the effects of school bonding on high school seniors’ academic achievement

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ October 2012 ■ Volume 90 467© 2012 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 06/03/11Revised 09/03/11

Accepted 11/22/11

When students feel connected to or have strong bonds to their schools, they are more likely to experience academic success. They stay in school longer and attend school regu-larly (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009b). Yet only about 50% of the youth in schools report feeling connected to or engaged in school (Blum, 2005). Given that school bonding and alienation are opposite sides of the same coin, a significant number of students may be experiencing alienation from school (Schulz & Rubel, 2011). School bonding, or students’ connectedness to their school, is linked to health, social, and educational outcomes for youth (Blum, 2005; CDC, 2009b). Moreover, school bonding is one of the developmental assets that increase students’ ability to overcome life’s challenges and meet academic success (Ben-son, 2002; Scales, 2005). The resiliency literature identifies developmental assets as protective factors that are precursors to resiliency in youth (Benard, 1991, 2004; Benson, 2002; Bryan, 2005). Three external developmental assets (caring school climate, safety, and school boundaries or rules) and two internal developmental assets (school engagement and bonding to school) are consistently mentioned in the school bonding and connectedness literature (Blum, 2005; Blum & Libbey, 2004; Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003; Libbey, 2004). Also called school connectedness, school engage-ment, and school attachment, school bonding is a negative predictor of school dropout and failure as well as risky health behaviors and school-related delinquency among youth (Lee & Smith-Adcock, 2005; Libbey, 2004; Payne, Gottfredson, & Gottfredson, 2003; Smith & Sandhu, 2004). Bonding or connectedness is a powerful need and motivator for children and adults; however, it is underemphasized and underutilized

Julia Bryan, Stacey gaenzle, Jungnam Kim, Chia-Huei Lin, and goeun Na, Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland at College Park; Cheryl Moore-Thomas, Department of Educational Specialties, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore. Stacey Gaenzle is now at Department of Education and Counseling, Villanova University. Corre-spondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julia Bryan, Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland at College Park, 3214 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742 (e-mail: [email protected]).

The Effects of School Bonding on High School Seniors’ Academic AchievementJulia Bryan, Cheryl Moore-Thomas, Stacey Gaenzle, Jungnam Kim, Chia-Huei Lin, and Goeun Na

The authors examine the effects of school bonding on academic achievement (measured by math achievement scores) in a sample of 12th graders from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (Ingels, Pratt, Rogers, Siegel, & Stutts, 2005). Components of school bonding have proximal and distal effects on academic achievement. Attachment to school and school involvement had direct effects on achievement; attachment to teachers and school commitment behaviors had indirect effects on achievement through school-related delinquency and prior achievement. Implications for counselors are discussed.

Keywords: school bonding, school connectedness, school engagement, involvement in extracurricular activities, academic achievement

in promoting students’ prosocial behaviors and academic success (Bryan, Day-Vines, Griffin, & Moore-Thomas, 2012; Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006; Smith & Sandhu, 2004; Townsend & McWhirter, 2005). Indeed, school bond-ing is significant and may have important implications for students’ academic achievement.

As a result of an emerging research-based link between school bonding and academic-related outcomes for adoles-cents, policy makers, educators, and school counselors have become increasingly interested in ways to more fully under-stand the variables and environments that foster youth’s bond-ing or connectedness to their schools (CDC, 2009b; Galassi & Akos, 2004; Scales, 2005; Smith & Sandhu, 2004). A complication of this work, however, is that school bonding is studied across a plethora of fields (i.e., education, psychology, sociology, human development, and health disciplines), which use a wide variety of terms, such as school connectedness, school attachment, school engagement, school involvement, school identification, school bonding, teacher support, and school climate, all to mean similar things (Blum, 2005; Blum & Libbey, 2004; Libbey, 2004). Although the varying theoreti-cal frameworks and definitions have led to some interesting perspectives, the interrelatedness among these constructs; the similarities in measures used to measure different constructs; and, concurrently, the differences in measures used to measure the same construct have led to much confusion, fragmentation, and variation in findings (Libbey, 2004).

In this article, we begin to bridge the gap between the many terms used in the school bonding literature to examine the link between adolescents’ bonds to school and their academic achievement. Toward this aim, we use the term school bonding

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ October 2012 ■ Volume 90468

Bryan et al.

and use Maddox and Prinz’s (2003) definition to identify the components and measures of school bonding. Maddox and Prinz built on Hirschi’s (1969) conceptualization of school bonding as a multidimensional construct composed of attach-ment, commitment, involvement, and beliefs components. Using Hirschi’s conceptualization, they found that school bonding was multidimensional with four specific components: (a) attachment to school, (b) attachment to teachers and school personnel, (c) school commitment (comprising both beliefs and behaviors), and (d) school involvement. We use this defi-nition of school bonding to guide our study and define our purpose. Maddox and Prinz’s framework provides an organiz-ing framework to integrate many of the terms and constructs (e.g., school attachment, commitment, and involvement) that have been used in various studies to examine students’ bonds to school and related outcomes. In the following paragraphs, we cull the literature with terms related to school bonding in an attempt to understand the relationships between each component of school bonding and academic achievement.

School Bonding and Academic AchievementAttachment to School

Attachment to school is defined as how much students like school and their sense of satisfaction, fairness, and safety in school (Maddox & Prinz, 2003). Not only is liking school an adequate measure of attachment to school, research indicates that elementary-school-age children who like school and feel satisfaction with their school are more likely to participate in class and perform better academically (Gest, Welsh, & Domi-trovich, 2005; Hallinan, 2008; Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000). School liking does not seem to have been examined among older students. Related to fairness, another element of Maddox and Prinz’s (2003) definition of attachment to school, in schools where students perceive rules to be fair and clear, and where the climate is safe, students perform better academically (Gregory & Cornell, 2009; Ripski & Gregory, 2009; Skiba & Knesting, 2001), although more restrictive rules may have negative ef-fects on academic achievement (Way, 2003). Furthermore, in schools where students feel safe, academic achievement tends to be higher (Milam, Furr-Holden, & Leaf, 2010).

Attachment to Teachers and School Personnel

Attachment to teachers encompasses students’ interpersonal relationships and connections with school personnel (Maddox & Prinz, 2003). Students’ attachment to their teachers is mea-sured by students’ feelings that their teachers are interested in them, provide good teaching, and praise and support them (Libbey, 2004). Although research suggests that a student’s prior academic achievement is one of the strongest predic-tors of academic achievement (Glanville & Wildhagen, 2007; Ma & Intyre, 2005), students’ relationships and emotional

connections to their teachers are highly associated with aca-demic success (Hawkins, Guo, Hill, Battin-Pearson, & Abbott, 2001). Indeed, Crosnoe, Johnson, and Elder (2004) found that positive student–teacher relationships were associated with better student outcomes, including higher academic achieve-ment and fewer disciplinary problems, even after controlling for sociodemographics and prior behavior. However, not all the research has been consistent. One recent study indicated that teacher support was indirectly associated with students’ grades (Wooley, Kol, & Bowen, 2009), whereas a second study using a broad definition of emotional engagement found that attachment to teachers was not a significant predictor of achievement as measured by math achievement scores (Sciarra & Seirup, 2008).

School Commitment

School commitment measures a student’s level of personal investment in the school and is reflected both in students’ school commitment beliefs and behaviors (Maddox & Prinz, 2003). Personal investment comprises students’ beliefs that school and grades are important and valuable as well as students’ engagement in the school behaviors necessary for success, such as completing homework and coming to school with supplies (Libbey, 2004; Maddox & Prinz, 2003). Students who are committed to school and their schoolwork and have higher levels of behavioral engagement or invest-ment in school report higher academic achievement (Sciarra & Seirup, 2008; Stewart, 2008) and lower levels of school-related delinquency and misbehavior (Jenkins, 1995; Lee & Smith-Adcock, 2005; Stewart, 2003).

School Involvement

School involvement is defined by a student’s involvement in extracurricular activities and clubs. This includes a student’s behavioral participation in various activities (Maddox & Prinz, 2003). Positive relationships exist between students’ involvement in extracurricular activities and academic achievement and other academically related outcomes (Du-mais, 2009a, 2009b; Fredricks & Eccles, 2008; Zaff, Moore, Papillo, & Williams, 2003). Dotterer, McHale, and Crouter (2007) examined the connection between out-of-school ac-tivities (i.e., structured and unstructured) and school engage-ment, which they defined as behavioral (i.e., school grades), affective (i.e., school bonding), and cognitive (i.e., school self-esteem). They found time spent doing homework and engaging in extracurricular activities were positively associ-ated with school engagement.

Purpose of the StudyAlthough researchers have begun to demonstrate the relation-ship between adolescents’ school bonding and academically related outcomes such as grades, attendance, dropout, and

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ October 2012 ■ Volume 90 469

The Effects of School Bonding on High School Seniors’ Academic Achievement

graduation rates (Blum, 2005; Blum & Libbey, 2004), greater attention needs to be given to understanding how school bond-ing influences academic achievement, especially among high school students. Few longitudinal studies exist that examine the effects of school bonding on student behavior and aca-demic performance (Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Hawkins et al., 2001), and none of these seem to use a nationally representative sample to investigate these variables during the crucial period of adolescent de-velopment, the high school years. Such research that uses a multifaceted definition of school bonding may provide a better understanding of the effects of school bonding dur-ing students’ high school experience. For example, if school bonding in ninth or 10th grades contributes to high school students’ academic achievement in later grades, then educa-tors and counselors could pay greater attention to enhancing students’ bonds or connectedness to school during freshman and sophomore years to facilitate students’ academic success throughout adolescence and beyond. This kind of investiga-tion could provide insight on the potential stabilizing nature of schools and significant implications for the healthy devel-opment of academically strong adolescents (Blum, 2005). The purpose of this study, then, was to examine the effects of school bonding on academic achievement using a nation-ally representative sample of high school seniors from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002; Ingels, Pratt, Rogers, Siegel, & Stutts, 2005). In this study, we used math achievement as a measure of academic achievement. The following overarching question (Research Question 1) and subquestions (Research Questions 2 and 3) guided our study:

Research Question 1: What are the effects of student demographic variables (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status [SES], school urbanicity, and type of school), school bonding (i.e., attachment to school, attachment to teachers, school commitment, and school involvement), school-related delinquency, and prior academic achievement on high school stu-dents’ academic achievement?

Research Question 2: What are the effects of student demographics and school bonding on students’ aca-demic achievement?

Research Question 3: Do the effects of school bonding on academic achievement change once intervening variables (i.e., school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement) are taken into account?

Given the negative relationship between school bonding and school-related delinquency or school misbehavior (Dorn-busch, Erickson, Laird, & Wong, 2001; Lee & Smith-Adcock, 2005; Libbey, 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004; Payne et al., 2003; Smith & Sandhu, 2004) and the positive effects of prior academic achievement on current academic achieve-

ment (Glanville & Wildhagen, 2007; Ma & Intyre, 2005), we included school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement (measured by math achievement scores) as intervening variables (also called mediator or mediating variables; Aneshensel, 2002; Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004).

MethodData Set and Sample

We examined the effects of school bonding on academic achievement in a nationally representative sample of high school seniors selected from the ELS:2002, a public-use data set collected by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The ELS:2002 fol-lows a national sample of 10th graders biennially from 2002 to 2004. Our sample comprised 10,426 high school seniors who attended U.S. public, private, and Catholic high schools. Just 91.8% of the students attended public schools, whereas 3.4% attended private, non-Catholic schools and 4.8% attended Catholic schools. Of the 12th graders, 50.4% were female and 49.6% were male. Of the 10,426 students, 3.7% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 12.2% were Black/African American, 13.8% were Hispanic, 4.2% were multiracial, and 66.1% were White. Just over a quarter (27.6%) of the participants attended schools in urban areas, 21.1% attended schools in rural areas, and 51.3% attended school in suburban areas.

Dependent Variable

In this study, the dependent variable academic achievement was measured by 12th-grade math achievement scores. Math achievement was used as a proxy of academic achievement in this study because in this national data set, no other academic achievement variables were measured for 12th graders. Math achievement is an adequate proxy for academic achievement because performance in math is often used by schools and colleges as an indicator of high school seniors’ academic suc-cess (Sciarra & Seirup, 2008; Trusty, 2002; Trusty & Niles, 2003). We standardized 12th-grade math achievement for use in our analysis.

Independent Variables

All the independent variables in the analysis were collected when the students were in 10th grade. Variables labels from the ELS:2002 data set are capitalized in parentheses.

1. Demographic variables. The demographic variables in this study were gender, race/ethnicity, SES, type of schools, and urbanicity of schools. Gender was dichotomous (female, male). Race/ethnicity comprised five categories (Asian/Pa-cific Islander, Black/African American, Hispanic, multiracial, and White). Native American students were excluded because of their small sample size. Urbanicity consisted of three categories (urban, rural, suburban). The reference groups for


Bryan et al.

gender, race/ethnicity, urbanicity, and type of school in the regression analyses were male, White, suburban, and public school, respectively.

2. School bonding variables. School bonding was opera-tionalized by nine variables that measured the four compo-nents of school bonding as defined by Maddox and Prinz (2003). Four of the variables measured attachment to school, one measured attachment to teachers, two measured school commitment, and two measured school involvement. We used a principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation of 28 items in the ELS:2002 database to derive six of the nine school bonding variables (see Table 1 for factor loadings).

a. Attachment to school. Attachment to school refers to students’ satisfaction with school and sense of fairness and safety in the school. This was measured by four variables, the first three of which were derived from a PCA. The first vari-able, satisfaction with school, was a composite of four items (Cronbach’s α = .60) measured on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). Higher scores mean higher satisfaction with school. Sample items are “Disruptions get in the way of learning” and “In class I often feel put down by students.” The variable was derived from factor scores, and so it is a standardized variable. The second variable, sense of fair-ness, was a composite comprising five items (Cronbach’s α = .68), including “If a school rule is broken, students know what kind of punishment will follow”; “The school rules are strictly enforced”; and “The school rules are fair,” also measured on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). Items are reverse scored so that higher scores mean higher sense of fairness. The third variable, sense of safety, was a composite comprising three items (Cronbach’s α = .67), including “I do not feel safe at this school” and “There are gangs in school.” Items are scored on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree), with higher scores indicating higher feel-ings of safety. The fourth variable, school liking, was a single indicator of attachment to the school (i.e., “How much I like school”), which was measured on a 3-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = a great deal).

b. Attachment to teachers. Based on the PCA with vari-max rotation, the composite students’ attachment to teachers comprised six items (Cronbach’s α = .73) measured on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). We reverse coded the items (except for one item, “In class I often feel put down by teachers”) so that a higher score represents higher attachment to teachers. Sample items are “Teachers are interested in students” and “The teaching is good.”

c. School commitment. We measured school commitment with two variables derived from the PCA. The first variable, school commitment behaviors, was a composite of three items (Cronbach’s α = .81). Items are questions concern-ing how often the student goes to class without pencil/paper, books, and homework done; all are measured on a 4-point scale (1 = never, 4 = usually). Higher scores mean

less commitment to school behaviors. The second variable, school commitment beliefs, was a composite comprising seven items (Cronbach’s α = .81) that ask students to rate

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings of School Bonding Variables

Variable

Attachment to teachers 1. Teachers are interested in studentsa

2. The teaching is gooda

3. Students get along well with teachersa

4. Teachers praise efforta

5. There is real school spirita

6. In class I often feel put down by teachers

School commitment–beliefs 1. Classes are interesting and

challenginga

2. Education is important to get a job latera

3. I’m learning skills I will need for a joba

4. How important good grades are 5. My parents expect success in

schoola

6. I am satisfied by doing what is expected in classa

7. My teachers expect success in schoola

School commitment–behaviors 1. How often goes to class

without pencil/paper 2. How often goes to class

without books 3. How often goes to class

without homework doneAttachment to school–satisfaction 1. In class I often feel put down by

students 2. Disruptions get in the way of

learning 3. Misbehaving students often get

away with it 4. Other students often disrupt classAttachment to school–fairness 1. The school rules are faira

2. If a school rule is broken, students know what kind of punishment will followa

3. The school rules are strictly enforceda

4. Punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you area

5. Everyone knows what the school rules area

Attachment to school–safety 1. There are gangs in school 2. Racial/ethnic groups often fight 3. I do not feel safe at this school

.69 .65

.59 .75 .77

.69

.75

.59

.76 .73

.66

.74

.81

.96

.94

.91

.71

.83

.80 .73

.77

.70

.71

.89

.66

.90 .84 .72

.73 .69

.61 .59 .39

.34

.50

.73

.68 .62

.60

.57

.55

.87

.87

.79

.67

.66

.63 .67

.32

.75

.67

.57

.58

.77 .77 .55

M

2.88 2.93

2.80 2.76 2.83

3.13

2.60

3.59

3.21 3.38

3.46

2.67

2.69

1.75

1.73

2.11

1.92

2.44

2.56 2.89

2.51

2.79

2.77

2.67

3.01

2.05 1.96 1.71

SD

Factor Loading

aItems were reverse scored so that 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree.



the reasons they go to school. Sample reasons are “Classes are interesting and challenging,” “I am satisfied by doing what is expected in class,” and “Education is important to get a job later.” All items are measured on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree) except for the item “How important good grades are,” which asks students to rate how important good grades are to them on another 4-point scale (1 = not important, 4 = very important). All items (except for “How important good grades are”) are reverse scored so that higher scores mean higher commit-ment beliefs. This composite measures school commitment in terms of students’ beliefs about the value of school.

d. School involvement. We measured school involvement with two variables: (a) time spent on extracurricular activities (range = 0–21 hours) and (b) club involvement, a variable we created by aggregating nine dichotomous (no, yes) items that asked students if they participated in various extracurricular activities, such as honor society, vocational clubs, student government, or service clubs. These variables were standard-ized for use in the analysis.

3. Intervening variables. Previous research has sug-gested that school bonding and school-related delinquency are related (Lee & Smith-Adcock, 2005; Libbey, 2004; Payne et al., 2003; Smith & Sandhu, 2004) and that prior academic achievement is the strongest predictor of current academic achievement (Glanville & Wildhagen, 2007; Ma & Intrye, 2005). Therefore, school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement may be intervening variables in the relationship between school bonding and academic achievement. Using the Elaboration Model of Theory-Based Data Analysis (Aneshensel, 2002), we included school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement in our regression to determine whether any effects of school bonding persist once they are included in the model. The Elaboration Model allows us to better understand the relationships between primary or focal independent variables (here, school bonding) and the de-pendent variable by introducing control and intervening variables. Note that intervening variables are also known as mediator or mediating variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier et al., 2004).

a. School-related delinquency. School-related delinquency, a measure of school misbehavior, comprised seven items, which measured how many times students cut/skip class, were late for school, were absent from school, got in trouble, had in-school or out-of-school suspension, and were put on probation. The seven items are measured on a 5-point scale (0 = never, 4 = 10 or more times).

b. Prior academic achievement. In this study, prior aca-demic achievement was measured by 12th graders’ scores on a previous math achievement test administered by NCES while the students were in 10th grade. We standardized 10th-grade math achievement for the analysis.

Data Analysis

With the purpose of examining the effects of school bonding on high school seniors’ academic achievement as measured by their math achievement scores, we performed a hierarchi-cal multiple regression analysis with three models (blocks). The first model included all the demographic variables and school bonding variables. We then entered school-related delinquency in Model 2. We entered prior academic achieve-ment (i.e., 10th-grade math achievement) in Model 3. Accord-ing to Aneshensel’s (2002) Elaboration Model, we entered school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement in the last two models because they are intervening (or me-diator) variables; once entered into the model, if they are intervening variables between school bonding and academic achievement, they should reduce or eliminate the associations between school bonding and academic achievement. Prior to conducting the hierarchical multiple regression analysis, we conducted simple regression analyses to examine the zero-order correlations of each of the school bonding variables to the dependent variable and to each intervening (or mediator) variable (Frazier et al., 2004). We chose multiple regression analysis rather than structural equation modeling (SEM) because previous research has not determined which of these school bonding variables have direct or indirect effects on academic achievement. Whether multiple regression or SEM is used, the steps for examining the effects of intervening or mediator variables are the same and, once specified, cor-rectly yield similar results (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier et al., 2004).

SPSS Complex Samples 17.0 was used to adjust for potential bias associated with the study’s sample design effects. Complex samples produce smaller standard errors than do simple random samples, thus leading to increased probability of Type I error. Analyses of complex samples must use procedures or software that take sample design effects into consideration and apply sampling weights to correct for oversampling so as to appropriately adjust the standard errors (Bryan, Day-Vines, Holcomb-McCoy, & Moore-Thomas, 2010).

Results The means, standardized deviations, and factor loadings of all the school bonding variables are presented in Table 1. Simple regression analyses revealed that the school bonding variables, except for sense of fairness, were significantly related to academic achievement (i.e., 12th-grade math achievement) with small to modest correlations. Furthermore, all the school bonding variables were significantly related to school-related delinquency with small to moderate correlations. Similarly, almost all the school bonding variables were significantly related to prior academic achievement (i.e., 10th-grade math achievement) except for sense of fairness and school com-


Bryan et al.

mitment beliefs. School-related delinquency was inversely related and prior academic achievement was positively related to academic achievement. Table 2 shows the zero-order cor-relation coefficients from the simple regression analyses used to examine the relationships of the school bonding variables to the dependent variable and each of the intervening variables.

Table 3 presents the results of the three-model hierarchical multiple regression analysis conducted to predict academic achievement among high school seniors. The demographic characteristics and school bonding variables entered in Model 1 accounted for 18% of the variance of academic achieve-ment, R2 = .18, Wald F(20, 366) = 78.61, p < .000. Regard-ing the demographic variables, being female (β = –.09, t

385

= –4.01, p < .000), Black/African American (β = –.27, t385

= –8.70, p < .000), Hispanic (β= –.11, t

385 = –2.86, p = .004),

multiracial (β = –.12, t385

= –2.12, p = .035), and in urban schools (β = –.08, t

385 = –2.64, p = .009) were all negatively

associated with academic achievement. On the other hand, students from Catholic schools (β = .17, t

385 = 0.03, p < .000),

students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (β = .39, t385

= 0.02, p < .000), and Asian/Pacific Islander students (β = .24, t

385 = 6.93, p < .000) had higher academic achievement

than did their counterparts. Regarding the school bonding variables in Model 1, both

students who reported that they did not like school at all (β = –.18, t

385 = –3.55, p < .000; compared with students who

reported liking school a great deal) and those who had a higher sense of fairness (β = –.07, t

385 = –4.87,

p < .000) had lower

academic achievement. On the other hand, students who had a higher sense of safety (β = .07, t

385 = 5.62,

p < .000) had higher

academic achievement. Students’ attachment to teachers was also positively associated with their academic achievement

(β = .05, t385

= 3.27, p = .001). School commitment behaviors were negatively associated with academic achievement (β = –.05, t

385 = –4.26, p < .000), indicating that the more often

students go to school without homework and materials, the lower their academic achievement scores. The second school commitment variable, school commitment beliefs, had a positive relationship to academic achievement (β = .04, t

385

= 2.59, p = .05), suggesting that students with higher beliefs in the value and importance of school have higher academic achievement. Regarding school involvement, the more clubs students were involved in (β = .10, t

385 = 10.03, p < .000) and

the more time they spent on extracurricular activities (β = .08, t385

= 7.61, p < .000), the higher their academic achievement was. Students’ satisfaction with school did not have an effect on their academic achievement.

In Model 2, we added school-related delinquency to the demographic and school bonding variables. This model accounted for an additional 3% of variance in academic achievement, R2 = .21, Wald F(21, 365) = 75.24, p < .000. School-related delinquency was negatively associated with academic achievement (β = –.19, t

385 = –12.55, p < .000) when

we controlled for demographic and school bonding variables. In Model 2, once school-related delinquency was entered into the model, the effect of school commitment beliefs on academic achievement was no longer significant.

In Model 3, we added prior academic achievement to the demographic, school bonding, and school-related delinquency variables. This model accounted for an addi-tional 15% of variance in academic achievement, R2 = .36, Wald F(22, 364) = 154.46, p < .000. The result indicated that 10th-grade academic achievement was the strongest positive predictor (β = .50, t

385 = 34.19, p < .000) of 12th

graders’ academic achievement. Although the effects of some school bonding variables on academic achievement were reduced and others eliminated (i.e., sense of safety, attachment to teachers, and school commitment behav-iors) when prior academic achievement was entered into the model, several school bonding variables remained significant predictors of academic achievement, namely, how much a student likes school (β = –.10, t

385 = –2.08,

p = .038), sense of fairness (β = –.04, t385

= –3.26, p = .001), club involvement (β = .03, t

385 = 3.39, p = .001), and

extracurricular activities (β= .04, t385

= 4.97, p < .000). Students who did not like school at all had significantly lower academic achievement scores than did students who liked school a great deal. When we controlled for all other predictors in the model, students’ sense of fairness regard-ing school rules and discipline was negatively associated with academic achievement, whereas the number of clubs students were involved in and the hours spent on extra-curricular activities were positively related to academic achievement. School-related delinquency also had a nega-tive effect on high school seniors’ academic achievement.

TABLE 2

Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients From Simple regression Analyses of School Bonding,

intervening, and Dependent Variables

Variable

12th-grade achievementAttachment to school

How much likes school Not at all Somewhat Sense of fairness Sense of safety Sense of satisfaction

Attachment to teachersSchool commitment

Beliefs Behaviors

School involvement Club involvement Extracurricular activities

0.61***

–0.19*** –0.05* –0.01 0.18*** 0.09*** 0.13***

0.02 –0.12***

0.21*** 0.16***

—

–0.44*** –0.09** 0.01 0.17*** 0.07*** 0.15***

0.10*** –0.11***

0.20*** 0.17***

School- related

Delinquency

–0.27***

1.02*** 0.26*** –0.19*** –0.22*** –0.06*** –0.28***

–0.30*** 0.24***

–0.19*** –0.15***

10th-grade Math

Achievement

12th-grade Math

Achievement

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.



Discussion Guided by Maddox and Prinz’s (2003) conceptualization of school bonding, we examined the effects of school bond-ing on academic achievement in a nationally representative sample of high school seniors selected from the ELS:2002. We also examined whether school bonding effects persist after accounting for the intervening variables, school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement. In this study, academic achievement was measured by 12th-grade math achievement scores and prior academic achievement was measured by 10th-grade math achievement scores. Next, we discuss the effects of the demographic variables and each of

the school bonding variables on academic achievement, which is followed by a discussion of the effects of school bonding on academic achievement after the intervening variables were accounted for.

The Effects of Demographic Variables on Academic Achievement

As corroborated by previous research, gender and racial/ethnic differences exist in academic achievement (Sciarra & Seirup, 2008). Female high school seniors had significantly lower academic achievement than did male high school se-niors, whereas Black/African American, Hispanic, and multi-racial students had lower academic achievement than did their

TABLE 3

Hierarchical Multiple regression Analyses Examining the influence of School Bonding on 12th-grade Academic Achievement

Variable

Intercept

Gendera Female

Race/ethnicitya Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African American Hispanic Multiracial

Type of schoola Private Catholic

Urbanicitya Urban Rural

Socioeconomic statusb

Attachment to school How much likes schoola Not at all Somewhat Sense of satisfactionb Sense of fairnessb Sense of safetyb

Attachment to teachersb School commitment Beliefsb Behaviorsb School involvement Club involvementb Extracurricular activitiesb

School-related delinquencyb

10th-grade math achievementb

Wald F R2

Note. The dependent variable was 12th-grade math achievement scores. aReference categories were male, White, public school, suburban, and likes school a great deal, respectively. bStandardized variables (trans-formed into z scores).*p < .05. **p <. 01. ***p < .001.

.03

.02

.03 .03 .04 .06

.04 .03

.03 .03 .02

.05 .03 .01 .01 .01 .02

.02 .01

.01 .01

.21***

–.09***

.24*** –.27*** –.11** –.12*

.04 .17***

–.08** .01 .39***

–.18*** –.01 .01 –.07*** .07*** .05**

.04* –.05***

.10*** .08***

.03

.02

.03 .03 .04 .06

.04 .03

.03 .03 .02

.05 .03 .01 .01 .01 .02

.02 .01

.01 .01

.02

.17***

–.09***

.21*** –.23*** –.07 –.10

.06 .17***

–.07* .00 .38***

–.11* .01 .02 –.08*** .05*** .04**

.02 –.02*

.09*** .07***

–.19***

.03

.02

.03 .03 .03 .05

.03 .02

.03 .02 .02

.05 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01

.01 .01

.01 .01

.01 .02

B

.05

–.01

.13*** .02 .05 –.03

.08* .18***

–.06* .02 .16***

–.10* .01 .00 –.04** .02 .01

.02 .01

.03** .04***

–.16*** .50***

SE

Model 3

B SE

Model 2

B SE

Model 1

School Bonding Variables

Demographic Variables

Intervening Variables

154.46*** .36

75.24*** .21

78.61*** .18


Bryan et al.

White peers in both Models 1 and 2. However, these gender and racial/ethnic effects disappeared in Model 3 after prior academic achievement was entered in the analysis, support-ing research that prior academic achievement is the strongest predictor of current achievement (Glanville & Wildhagen, 2007; Ma & Intyre, 2005). This finding suggests that Black/African American, Hispanic, and multiracial students who experience low academic achievement early in high school continue to experience this pattern throughout high school. As with previous research on school engagement, Asian/Pacific Islander students had significantly higher academic achieve-ment than did White students in all three models, even when school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement were considered (Sciarra & Seirup, 2008).

Students in private and Catholic schools had higher levels of academic achievement than did those in public schools. Conversely, students in urban schools had lower academic achievement than did those in suburban schools. SES was also a significant positive predictor of high school seniors’ aca-demic achievement when we controlled for all other predic-tors in the model. The pervasive effect of school type, school location, and SES on achievement may point to a national school system that continues to produce more advantages for students who are more privileged (Darling-Hammond, 2010).

The Effects of School Bonding on Academic Achievement

In general, school bonding had significant effects on academic achievement, although certain aspects of school bonding seem to be more salient for high school students. Attachment to school (i.e., how much the student likes school and sense of fairness) and school involvement (i.e., extracurricular activi-ties and club involvement) had significant effects on academic achievement across all three models. In addition, our results suggest that some aspects of school bonding (i.e., attachment to teachers and school commitment) may have indirect effects on academic achievement through school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the effects of each of the school bonding variables on academic achievement and how these effects change once the intervening variables of school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement are considered.

Attachment to school. Our findings are consistent with previ-ous research that suggests that strong attachment to school may be particularly important in students’ academic achievement (Stewart, 2008). Of the school bonding variables, “How much I like school,” a measure of students’ attachment to school, had the strongest effect on academic achievement. Across all three models, students who did not like school at all had significantly lower academic achievement than did those who liked school a great deal. This finding is corroborated by previous research that indicates that school liking is an antecedent to class par-ticipation and academic achievement as early as kindergarten

(Hawkins et al., 2001; Ladd et al., 2000). It is interesting that there was no significant difference in the academic achievement of students who liked school somewhat and those who liked school a great deal, suggesting that students who do not like school at all may be most at risk academically.

Sense of fairness, a measure of attachment to the school, had a negative effect on academic achievement after we controlled for demographic variables and after we accounted for school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement. This is interesting when one considers that higher scores on sense of fairness mean that students believed that the school rules were fair, were strictly enforced, and were the same no matter who you are, and that students knew the punishment for broken rules. However, these findings seem consistent with recent research about school rules. Way (2003) found that more and stricter rules were associated with lower achievement scores and higher dropout rates in high school students. Perhaps, in our study, students’ sense of fairness, which encompasses their beliefs about the school rules, captures the negative effects of zero-tolerance policies on student achievement or of high structure (i.e., firmness and rigidity) in the school rules (Ripski & Gregory, 2009; Skiba & Knesting, 2001). Indeed, research indicates that high structure coupled with low teacher sup-port does not promote student engagement or high academic achievement (Gregory & Cornell, 2009).

Students’ sense of safety had significant effects on academic achievement until prior academic achievement was accounted for. These findings suggest that students’ sense of safety may be positively linked to academic achievement through their prior academic achievement. Given that in the current study sense of safety and prior academic achievement were measured in 10th grade and academic achievement was measured in 12th grade, these findings suggest that high school students’ feelings of safety may have a more immediate or proximal effect on their current academic performance, which may, in turn, have a distal effect on their future academic performance.

Attachment to teachers. Attachment to teachers was a significant positive predictor of academic achievement until prior academic achievement was accounted for. These results suggest that attachment to teachers may be indirectly related to academic achievement; that is, prior academic achieve-ment may mediate the relationship between attachment to teachers and later academic achievement. Recent research corroborates this indirect link between attachment to teach-ers and later academic achievement (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Sciarra & Seirup, 2008; Wooley et al., 2009). Attachment to teachers and prior academic achievement were measured in 10th grade; therefore, as in the case of sense of fairness, this indirect relationship suggests that attachment to teachers may have a more immediate or proximal effect on current rather than on later academic achievement. Furthermore, it seems feasible that attachment to teachers may be more important to students’ academic achievement in earlier high school grades



when students are making the transition from middle school (Scales, 2005). These earlier teacher–student relationships are very important because students’ academic achievement in later grades continues to be affected by deficits that occurred at earlier grade levels (Hawkins et al., 2001).

School commitment. School commitment beliefs had a positive effect on high school seniors’ academic achievement until school-related delinquency was accounted for. Further-more, school commitment behaviors had a positive effect on academic achievement before the effects of prior academic achievement were considered. These findings suggest that school commitment beliefs may be directly related to school-related delinquency and school commitment behaviors may be directly related to prior academic achievement. The link between school commitment beliefs and school-related delinquency is supported by research that found low levels of school commitment were associated with higher levels of school-related delinquency or misbehavior, including school crime, misconduct, and nonattendance (Jenkins, 1995; Lee & Smith-Adcock, 2005; Stewart, 2003). It seems feasible that when students believe in the value of school, they are less likely to be involved in school-related delinquency (i.e., skipping school, being late for classes, and being suspended). Furthermore, as in the cases of sense of fairness and attach-ment to teachers, the relationship between school commit-ment behaviors and prior academic achievement suggests that high school students’ behavioral commitment to school may have more proximal or immediate effects on academic achievement. That is, when high school students possess appropriate school commitment behaviors (i.e., coming to school with homework done and learning materials), these behaviors affect their present academic achievement (Sciarra & Seirup, 2008; Stewart, 2008).

School involvement. Hours per week spent on extracurricular activities and amount of club involvement, measures of school involvement, both had significant positive effects on academic achievement across all three models. Even after prior academic achievement was accounted for, school involvement was still positively associated with academic achievement. These results suggest that extracurricular activities such as clubs at school and amount of club involvement may be especially salient for high school students. Indeed, the relationship between school involvement and academic achievement is corroborated by research that found consistent positive effects of extracurricular participation on academic achievement and achievement-related behaviors and values (Dumais, 2009a, 2009b; Fredricks & Eccles, 2008; Zaff et al., 2003).

Implications for Practice Implications for School Counselors

The findings of the current study demonstrated that all four components of school bonding affect high school students’

academic achievement at some point, whether the effects are proximal or distal. Attachment to school, namely, school liking and sense of fairness, and school involvement contrib-ute directly to high school students’ academic achievement in later grades, whereas attachment to teachers and school commitment behaviors seem to indirectly affect achievement in later grades through proximal effects on achievement in earlier grades. Given these results, strategies should focus on creating or strengthening all aspects of school bonding. School counselors have a salient role to play in increasing students’ bonding or connectedness to school (Trusty, Mel-lin, & Herbert, 2008). In a recent study, the responsiveness of school counselors’ relationship was directly related to students’ school connectedness (Lapan, Wells, Pertersen, & McCann, 2011). Indeed, school counselors’ training and their focus on student development and student outcomes posi-tion them as advocates, leaders, and systemic change agents in building students’ bonds or connections to the school. Moreover, the practice used in some high schools that as-signs school counselors to students as they enter ninth grade and allows counselors to advance with their students through each instructional level (i.e., ninth to 12th grades) provides opportunity for both a short- and long-term perspective, which may have special relevance for the consideration of develop-ing students’ bonds or connections to their school. However, school counselors cannot work alone to create students’ bonding to schools. The developmental assets and resiliency frameworks suggest that the factors that influence students’ academic performance emerge from myriad sources and in-teractions among multiple contexts (i.e., the family, school, and community; Benard, 2004; Benson, 2002; Bryan & Henry, 2010; Trusty et al., 2008). School counselors’ strategies or interventions must therefore be multisystemic as well as comprehensive and schoolwide. Furthermore, as is true with all ethically sound, culturally competent school counseling, strategies or interventions aimed to address school bonding and connectedness must focus on providing extra support for underserved and marginalized student populations. In the case of this study, these identified student populations include female students, students of low-income and racially/ethnically diverse backgrounds, and those in urban schools.

Therefore, on the basis of the findings of this study and the emerging base of the school bonding literature (Benard, 2004; Blum, 2005; CDC, 2009b), we recommend the follow-ing three types of multisystemic interventions as implications of practice for school counselors promoting school bonding for adolescents: (a) interventions to connect students to caring adults in and outside of the classroom, (b) interventions that improve school attachment and climate, and (c) interventions that enhance student achievement and school commitment and involvement in ninth and 10th grades. We discuss each of these interventions next. School counselor interventions are likely to have more direct or proximal effects on students’ and


Bryan et al.

adults’ relationships in school and on students’ bonds to school, which, in turn, will affect distal outcomes, such as academic achievement, and could help close achievement gaps (Brown & Trusty, 2005; Lapan et al., 2011; Trusty et al., 2008).

Interventions to connect students to caring adults in and outside of the classroom. School counselors, early in their students’ high school careers, can begin to connect stu-dents with caring adults in the school community. Positive student–teacher relationships insulate children and foster their success even in unsafe schools and neighborhoods (Steinberg, Allensworth, & Johnson, 2011). Although school bonding begins with the relationships ninth-grade students have with their teachers, school counselors can expand this process to other caring adults by developing and facilitating school-based mentoring programs. This type of program can be extended into the school community through service learning activities or apprenticeship programs that connect students to adult mentors (Bryan, 2005; Bryan & Henry, 2008, 2010). Counselors can also work in a comprehensive way to facilitate students’ participation in extracurricular activities. School counselors’ unique awareness of students’ career aspirations, interests, and skills may help them connect students to appropriate and meaningful school clubs and proj-ects. Perhaps most important, school counselors can provide small-group and individual counseling services to students who seem to be particularly disconnected from the school or to those who demonstrate in any number of ways that they do not like school. Groups or individual sessions could focus on exploring barriers to students’ learning or attachment to school, building future aspirations, and encouraging school commitment. Although these kinds of counseling services may be important early in students’ high school experience, the data from this study suggest that they may have merit throughout a student’s high school career.

Interventions that improve school attachment and climate. School counselors must encourage schoolwide efforts to improve the school climate so that students feel safe and supported. Given our findings, fair and highly structured rules may not necessarily translate into a sense of safety or academic achievement. What is needed are fair rules coupled with teacher support for children regardless of their backgrounds. One way to actively work toward this aim is for school counselors to be a part of a school climate team that conducts surveys to assess the school climate and presents the data schoolwide. As part of this process, it may prove important to consider and explore culturally sensitive behav-ioral strategies for working with diverse student populations (Gay, 2002; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010). Culturally competent counselors could be useful consultants to teach-ers in exploring culturally sensitive behavioral strategies for working with adolescents.

More traditional school counselor roles could include con-ducting classroom guidance lessons that encourage ninth- and

10th-grade students in particular to write about their ideas for improving school climate and safety, and then having students collaborate on teams with teachers, students, family, and community members to improve aspects of the school climate. Research indicates that inclusion of students’ per-spectives and participation can improve classroom practice, instructions, teacher–student relationships, and educational outcomes (Mitra, 2009). Furthermore, students may highlight problems in the school and classroom culture that teachers avoid or fail to see (Mitra, 2004).

Interventions that enhance student achievement and school commitment and involvement in ninth and 10th grades. The findings of this study and previous research about the link of school commitment to school-related delinquency (Libbey, 2004; Payne et al., 2003; Smith & Sandhu, 2004) suggest that school counselors should collaborate with other educational stakeholders (i.e., teachers, administrators, school staff, par-ents/guardians, and community members) to proactively build school commitment beliefs early in high school as well as tackle early signs of a lack of student commitment. Therefore, attention should be given to building students’ future aspira-tions (e.g., college and career aspirations) and beliefs in the value of school, beginning in ninth and 10th grades (Bryan, Moore-Thomas, Day-Vines, & Holcomb-McCoy, 2011). In addition, focused attention should be given to providing academic support for students as soon as possible during the high school experience. One way to do this is by implementing programs to help incoming freshman, freshman, and sopho-more students who are below grade level in any subject to eliminate skill deficits and ensure that students have the school commitment behaviors that may support academic success (i.e., coming to school with necessary supplies and complet-ing homework). To this end, school counselor activities could focus on collaborating with teachers, parents, and guardians to provide incoming freshmen, freshmen, and sophomores with summer, in-school, and after-school tutoring and men-toring and on working actively to get all students involved in the broader high school experience of school club and extracurricular activities. Furthermore, school counselors and teachers can collaborate to identify community partners (e.g., nearby universities and colleges, businesses, and community organizations) that provide or want to create after-school and summer enrichment programs; tutoring programs; programs that teach study and organization skills; college preparation programs; and athletic, arts, and cultural programs, especially for freshman and sophomore high school students (Bryan, 2005; Bryan & Henry, 2010). Involving students who engage in school misbehavior or school-related delinquency (e.g., coming to school late) in meaningful partnership activities that involve families, youth, and community members may help them build bonds to school and caring adults in the school and increase school commitment and prosocial behav-iors (Bryan et al., 2012). Indeed, school–family–community



partnerships promote positive academically related behaviors (Bryan & Henry, 2008).

Implications for Mental Health and Family Counselors

Mental health and family counselors can also play a significant role in promoting and building school bonding among ado-lescents. One way to do so is to teach parents and guardians techniques for advocating for their children’s needs, ways to become involved in their children’s schools, and appropriate strategies for locating and building allies with teachers and school counselors. Counselors could help parents and guard-ians explore teacher and school expectations and discuss ways to talk with and support teachers in helping their children meet the expectations. Many families, especially those from lower income backgrounds, do not have the school-based social capital that makes navigating school–family relationships easier (Bryan et al., 2011; Holcomb-McCoy & Bryan, 2010). By social capital, we mean social networks and norms that facilitate trust and the ability of individuals to achieve goals and solve problems (Lin, 2000). Counselors who incorporate parent advocacy and education into their counseling will equip and empower families to build school connections. Handouts, such as CDC’s (2009a) information brochure Helping Your Child Feel Connected to School, may be useful parent edu-cation resources. In addition, counselors can help children and families build school commitment beliefs and behaviors through counseling sessions that explore the meaning and value of school for the children and their family and help them examine how school may be useful to them now and in the future. Some children who have not had role models who had successful school experiences may find it difficult to see the value of school. Furthermore, those who are faced with challenging economic and family situations may have more of a present than future orientation. Finally, counselors can also help encourage adolescents and their families to become involved in school and community-based activities, such as mentoring, tutoring, after-school, enrichment, volun-teer, and community programs and clubs. Recognizing that these activities are limited in some schools and communities, counselors may want to research and collect information about existing programs in the community to which they can refer students. Connecting adolescents and their families to com-munity programs, organizations, and resources is critical to providing them with support and caring adults (Townsend & McWhirter, 2005).

Limitations and Future ResearchThe study was based on a large national data set, the ELS:2002 database. Thus, the analyses were limited to the variables in the database. For example, math achievement is the only achievement data available for the 12th graders in the data

set. Although high school math achievement is a significant predictor of students’ future academic performance, a com-posite of two or three subjects may better capture the impact of school bonding on students’ overall performances. Further-more, it is possible that some school bonding variables (e.g., attachment to teachers) may be more important in math than other subjects. Another limitation is that the school bonding variables used in the study are derived from self-reported data in the data set and may not fully capture the construct of school bonding. Although many studies operationalize school bonding using similar items, these items may not be capturing attachment to teacher and the school. Future stud-ies should use measures specifically developed to assess the components of school bonding to explore the relationships of school bonding and achievement. For example, items such as “I think my teachers are interested in me” or “I get along well with my teachers” may better capture students’ percep-tions and feelings better than more impersonal items such as “Teachers are interested in students,” “Students get along well with teachers,” and similar items used in this study.

This study provides important information on the effects of school bonding in the earlier and later high school years; however, further research is needed. A longitudinal investiga-tion that provides measures of school bonding in temporal sequence would help to unravel the relationships among the school bonding variables and their sequential effects on academic achievement (Payne et al., 2003). The direction and nature of influences between components of school bonding (e.g., attachment to teachers, school commitment, and school involvement), school-related delinquency, prior academic achievement, and later academic achievement need to be examined from kindergarten through 12th grade. It is possible that by examining these relationships at one school level (i.e., elementary, middle, or high school) or at one point in time, researchers are missing important information about the reciprocal relationships among these variables and their differential effects on students at different grade levels. The findings of this study provide a rationale for replicating the study using SEM to compare findings regarding the direct and indirect effects of school bonding and intervening vari-ables (i.e., school-related delinquency and prior academic achievement) on academic achievement.

ConclusionThe findings of the current study demonstrated that all four components of school bonding affect students’ academic achievement at some point during high school, whether the effects are proximal or distal. Although these data may not be surprising, they are significant; they provide empirical infor-mation that has implications for how school, mental health, and family counselors work with high school students, as well as their teachers and parents. Furthermore, these data may


Bryan et al.

begin to provide insight into the sequential effects of school bonding. Using a longitudinal study with large amounts of data is not common practice in the counseling literature; however, education policy and funding decisions often hinge on these kinds of study (Bryan et al., 2010). Therefore, this study’s findings may make a significant contribution to the body of literature that could draw attention to the untapped potential of the counseling profession to promote school bonding and connectedness and positive academic achieve-ment among youth.

ReferencesAneshensel, C. S. (2002). Theory-based data analysis for the social

sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator

variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and community. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED335781)

Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Benson, P. L. (2002). Adolescent development in social and com-munity context: A program of research. New Directions for Youth Development, Issue No. 95, 123–147.

Blum, R. (2005). School connectedness: Improving students’ lives. Retrieved from http://cecp.air.org/download/MCMonograph-FINAL.pdf

Blum, R., & Libbey, H. (2004). Executive summary. Journal of School Health, 74, 231–232.

Brown, D., & Trusty, J. (2005). School counselors, comprehensive school counseling programs, and academic achievement: Are school counselors promising more than they can deliver? Profes-sional School Counseling, 9, 1–8.

Bryan, J. (2005). Fostering educational resilience and achievement in urban schools through school–family–community partner-ships: School counselors’ roles. Professional School Counseling, 8, 219–227.

Bryan, J., Day-Vines, N. L., Griffin, D., & Moore-Thomas, C. (2012). The disproportionality dilemma: Patterns of teacher referrals to school counselors for disruptive behavior. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90, 177–190. doi:10.1111/j.1556-6676.2012.00023.x

Bryan, J. A., Day-Vines, N. L., Holcomb-McCoy, C., & Moore-Thomas, C. (2010). Using national education longitudinal data sets in school counseling research. Counselor Education and Su-pervision, 49, 266–279. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2010.tb00102.x

Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2008). Strengths-based partnerships: A school–family–community partnership approach to empowering students. Professional School Counseling, 12, 149–156.

Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2010). A model for building school–fam-ily–community partnerships: Principles and process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90, 408–420.

Bryan, J., Moore-Thomas, C., Day-Vines, N. L., & Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2011). School counselors as social capital: The effects of high school college counseling on college application rates. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 190–199. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00077.x

Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74, 252–261.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009a). Helping your child feel connected to school. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/AdolescentHealth/pdf/connectedness_parents.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009b). School con-nectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors among youth. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/ado-lescenthealth/pdf/connectedness.pdf

Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H. (2004). Intergeneration-al bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student–teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77, 60–81.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world of education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine your future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dornbusch, S. M., Erickson, K. G., Laird, J., & Wong, C. A. (2001). The relation of family and school attachment to adolescent devi-ance in diverse groups and communities. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 396–422.

Dotterer, A. D., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2007). Impli-cations of out-of-school activities for school engagement in African American adolescents. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 391–401. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9161-3

Dumais, S. A. (2009a). The academic attitudes of American teen-agers, 1990–2002: Cohort and gender effects on math achieve-ment. Social Science Research, 38, 767–780. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.010

Dumais, S. A. (2009b). Cohort and gender differences in extracur-ricular participation: The relationship between activities, math achievement, and college expectations. Sociological Spectrum, 29, 72–100. doi:10.1080/02732170802480543

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.157

Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2008). Participation in extracurricu-lar activities in the middle school years: Are there developmental benefits for African American and European American youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1029–1043. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9309-4

Galassi, J. P., & Akos, P. (2004). Developmental advocacy: Twenty-first century school counseling. Journal of Counseling & Devel-opment, 82, 146–157. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00296.x



Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 613–629. doi:10.1080/0951839022000014349

Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2005). Behavioral predictors of changes in social relatedness and liking school in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 281–301.

Glanville, J. L., & Wildhagen, T. (2007). The measurement of school engagement: Assessing dimensionality and measurement invari-ance across race and ethnicity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 1019–1041.

Gregory, A., & Cornell, D. (2009). “Tolerating” adolescent needs: Moving away from zero tolerance policies in high school. Theory Into Practice, 48, 106–113. doi:10.1080/00405840902776327

Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achieve-ment gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59–68.

Hallinan, M. (2008). Teacher influences on students’ attach-ment to school. Sociology of Education, 81, 271–283. doi:10.1177/003804070808100303

Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K. G., Battin-Pearson, S., & Abbott, R. D. (2001). Long-term effects of the Seattle Social Development Intervention on school bonding trajectories. Applied Develop-mental Science, 5, 225–236.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Holcomb-McCoy, C., & Bryan, J. (2010). Advocacy and empow-erment in parent consultation: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 259–268. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00021.x

Ingels, S. J., Pratt, D. J., Rogers, J. E., Siegel, P. H., & Stutts, E. S. (2005). Education Longitudinal Study: 2002/2004 public use base-year to first follow-up data files and electronic codebook system. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006346

Jenkins, P. H. (1995). School delinquency and school commitment. Sociology of Education, 68, 221–239.

Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an un-derstanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8, 7–27.

Ladd, G. W., Buhs, E. S., & Seid, M. (2000). Children’s initial sen-timents about kindergarten: Is school liking an antecedent of early classroom participation and achievement? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 255–279.

Lapan, R. T., Wells, R., Pertersen, J., & McCann, L. A. (2011). Draw the line: Stand tall to protect students: An investigation of school counselor effects on school connectedness. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lee, S. M., & Smith-Adcock, S. (2005). A model of girls’ school delinquency: School bonding and reputation. Professional School Counseling, 9, 78–87.

Libbey, H. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: At-tachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 275–283.

Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociol-ogy, 29, 785–795.

Ma, X., & Intyre, L. J. (2005). Exploring differential effects of mathematics courses on mathematics achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 827–852.

Maddox, S. J., & Prinz, R. J. (2003). School bonding in children and adolescents: Conceptualization, assessment, and associated vari-ables. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 31–49.

McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health-risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74, 284–292.

Milam, A. J., Furr-Holden, C. D. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Perceived school and neighborhood safety, neighborhood violence and academic achievement in urban school children. Urban Review, 42, 458–467. doi:10.1007/s11256-010-0165-7

Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106, 651–688.

Mitra, D. L. (2009). Collaborating with students: Building youth–adult partnerships in schools. American Journal of Education, 115, 407–436.

Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2003). Schools as communities: The relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and school disorder. Criminology, 41, 749–777.

Ripski, M. B., & Gregory, A. (2009). Unfair, unsafe, and unwelcome: Do high school students’ perceptions of unfairness, hostility, and victimization in school predict engagement and achievement? Journal of School Violence, 8, 355–375.

Scales, P. C. (2005). Developmental assets and the middle school counselor. Professional School Counseling, 9, 104–111.

Schulz, L. L., & Rubel, D. J. (2011). A phenomenology of alienation in high school: The experiences of five male non-completers. Professional School Counseling, 5, 286–298. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2011-14.286

Sciarra, D. T., & Seirup, H. J. (2008). The multidimensionality of school engagement and math achievement among racial groups. Professional School Counseling, 11, 218–228.

Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170−179.

Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Youth Development, Issue No. 92, 17–43.

Smith, D. C., & Sandhu, D. S. (2004). Toward a positive per-spective on violence prevention in schools: Building connec-tions. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 287–293. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00312.x

Steinberg, M., Allensworth, E., & Johnson, D. W. (2011). Student and teacher safety in Chicago public schools: The roles of community context and school social organization. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.


Bryan et al.

Stewart, E. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20, 575–604.

Stewart, E. B. (2008). School structural characteristics, student ef-fort, peer associations, and parental involvement. Educational and Urban Society, 40, 179–204.

Townsend, K. C., & McWhirter, B. T. (2005). Connectedness: A review of the literature with implications for counseling, assess-ment, and research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 191–201. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00596.x

Trusty, J. (2002). Effects of high school course-taking and other variables on choice of science and mathematics college ma-jors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 464–474. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00213.x

Trusty, J., Mellin, E. A., & Herbert, J. T. (2008). Closing achieve-ment gaps: Roles and tasks of elementary school counselors. Elementary School Journal, 108, 408–421.

Trusty, J., & Niles, S. G. (2003). High-school math courses and completion of the bachelor’s degree. Professional School Coun-seling, 7, 99–107.

Way, S. M. (2003). For their own good? The effects of school discipline and disorder on student behavior and academic achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3108967)

Wooley, M. E., Kol, K. L., & Bowen, G. L. (2009). The social context of school success for Latino middle school students: Direct and indirect influences of teachers, family, and friends. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 43–70.

Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003). Implications of extracurricular activity participation during ado-lescence on positive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 599–630.

the effects of school bonding on high school seniors’ academic achievement

Documents