The level of protection afforded

by such adult relationships is suggested in the

changes in R2 across the three blocks in the analysis. In the first block, five variables previously shown to be linked to school outcomes including both demo-

graphics (gender, grade, race/ethnicity) and control variables (lunch program, repeating a grade) com- bined to account for 12% of the variance in school

engagement. However, when the level of contextual risk students were exposed to was entered into the model, risk exposure increased the amount of variance explained in the school engagement measure by 8%. Finally, entering the social capital index in the third block revealed that supportive and attentive adults in the lives of youth were associated with another 9% of the variance in school engagement.

The current findings suggest that social capital plays a compensatory or additive role with respect to risk exposure in the lives of middle school students (Fraser et al., 2004). This compensatory process is indicated in the changes in the coefficients for the effect of cumulative risk from Block 2 to Block 3, when the influence of social capital substantially ( 50%) reduces the coefficient associated with risk exposure at both risk levels. Also, the absence of a statistical interaction between social capital assets and contextual risks indicates that the effect of social

capital is compensatory across the spectrum from low to high risk levels. Whereas Model 2 indicates the negative impact of contextual risk factors, Model 3 suggests how building supportive adult relationships in the lives of youth at risk can compensate for

the negative sequelae of such risk. Although many environmental risk factors are intractable to social service agencies and personnel, increasing the presence of supportive adult relationships in the lives of

youth is an attainable goal from both a programming and a policy perspective.

The current results may shed light on the role of contextual risks and social capital assets on the persistent racial/ethnic achievement gaps in the United States. Ogbu (1998) has asserted that African American students experience poorer school outcomes because of less supportive environments that result from historical and continuing discrimination in society. The conse-

quence is poorer educational opportunities for African American students. Our findings seem to support these assertions. For example, the environments that White students inhabit-including neighborhoods, schools, families, and peer groups-seem to have more desirable levels of both risk and protection than those reported by African American students in the current sample. This finding suggests that environmental differences

may contribute to the lower levels of school engagement reported by both Black and Hispanic/Latino youth. As can be seen in Table 1, Block 1, absent measures of the risk and protective factors in a student's environment, Black and Hispanic/Latino students had

significantly lower levels of school engagement. How- ever, when modeling the influence of environmental risk and protective factors, the current analysis suggests that differences in the number of contextual risks and

supportive adults in the lives of Black and Hispanic/ Latino students may account for a significant propor- tion of the racial/ethnic differences in school outcomes. Racial/ethnic group differences revealed in Block 1 significantly decreased when the two contextual risk groups were entered in the analysis in Block 2. These

findings support the work of Ogbu, whose cultural-

ecological theory pointed out that historical and current discrimination have led to less supportive contexts for the school success of African American students. His

theory predicts that an increased presence of supportive adults in the lives of African American students would be associated with a reduction in school outcome gaps.

Essentially, the pattern of scores on the three key variables-contextual risks, supportive adult relationships, and level of school engagement- mirrors the persistent racial/ethnic achievement gap in America. These finding suggest that either de- creasing the environmental risk factors in the lives of Black and Hispanic/Latino youth, or increasing the levels of social capital assets, which would mediate




the impact of those risks, would reduce the achievement gaps in school outcomes. However, no statistical difference in risk levels were found by gender, which seems logical given that risks present in the environments of school and neighborhood should be quite similar for students residing and attending school in the same environments, regardless of gender. However, we did find that girls reported both

higher numbers of supportive adults in their lives and higher levels of school engagement. Given a similar risk exposure but lower social capital assets, it is not surprising that even after entering the level of social capital into the current analysis, girls ex-

perienced significantly higher levels of school en-

gagement than boys. This pattern is consistent with research findings that suggest a growing gap between the school outcomes of girls and boys (Orfield et al., 2004) and recent research that reports higher levels of school connectedness for girls than boys (Whitlock, 2006).

Turning to the standardized coefficients in Table 1, it can be seen that risk exposure apparently has a larger effect on school engagement than do

any of the demographic or control variables. How- ever, the variable with the strongest association with the level of school engagement was the level of social

capital. This finding suggests that increasing the number of supportive adults in the lives of young people at risk is an effective strategy to increase their level of school engagement. Results from the present study indicate that programming and policies that decrease contextual risks or increase social capital assets in the lives of at-risk youth promote better school outcomes for these students and taken to-

gether may represent an effective strategy to reduce the school achievement gaps in our nation. Our results further suggest that building social capital assets may be particularly important for the school

engagement of youth exposed to higher levels of environmental risk. However, operationalizing that conclusion would involve complex programming and policies focused on a number of potential leverage points because of the multiple settings involved- home, school, and neighborhood.

Two limitations of the current study should be noted. As with all cross-sectional samples, the causal direction of key variables cannot be determined with certainty. It seems logical that environmental risk factors influence school outcomes; however, it is

possible that students who experience poorer school engagement elicit lower levels of support from the

adults in their surroundings. Second, the current

sample was a convenience and at-risk sample and has restricted external validity because of both characteristics. These findings should not be generalized to all students, or even to all at-risk students, with- out further research with other samples.

The current findings add to our growing under-

standing about the influence of adult social support on at-risk adolescents, complementing recent research reported in Family Relations by the first author (Woolley & Grogan-Kaylor, 2006). Both studies used the SSP but analyzed data from different samples of students. The previous study was focused on four scales measuring family interaction constructs and included both census and crime data to model environmental risk. Yet, these two studies

similarly found that environmental protective factors in the form of supportive adults compensated for risk exposure and accounted for race/ethnicity school performance gaps. This is a promising line of research to inform efforts to advance school success for all students and future research should continue to identify environmental factors promotive of school success, as well as deconstruct the complex relationships between factors such as mediation and moderation effects.

Implications for Practice and Policy

Success or failure in school has a profound and life-

long influence on young people. School failure and

dropout lead to a cascade of poor outcomes, includ-

ing lowered lifelong income, greater risk for substance abuse, increased likelihood of abusive or

neglectful parenting, and engagement in criminal

activity. Many students in America are negatively affected by multiple risk factors. Such risk factors include poverty, underfunded schools, crime-ridden

neighborhoods, family problems, and peer groups that are involved in drugs, crime, and violence. Stu- dents struggling to overcome such risks live primarily in lower income urban and rural areas and are disproportionately Black or Hispanic/Latino. The current study demonstrates that supportive and caring adults build resilience in multiple risk-exposed youth. At-risk youths who reported the presence of supportive adults reported higher levels of school engagement, which are predictors of success in school. Such positive adult relationships appear to be most important for students who are at higher




levels of risk, who are members of historically dis- criminated minority groups, and who are male.

One implication of the current study is that an effective and efficient use of public or private organi- zational resources focused on advancing school success would be to establish initiatives to promote attentive and supportive adults in the lives of youth in risk-exposed environments. For example, mentor

programs bring volunteer adults from the commu-

nity into a school, youth center, or church to provide tutoring, coordinate a group of students in a special interest, teach a musical instrument or artistic skill, or organize an athletic activity. Students would likely benefit from the skills and knowledge gained by participating in such activities, but more

importantly, the current research suggests that they would gain protection from the risks in their environments from spending time with such attentive and caring adults.

Social capital assets could also be increased by changing the nature of relationships with adults that

already exist in the lives of youth. An obvious exam-

ple, supported by this and previous research (Baker, 1999; Marks, 2000), would be relationships with teachers. For example, educational efforts are needed to provide knowledge to teachers about the impact of their social interaction with students coupled with

programming to develop teacher skills and school

policies to support those efforts. Another example would be educational programs that bring multiple families together to help parents develop knowledge and skills in providing a more supportive and attentive presence in their adolescent children's lives. Such programs could be offered in settings such as schools, community centers, family service agencies, and churches. These programs could be provided by various helping professionals-including social workers, school counselors, family therapists, and family life specialists. In one such program, all staff in a school were asked to volunteer to pay special attention to one at-risk student within the school (Shore, 1997). This program has been shown to be effective in advancing school performance and pre- venting dropout. Such an approach has elements of intervention and prevention, and the current research indicates that such efforts can be an effective and efficient use of increasingly limited resources for serving youth and families.

Although factors such as peers, the media, and popular culture get more attention, the current findings stress that adults in the lives of youth must

recognize and accept the responsibility and power they have. For example, the present research offers one explanation for why students do better in smaller schools and in classrooms with fewer students: Such settings provide more opportunities for youths to develop personalized relationships with adults (Garbarino & deLara, 2003; Sizer, 1999). Likewise, it seems that every organization can

implement policies and programs that allow em-

ployees to be more present in the lives of their children. Something as simple as allowing-or even

encouraging-employees to use flextime, or simply excusing employees for a limited amount of time to attend meetings or activities at school, would provide accumulating returns in the lives of those employees' children. However, parents of at-risk youth tend to be employed in lower paying jobs that offer less flexibility to get away from work to

support youth (Johns, 2001). The United States has a federal family leave policy in the event of health or other emergencies within families; the current study supports a policy that would allow

parents and guardians to take time off occasionally to observe their child's ball game or award cere-

mony, attend their child's play or concert, or sim-

ply go to school and have lunch with their child. Of course, we also need to create opportunities for more at-risk youth to participate in such activities so that parents may then attend and support them. The present research directly reveals the importance of supportive and caring adults in the lives of youth at risk and stresses the need to create programs and

policies to promote adults-in the home, school, and community-to be more available to youth.

References

Alspaugh, J. W. (1998). Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and high school. Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 20-25.

Atzaba-Poria, N. (2004). Do risk factors for problem behavior act in a cumulative manner? An examination of ethnic minority and majority children through an ecological perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 707-718.

Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 57-70.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.

Bowen, G. L., & Richman, J. M. (2001). School success profile. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, School of Social Work, Jordan Insti- tute for Families.




Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., & Bowen, N. K. (2005). The reliability and val-

idity of the school success profile. Philadelphia: Xlibris Press. Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., & Ware, W. B. (2006). The reliability and val-

idity of the School Success Profile Learning Organization measure. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 97-104.

Bowen, G. L., & Van Dorn, R. A. (2002). Community violent crime rates and school danger. Children Schools, 24, 90-104.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Eco- interactional developmental perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal ofSociology, 94(Suppl.), S95-S 120.

Cook, T. D., Murphy, R. F., & Hunt, H. D. (2000). Comer's school

development program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 535-597.

Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Leung, M., Trott, H., Bishop, J., & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Individual characteristics, early adolescent peer affiliations, and school dropout: An examination of aggressive and popular group types. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 41, 217-232.

Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk (No. NCES-93- 470). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82, 221-234.

Fraser, M. W., Kirby, L. D., & Smokowski, P. R. (2004). Risk and resilience in childhood. In M. W. Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective (2nd ed., pp. 13-66). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Garbarino, J., & deLara, E. (2003). And words can hurt forever: How to pro- tect adolescents from bullying, harassment, and emotional violence. New York: Free Press.

Gerard, J. M., & Buehler, C. (2004). Cumulative environmental risk and

youth problem behaviors. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 66, 702-720.

Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., & Ritter, P. L. (1997). Parenting styles, adolescent's attributions, and educational outcomes in nine heterogeneous high schools. Child Development, 68, 507-529.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change (elementary and middle school edition, and secondary edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high- risk settings. American Psychologist, 48, 117-126.

Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923- 933.

Johns, S. E. (2001). Using the Comer Model to educate immigrant children. Childhood Education, 77, 268-274.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher

support to student engagement and achievement. Paper presented at the Tenth Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Baltimore, MD.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). A randomized study of neighborhood effects on low income children's educational outcomes. Devel-

opmental Psychology, 40, 488-507. Luthar, S. S. (1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in

research on childhood resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi- atry, 34, 441-453.

Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities pro- tect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241-253.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Pat- terns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educa- tional Research Journal, 37, 153-184.

Miller, N. B., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1993). Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family model. Developmental Psychology, 29, 3-18.

Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of alienation in middle school. Journal ofEducational Psychol- ogy, 91, 62-75.

Ogbu, J. U. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural- ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29, 155-188.

Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. B. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Contributors: Advocates for Children of New York, The Civil Society Institute.

Pollard, J. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (1999). Risk and protection: Are both necessary to understand diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence? Social Work Research, 23, 145-158.

Richman, J. M., Bowen, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2004). School failure: An ecological-interactional-developmental perspective. In M. W. Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective (2nd ed., pp. 133-160). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, G. L. (2000). Social support networks and school outcomes: The centrality of the teacher. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 17, 205-226.

Sameroff, A. J., Barko, W. T., Baldwin, A., Baldwin, C., & Siefer, R. (1998). Family and social influences on the development of child com-

petence. In M. Lewis & C. Feiring (Eds.), Families, risk, and competence (pp. 161-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sampson, R. J. (1997). Collective regulation of adolescent misbehavior: Validation results from eighty Chicago neighborhoods. Journal ofAdo- lescent Research, 12, 227-244.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociologi- cal Review, 64, 633-660.

Scales, P. C., & Gibbons, J. L. (1996). Extended family members and unre- lated adults in the lives of young adolescents: A research agenda. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 16, 365-389.

School Success Profile. (2006). Retrieved June 1, 2006 from SSP Web site:

http://www.schoolsuccessprofile.org/ Shore, R. (1997). Creating a positive school climate. Mt. Kisco, NY: Plan for

Social Excellence. Sizer, T. R. (1999). Personalized learning: No two are alike. Educational

Leadership, 57(1), 6-11. Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and

what parents need to do. New York: Simon & Schuster. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parent-

ing, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.

Thompson, G. L. (2003). No parent left behind: Strengthening ties between educators and African American parents/guardians. Urban Review, 35, 7-23.

Voelkl, K. E., & Frone, M. R. (2000). Predictors of substance use at school among high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 583-592.

Wehlage, G. G. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities ofsupport. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91, 76-97.

Whitlock, J. (2006). Youth perceptions of life at school: Contextual corre- lates of school connectedness in adolescence. Applied Developmental Sci- ence, 10, 13-29.

Woolley, M. E. (2006). Advancing a positive school climate for students, families, and staff. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), The school services sourcebook (pp. 777-784). New York: Oxford

University Press. Woolley, M. E., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2006). Protective family factors in

the context of neighborhood: Promoting positive school outcomes. Family Relations, 55, 95-106.

Appendix A

Contextual Risks: Situations and conditions in the social environment of youth that decrease their chances for positive life experiences and increase their chances for adverse developmental outcomes.




Safety and Security

1. Residential Instability: Youth have moved two or more times in the past year.

2. Neighborhood Instability: Youth report that people move in and out of their neighborhood a lot.

3. Neighborhood Feels Unsafe: Youth feel unsafe in their neighborhood.

4. Gunshots Heard in Neighborhood: Youth heard

gunshots in their neighborhood during the past 30 days.

5. Threatened in Neighborhood by Weapon: During the past 30 days, youth were threatened by someone in their neighborhood with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club.

6. School Commuting Fears: Youth are often or sometimes afraid that someone will hurt or bother them on the way to or from school.

7. School Campus Fears: Youth are often or sometimes afraid that someone will hurt or bother them at school.

8. Weapons at School: During the past 30 days, youth knew someone who carried a weapon to

school, such as gun, knife, or club. 9. Fights at School: Youth report that fights among

students are a big problem at school. 10. School Transportation Problems: Youth do not

always have a way to get home if they stay for after-school activities.

Social and Affiliative

11. Youth in Neighborhood Get Into Trouble With Police: Youth live in a neighborhood where young people about their age are likely to get into trouble with the police.

12. Neighborhood Youth Thought Unlikely to Grad-

uate: Youth view young people in the neighborhood as unlikely to graduate from high school.

13. Friends Get Into Trouble With Police: Youth

report that they have friends who get into trouble with the police.

14. Drug Use Among Friends: Youth have friends who use drugs.

15. Friends Get Into Trouble at School: Youth have

friends who get in trouble at school. 16. Gang Involvement: Youth are a member of

a school or neighborhood gang.

17. Death of a Friend Reported: Youth report the death of a close friend in the past year.

18. Death of a Family Member Reported: Youth

report the death of a parent or a close family member (like a brother or sister) in the past year.

19. Sibling Dropout: Youth have a brother or sister who dropped out of school before graduating.

20. TV Time During School Week: During the past 30 days, youth have watched television more than 4 hr on average each school night (Sunday to

Thursday).

Appendix B

Social Capital Assets: Support and encour-

agement that youth receive from adults in their social environment that facilitate their ability to

manage life demands, achieve goals, and fulfill ambitions.

Neighborhood

1. Neighbors Interested in Local Youth: Youth per- ceive their neighbors as interested in what young people in the neighborhood are doing.

2. Neighborhood Adults Like Youth: Youth report that adults in their neighborhood seem to like

young people. 3. Neighborhood Adults Are Vigilant: Youth believe

that if they did something wrong, adults in the

neighborhood who knew about it would probably tell the adults with whom the youth live.

School

4. Every Student Feels Important: Youth feel that

every student is considered important at the school they attend.

5. Teachers Like Youth: Youth report that teachers at their school seem to like young people.

6. Students Feel Respected by Teachers: Youth feel

respected and appreciated by their teachers. 7. Principal Cares About Individual Attendance:

Youth feel that the principal of their school cares whether or not they come to school.




Home

8. Good Relationships Among Adults at Home: Youth who have more than one adult in their home describe the relationship between the adults as good.

9. Family Members Give Time and Attention: Youth report that members of their family give each other plenty of time and attention.

10. Adults in Home Show Love: Youth report that the adults in their home often let them know they are loved.

11. Adults Monitor Whereabouts: Youth report that an adult in their home almost always knows where

they are when they are not at home or in school. 12. Adults in Home Assign Chores: Youth report that

the adults in their home ask them to do chores around the house.

13. Adults in Home Know Friends: Youth report that the adults in their home know most of their friends.

14. Adults in Home Know Parents of Friends: Youth

report that the adults in their home know most of the parents of their friends.

15. Adults in Home Will Make School Visits: Youth

report that if they needed one or more adults with whom they live to come to school, they would come.

16. Adult Available After School: Youth report that an adult almost always is available for them to contact when they return home from school.

17. Adults in Home Encourage School Performance: Youth are encouraged by the adults in their home to do well in school.

18. Adults in Home Interested in School Work: Youth report that the adults in their home show an interest in things they have studied in class.

Across Settings

19. Adults Are Fair: Youth agree that most adults are fair.

20. Adults Can Be Trusted: Youth report that most adults can be trusted.



in the context of risk: supportive adults and the school engagement of middle school students

Documents