school failure

7/30/2019 School Failure

1/21

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, February 2004 ( 2004)

Teacher Support and the SchoolEngagement of Latino Middleand High School Students at Riskof School Failure

Ann B. Brewster, Ph.D. andGary L. Bowen, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT: This investigation examined the effects of social support fromteachers on the school engagement of middle and high school Latino studentsidentified as being at risk of school failure. Regression analyses indicated thatsocial support from teachers is an important factor in affective and behavioralaspects of school engagement. Specifically, teachers exerted an important ef-fect on school engagement, beyond the effect of parental support. This paperdiscusses the implications of these findings for developing more effective drop-out-prevention interventions for Latino students.

KEY WORDS: Latino Students; Social Support; Teachers; Parents; SchoolEngagement.

Individuals who leave high school without a credential increase theirsusceptibility to many detrimental life outcomes. Compared to high

school graduates, dropouts are more likely to experience unemploy-

ment, to receive welfare, to have lower lifetime earning potential, to

engage in delinquent or criminal behavior, and to suffer mental health

problems (NCES, 1996; Rumberger, 1987). The life prospects for high

school dropouts are indeed dismal in a twenty-first-century economy.

Although the national high school dropout rate declined steadily

over the past century (NCES, 1999), dropping out remains a problem,

Ann B. Brewster is a postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Cecil G. Sheps Center forHealth Sciences Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Gary L. Bowen,Ph.D. is Kenan Distinguished Professor, School of Social Work, University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill.Address correspondence to Ann B. Brewster/Gary L. Bowen, School of Social Work,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 301 Pittsboro Street, CB# 3550, ChapelHill, NC 27599-3550; e-mail: [email protected]/[email protected].

47 2004 Human Sciences Press, Inc.


2/21

48 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

particularly for Latino youth. The current dropout rate for Latinos in

the United States (27.8%) is approximately four times higher than the

rate for Whites (6.9%) and twice as high as the rate for African Ameri-

cans (13.1%) (NCES, 2002). In addition, Latino students younger than

tenth grade drop out at twice the rate of their White counterparts

(NCES, 1994), and students who drop out before this age are less

likely to return to education than those who drop out in later grades

(NCES, 1996). Effective policies and programs to combat the Latino

dropout rate depend on a better understanding of the factors and pro-

cesses involved in dropping out. Such understanding is especially im-

portant in the context of the increasing number of Latino students

enrolled in U.S. schools (NCES, 1998).

Past dropout research identified important risk markers and pro-

cesses (Rumberger, 1995; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000; Ryan & Ad-ams, 1998); we understand less, however, about the assets associated

with school success, especially in the case of Latino students (Hispanic

Dropout Project, 1998). Recent research by Benson, Leffert, Scales,

and Blyth (1998) shows the relationship between social assets and posi-

tive student outcomes. Other researchers, such as N. K. Bowen and G.

L. Bowen (1998a), demonstrate the importance of both risk and protec-

tive factors in producing successful student outcomes. Nonparental

adults constitute one potentially important asset, and supportive teach-

ers with high expectations may play a critical role in the school success

of Latino youth (Hispanic Dropout Project, 1998; Shouse, 1999). Scales

and Gibbons (1996) discuss the importance of better understanding the

role and effects of nonparental adults in the lives of adolescents, espe-

cially in the context of different ethnic groups.This study focuses on student-perceived teacher support and its im-

pact on the school engagement of at-risk Latino middle and high

school youth. Informed by ecological models of school success and by

the burgeoning literature on the positive role of social capital, we ex-

amine this influence beyond parental support, and in the context of

school level (middle or high), gender, family structure, and poverty.

Conceptual Model

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model examined in the current in-

vestigation, wherein school engagement is the dependent variable.

Within the context of an ecological model of educational persistence(Richman & Bowen, 1997; Tinto, 1994; Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko,


3/21

ANN B. BREWSTER AND GARY L. BOWEN 49

FIGURE 1. Conceptual model for study.

Note. Solid lines = paths tested in current model. Dotted line = assumed linkages.

& Fernandez, 1989), school engagement mediates between family

assets, school assets, and school outcomes such as school dropout.Both parental and teacher support, which function as social capital

assets for students, directly and positively influence school engage-

ment.

School Engagement

School engagement includes a students affective, cognitive, and be-

havioral responses related to attachment, sense of belonging, or involve-

ment in school (Wehlage et al., 1989). A high level of school engage-

ment may be especially important for the academic achievement and

educational attainment of Latino youth. For example, one study dem-

onstrated that teacher ratings of school engagement, measured by lev-

els of classroom participation and classroom affect, were significantlyrelated to the higher grade achievements of Latino seventh- through

tenth-graders (Herman & Tucker, 2000).

Two important aspects of school engagement discussed in this study

problem behavior in school and affect about schoolare particularly rel-

evant for the academic achievement and educational attainment of mi-

nority youth. One study of African American students at risk of school

failure found those who were engaged in their coursework, based on af-

fective and behavioral measures, to be more academically successful

than those students who were not so engaged (Connell, Spencer, & Aber,

1994). In another study, Latino students who reported they liked school

were more likely to graduate (Reyes & Jason, 1993).

We consider students physically disengaged from school when they

exhibit behavioral and attendance problems, such as cutting classesand logging unexcused absences. Minority youth typically exhibit more


4/21


behavioral problems than White youth (Finn & Rock, 1997); they are

also more likely than White youth to be absent from school (Bryk &

Thum, 1989; Rumberger, 1995). Within racial and ethnic minority

populations, Latino students typically miss more school than African

American students (Finn & Rock, 1997). Since behavioral problems at

school are associated with dropping out (Barrington & Hendricks,

1989), we consider school engagement, as it is manifested psychologi-

cally and physically, an important construct to examine in relation to

the educational attainment of Latino youth.

Social Capital

Social capital includes the resources that reside in human relation-

ships and that help promote positive outcomes for individuals (Cole-man, 1988). Research indicates that social capital from adults such as

parents and teachers is a critical factor in determining many kinds

of successful youth outcomes, especially in the case of at-risk youth

(G. L. Bowen & Chapman, 1996; Werner & Smith, 1992). Direct links

have been found between parental and teacher support and educa-

tional outcomes (Richman, Rosenfeld, & Bowen, 1998; Rosenfeld, Rich-

man, & Bowen, 2000; Wentzel, 1998). One study (Richman et al.,

1998) found parental and teacher support more important than peer

support in creating positive school outcomes among at-risk students.

Parental Support. Defined as the degree to which parents are in-volved in and promote their childrens education, parental support has

received a lot of attention in studies of school engagement and aca-demic achievement (e.g., Adams, Ryan, Ketsetzis, & Keating, 2000;

Bogenschneider, 1997; N. K. Bowen & Bowen, 1998b; Falbo, Lein, &

Amador, 2001). Although parental involvement in childrens education

decreases from elementary school to high school (Shumow & Miller,

2001), the family nonetheless constitutes a critical source of social

capital for the educational endeavors of all youth. Consequently, we

consider parental support to be an important control variable in un-

derstanding the effect of teacher support on Latino students school

engagement.

According to McNeal (1999), there are at least four types of parental

social capital, including parent-child discussion related to education,

parental involvement in the parent-teacher organization, parental

monitoring of childrens behavior, and direct parental involvement inchildrens educational practices. Of these four, McNeal found parent-


5/21


child discussion (the extent to which parents and children regularly

discuss education issues) exercises the greatest impact on educational

outcomes. Parental support helps to direct children towards positive

behavior in school by reinforcing the notion of education as valuable

and by monitoring childrens engagement in school (McNeal, 1999;

Pong, 1997).

Moreover, McNeals research suggests that the influence of parental

discussion on academic achievement might vary, depending on a stu-

dents racial or ethnic group identification. In McNeals study, such dis-

cussion was significantly related to the academic achievement of Afri-

can American and White students, but not to that of Latino or Asian

students. However, Ginorio and Huston (2001) report that Latino fam-

ilies do exercise a strong effect on students pursuit of educational

goals, though a lack of English or other knowledge may hinder someparents ability to help their children with schoolwork, regardless of

attitude or desire.

Teacher Support. Defined as the degree to which teachers listen to,encourage, and respect students, teacher support relates to the aca-

demic achievement of Latinos (Ginorio & Huston, 2001). Stanton-

Salazar (1997) asserted that support from teachers and other adults

at school becomes more important for the academic success of racial

and ethnic minority students, because such support is considered

harder to obtain. This is possibly because of the greater number of

White teachers and other adults than minority teachers or adults in

the schools. Currently, only 4% of public school teachers are Latino

(NCES, 1998), while approximately 15% of public school students areLatino (NCES, 2000). Teacher support may also be of greater impor-

tance to Latinos than to those from other racial or ethnic backgrounds,

because White teachers may have less understanding of Latino cul-

ture (Ginorio & Huston, 2001).

Teacher support also influences affective components of school en-

gagement. In one study, Rosenfeld, Richman, and Bowen (2000) re-

ported a relationship between teacher support and three measures of

affect related to school, such as I find school fun and exciting. In

addition, Valenzuela (1999) found that perceived social support from

teachers was associated with positive affect toward school in a sample

of Mexican youth.

Unfortunately, compared to the research on parental support, rela-

tively little research has examined the impact of student-perceivedteacher support on school engagement, achievement, and attainment.


6/21


Teacher support may be more important for middle school students

than for high school students, because high school students rely more

heavily on peers as sources of support (Wentzel, 1998). Teacher sup-

port may also be different for boys and girls. For instance, according

to Finn and Rock (1997), teachers interactions with boys typically in-

clude more disciplinary action, a fact that may lead boys to consider

teachers less supportive. Finally, social status may play a role. Stu-

dents from poor and single-parent families may perceive their teach-

ers as less supportive than students from middle class families, be-

cause discrepancies between students and teachers experiences can

make it harder to connect (Fine, 1986).

Method

Source of Data

The data in this investigation resulted from surveys with 699 Latino

middle and high school students from the United States; school per-

sonnel or other community professionals previously identified these

students as at risk of school failure. The Latino sample is a subset of

a larger dataset comprising 5016 students from middle and high

school, and from multiple races and ethnic backgrounds. All were con-

sidered at risk of school failure. Students in the sample attended 53

middle and high schools in 10 states: 38% from Florida; 17% from

North Carolina; 17% from Pennsylvania; and 14% from Kansas. Data

were collected between February 11, 1998, and October 31, 2000;these data were derived from the School Success Profile (SSP) survey

(G. L. Bowen & Richman, 2001), a rigorously tested diagnostic tool

that assesses students perspectives about themselves, their families,

their schools, and their neighborhoods.

Sample Profile

The analysis was restricted to the 633 Latino respondents for whom

we possessed complete data related to all variables in this analysis

(91% of the initial Latino sample of 699). Approximately 30% of the

students (189) attended middle school (grades 6 through 8); 70% of

the students (444) were high school students (grades 9 through 12).

Almost two-thirds of the sample (65%) received free or reduced-priceluncha proxy measure of household poverty status (G. L. Bowen &


7/21


Chapman, 1996). Not quite half of the sample lived with two parents

(43%); the remaining sample members (57%) lived with one parent,

lived alone, or lived in another situation. Approximately half of the

sample population was male (49%).

Measures

We selected four measures to investigate the relationship between

teacher support and school engagement: problem behavior; perception

of school meaningfulness; parental support; and teacher support. De-

scriptive statistics, including bivariate correlations for all of the mea-

sures in the analysis, appear in Table 1. Four additional demographic

variables were included in the analysis as control variables.

Dependent Variables. We measured school engagement using twovariables: problem behavior in school and perceived school meaning-

fulness. Seven survey items assessed problem behavior at school,

which we considered an index rather than a summary scale (DeVellis,

1991). The index consisted of attendance-related items such as cut at

least one class and showed up for school late unexcused, as well as

items related to negative behavior at school, such as fought or have

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics for Analysis Measures (N = 633)

Bivariate

Correlations

Range Mean SD 1 2 3 4

Dependent variables

1. Problem behaviora

0 to 7 1.41 1.49

2. School meaningfulnessb

3 to 9 6.50 1.80 .31

Independent variables

3. Parental supportb

0 to 6 3.29 1.96 .15 .26

4. Teacher supportb

0 to 7 5.51 1.95 .26 .38 .30

aCoded from low to high.

bCoded from negative to positive.


8/21


been suspended. Answers were dichotomous. This summary index

ranged from 0 to 7; 0 indicated no behavior problems and 7 indicated

the highest level of problem behavior during the past 30 days.

The second measure of school engagement, school meaningfulness,

was assessed using three items informed by the earlier work of G. L.

Bowen, Richman, Brewster, and Bowen (1998): I find school fun and

exciting; I look forward to learning new things at school; and I look

forward to going to school. Each item was rated on a 3-point contin-

uum, from 1 (Not like me) to 3 (A lot like me). The additive scale

ranged from 3 to 9 and was coded low-to-high. Reliability analysis

yielded a Cronbachs alpha coefficient of .77.

Independent Variables. Two independent variables measured stu-

dent-perceived adult social support from parents and from teachers. Sixsurvey items assessed the degree to which students perceived their par-

ents communication with them about school as positive and supportive.

Students were asked to state whether, within the last thirty days, they

had discussed the following with any adults living in their homes: Se-

lecting courses or programs at school; School activities or events that

interest you; Things youve studied in class; Attendance, homework,

or problems with a teacher; Politics or current events; and Your

plans for the future. We rated parental support using a summary scale,

with possible scores ranging from 0 to 6; higher scores represented

greater perceived parental support. Reliability analysis yielded a Cron-

bachs alpha coefficient of .76 for parental support.

Seven survey items assessed teacher support, referring to the de-

gree to which students perceive their teachers as caring, encouraging,respectful, and willing to work with them. Students were asked to

circle whether the following statements were true or false: My teach-

ers really care about me; My teachers really listen to what I have to

say; My teachers care whether or not I come to school; My teachers

are willing to work with me after school; I receive a lot of encourage-

ment from my teachers; I am respected and appreciated by my

teachers; and My teachers understand racial and cultural differ-

ences. Teacher support was a scale item, with possible scores ranging

from 0 to 7. A score of 7 represented the highest level of teacher sup-

port. Reliability analysis yielded a Cronbachs alpha coefficient of .81

for teacher support.

Control Variables. We entered four additional variables into theanalysis as controls, all coded as dummy variables: school level (1 =


9/21


high school), gender (1 = female), family structure (1 = other-than-two-

parent household), and school lunch (1 = free or reduced-priced school

lunch recipient).

Data Analysis

We investigated the relationship between adult support and school

engagement using a series of stages of hierarchical linear regressions

(Cohen & Cohen, 1983). According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001),

such regression is appropriate when theory guides the order of impor-

tance of the variables. In this investigation, it constituted the best

approach to answering two specific questions: First, does teacher sup-

port significantly influence problem behavior in school and student

perception of school meaningfulness, beyond the influence of demo-graphic variables and parental support? Secondly, do there exist signif-icant interaction effects of teacher support, school level, gender, familystructure and school lunch, beyond demographic factors and parentaland teacher support? We conducted separate analyses for each of twodependent variables.

In the first step of each regression analysis, we entered the vari-

ables of grade, gender, family structure, and school lunch status. Sec-

ond, we entered parental support data. The third step included teacher

support data, while the fourth step examined whether the four inter-

action terms added significantly to the explained variance. We used

SPSS 9.0 to conduct the analysis and evaluated the results using a

.05 level of significance.

Results

Hierarchical regression analyses of the specific effects of teacher sup-

port on Latino youth indicated that teacher support does significantly

affect both problem behavior and perception of school meaningful-

ness. As the level of student perceptions of teacher support increased,

mean levels of problem behavior decreased and mean levels of per-

ceived school meaningfulness increased, both beyond the influence

of demographic controls and parental support (Tables 2 and 3). No

statistically significant interaction effects were identified in eithermodel.


10/21


TABLE2

HierarchicalMultipleR

egressionPredictingProblem

BehaviorforLatino

Middle-

andHigh-SchoolStudents(N

=

633)

Step1

Step2

Step3

Step4

Variable

B

Beta

B

Beta

B

Beta

B

Beta

Dem

ographics

Schoollevela

.093

.027

.031

.009

.

067

.019

.150

.04

4

Gen

derb

.5

73

.183*

.5

37

.1

71*

.

467

.1

49*

.5

08

.16

2*

Fam

ilystructurec

.164

.052

.144

.045

.

135

.043

.048

.01

5

Schoollunch

d

.2

29

.070

.2

10

.0

64

.

206

.0

63

.2

41

.07

4

Soci

alCapital

Parentalsupport

.1

06

.1

32*

.054

.0

68

.0

55

.06

9

Teachersupport

.

174

.2

17*

.1

79

.22

3*

Interactions

TS

Schoollevel

.1

75

.05

3

TS

Gender

.079

.02

2

TS

Familystructure

.184

.04

6

TS

Schoollunch

.058

.01

7


11/21


Con

stant

1.7

56

2.1

25

2.8

53

2.8

92

MultipleR

.202

.240

.316

.319

R2

.041*

.058*

.100*

.102*

F

6.6

70

7.6

86

11.5

73

7.0

34

df

(4,

628)

(5,

627)

(6,

626)

(10,

622)

R2c

hange

.017*

.042*

.002

F

11.3

08

29.2

75

.302

df

(1,

627)

(1,

626)

(4,

622)

a1=

highschool.

b1=

female.

c1=

otherthantwoparenthousehold.

d1=

receivedfreeorreduced-pricelunch.

*p

school failure

Documents