Violence in schools: prevalence, causes, and prevention strategies

You are reminded that the materials provided to you are for educational purposes only. However, the duplicationcopying of the materials for credit at an educational institution is strictly prohibited. Inc., is not in any way responsible for your use of the research materials drafted by the author. contractors who are solely responsible for the research, editing and final draft of the materials which you have purchased. You have agreed to use the research materials at your own risk and that you will not plagiarize the materials. You are further reminded that Inc., retains all rights to the research materials purchased by you and that materials in the future, for profit. Since the materials provided to you may be based on numerous sources, it is strongly recommended that you conduct independent research to verify that all information is accurate. This e-mail reminder does not contain all the which govern your purchase. In the late 19th an early 20th centuries, scientists began to recognize violent school behavior, but little empirical research was conducted to determine the cause of this violence and, just as important, ways to reduce or eliminate it. After 1950, studies began to be conducted that included not only descriptions of the behavior, but intervention programs as well. Researchers now use scientific study to determine and describe these disorders with increasing validity and reliability. In the future, it is hoped that similar scientific studies will continue, so more progress will be made on reaching and helping students and schools with such problems. Antisocial behavior refers to wide range of activities that reflect the breaking of social rules and values, acts against others, or both. Such activities include behaviors such as lying, disobedience, truancy, running away, drug use, setting fires, vandalism, theft and violence against other people. Some antisocial behavior is relatively common over the normal course of a child's life and is not of concern. For example, the majority of five and six year olds lie or are disobedient (Henggeler, 1998, p.4). On the other hand, when children show relatively severe antisocial behavior, it is likely to be noticed by parents, teachers and other adults as a major difference from normal activity and may bring the child or adolescent into contact with the mental health or juvenile justice system (Henggeler, 1998, p.4). Although school violence is not a new occurrence, is becoming increasingly significant in American society because of situations such as Columbine. Recognizing that violence may possibly occur in a school environment, actions must be taken to ensure the safety of all students and the staff who serve them. Over the past decade, a definition has evolved to cover this increasing problem. School violence is now seen as a multifaceted problem that involves both criminal acts and aggression in educational institutions, which inhibit learning and development of the students, in addition to a negative impact on the school climate. It was not until 1992 that the label "school violence" was used widely as a term to describe violent and aggressive acts on institutional campuses. Citations in the University of California computer database of news reports in 5 major national newspapers show that before this year, just 179 citations were listed under this keyword. From 1992 to 1998, there were about 600 articles using this term in the same newspapers. Similarly, previous to 1992, only 38 news articles had the words "school violence" in their title, compared to 118 between 1992 and October 1998 (Furlong & Morrison, 2000, p. 71). Early interest in school violence had a stress on youth whose behavior was primarily a law enforcement issue. Then, researchers became interested in understanding influences contributing to the development of antisocial behavior in children. Studies also emerged among public health researchers and advocates interested in decreasing harm to youth, especially as it related to the increase of violence-related adolescent injuries and homicides during the late 1980s and early 1990s (Furlong & Morrison, 2000, p. 72). Eventually, a school safety and crime scorecard was developed that reported the incidence of these factors: (a) nonfatal student victimization (student reports), (b) violence and crime at schools (public school principal reports), (c) violent deaths at school, (d) nonfatal teacher victimization at school (teacher reports), and (e) school environmental conditions (Furlong & Morrison, 2000, p. 72). Several definitions of school-related violence were very broad and difficult to use. For instance, Berg (2000) defined school-related violence as "the use or threat of physical force with the intent of causing physical injury, damage or intimidation of another person" (p. 18). Astor and Meyer (2001) saw it as intentional and negligent behavior that caused physical or psychological harm andor property damage. Furlong and Morrison (2000) further expanded the extent of school-related violence to consist of all criminal acts and aggression that may inhibit learning and harm the school's climate. Other definitions were more precise, focusing on certain aspects of student behavior. Emphasizing a psychological perspective, Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools defined school-related violence as a "broad range of troubling behaviors and emotions shown by students- including serious aggression, physical attacks, suicide, dangerous use of drugs, and other dangerous interpersonal behaviors" (Dwyer, Osher &Warger, 1998, p. 2). In order to have a better idea of the present-day extent of the violence in the schools, it is helpful to look at the overall numbers of those being educated. The Digest of Education Statistics (Snyder, 2001) reported that approximately 25 percent of United States residents were involved in formal education as teachers, school administrators, support staff or students in 2000. There were approximately 3.3 million teachers and 53 million students in elementary and secondary schools. The chance of any student being killed at school was one in two million or becoming a victim of violent crime was less than 0.5 percent. School-related crimes are decreasing (Clark, 2002), yet the numbers are still high. In 1998, 12- to 18-year-olds were the victims of 2.7 million school-related crimes, including 252,700 nonfatal serious violent crimes. Further, data from the National School Safety Center's School Associated Violent Deaths Report reported there were 318 violent school deaths, 55 that were suicides, since the start of the 1992 to1993 school year. In total, outside- of-school juvenile arrest data mirrored the above trends. However, it is difficult to get a true handle on the amount of crime, because of the degree of non-reporting. The Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher (Binns & Markow, 1999) found that only one- third of student victims told police officers or school officials about violent incidents. Thirty-five percent said they would never report violent behavior despite their relationship to the victim or perpetrator.

Self-reports of weapons possession and bullying were considerably higher than reported incidents, regardless that the perceptions of school- related violence were consistent with the incidence data. This finding was consistent with research data concluding that there was an increase in the percentage of students who sometimes felt "too unsafe" to attend school. Self-reporting data also found that most schools are free of serious violent crime. Only ten percent of schools reported one or more serious crimes to police. Furthermore, 43 percent of schools reported no criminal incidents to police. (Binns & Markow, 1999) When looking at the statistics regarding school violence, some significant consistencies can be found. First, boys are most involved in school violence and are much more likely than girls to be physically aggressive and the victim of attacks. Second, bullying behavior is most frequent among upper-elementary-age students. Some forms of aggressive behavior are higher among middle school students, such as fighting. Third, most studies to this point have not found significant differences across racial and ethnic groups. Similarly, no difference was found in overall student violence in schools located in central city, suburban, and non- metropolitan areas, even though crime victimization is normally found to be higher in urban than suburban and rural locales. However, despite the fact that the amount of school violence may not differ strongly by location, variances may occur in specific areas. In addition, since central city areas have larger student populations, in a given time period these students may be exposed to a greater number of violent incidents. And fifth, the attitudes held by individual students are associated with their involvement as perpetrators of violence or as its victims (Furlong & Morrison, 2000, p. 73). It should be made clear here that school violence is not indicative of the United States, but is found throughout the world. Violence in schools is a worldwide problem: it exists in both rich and poor countries. Experts do agree on one point: This violence cannot be pinned to a single cause. Instead, they blame it on a complex pattern related to family situations, socioeconomic conditions and teaching methods. A number of reasons have been given for school violence. Bender, McLauchlin, & Shubert (2001) investigated the random school shootings that occurred from October of 1997 to May of 1998, in the cities of Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; and Springfield, Oregon. Since juvenile records are sealed during ongoing investigations, the authors used multiple sources from available national press reports, each of which was identified by more than one source, to create a list of possible causal factors. Bender, McLauchlin, & Shubert (2001) then outlined some of the potential causes for shootings as reported by multiple sources in the media. The data reveal several conclusions of concern: 1) Even though none of the perpetrators was identified as special need student, each demonstrated some indicators to peers of quite serious emotional problems and each demonstrated a low regard for human life. 2) The perpetrators were usually completely alienated from their family and friends. Each had "warned" others in advance of the violence that may occur by talking about killing in some context. 3) Each of the perpetrators was a White male. 4) The perpetrators seemed to have an average or above average intelligence. 5) The perpetrators seemed to be very deliberate in the violent actions on the day of the shootings. When looking at the Colorado and Georgia shootings, some consistencies arise: From an emotional standpoint, an analysis and review of the media reports on the Colorado and Georgia shooting incidents suggest that similar general factors were observed. Each of the boys who was responsible for the shootings showed some form of emotional problems. For example, the perpetrator in Georgia, T. J. Solomon, was under medical treatment for depression (Skeesis, 1999). Individuals at Columbine High School in Colorado described the shooter Eric Harris as a "troubled teen" who suffered from depression and obsession. Similarly, his co-perpetrator, Dylan Klebold, was thought of as a follower who went astray. The police and fellow students described them as disaffected outcasts.. There was also similarities in alienation: Each of the shooters in these two events was separated from family and friends and often picked on at school. Another Columbine High School student said Harris and Klebold would "walk with their heads down, because if they looked up they'd get thrown into lockers and get called a 'fag'" (Cannon, Streisand, & McGraw, 1999). Further, their well-known membership in the "trench-coat Mafia" suggests an alienation from the larger school community. This seemed to indicate that these boys were seeking to "fit in." T.J. Solomon was viewed by most of his peers as a "nerd," "really shy," and "not real popular." Time magazine reported, "He was described as both a Boy Scout and a troubled youth" (Cloud, 1999). In both cases, there were prior warnings of violence. Before the Columbine High School shooting, a video made by Harris and Klebold for a class showed the boys acting out a scene that involved anger, violence, and revenge (Skeesis, 1999). In the Heritage High School shooting, after breaking up with his girlfriend, Solomon's friends said he was very troubled and angry and spoke of suicide and of bringing a gun to school (Pressley, 1999). Even the day before the shooting, he told two other students he would "blow up this classroom" and that he had no reason to live (Cloud, 1999). As in the earlier instances, these warnings were overlooked. As noted before, guns were also part of this scenario. The guns used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were the first in the string of school shootings that were actually purchased (Skeesis, 1999). A previous Columbine student, Mark Manes, bought a Tec-DC9 at a local gun show and then later gave it to Harris and Klebold. Robyn Anderson, Klebold's girlfriend, also said she bought a Hi-Point semiautomatic carbine and two 1969 Savage shotguns for Klebold. In the Conyers, Georgia, shooting, T.J. Solomon took the guns and bullets he used from the unlocked display case and drawer in his family's basement. Lastly, as recognized in the shootings analyzed by Bender, McLauchlin, & Shubert. (2001), each perpetrator in these two shootings demonstrated evidence of a decreasing respect for life. The dismay of the Columbine shooting is the large number of victims and the reported statements made by Klebold and Harris previous to and during their rampage, which demonstrate their callous disregard for life. Even as early as June 1998, they had constructed pipe bombs and tested them in the surrounding wilderness. In December, Harris started seeing a psychiatrist who prescribed psychotropic drugs for mental problems (Skeesis, 1999). It is also known that the two boys boasted to a friend about mutilating animals, which may be consistent with this violent type of behavior. Farrington (1998), stated that individuals who commit one type of violent offense tend to commit others in addition to other nonviolent offenses as well as co-occurring problems such as substance abuse and sexual promiscuity. There is significant continuity from childhood aggression to youth violence. The major long-term predictors are biological (low heart rate), individual (high impulsiveness and low intelligence), family factors (poor supervision, harsh discipline, a violent parents, large family size, a young mother, a broken family), peer delinquency, low socioeconomic status, urban residence, and a high-crime neighborhood (p. 421) Data from the National Household Education Survey (NHES, 1995) were analyzed to compare how parents' and students' compare in how they perceive school violence predictors: incidences of being attacked while in school, availability of substances of abuse, such as drugs, alcohol and marijuana, and actual use of these substances while in school. Results indicate that while the parents and students have varied perceptions not under the parents' or schools' control as good predictors of school violence, such as assignment of schools and student friends' aspirations, both see some practices and policies that are significantly associated with school violence. Parents perceive aversive school climates, ineffective proactive school safety actions in response to school violence, poor enriching environments, less parental involvement and dissatisfaction with these type of schools for accounting for most of the variance in school violence. Students, in contrast, see predictor factors such as getting high and easy availability of substances of abuse as more of a problem than actual incidences of being attacked. On the other hand, supportive environments such as positive school experience, parental involvement and a child's friends' high aspirations are deterrents of school violence. Research and studies have suggested a wide number of means for intervention into this problem. In order to assist schools in developing and carrying out violence prevention and response plans, the Departments of Education and Justice and the American Institutes for Research developed a report, Safeguarding Our Children: An Action Guide. The report indicates that an effective school violence prevention plan must include three tiers. 1. Schools must develop a schoolwide foundation for all students that consists of: enhancing constructive discipline, academic achievement and mental and emotional health through a encouraging school environment; teaching children on appropriate behaviors and problem-solving skills; supportive behavioral improvement; and appropriate academic teaching with interesting curricula and efficient teaching practices. 2. In addition, the schools must early on identify those students who at risk for severe academic or behavioral difficulties and create services and supports that address and construct risk factors for them. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of students display problem behaviors that indicate a need for such early intervention. It is essential that teachers be trained to recognize the early warning signs and make necessary referrals. Once the students are identified, they must receive coordinated services that meet the individual needs. Several approaches have been developed for interventions at this point, including anger management training, structured after-school programs, mentoring, individual, group and family counseling, adapting instructional practices, and tutoring. 3. Schools must recognize and offer specific interventions for the students who are experiencing considerable emotional and behavioral problems. This involves providing coordinated, in-depth, long-term, culturally appropriate, child-and family centered services and supports. Such interventions may consist of day treatment programs that give students and families intensive mental health and special education services; multi-systemic mental care, emphasizing the child and family, the peer context, schoolvocational performance, and neighborhoodcommunity supports; or treatment in foster care, an intensive, family- focused intervention for those students whose delinquency or emotional problems are so severe and so chronic that they are no longer permitted to live at home. To be effective, these approaches generally require the collaboration of schools, social services, mental health providers, and law enforcement and juvenile justice authorities. Other researchers and organizations have also been looking at ways of intervention. Incidents such as those at Columbine High School encouraged the creation of safe school plans. Presently, in some school districts, these plans are just sitting on the shelves and not being used. In more progressive schools, students and staff wear ID badges, doors are locked, security officers patrol the halls, staff is trained in security procedures, visitors sign in after showing a picture ID, and a district code of conduct regulates all interactions. However, it is recognized that this is just a stop gap. Schools must create a sense of community with increased student-teacher cooperation, and a common "conflict management language" (Selfridge 2004, p.61). Policies that the schools adopt and the steps that they take to enforce these policies need to be appropriate and equitable and eliminate rather than enhance violent behaviors. The learning environment must be psychologically as well as physically healthy for everyone and provide students with "safe havens in which to learn" (Bucher and Manning 2005, p.163). Bucher and Manning (2005) conducted a literature review and listed the most successful strategies for insuring safe secondary schools. Most important is providing a positive process-based instead of a negative one as a approach to safety. Instead of relying on metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and guards, a safe school should be process-based with the focus on a supportive school climate, student and staff support systems, and counseling. This whole-school model to handling violence differs considerably from that used in many schools that isolate and deal with violent students one-on-one. Considerable difference exists between a problem-centered approach to school safety that is reactive and a positive one that is preventative and proactive and tries to develop emotional literacy skills, such as empathy and respect and a sense of community for all stakeholders. Olafson and Field studied middle school students where the "punishment culture" (2003, p.144) exists and teachers are more concerned with establishing and enforcing rules than in helping students make "sensitive, informed choices about what is right and good." This could actually increase acting out and reverse positive relations between students and educators. Long-lasting safe environments only result from positive human relations, "institutional legitimacy" (Stevick & Levinson 2003, p. 346), and a climate of trust. School systems must realize that they do not need to respond equally to all threats or even respond with the same consequences. Not all threats have to lead to expulsion. Even when schools develop zero tolerance policies, they must be fair and reasonable, in line with the social and cultural contexts where the students live, and must not be primarily punitive and offer alternatives to suspension or expulsion such as community service, school service, or alternative education. According to Astor and Meyer (2001), the most successful programs for preventing school violence are ones that involve all stakeholders and tailored to fit the specific needs of a specific school. In contrast to safe school plans developed in the U.S., those developed in Australia and Europe: fit the plan to the specific school, empower both the students and teachers, create a democratic environment, are proactive and data driven, and focus on the whole school--not the individual student. Similarly, other successful programs used to create safe environments combine intervention with continuous preventive actions (Stevick & Levinson 2003). By using approaches such as conflict resolution, educators are able to create an environment that promotes the development of resiliency by assisting students to maintain relationships, control behavior, and peacefully resolve conflict (Bucher & Manning, 2005). Peer mediation, which relies on other students' input, works well with the developmental characteristics of adolescents who are transferring their alliances from adults to peers. For example, the Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP), stresses conflict resolution and intergroup relations through peer mediation with extensive training in conflict resolution. It has been successful in preventing violence and creating a positive school environment in schools nationwide (Selfridge, 2004). Studies have also demonstrated that school-based family counseling where individuals are involved in fighting incidents at school and their families can decrease the recidivism rate, positively impact the students' behavior, and enhance communication within families (Canfield & Ballard, 2004). Low-level violence, including sexual orientation, gender or disabled harassment, bullying, and the psychological maltreatment of students by teachers should be considered as serious as other forms of violence. Adolescents need help learning how to respect with, control their anger, and apply moral reasoning to social situations. Prevention is more effective than reactionary approaches. Dake, Price, and Telljohann (2003) found that while 86.3 percent of teachers had talks with bullies and victims after a problem arose, less than one-third of these instructors talked about bullying in the classroom and ways to prevent it or work with students to create rules to prevent bullying behavior. In addition to placing students at risk, a culture of low-level violence deprives students of "the opportunity to benefit from the educational opportunities a school provides" (Dupper & Meyer-Adams, 2002, p.357). Freiberg and Stein (1999, p.11) add that the "school climate is the heart and soul of a school ... It can foster resilience or become a risk factor." The climate should be characterized by "warmth, tolerance, positive responses to diversity, sensitivity to others' views, cooperative interactions among students, teachers, and school staff, and an environment that expects and reinforces appropriate behavior" (Dupper and Meyer-Adams 2002, p.360-61). In educational institutions that have a positive climate, adults act as role models, staff actions are clear and consistent, and democracy is practiced throughout the school. In addition, the school must connect with its community, provide opportunities for volunteering and student engagement, and have a strong and supportive school administration (Noonan 2004). When there is a negative school environment that has poor communication between administrators and faculty, inconsistent policies and incentive structures, confusing consequences for misbehavior, an environment where students do not feel respected, low expectations for high achievement, little involvement of students in the learning process, low morale of both youths and teachers, and disorderly classrooms can have a major impact on school safety (Hernandez & Seem, 2004). On the other hand, school connectedness is linked to healthy behaviors by adolescents. Thus, school staff must make a major effort to reach out to alienated students in addition to those who have no friends or peer support. School counselors can provide leadership in a collaborative effort that uses community mental health resources to supplement those that are available in the school (Canfield and Ballard, 2004). Overall, schools need long-term programs instead of quick-fixes. Youth, from kindergarten up to high school, have to understand that if they want to be respected for whom they are, they have to do the same for other people. Their may be differences that exist between the students, but there are many more similarities. Also, teachers need to pay attention to the subtleties in their students' behavior and clues that they offer when they are no longer able to cope with the life around them.