Difficult pupils in Christchurch secondary schools.
Degree GrantorUniversity of Canterbury
Degree NameMaster of Arts
Difficult pupils are a source of major concern. In 1980 a study was undertaken in fourteen Christchurch state secondary schools to examine the nature, incidence, correlates, etiology and treatment of 'difficult' behaviour. Classroom teachers, senior staff, and 'difficult' as well as well-behaved pupils contributed their perceptions of the problem. The main research methods were rating scales and structured interviews. Teachers nominated 210 pupils (116 boys and 94 girls) (2.6% of the combined secondary school rolls) as so difficult that they needed help to cope with them. Lower socio-economic levels, Non-Europeans, children from larger families or solo parent homes and children of lower scholastic aptitude were over-represented. Persistent defiance and behaviours which interfered with learning were the teachers' main concerns. Sex, race, scholastic aptitude, and type of school proved to be significant classificatory variables. Males, Non-Europeans, those of low scholastic aptitude and those from co-educational schools tended to engage more frequently in the more blatantly anti-social misbehaviours. Sex interacted with race, with Non-European females tending to smoke, flout uniform regulations and use obscene language more frequently than other groups. While senior teachers saw family factors as important they also acknowledged the contribution of the school curriculum and organization. The most favoured solution was improved staffing ratios to allow greater flexibility in providing for difficult pupils within the school. Difficult pupils were rated significantly lower in social development and self-esteem than controls. However there was considerable overlap in the pupils' self-descriptions, reported perceptions of the opinion held of them by significant others, definition of problem behaviour and suggested solutions. In spite of this more of the difficult pupils regarded themselves, and saw those in authority regarding them, negatively. Their misbehaviours constituted challenges to authority rather than being schoolwork-related. Both groups saw the responsibility for control lying primarily with teachers. A third of the difficult pupils expressed a desire to change their attitudes and behaviour at school and to achieve better family communication.