The Importance of School Connectedness - Essay Example

? School Connectedness Analysis based on multiple studies School connectedness is often debated, discussed, and analyzed on various platforms, predominantly in researches and surveys. It is an integral factor that influences every individual, and if flexible/cooperative educational environment is provided, it can greatly help developing youth. This paper incorporates, compares, and evaluates the results from numerous such studies that have been conducted to analyze the importance of school connectedness, and also points out significant limitations, contradictions, and areas that require more research. Introduction School connectedness is a concept that refers to the extent of attachment, trust, compassion and positivity observed and felt by students for their school environment, teachers and class mates (Whitlock, 2003). In another view, it can be perceived as an ideological barometer of judging the true strength of a government’s academic policies, and the overall success of any educational institution. Whitlock (2003, p.1) affirms that “school connectedness revolves around the idea that when young people consistently receive empathy, attention, and praise at school, they feel a sense of belonging and support that is the springboard for healthy growth and development." It is also known as “school engagement," “school attachment,” and “school bonding” (Blum, 2004, p.1). Countless studies so far have been conducted to analyze the strength, importance, and impact of school connectedness on the cognitive, emotional, physical, and social growth as well as the familial lives of students from varying age groups. Every research in this matter provides extra ordinary findings, exclusive details, and enlightening analysis about the miscellaneous factors associated with school connectedness. This paper is an analytical accumulation of the impacts and importance of school connectedness on different aspects of a student’s life through comparing and contrasting multiple studies. For a successful life, the feeling of belongingness to school environment, likeness for fellow students, and trust on peers or teachers is very important for every student. Hence, the importance of attachment to school is undeniable. However, the concept of school bonding is not a hypothetical one; it is an integral factor that influences every student in one way or the other. That is why it was deemed important to understand and evaluate the varying levels of school connectedness on different aspects of an individual’s life. Robert Blum explains that “research on students’ attachment to the schools they attend is conducted in a variety of disciplines: education, health, psychology and sociology” (2004, p.1). Therefore, in search of a perfect analysis for this report, different studies on all these aspect will be inspected so that the importance of school bonding could be understood. School and family share a correlated association because home environment and preferences hugely affect the level of school connectedness. This is why the influence and impact of family conditions and environs on school belonging is important to be analyzed first. It is a pre-conceived notion that family and school are the two most important stabilizing factors in a person’s life and that their strong coalition produces an everlasting impact on students from a very early age. However, it is important to analyze if strong parent-teacher frequency really is important for developing strong sense of school-likeness. Serpell and Mashburn (2011) observed the extent to which family-school connection affected children’s social growth during Prekindergarten. A combination of 2966 multi-lingual four-aged children from 240 classrooms of 40 prominent state-funded Pre-K study programs in six states of USA participated in this study (Serpell & Mashburn, 2012). The results revealed that “pre-k teachers' perceptions of a positive relationship with parents are strongly associated with their ratings of children's social competence, problem behavior, and the degree of closeness and conflict in their relationship with the child” (Serpell & Mashburn, 2012). Home environment and parental attachment are important factors for enhancing stronger feelings of school connectedness, but some studies reveal that their association is indirect. For instance, Shochet et al (2007) proved it in their study in which 171 high-school students aged between 8-12 years were examined. Their study concluded that “the relationship between parent attachment and school connectedness is not a direct one” (Shochet, Smyth & Homel, 2007). Though, it also affirmed “that parent attachment influences individual differences in the way adolescents perceive the school environment, which in turn influences school connectedness” (Shochet et al 2007). In New Zealand, a web-based survey conducted by Carter et al (2007) analyzed the factors that affected a student’s health most including family, school and friends. The research involved 652 high-school students aged 16 from all over Dunedin, and connectedness levels were assessed using Logistic Regression method (Carter, McGee, Taylor & Williams, 2007). The team analyzed that family and school environment both equally affected a person’s health and “this study reinforced the importance of school and family as support networks for young people” (Carter et al, 2007). Through these examples, it can be established that strong parent-teacher association, and healthy family-school connection does create prominent impact on the strength of school connectedness. School bonding's main advantage is that it supports and promotes healthy socio-emotional development among students, and influences academic outcomes. Catalano et al believe that “Bonding to school has shown to increase positive developmental experiences, decrease negative developmental experiences, and buffer the effects of risk” (2004, p.252). In 2008, Caresy Institute initiated a longitudinal research project to examine this feature of school bonding, and a study was conducted on two groups of students mainly from Coos County, North Hampshire (Stracuzzi & Mills, 2010, p.2). A questionnaire was prepared and distributed among 657 students (50% females) to analyze the academic outcomes and socio-emotional impact of school connectedness. The results revealed that “not only does school connectedness have positive effects on academic achievement, but high levels of school connectedness are also associated with positive socio-emotional well-being” (Stracuzzi & Mills, 2010, p.4). A research on the importance of school connectedness piloted by the Centre of Disease Control (CDC) affirmed that “students are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors and succeed academically when they feel connected to school” (2009, p.5). Carsey Institute’s research exposed a significant finding that in case of disconnection from school, the responses of males and females differed greatly. “Males are more likely to report using substances and acting out with delinquent behaviors, whereas females are more likely to report depressive symptoms” (Stracuzzi & Mills, 2010, p.7). Niehaus, Rudasill, and Rakes (2012) examined the academic outcomes of school connectedness through a longitudinal study involving 330 six graders from high-poverty zones in USA. Student’s perception about their connection with school environment was assessed through a survey, and data was gathered about their academic performances using Latent Growth Curve Model. Results revealed that “on average, students' perceptions of school support declined significantly. However, students who reported less-decline in school support had higher academic achievement than students who reported more decline in school support” (Niehaus, Rudasill & Rakes, 2012). This study also found a difference between male and female responses since, “sixth-grade boys were at a greater risk for negative outcomes (i.e., lower school support, lower GPAs, and more discipline referrals) across the school year than girls” (Niehaus, Rudasill & Rakes 2012). Pellegrini and Long observed the emotional and psychological changes that occurred among boys and girls from 5th to 7th grade and found considerable difference between both gender’s socio-emotional progress. Students of both rural and urban school systems in North America were observed for 3 years, and data was collected through self-reporting measures and questionnaires (Pellergini & Long, 2002, P.263). A total of 154 students (87 males and 67 females) predominantly from middle class participated in this study, 95% of them were European American (Pellergini & Long, 2002, P.264). The results established that inclination towards bullying alongwith increasing sense of dominance among boys was observed greatly than girls. “In examining changes in self-reported bullying from 5th through 7th grade, a significant gender effect was observed; boys, more than girls, self-reported being bullies. Also, boys, more than girls, view aggression and bullying more positively as they progressed through the early phases of adolescence.” (Pellergini & Long, 2002, p.263-273) An important assessment achieved was that this aggression and victimization was largely an outcome of the decline observed in peer-affiliation, and school-disconnectedness during the transitional phase. On the other hand, the study by Sarigiani, Ryan, and Peterson provided a completely contradictory evaluation that “Adolescent women are almost equally likely to smoke, drink, and engage in other substance use; as their male counterparts, but with increased health risks” (1999). This revelation creates an important topic for further research, since the number of studies focusing on the differing behaviors of girls and boys in determining the levels of school connectedness has been very low. School connectedness influences students and helps them throughout their academic journey in various ways. To analyze the outcomes of early school attachment in later years, reference can be taken from the study conducted by Bond et al (2007). In Australia, 2678 students aged 13-14 years studying in 8th grade participated in a “post-secondary school survey” which was steered to examine the future impacts of school connectedness on teenagers. Results concluded that “young people's experiences of early secondary school may continue to affect their substance use in later years and their likelihood of completing secondary school” (Bond et al, 2007, p.357). In another study the horizon of research was broadened, and the outcomes of school connectedness, family, and peers on teenagers was explored by McGraw et al in Australian city Victoria (McGraw, Moore, Fuller & Bates, 2008). A total of 941 year 12 students from 10 secondary schools participated, and their emotional well-being was observed for one year. This study found “high levels of depression, anxiety and stress among Year 12 students, with higher negative effect associated with lower levels of family, peer and school connectedness” (McGraw et al 2008). Abela and Hankin confirm that “there is convincing evidence that factors within the school environment may have a significant impact on student’s emotional development (p.343). The positive correlativity between family and school has already been discussed in detail. It becomes important now to analyze the researches involving factors that encourage school bonding within the school environment. However, it is a surprising fact that the number of studies conducted on this matter is unexpectedly low. There is a dire need to mobilize fair amount of research on this aspect of school bonding. Anderman’s study (2002) is one important example in this context that examines the factors that promote school bonding after family and parental backing using a “nationally representative data” apart from self-report questionnaires. In this study it was hypothesized that “after controlling for other variables, school size, grade configuration, and urbanicity would be related to perceptions of belonging. The results partially supported this prediction” (Anderman, 2002, p.806). The size of school does impact the level of belongingness. Even so, there has been immense contradiction in the results of other studies over determining the practically supportive size of an institution. For instance, the observations of Lee and Smith (1995) or McNeely, Nonemaker, and Blum (2002) concluded that the rate of academic achievement was higher in small-sized schools whereas Rumberger and Thomas (2002) declared that more benefits were associated with large-sized schools. Anderman concluded in the study that students from sub-urban areas felt more connected than those in urban schools (Anderman, 2002, p.807). This point was also observed by Freeman et al (2001), but it does not support the prediction that school size produces an impact on belongingness because both large and small-sized schools have varying benefits. Hence, it can be suggested that school size is not a strong predictor of belongingness but can play a significant role in a establishing a student’s connection with school. An important feature of school connectedness, apart from academic success, is to foster physically, mentally, and socially healthy individuals, with a clear and positive perception about their future and society. School connectedness has a strong impact on the cognitive, subjective, and psychological development of an individual. In fact, schools are referred to as “Caring Communities” and positive, supportive, and violence-free classrooms are termed as “Psychologically Healthy Environments” by Baker and Maupin (Miller & Berman, 2011, p.73). McNeely and Falci (2004) hypothesized that school belongingness greatly affects an individual’s mental health, and delays the initiation of six main health-risk behaviors, including “smoking, drinking, drug's usage, suicidal ideation, first sexual intercourse, and weapon-related violence” during adolescence (McNeely & Falci, 2004, p.284). To evaluate, they conducted a Longitudinal Study on 80 high-schools from suburban, rural, and urban regions of USA during the academic year 1994-95. A total of 20,745 students of 7-12 grades participated and were given in-home and in-school questionnaires. The results declared that “Adolescents who perceive that their teachers are fair and care about them are less likely to initiate any of these six health-risk behaviors” (McNeely & Falci, 2004, p.290). However, another fact that their study explored was that “adolescents who feel part of school and enjoy going to school are not protected from any of these health-risk behaviors once initiated” (McNeely & Falci, 2004, p.290). This suggests that teacher support though restricts the initiation up to some extent, but cannot protect the students once they get involved in such behaviors. This study result has several limitations, and the acquired results raise confusion over the objective, most significantly it does not accurately measure the basic factors that instigate health-risk behaviors. To gain further insight into this matter, it is important to acknowledge the study conducted by Wilkinson-Lee et al (2009). They examined the relativity between family obligations and emotional distress, and the impact of school belongingness on minimizing the health-risk behaviors (Wilkinson-Lee, Zhang, Nuno & Wilhelm, 2009, p.223). About 4,198 students (49% males, and 59% European Americans) from 6-12 grades, were selected for participation from 9 middle and high schools of southwest Arizona, USA, and were handed over questionnaires and surveys on emotional distress (Wilkinson-Lee et al, 2009, p.224). Results revealed that “School connectedness was positively associated with gender, family obligations and academic achievement whereas family obligations are associated with reports of greater distress and poorer academic achievement and that less connected students reported more distress” (Wilkinson-Lee et al, 2009, p.225). This study laid emphasis on the important role of school connectedness on an adolescent’s overall emotional well-being, which is in substantial contrast with the outcome of McNeely and Falci’s observation. Resnick, Harris, and Blum (1993) also endeavored to evaluate the role of school bonding in ensuring the emotional well-being of adolescents. Their study comprised of 36000 students from 7th through 12th grade, and Multivariate Models were formed for both boys and girls. The results “demonstrated the protective function of caring and connectedness in the lives of youth, particularly a sense of connectedness to family and to school” (Resnick, Harris & Blum, 1993, 1993, p.3). Their study involved a massive participation which indeed was a plus point because it involved population from all sectors and ethnic origins and, thus, provided authentic analysis/conclusion. One important finding was that low levels of family stress played a significant role in generating stronger feelings of school connectedness, further leading to emotional well-being. On the other hand, connection levels of students from single parent or broken families differed from the ones with a two-parent scenario, establishing the fact that negative family environment is a strong and primary promoter of emotional stress instead of school. Shochet et al examined the relativity between school bonding and onset of anxiety/depressive symptoms on adolescents from 6th-9th grades in 14 schools located in three Australian states during academic year 2001-02 (2006, p.172). This study also analyzed whether school bonding predicted the occurring of anxiety symptoms one year later or not. The results affirmed their hypothesis that school bonding is “strongly and negatively correlated to concurrent and future self-report symptoms of depression and anxiety” and that it did “predict depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and general functioning 1year later for both boys and girls” (Shochet et al, 2006, p.177). This is the first study that analyzed the correlation between school bonding and future emotional distress prediction, as well as provided detailed description on the varying reactions of girls and boys. However, in contrast with the above mentioned studies on emotional well-being of students, Australian study showed a positive correlation between occurring depression and school. This is the reason Shochet et al concluded that school connectedness is an “underemphasized parameter” while judging emotional distress among adolescents. These examples establish the fact that emotional-wellbeing although is protected by school belongingness, but there is solid evidence that school culture can be an initiator of depressive symptoms as well. Physical development is an integral factor of an individual’s early growth, and it is greatly developed through extra-curricular activities. This has been acknowledged as an important aspect through which students can strengthen their bonding with school, since sports-related activities are an essential part of every educational environment. It, however, needs to be evaluated and inspected through the studies conducted in this context. The study by Trudeau and Shephard (2008) investigated the relativity between school bonding and academic achievements through physical education and school-level sports. They underwent wide-range research on this objective, and the results were analyzed by incorporating literature from the most reliable databases like “MEDLINE (1966 to 2007), PSYCHINFO (1974 to 2007), and SCHOLAR.GOOGLE.COM, and ERIC (Trudeau & Shephard, 2008). Their conclusion strengthened the supposition that physical and sports-related activities had strong and positive association with increased academic performance, and greater school likeness (Trudeau & Shephard, 2008). McNeely, Nonemaker, and Blum (2002) also affirmed the above finding and suggested that school bonding was hugely influenced by classroom climate, and extracurricular activities. Their observation was based on the survey results of “National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health that involved 75,515 students in 127 schools” (McNeely, Nonemaker, & Blum, 2002). There are numerous studies already completed in this regard, and based on similar observations, it can be established that school bonding is deeply enhanced through promoting physical activities. Conclusion: The above-mentioned studies have predominantly laid emphasis on the encouragement of school connectedness to ensure positive academic outcomes as well as healthy social, mental, and physical development of students. Nonetheless, it is important to conduct more wide-ranged studies involving newer aspects and incorporating various issues that have seldom been touched so far. For example, classroom climate is a strong initiator of emotional distress, but few researchers have examined the factors involved. Another fact is that studies that involve survey results or rely upon self-reporting measures may produce doubtful results, since surveys are often large-scale and may not provide in-depth details on particular matters, similarly amateur level student reporting cannot be touted as completely reliable. In this paper, it was revealed that not much research has been done to evaluate the dominating aspects that foster or affect school connectedness. For example, the size of school was predicted to determine the level of connectedness, but conclusive analysis regarding the actual school size that fosters bonding is still debatable. Behavioral variances of both genders within school environment and the most significant factors that develop problematic habits are issues that should be researched more. There have been immense researches on the basic issues, now it is the need of the day that more studies are conducted that revolves around intricate issues of student life. Studies on young adults have revealed a decline in school connectedness that is why psychologically deterrent factors among post-secondary and adult students have to be researched. For instance, evaluating the outcomes of school-based mentoring or student-training programs, transition of students towards unhealthy activities during school life and/or engaging factors that encourage school connectedness among young adults. References Abela, J., & Hankin, B. (2008), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents, (p. 343) Guilford Press. Anderman, E. M. (2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 795-809. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/research/ISLESA/anderman02.pdf Blum, R. (2004), School connectedness, (pp. 1-5) Department of Defense Military Child. Retrieved from http://cecp.air.org/download/MCMonographFINAL.pdf Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007), Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes, Journal of School Health, 40(4), 357. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367730 Carter, M., McGee, R., Taylor, B., & Williams, S. (2007). Health outcomes in adolescence: Associations with family, friends, and school engagement. Journal of Adolescence, 80, 51-62. Catalano, R., Haggerty, K., Oesterly, S., Fleming, C., & Hawkins, D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the social development research group, Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252. Retrieved from http://www.jhsph.edu/departments/population-family-and-reproductive-health/_archive/wingspread/Septemberissue.pdf CDC (2009), School connectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors among youth. (p. 5). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/pdf/connectedness.pdf McGraw, K., Moore, S., Fuller, A., & Bates, G. (2008) Family, peer and school connectedness in final year secondary school students. Australian Psychologist, 43(1), 27-37. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/00050060701668637/ McNeely, C. A., & Falci, C. (2004) School connectedness and the transition in and out of health-risk behaviors among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284-292. McNeely, C. A., Nonemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002) Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138-146. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2002.tb06533.x Miller, D. N., & Berman, A. L. (2011). Child and adolescent suicidal behavior: School-based prevention, assessment, and intervention. (p. 73), Guilford Press. Niehaus, K., Rudasill, K. M., & Rakes, C. R. (2012), A longitudinal study of school connectedness and academic outcomes across sixth grade. Journal of School Psychology, 50(4), 443-460. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22710015 Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002), A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 259-280. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/026151002166442/pdf Resnick, M. D., Harris, L. J., & Blum, R. W. (1993), The impact of caring and connectedness on adolescent health and well-being. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 29(1), 3-9. Sarigiani, P., Ryan, L., & Petersen, A. (1999) Prevention of high-risk behaviors in adolescent women. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25(2), 109-119. Serpell, Z. N., & Mashburn, A. J. (2012), Family–school connectedness and children, Social Development, 21(1), 21-46. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00623.x/full Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an under-emphasized parameter in adlescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 73-81. Shochet, I., Smyth, T., & Homel, R. (2007), The impact of parental attachment on adolescent perception of the school environment and school connectedness., Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 28(2), 109-118. Stracuzzi, N. F., & Millas, M. L. (2010), Teachers matter: Feelings of school connectedness and positive youth development among coos county youth. New England, 23, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB-Mills-Stracuzzi_TeachersMatter.pdf Trudeau, F., & Shephard, J. (2008), Physical education, school physical activity, school sports and academic performance. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5(10), Retrieved from http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/5/1/10/ Whitlock, J. (2003, November), Fostering school connectedness. Retrieved from http://www.actforyouth.net/resources/rf/rf_connect_1103.pdf Wilkinson-Lee, A., Zhang, Q., Nuno, V. L., & Wilhelm, M. (2009) Adolescent emotional distress: The role of family obligations and school connectedness. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 40, 221-230. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10964-009-9494-9 Read More