PARENTS\u27 SOCIAL BACKGROUND AND PUPIL CONTROL ATTITUDES AND PUPIL CONTROL ATTITUDES OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences existed among the attitudes of the secondary school students, their parents, and their teachers concerning pupil control ideology, type of involvement with the school as a vehicle of pupil control, and preferences for normative, utilitarian or coercive methods of pupil control. The pupil control ideology of parents, type of involvement with the school, and preference for normative, utilitarian or coercive control methods were measured respectively in relationship to parents\u27 educational level, occupation, sex, race and religion. The subjects of this study consisted of 112 students in the 11th grade of Peekskill High School, Peekskill, New York and 112 of their parents and 47 of their teachers during the academic year 1979-1980. The materials employed in this investigation were the Personal Attitude Survey (PAS), the Student Behavior Response Questionnaire (SBRQ), both multiple choice type questionnaires developed by the researcher, and the Pupil Ideology Control Questionnaire (PCIQ) (Willower, Eidell and Hoy, 1967). The major conclusions based on the findings of this study were: (1) This investigation revealed that parents, students and teachers possessed definite and measurable attitudes toward pupil control and that an organizational approach to their assessment was feasible. (2) Significant differences existed among parents, students and teachers with respect to their type of involvement with the school as a vehicle of pupil control, indicating lack of homogeneity in commitment towards the school. (3) Few significant differences existed among parents, students and teachers with respect to their selection of appropriate methods of pupil control in response to disruptive behavior, indicating homogeneity with respect to attitudes towards schools responses to disruptive behavior. (4) There were no significant differences between the pupil control ideologies of students and teachers. Significant differences did exist however between the pupil control ideologies of parents and students and parents and teachers, respectively. (5) There were no significant or meaningful relationships between parents\u27 involvement with the school as a vehicle of pupil control and the social background variables of sex, race, religion, education and occupation. (6) There were no significant relationships between parents\u27 selection of normative, utilitarian or coercive methods of pupil control and the social background variables of sex, race, religion, education and occupation. (7) This investigation revealed that no significant or meaningful relationship existed between the pupil control ideology of parents and the social background variables of sex, race, religion, education and occupation, and as a result exerted no major influence on parents\u27 pupil control ideology. (8) The majority of parents, students and teachers selected the coercive and utilitarian methods of pupil control as responses to acts of physical violence, theft, drug abuse, and serious vandalism, indicating that these methods were preferred in dealing with serious disruptive behavior. (9) Students contributed the smallest percentage of affirmative responses with respect to their involvement with the school as a vehicle of pupil control, indicating that they were the least committed to the pupil control goals of the school. (10) Parents were found to possess a more custodial pupil control ideology than either students or teachers