New Students’ Peer Integration and Exposure to Deviant Peers: Spurious Effects of School Moves?

Abstract

School moves during adolescence predict lower peer integration and higher exposure to delinquent peers. Yet mobility and peer problems have several common correlates, so differences in movers’ and non-movers’ social adjustment may be due to selection rather than to causal effects of school moves. Drawing on survey and social network data from a sample of 7th and 8th graders, this study compared the structure and behavioral content of new students’ friendship networks to those of not only non-movers, but also of students about to move schools; the latter should resemble new students in both observed and unobserved ways. The results suggest that the association between school moves and friends’ delinquency is due to selection, but the association between school moves and peer integration may not be entirely due to selection.

School transitions as a turning point for gang status

“…In the over 20,000 observations in the sample, we only observed 48 instances where youth reported joining a gang at the same time that s/he experienced a school transition. The low probability of simultaneously experiencing gang joining and school transition is consistent with prior literature that finds that school mobility is not predictive of association with delinquent peers (Siennick, Widdowson, and Ragan 2016). However, we are hesitant to completely reject this hypothesis and suggest that future research should continue to explore this link with gang or nongang high-risk youth, as some prior research suggests that school transitions are particularly difficult for a small group of students who were previously considered high-risk (Roderick, 1993).…”

“…Peers are a particularly salient form of social capital during adolescence, as youth begin to spend increasingly more time with peers and tend to rely on them as a source of social standing, personal identity, and values (Fuligni et al 2001;Smetana, Campione-Barr, and Metzger 2006). School mobility (whether normative or non-normative) affects social capital because it can rupture these established friendships (Siennick, Widdowson, and Ragan 2016;Weller 2007). Because the gang is a source of social capital (Moule Jr., Decker, and Pyrooz 2013), school transitions may facilitate the desistance process by removing that source of social capital.…”

“…One of the greatest concerns when transitioning to a new school is the attenuation of bonds with peers, schools, counselors, administrators, and even parents. Because these forms of social capital serve as key sources of supervision as well as social control in the lives of mobile youth (Pribesh and Downey 1999;Siennick, Widdowson, and Ragan 2016), disruptions in social capital could lead to gang joining through several processes. Vigil (1993) observed that the lack of social control is especially problematic during the transition from elementary to middle school and, in turn, facilitated gang joining in his sample.…”

“…The impact of non-normative school transitions (i.e., changes due to residential moves or mid-year transfers) has also been mixed, with research demonstrating improved school outcomes such as test scores and greater commitment to school (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2004;Ludwig, Ladd, and Duncan 2001) as well as negative impacts such as increased criminal offending (Gasper, DeLuca, and Estacion 2010), reduced commitment to school (Pribesh and Downey 1999), and increased risk for drop out (Rumberger and Larson 1998). Additionally, school transfers are associated with a reduction in the size of a youth's peer network (Siennick, Widdowson, and Ragan 2016;South and Haynie 2004). The current study examines the impact of school mobility on joining or leaving a youth gang, a particular type of peer network.…”

Gangs in School: Exploring the Experiences of Gang-Involved Youth

“…This mutual delimitation at work in the school setting combined with the overwhelming lack of fear present in the sample raises some concerns about exclusionary discipline policies that may differentially target gang members due to their visibility. Exclusionary policies, such as expulsion, may be counterproductive by cutting the youth’s prosocial bonds and reducing their educational attainment (Pribesh & Downey, 1999; Rumberger & Larson, 1998; Siennick, Widdowson, & Ragan, 2016). This can be especially detrimental to gang youth who are already less committed to school (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Esbensen et al, 2010; Pyrooz, 2014; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003).…”