Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
SCHOOL DISORDER: THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMMUNITY FACTORS
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
SCHOOL DISORDER: THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMMUNITY FACTORS
Do you wish to request the book?
SCHOOL DISORDER: THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMMUNITY FACTORS
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
SCHOOL DISORDER: THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMMUNITY FACTORS
1999
Overview
Drawing upon control theory, school climate theory, and social disorganization theory, this study examined the relative influence of individual, institutional, and community factors on misconduct in Philadelphia middle schools. Using U.S. census data, school district data, police department data, and school climate survey data obtained from the administration of the Effective School Battery to 7, 583 students in 11 middle schools, we examined the following predictors of student misconduct: community poverty and residential stability; community crime; school size; student perceptions of school climate (school attachment); and individual student characteristics (e.g., age, race, sex, school involvement and effort, belief in rules, positive peer associations). “Community” was conceptualized in two ways: “local” (the census tract around the school), and “imported” (aggregated measures from the census tracts where students actually lived). We used hierarchical linear modeling techniques (HLM) to examine between‐ and within‐school factors. Individual‐level factors accounted for 16% of the explained variance; school and community‐level factors (both local and imported) added only small increments (an additional 4.1–4.5%). We conclude that simplistic assumptions that “bad” communities typically produce “bad” children or “bad” schools are unwarranted.
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing Ltd,Sage Publications,American Society of Criminology
Subject
