Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.

29–44, 1998
Copyright  1998 Society for the Study of School Psychology
Printed in the USA
0022-4405/98 $19.00 1 .00

PII S0022-4405(97)00048-4

Are We Missing the Forest for the Trees?

Considering the Social Context of School Violence
Jean A. Baker
The University of Georgia

This paper argues that we have neglected an important consideration in our ap-
proach to school violence, namely that of the social context of the school. The
interaction between the social contexts of schools, children’s developmental capaci-
ties, and the resultant sense of school community is implicated in problems of vio-
lence in American schools. Children prone to violence are disadvantaged in their
ability to participate meaningfully in the community of the school, thus impeding
an important avenue for prevention and intervention. Consideration of these issues
and recommendations for practice are made.  1998 Society for the Study of School
Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords: School violence, Social context, School community.

The perception that American schools are rife with violence is commonly
accepted, but the problem is harder to define and measure (Furlong &
Morrison, 1994). School violence is probably best conceptualized as a range
of antisocial behaviors on school campuses, ranging from oppositionality
and bullying to assaults. School psychologists have been actively involved
in addressing problems of violence in schools. We have approached the
problem primarily through skills-building prevention and intervention ap-
proaches for children and their families (e.g., Larson, 1994). However, we
are increasingly recognizing the importance of the interaction between in-
dividuals and their environments for understanding and intervening in
problems of violence (Tolan, Guerra, & Kendall, 1995). Within psychology,
relatively little attention has been paid to the context and characteristics
of schools and how they might contribute to violence in that setting.
Context is defined as a ‘‘situational variable that alters the psychological
significance and demands of particular life events’’ (Gore & Eckenrode,
1994, p. 25). Contextual variables have gained interest in stress and mental
health research because of their explanatory value for individual differ-
ences in outcomes (Haggerty, Sherrod, Garmezy, & Rutter, 1994). Schools
are considered proximal contexts for children’s development because of

Received December 22, 1995; accepted September 30, 1996.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jean A. Baker, PhD, Department of Educa-
tional Psychology, 325 Aderhold Hall, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602. E-mail:
jbaker@uga.cc.uga.edu.

29
30 Journal of School Psychology

the amount of time children spend there and their potential to influence
children’s life courses (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Schools may serve as either
risk factors potentiating problems of violence among children, or as protec-
tive factors promoting adaptive adjustment among children at risk (Consor-
tium on the School-Based Promotion of Social Competence, 1994; Mor-
rison, Furlong, & Morrison, 1994). However, the mechanisms by which this
interaction occur are less well understood.
This paper presents one perspective for considering the interaction be-
tween violence-prone children and the school context. Drawing from de-
velopmental psychology, social psychology, and the sociology of education,
this paper argues that school violence reflects a failure of community in
schools. Community can be defined as the relational bonds between indi-
viduals that allow them to forge shared values and ideals in pursuit of a
meaningful common goal (Sergiovanni, 1994). Community is essentially a
shared social contract that allows individuals to derive a sense of purpose
and meaning within a behavior setting. The importance of community is
not a new idea in education. Dewey’s (1916/1970) notions of democracy
and character development are firmly relational and community oriented.
In community-oriented schools children feel a sense of belonging, of com-
mitment, and a sense of shared enterprise around academic achievement
(Woods, 1992). A social contract that involves caring and support allows
children to appraise school as a meaningful social context in which to func-
tion (Noddings, 1988). Violence at school may represent a breakdown of
this sense of identity, belonging, and place descriptive of community.
Children prone to violence are at risk for failing to engage in the commu-
nity life of the school. They do not forge social relationships at school that
allow them to perceive an ethic of care and a sense of belonging to the
school community. From this relational perspective, children’s psychologi-
cal affiliation to school mediates their expression of nonnormative behav-
ior (i.e., violence) at school. The theses of this paper are (a) violence-prone
children have fundamentally different orientations toward, and skills to ne-
gotiate, social experiences; (b) schooling is a social endeavor and exerts
specialized social demands on children; and (c) violence at school is a man-
ifestation of poorness of fit between children’s developmental capacities
and the social context of the school. From this perspective, violent students
are disadvantaged in their ability to participate meaningfully in school com-
munity. Furthermore, schools may actively contribute to the manifestation
of problem behavior and the eventual alienation and disengagement from
schooling of these students. It is not the intent of this paper to understate
the complexity of the issue or the importance of multimodal approaches
to intervention (e.g., Tolan et al., 1995) by isolating this one aspect of the
violence problem. Adequate responses to violence among children must
include child-, family-, and community-centered initiatives. However, our
efforts to curb school violence will be enhanced by considering the social
 Baker 31

context of the school and complex social interactions that mediate the ex-
pression of violent behavior in that setting.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT

Children’s ability to participate meaningfully in the community life of the
school derives from their social/emotional capacities. Children’s social/
emotional development is grounded in their early interactions with signifi-
cant others. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982; Bretherton, 1987) maintains
that children internalize a set of beliefs about self, others, and the nature
of relationships (termed working models) that sets the stage for future social
behavior. The theory posits that children who have positive, secure, recipro-
cal interactions with significant adults explore the world readily, thus devel-
oping sophisticated coping repertoires and perceptions of personal agency.
Secure attachment relationships promote a willingness to engage in social
endeavors and orient the child toward valuing social relationships. The re-
ciprocated support from the attachment figure fosters the child’s sense of
self-acceptance and esteem and the belief that he/she is worthy of atten-
tion from others. The child’s working model develops across childhood
and provides the framework through which social behavior is interpreted
and organized (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). There is ample empirical evidence
that children’s attachment histories affect their social behavior, including
their relationships with teachers and peers at school and their adjustment
to the school setting (Pianta & Steinberg, 1992).
Children’s attachment histories are hypothesized to underlie individual
differences in the ability to perceive social support from others (Sarason,
Sarason, & Pierce, 1990). Children’s expectations about the supportiveness
of the social environment becomes part of their internalized working
model. In turn, the feedback and care from members of the child’s social
network shapes and maintains behavior and establishes norms and expecta-
tions for future social interactions. The importance of the interaction be-
tween the child and his/her social environment is underscored from this
developmental perspective.
The importance of the social context of development is also evident
within cognitive psychology (Goodenow, 1992; Rogoff & Lave, 1984; Vygot-
sky, 1978). Within Vygotskian perspectives on learning, the responsiveness
of social environment is critical for children’s acquisition of complex think-
ing skills. Learning and cognitive development are promoted by interac-
tions with the social environment. From this perspective, learning and cog-
nition, traditionally the ‘‘stuff ’’ of school, are entirely dependent on the
social context.
By the time children get to the primary grades we assume they have ac-
quired a key set of social competencies that foster adaptation to schooling.
These include valuing social exchange, trusting the intent of adults, the
32 Journal of School Psychology

ability to ‘‘read’’ complex patterns of social behavior, a willingness to take

positive risks, age-appropriate self-regulatory skills, and a developing sense
of worth, self-acceptance, and personal agency. These capacities are nur-
tured within children’s social relationships. However, children with tenden-
cies toward violence have different developmental trajectories. They arrive
at the schoolhouse door ill equipped to negotiate the complexities of
school life and to engage in a meaningful way with the community of the
school.

THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF VIOLENCE-PRONE CHILDREN

Both Patterson’s social learning model (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey,
1989) and Catalona and Hawkins’ social development model (O’Donnell,
Hawkins, & Abbott, 1995) propose that children with conduct problems
have fundamentally different early social experiences than do typically de-
veloping children. Harsh and inconsistent socialization practices impact
personality and skill development, leading to a lack of social competence
and inadequate bonding to prosocial models. Children with conduct prob-
lems perceive environmental events as more threatening and lack social-
cognitive and behavioral skills to mediate conflict (Lochman, White, &
Wayland, 1991). Additionally, there is an orientation within the child’s so-
cial network to employ violent problem-solving approaches. The modeling
of maladaptive behavior patterns (Patterson, 1982) and the resultant belief
that violent strategies are appropriate (Guerra, Huesmann, Tolan, Van-
Acker, & Eron, 1995) further differentiate these children from their nonag-
gressive peers.
From an attachment perspective, violence-prone children develop dif-
ferent working models or personal schemas related to self and relation-
ships (Greenberg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993; Waters, Posada, Crowell, &
Keng-ling, 1993). Because of their insecure attachment histories, children
approach social situations with more anxiety and expectations for rejection,
have fewer skills to negotiate social relationships and contexts, and hold
less competent views of the self (Bowlby, 1982). Again, these child-based
characteristics interact with inadequate parenting practices and the model-
ing of violence to produce the potential for conduct problems in children
(O’Donnell et al., 1995).
Children bring their social developmental histories with them to school
(Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). The social environment at school determines
to what degree violence is exhibited in that setting.

A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL OF SCHOOLING

Constructivist perspectives on schooling maintain that children learn by
actively exploring ideas and information so that they become meaningful
 Baker 33

within the child’s life experience. Children construct knowledge by using

higher-level thinking skills, such as building and refuting arguments, hy-
pothesizing and experimenting, and using authentic, socially valid prob-
lems as the context for learning. This pedagogical approach requires that
children collaborate and interact with others during learning tasks. As
a result, knowledge is integrated and connected in meaningful ways
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wittrock, 1986). From this perspective, chil-
dren’s learning and the ability to participate in education is thought to
be fundamentally rooted in a social milieu (Vygotsky, 1978a). The degree
to which children approach academic tasks is mediated through self-
structures (such as self-efficacy, self-concept, etc.; Schunk, 1989), which
derive from social interactions. In turn, children’s persistence and appraisal
of academic tasks is shaped by feedback from others. The importance of
the social context from which school-like skills emerge and with which they
interact is highlighted by this perspective.
In order to adapt successfully to school, children must bring with them
the willingness to engage in social exchange in order to construct knowl-
edge, and a set of competencies to mediate the learning environment. In
order to forge community, schools must accommodate to and complement
the needs of children so that they can derive shared meaning and joint
interest in academic endeavors (Sergiovanni, 1994). Individuals perceive
the environment as supportive when they find common ground with others
and establish a sense of mutuality and reciprocity (Coyne & Bolger, 1990;
Newcomb, 1990). The goodness of fit between children’s needs, skills, and
expectations and the school’s response is critical to perceptions of affilia-
tion and community at school (Noddings, 1988).
The result of this reciprocal, complementary interaction between chil-
dren and the social environment is the child’s psychological sense of mem-
bership and belonging to the school, or a sense of community. There is a
growing body of literature documenting the importance of children’s sense
of affiliation to schooling. Using primarily populations deemed to be ‘‘at
risk,’’ research has shown that this affiliation to school influences the accep-
tance of educational values, motivation, and commitment to school
(Goodenow & Grady, 1992; Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez,
1989). The perceptions of school as a personally supportive community is
critical to school completion and satisfaction (Fine, 1986; Kagan, 1990).
By as early as third grade, students who express high satisfaction with
schooling show a distinctive social context at school, including perceptions
of better school climate, social support, supportive interpersonal interac-
tions with teachers, and better prosocial adjustment than those who dislike
school (Baker, in press).
The sense of belonging to or alienation from school may be the psycho-
logical manifestation of this goodness of fit between the school’s social envi-
ronment and individual differences in social/emotional development. Ad-
34 Journal of School Psychology

herence to norms at school depends on a child’s ability to derive shared

meaning from and to value the social context of school. From this perspec-
tive, a child’s sense of school community and the school’s ability to extend
community to children are implicated in the expression of violence at
school.

HOW MIGHT SCHOOLS UNINTENTIONALLY PERPETUATE

ALIENATION AND VIOLENCE?
The fact that school environments exert considerable control over student
behavior has been demonstrated both within the effective schools literature
(e.g., Edmonds, 1986; Woods, 1992) and within specialized programs for
children at risk (Toles, Schulz, & Rice, 1986). This potent ‘‘school effect’’
can either serve as a risk or a protective factor in children’s adjustment
(Frymier, 1992; Good & Weinstein, 1986).
How might schools unintentionally alienate students and contribute to
problems of violence? Schools, as social institutions, have overt and tacit
norms and values defining behaviors and social interaction patterns (Sara-
son, 1982). This culture of the school shapes and constrains the expression
of individual differences among its members (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Smey-Richman, 1991). Nonnormative, ‘‘problem’’ behavior emerges when
there is a poor fit between the demand characteristics of the school and
children’s developmental capacities.
The structure and organization of schools present challenges for vio-
lence-prone children (American Psychological Association, 1993; Hell-
man & Beaton, 1986). Schools group large numbers of similar-aged chil-
dren and provide relatively little adult supervision, especially during
nonstructured portions of the school day such as recess and movement
between classes. The crowdedness of the classroom and the task-driven na-
ture of the curriculum require children to have adequate self-management
skills (such as impulse control, an ability to moderate their activity levels,
and to delay gratification). Schools assume that children inherently value
academic endeavors and are therefore motivated to participate in learning
tasks. At-risk children may not have the skills to negotiate or derive mean-
ing from these activity settings, thus creating psychological distancing from
the culture of the school.
Pedagogical approaches and the nature of the curriculum also affect stu-
dents’ affiliation to school and the expression of behavioral problems (Get-
tinger, 1988; Goldstein, 1995; O’Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott, &
Day, 1995). Effective teaching practices may impact social bonding to
school in several ways. First, they help children create meaning from school
tasks. It is hypothesized that active teaching approaches are effective for
low-achieving students because they simplify discourse in the classroom,
thus permitting disadvantaged students to engage with the academic mate-
 Baker 35

rial (Kagan, 1990). Taking a different stance on this issue, cooperative and
constructivist curricular approaches are advocated for ‘‘at-risk’’ students
because they require children to manipulate learning tasks in ways that are
personally and socially relevant (Elias & Allen, 1991; Tharp & Gallimore,
1988). Secondly, effective teaching practices increase children’s opportu-
nity for social feedback and reinforcement in the classroom. However,
there is ample evidence that ‘‘at-risk’’ children, especially poor children,
engage in repetitive unmotivating tasks during extended periods of social
isolation (Brophy & Kher, 1986; Haberman, 1991). Poor academic quality
is associated with increased violence in urban school settings (Hellman &
Beaton, 1986).
Teacher expectations and differential behavior is another avenue
through which schools unintentionally contribute to problems for students
at-risk (Kagan, 1990). Considerable attention has been paid to teacher–
child interactions and their effects on children’s achievement (see Babad,
1993, for a review). The general findings from this research are that teach-
ers unintentionally behave differently toward high- and low-achieving stu-
dents. High-achieving students typically receive (and perceive) more posi-
tive and supportive interpersonal interactions with teachers and higher
expectations for performance. Low-achieving students often obtain com-
pensatory instruction and increased teaching effort, however, this is cou-
pled with more negative affect and interpersonal interactions from teach-
ers. Over time, students internalize these expectations and respond with
continued low effort and achievement and increasing alienation from the
school (Brophy & Kher, 1986).
A similar pattern is noted for students with conduct problems (Good &
Brophy, 1994). Teachers expect difficult behavior from challenging stu-
dents and attempt to control them through increasingly restrictive means.
Teachers are more likely to attribute the origination of problems to chil-
dren they have labeled as ‘‘difficult to manage.’’ Children perceive these
disciplinary practices and interactions as threatening and respond with
more defiance. Thus a vicious cycle is established in which teachers unin-
tentionally alienate students and students respond in ways that encourage
their further alienation (Kagan, 1990). This pattern is not misinterpreted
by many at-risk youth. They perceive their teachers’ intentions as hostile
and report being actively disliked by their teachers (Institute for Education
and Transformation, 1992; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986).
Children’s peer relations also impact their use of violence at school. Chil-
dren with disruptive behavior are often rejected by classmates (Coie,
Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990), thus affirming their perceptions of the class-
room as a hostile environment. Children with conduct problems seek out
similar others, thus obtaining both models of, and reinforcement for, ag-
gressive behavior. They develop a distinctive subculture in which beliefs
about the legitimacy and utility of violence are shared (Guerra et al.,
36 Journal of School Psychology

1995). These antisocial ‘‘crowds’’ may serve as alternative communities

for violence-prone youth, meeting their psychological and social needs for
identity and solidarity (McLaren, 1994). Schools contribute to school vio-
lence in this arena when they fail to teach, supervise, and structure opportu-
nities for prosocial peer interactions.
School disciplinary practices are another contextual variable likely to ex-
acerbate problems of violence (Gorski & Pilotto, 1993). Schools continue
to use harsh disciplinary practices, including corporal punishment in some
states, against violent children. Discipline approaches may be perceived as
arbitrary and hostile if they are devoid of a meaningful social purpose. If
students perceive that the intent of school discipline is to minimize disrup-
tion of the tasks of schooling, rather than to provide corrective feedback
so that students might reengage with the life of the school, then increased
alienation and distancing follow (Institute for Education and Transforma-
tion, 1992).
Parenthetically, the question of schools’ culpability in their own victim-
ization has been raised within sociology of education literature. Critical
theorists (e.g., Apple, 1990; McLaren, 1994) contend that the mission of
schools is to reify the social, political, and economic norms of the cultures
in which they are located. The structure and everyday practices of schools
transmit dominant ideologies and social practices to students ( Jackson,
1968). When students’ experience these practices as oppressive (often be-
cause of cultural differences) they react either by disengagement or disrup-
tion (McLaren, 1994). From this perspective, schools create resistance (i.e.,
violence) by asking children to give up behavior signifying power or status
in their subcultures. Although few school psychologists and fewer adminis-
trators would concur entirely with this position, these arguments should
raise questions about the norms and assumptions implicit in schooling
practices and should encourage us to consider student voice in our at-
tempts to address school violence.
In sum, schools participate in violence problems when they fail to provide
students with meaningful social contexts within which to function. If the
school environment is perceived as hostile or threatening, students may
respond with a range of violent behaviors. Alternately, the failure of schools
to make contact with at-risk students promotes alienation and distancing,
which may potentiate nonnormative behavior at school.

BUILDING COMMUNITY FOR STUDENTS AT RISK

School violence is a complex social problem. For the sake of argument, I
have isolated one aspect of the problem, social affiliation to school, for
examination. Appropriate intervention for school violence problems re-
quire a complex set of strategies (Tolan et al., 1995). School psychologists
can be involved in a range of treatment approaches including prevention
 Baker 37

programs for parents and children, intervention programs for families and
children at most risk, and consultation to teachers to assist in the identifica-
tion of victimization/bullying behaviors and violent family patterns. Al-
though treatment for affected children and families is critical, conceptualiz-
ing school violence as a problem of community leads us to consider
additional sociological and ecological approaches. School personnel may
have the most impact when we intervene in areas over which we have imme-
diate and direct control: the everyday practices of schooling. Good treat-
ments of community aspects of schooling are available (see Glickman, 1993,
and Sergiovanni, 1994). Following are several ways in which school psychol-
ogists might address the community life of their schools on behalf of
violence-prone children.

School Culture
A focus on schools as caring communities necessitates that we become
aware of the tacit norms and the discursive practices that govern schooling.
Asking questions about the fundamental assumptions around which school-
ing is constructed (for example, why do we use competitive grading, why
do we require students to change teachers for subject matter, how do we
use rewards and punishments to control behavior, etc.) provides us with a
base from which to induce system-wide change. School reform efforts that
start with the idea of the school as an intentional community (e.g., Battis-
tich, Watson, Solomon, Schaps, & Solomon, 1991; Glickman, 1993; Sergio-
vanni, 1994) have shown remarkable improvements in schooling for a vari-
ety of at-risk students. Sarason (1990) reminds us of the need to carefully
consider power relationships and the resultant norms and assumptions in
schools as we initiate change in school practices. School psychologists, in
our roles as organizational consultants, can be active in assessing and ad-
dressing the school’s culture.

Social Competence Promotion

Effective school-based violence prevention programs include a focus on
social competence promotion (Consortium on the School-Based Promo-
tion of Social Competence, 1994; Larson, 1994). In addition to providing
benefits to individual students, these programs extend community to stu-
dents by clarifying the expectations about social exchange in the school,
and providing students with common language and strategies with which
to forge affiliative bonds with others in that setting. In this regard it is im-
portant to recognize that violent students have an extant set of social skills
that is meaningfully related to their existing social contexts and functional
in those settings. They may not adopt the more prosocial skills being taught
38 Journal of School Psychology

in our prevention programs without a caring social context at school within

which to employ them.

Classroom Management Practices

Classroom management practices that focus on character development
rather than behavior management are likely to promote affiliation to
school. Approaches that emphasize personal and civic responsibility, the
development of skilled and moral decision-making, and that emphasize
the importance of mutuality and commitment within the community are
likely to benefit a sense of belonging (Kohlberg, 1981; Sergiovanni, 1994;
Smey-Richman, 1991). Teachers should approach discipline as part of a
larger, ongoing effort to develop a caring community in the classroom.
Typically this involves an intentional focus on developing personal respon-
sibility, social competencies, and empathy for others among children, as
well as shaping the peer culture toward prosocial and supportive interac-
tions (Elias & Tobias, 1996; Lickona, 1991). Thus, discipline problems are
prevented, by giving children a legitimate ‘‘voice’’ in the classroom or are
treated educationally, by using discipline infractions as ‘‘teachable mo-
ments’’ for community or personal development.
Discipline strategies in community-oriented schools are multifaceted
(Baker, Terry, Bridger, & Winsor, in press; Wynne & Ryan, 1993). They
commonly involve cooperative rule setting so that personal commitment
and a sense of mutuality is nurtured within the classroom. This often occurs
through the use of democratic class meetings (Developmental Studies Cen-
ter, 1996). Rules are based on principles or virtues (kindness, fairness),
and are connected to respect for the community. In this way, children learn
the purpose of undergirding civic constraints (such as the importance of
being quiet out of respect for others) rather than a seemingly ‘‘arbitrary’’
rule promulgated by adult authority (be quiet or you get a check on the
board). Conflict resolution is actively taught so that children develop the
skills to resolve problems with others. Finally, consequences for infractions
of classroom rules are established and enforced in an educational way so
that students appreciate a rule’s purpose, make amends for wrongdoing,
and take responsibility for improving their behavior. The ‘‘3 Rs,’’ recognition
of wrongdoing, regret or empathic understanding of why the act was inap-
propriate, and reconciliation of relationship or to the community, undergird
discipline in these schools. In this way, caring, responsibility, and forgive-
ness are modeled for children within the context of discipline.
Schools that foster the development of prosocial behavior by disciplinary
practices that extend care to students are likely to promote community.
The consistent finding that it is the ethic of care extended to children by
teachers that makes a difference in their school affiation (Fine, 1986; Nod-
dings, 1988; Smey-Richman, 1991) should guide our efforts in this area.
 Baker 39

School Structure and Organization

Schools promote affiliation when they recognize the importance of the rela-
tional aspects of schooling and structure themselves accordingly (Baker et
al., in press). Approaches such as the utilization of an expanded role for
teachers (Noddings, 1988), flexibility and creativity in scheduling, curricu-
lar choices and approaches (Woods, 1992), and providing adequate sup-
port, such as structured play at recess, might fall under this rubric. Family-
school and community-school collaboration efforts are attempts to expand
notions of schooling so that adults join together across contexts to support
students. School psychologists might inform school restructuring attempts
in schools by our understanding of children’s psychological membership
to schools.

SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This paper has argued that a sense of community and psychological mem-
bership to schools are important determinants of children’s behavioral ad-
justment at school. Rather than conceptualize ‘‘risk’’ as a static variable,
this paper has argued that school violence emerges from an interaction
between children with developmental vulnerabilities and tendencies to-
ward violent behavior and school environments that are unable to meet
their developmental needs. Although the creation of meaningful school
community is not a panacea for school violence problems, considering the
issue from this perspective expands the possibilities for intervention and
prevention in schools.
This perspective points to the need for future research in several areas.
First, basic research is needed to describe school-based social contextual
variables and their impact on children’s behavior and appraisals of school.
Many of the constructs discussed in this paper (e.g., ‘‘community,’’ ‘‘ethic
of care’’) have been developed within the educational leadership and
teacher education domains. They are subjective constructs and, therefore,
mutable across the developmental period. Empirically sound and develop-
mentally sensitive study is needed to clarify children’s conceptions of these
constructs across the time when they are exposed to schooling. For exam-
ple, in our research, children in early elementary school universally de-
scribe their teachers using caretaking and family-like constructs (Baker &
Hamilton, 1997); however, by third, and certainly by fifth grade, their ap-
praisals of teachers and school become more differentiated and appear
mediated by a number of school, family, and individual difference variables
(Baker, in press; Baker & Terry, 1997). This progression points to the need
to understand this appraisal process more thoroughly and the need for
developmentally appropriate approaches to constructing caring environ-
ments in schools.
40 Journal of School Psychology

Perhaps more importantly, study of the mechanisms by which school-

based contextual variables impact children’s behavior is needed. Interest-
ing research accounting for contextual variables is emerging from the stress
and mental health research, although much of this work uses adult samples
or family contexts (Rutter, 1994). The dearth of research, especially school-
based research, in this area is due in part to measurement and design limita-
tions when assessing context and process variables (Gore & Eckenrode,
1994). Further work in this area may benefit from more diversified mea-
surement approaches and analyses of environments. For example, we are
currently exploring the adequacy of observation systems deriving from fam-
ily systems theory in our research in classroom social climate and teacher–
child interactions. This is an area in which qualitative methods, as well as
prospective and single-subject designs using quantitative variables, may
contribute to our understanding of environmental mediators of behavior
and appraisals. Such methods permit the study of the interactions between
environmental contexts and individual differences in outcomes, a critical
piece in understanding the causal mechanisms mediating behavior (Rutter,
1994).
The conceptualization of school violence as environmentally mediated
also has implications for the practice of psychology in schools. This view
encourages us to adopt ecological and systemic interventions in addition
to targeting individual children and families. A more thorough understand-
ing of the causal mechanisms mediating the expression of violence at
school also permits prescriptive interventions for children and school staff.
Children with disruptive, violent-prone behavior may benefit from expo-
sure to corrective attachment experiences at school or from classrooms that
function as effective therapeutic milieus. Several model programs (e.g.,
Cowen & Hightower, 1990; Battistich et al., 1990) strive to prevent school
violence through the establishment of school as a meaningful social context
within which children can be engaged in learning because they have secure
relationships with adults and peers in that setting. School psychologists can
also advocate for practices within ongoing educational programs that ex-
tend care and community to children. For example, school psychologists
can work with teachers to explore prosocial, community-oriented class-
room management practices (e.g., Developmental Studies Center, 1996;
Lickona, 1991) and constructivist learning activities that give legitimate
voice to children’s experience (e.g., Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). We can also
advocate for schools to involve children’s families in the school community,
either through prevention/intervention programs for parents or the active
inclusion of ‘‘at-risk’’ parents in their children’s schooling (e.g., Develop-
mental Studies Center, 1994). School psychologists, because of our knowl-
edge of children’s psychological development and of the environment and
cultures of schools, and because of our roles as organizational consultants
 Baker 41

and mental health advocates for children, should emerge as leaders in the
creation of schools as caring communities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of the School Ecology
Study Group at the University of Georgia for their contribution to these
ideas. The comments of two anonymous reviewers are also appreciated.

REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (1993). Youth & violence: Psychology’s response,
Volume I: Summary report of the American Psychological Association commission on vio-
lence and youth . Washington, DC: Author.
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Babad, E. (1993). Teachers’ differential behavior. Educational Psychology Review, 5,
347–376.
Baker, J. A. (in press). Why kids like school: Contextual influences on children’s school
satisfaction. School Psychology Quarterly.
Baker, J. A., & Hamilton, C. E. (1997). A developmental and ecological study of attach-
ment and social support in kindergarten and 3rd grade . Manuscript in preparation.
Baker, J. A., & Terry, T. (1997). Teacher-child interactions and children’s satisfaction
with school . Manuscript submitted for publication.
Baker, J. A., Terry, T., Bridger, R., & Winsor, A. (in press). Schools as caring communi-
ties: A relational approach to school reform. School Psychology Review.
Battistich, V., Watson, M., Solomon, D., Schaps, E., & Solomon, J. (1991). The Child
Development Project: A comprehensive program for the development of proso-
cial character. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gerwitz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior
and development, Vol. 3: Application . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment . New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. (1987). New perspectives on attachment relations: Security, commu-
nication, and internal working models. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant
development (2nd ed., pp. 1061–1100). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development . Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Brophy, J., & Kher, N. (1986). Teacher socialization as a mechanism for developing
student motivation to learn. In R. Feldman (Ed.), Social psychology applied to educa-
tion . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and
social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Ed.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17–
59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of Social Competence. (1994). The
school-based promotion of social competence: Theory, research, practice, and
policy. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress,
risk and resilience in children and adolescents (pp. 268–316). Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Cowen, E. L., & Hightower, A. D. (1990). The Primary Mental Health Project: Alter-
native approaches in school-based prevention. In T. B. Gutkin, & C. R. Reynolds
42 Journal of School Psychology

(Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 777–800). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Coyne, J. C., & Bolger, N. (1990). Doing without support as an explanatory concept.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 148–158.
Developmental Studies Center. (1994). At home in our schools: A guide to schoolwide
activities that build community. Oakland, CA: Author.
Developmental Studies Center. (1996). The ways we want our class to be: Classroom
meetings that build commitment to kindness and learning . Oakland, CA: Author.
Dewey, J. (1916/1970). Democracy and education. In S. M. Cahn (Ed.), The philo-
sophical foundations of education (pp. 203–221). New York: Harper & Row (Origi-
nal work published 1916).
Edmonds, R. (1986). Characteristics of effective schools. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The
school achievement of minority children (pp. 93–104). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Elias, M. J., & Allen, G. J. (1991). A comparison of instructional methods for deliv-
ering a preventive social competence/social decision making program to at risk,
average, and competent students. School Psychology Quarterly, 6, 251–272.
Elias, M. J., & Tobias, S. E. (1996). Social problem solving: Interventions in the schools .
New York: Guilford Press.
Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public high school.
Teachers College Record, 87, 393–409.
Frymier, J. (1992). Growing up is risky business and schools are not to blame: Final report —
Phi Delta Kappa study of students at risk . Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, G. M. (1994). Introduction to the mini-series: School
violence and safety in perspective. School Psychology Review, 23, 139–150.
Gettinger, M. (1988). Methods of proactive classroom management. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 17, 227–242.
Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America’s schools: A guide for school-based action . San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goldstein, S. (1995). Insulating the classroom for success. In S. Goldstein (Ed.),
Understanding and managing children’s classroom behavior (pp. 278–318). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6th ed.). New York: Harper
Collins.
Good, T. L., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986). Schools make a difference: Evidence, criti-
cisms, and new directions. American Psychologist, 41, 1090–1097.
Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and
the study of social contexts. Educational Psychologists, 27, 177–196.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1992). The relationship of school belonging and
friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal
of Experimental Education, 62, 60–71.
Gore, S., & Eckenrode, J. (1994). Context and process in research on risk and resil-
ience. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk
and resilience in children and adolescents (pp. 19–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Gorski, J. D., & Pilotto, L. (1993). Interpersonal violence among youth: A challenge
for school personnel. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 35–61.
Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen, M. (1993). The role of attachment in
the early development of disruptive behavior problems. Development & Psychopa-
thology, 5(1–2), 191–213.
Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, R., Tolan, P., VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. D. (1995). Stress-
ful events and individual beliefs as correlates of economic disadvantage and ag-
 Baker 43

gression among urban children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63,
518–528.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73, 290–294.
Haggerty, R. J., Sherrod, L. R., Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (1994). Stress, risk, and
resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions . Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hellman, D. A., & Beaton, S. (1986). The pattern of violence in urban public
schools: The influence of school and community. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 23, 102–127.
Institute for Education and Transformation. (1992). Voices from the inside: A report
on schooling from inside the classroom—Part I: Naming the problem . Claremont, CA:
Claremont Graduate School.
Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kagan, D. M. (1990). How schools alienate students at risk: A model for examining
proximal classroom variables. Educational Psychologist, 25, 105–125.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development, Volume 1: The philosophy of moral
development . San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Larson, J. (1994). Violence prevention in the schools: A review of selected programs
and procedures. School Psychology Review, 23, 151–164.
Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsi-
bility . New York: Bantam Books.
Lochman, J. E., White, K. J., & Wayland, K. K. (1991). Cognitive-behavioral assess-
ment and treatment with aggressive children. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and
adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures. New York: Guilford Press.
McLaren, P. (1994). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations
of education . New York: Longman Press.
Morrison, G. M., Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, R. L. (1994). School violence to school
safety: Reframing the issue for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 23,
236–256.
Newcomb, M. D. (1990). Social support by many other names: Towards a unified
conceptualization. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 479–494.
Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional ar-
rangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215–230.
O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1995). Predicting serious delin-
quency and substance use among aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
cal Psychology, 63, 529–537.
O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R., & Day, E. L. (1995). Pre-
venting school failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children:
Long-term intervention in elementary schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
65, 87–100.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process . Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspec-
tive on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335.
Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher–child relationships and the process
of adjusting to school. New Directions for Child Development, 57, 61–79.
Power, C. (1987). The just community high school. In K. Ryan & G. McClean (Ed.),
Character development in schools and beyond. New York: Praeger.
Prilleltensky, I. (1994). The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological discourse and
the status quo. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context . Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44 Journal of School Psychology

Rutter, M. (1994). Stress research: Accomplishments and tasks ahead. In R. J. Hag-

gerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk and resilience
in children and adolescents (pp. 354–385). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course
before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Social support: The search
for theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 133–147.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychol-
ogy Review, 1, 173–208.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smey-Richman, B. (1991). School climate and restructuring for low-achieving students .
Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc.
Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relation-
ships. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Ed.), Relationships and development (pp. 57–
71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and school-
ing in social context . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tolan, P., Guerra, N. G., & Kendall, P. C. (1995). A developmental-ecological per-
spective on antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Toward a unified
risk and intervention framework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63,
579–584.
Toles, R., Schulz, E., & Rice, W. K. (1986). A study of variation in dropout rates
attributable to effect of high schools. Metropolitan Education, 2, 30–38.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes .
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waters, E., Posada, G., Crowell, J., & Keng-ling, L. (1993). Is attachment theory
ready to contribute to our understanding of disruptive behavior problems? Devel-
opment & Psychopathology, 5, 215–224.
Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools con-
tribute to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87, 374–392.
Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989).
Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support . New York: The Falmer Press.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hand-
book of research on teaching (pp. 297–314). New York: Macmillan.
Woods, G. H. (1992). Schools that work . New York: Dutton.
Wynne, E. A., & Ryan, K. (1993). Reclaiming our schools: A handbook on teaching charac-
ter, academics, and discipline . New York: Merrill.