Search results

We test the proposition that criminal sentiments, which we define as a negative and potent view of a juvenile delinquent (JD), moderate the effect of a delinquency adjudication on self-sentiments. We expect criminal sentiments to reduce self-evaluation and increase self-potency among juvenile delinquents but have no effect on self-sentiments among non-delinquents. We also examine the construct validity of our measure of criminal sentiments by assessing its relationship to beliefs that most people devalue, discriminate against, and fear JDs.

We test these hypotheses with self-administered survey data from two samples of college students and one sample of youths in an aftercare program for delinquent youths. We use endogenous treatment-regression models to identify and reduce the effects of endogeneity between delinquency status and self-sentiments.

Our construct validity assessment shows, as expected, that criminal sentiments are positively related to beliefs that most people devalue, discriminate against, and fear JDs. Our focal analyses support our self-evaluation predictions but not our self-potency predictions.

Our findings suggest that the negative effect of a delinquency label on JDs’ self-esteem depends on the youths’ view of the delinquency label.

This study is the first to test a modified labeling theory proposition on juvenile delinquents.

In England, systematic school self-evaluation (SSE) began as model for school improvement. However, since 2000, and in the context of increasing moves toward ‘new public management’, it has become a policy priority for the Government which is inextricably linked to the inspection regime and risks becoming more closely associated with accountability than improvement. Such policies can, paradoxically, compromise school improvement (Fuhrman, 1993). This chapter will explore ways in which teachers and school leaders have attempted to engage in school self-evaluation in ways that allow them to maintain control of the evaluation agenda and retain the focus on improvement and pupils’ learning. It illustrates attempts by schools to engage with and reduce the negative side-effects of target-driven policies and the drive towards competition between schools. In particular, it will consider the benefits and challenges of inter-school collaboration through networking. It should certainly not be read as an endorsement of current policy developments in England and does not seek, as other chapters do in this volume, to address the key question of what kind of society we want? It offers a pragmatic exploration of some schools’ creative responses to the context in which they currently operate aimed at being more conducive to public rather than private good, that is meeting the needs of the ‘knowledge society’ as opposed to the ‘knowledge economy’ (Hargreaves, 2003).