School shootings, such as the tragic one here at Virginia Tech in 2007, have left deep scars in America. The apparently random nature of these highly-publicized shootings has raised public fears to huge proportions. According to 2001 polls, “more than 50 percent of parents with children in grades K-12” (Gallup Poll) and “75 percent of secondary school students” (Lethal Violence in Schools) now think that a school shooting could occur in their community.
“School violence does not only occur in urban schools, but also in suburban schools.” (Indicators of School Crime and Safety) “Violence is most common in large schools, and middle school students are the most likely targets of violent behavior.” (Indicators of School Crime and Safety) Even though chances of school shootings are low at “between eight to ten percent,” (Indicators of School Crime and Safety) other forms of violence continue to take place in schools. “About half of public middle and high schools reported at least one incident of physical attacks, fights (without a weapon), theft, larceny, or vandalism.” (Indicators of School Crime and Safety) “7-8 percent of students in 9th to 12th grade have reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property.” (Violence in American Schools) Violence still remains a large problem in American schools today.
In light of these statistics, the concerns and fears of parents and children appear to be out of proportion to reality. The publicity that school shootings have received is a likely cause of that fear, but there are other reasons for elevated fears. In addition to their concerns about violent behavior, students are fearful of and intimidated by other, less serious forms of hostility. These include physical aggression such as shoving and pushing, face-to-face verbal harassment, public humiliation, and rumor spreading. “About 20-30 percent of American students, over 10 million, repeatedly either engage in or are the targets of bullying and hazing tactics.” (Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth) These actions “contribute to a climate of fear.” (Nobody Left to Hate) “Youth ages 8 to 15 rank bullying as more of a problem in their lives than discrimination, racism, or violence.” (Talking with Kids About Tough Issues) Also, “children who view themselves as targets of bullying show high levels of anxiety and depression that impede their school performance.” (Peer Harassment in School)
Bullying and more serious violent behavior are not separate problems. “Childhood bullying predicts person-oriented crime in young adulthood.” (Key Issues in the Development of Aggression and Violence) Bullying is one precursor of more extreme forms of hostility. In addition, some youths not only perceive themselves as the victims of peer taunting and ridicule, but are also aggressive themselves. (The Aggressive Victim of Bullying) Through multiple studies, it is clear that hostilities and bullying among school children increase the risk for later violence.
There are many ways to try to decrease school violence, but most of these are unused or not implemented until something occurs. Some examples are physical surveillance including weapons deterrence and the presence of security guards or officers on campus, school policies designed to prevent violence by punishing those who act violently, instructional programs designed to address the precursors of violence such as bullying, profiling of potentially violent individuals, counseling possibly at-risk students, and conflict mediation and resolution. Certain programs focus on skill building, while others rely on the deterrent value of punishment; some approaches involve the entire school and sometimes even parents or the local community. However most approaches focus on resolving incidents rather than identifying problem students to prevent the incident before it happens.
Physical surveillance is one of the most common countermeasures. Physical surveillance measures currently used in schools are weapons deterrence and the use of campus security and police officers. These strategies are aimed at preventing the most extreme forms of violence. Although “bullying is far more prevalent than violence that involves weapons,” (Indicators of School Crime and Safety) one primary goal of improved physical surveillance measures is to prevent youth from bringing weapons to school. Metal detectors and searches of student lockers and book bags are not uncommon, especially in large urban middle and high schools. “Fewer weapons are confiscated with these measures in place” (In the Classroom: Metal Detectors) than are confiscated without them, implying that students are bringing weapons to school less frequently. Whether metal detectors and searches can prevent a well-planned incident from taking place is less clear. However, some schools are “decreasing their use of metal detectors and searches because they can increase students' fears and anxieties.” (Nobody Left to Hate) Thus, weapons deterrence may increase physical safety but compromise the psychological safety of students. And it also does not address the underlying reasons why students carry weapons to school.
The presence of “security guards and officers employed by the school, district, or local law enforcement on school grounds is gaining popular support.” (Early Predictors of Violence) The duties of campus officers vary from patrolling the school and grounds to assisting school personnel with discipline issues. However, little is known about the long-term or extra effects that the presence of uniformed officers might have on students' feelings of safety. For example, although the presence of an officer may provide peace of mind for administrators and parents, we cannot assume that students view officers as their allies or defenders. This is partly due to the controversial cases brought up in the recent media. The presence of uniformed officers can breed a sense of mistrust among students and therefore adversely affect school climate. Some evidence suggests that “physical surveillance methods, metal detectors, searches, and security guards, can predict increased disorder.” (A Structural Analysis of School Violence)
A wide variety of school policies related to student conduct are enforced in schools across the nation. Rules and regulations that directly target violence are zero-tolerance policies because a single violation results in punishment, often either suspension or expulsion. Although many of these policies pertain specifically to weapons possession at school, others target drug use or possession. Some districts and schools have adopted anti-bullying zero-tolerance policies, thereby targeting precursors to violence.
Regardless of the specific target of these zero-tolerance policies, they involve an explicit statement of consequences or punishment. These "get-tough" practices are presumed to send a message to potentially violent students and decrease school violence. But they may increase problems as well. “Repeated school transfers increase the risk for subsequent violence.” (Early Predictors of Violence) Also, “suspensions are relatively strong predictors of dropping out of school,” (Who Drops Out of High School) which, in turn, “is associated with delinquency.” (The Effect of Dropping Out) One explanation for the links among suspension, dropping out, and delinquency is that “a student who is not in school has more unstructured time, with the greater likelihood of contact with deviant peers.” (The Relation Between Values and Social) Therefore, in some cases, punishment tactics employed by schools with zero-tolerance policies might result in an increased risk of violence for the individual student and for society as a whole.
Instructional programs are another common form of prevention. These “programs tend to focus on precursors or antecedents of violent behavior” (Reducing Violence Through the Schools) with the presumption that, by targeting behaviors that predict violence, bullying and impulsive behavior, more serious manifestations of aggression will be prevented. (Violence in American Schools) Other programs, such as character education and lessons in social skills, “aim to make individuals more socially competent” (Evaluating the Effectiveness of Developmental Approaches.)
Instructional programs target different audiences, such as some are designed for all students in whole, while others are more specialized programs for more at-risk youth. Other programs “aim to alter social norms by changing school responses to bullying incidents.” (Bullying at School: Basic Facts) In addition to explicit anti-harassment policies, this kind of program is designed to improve the social awareness of staff as well as students. Instructional materials designed for the student body as a whole, not only bullies and victims, include “a series of exercises that help students see problems from the perspective of the victim of bullying and raise consciousness about the role of bystanders in encouraging the bully.” (Bullying at School: Basic Facts) Most programs provide teacher training and information for parents about the program. Instructional programs focus on the precursors of violent behavior with the presumption that serious manifestations of aggression will be prevented.
Numerous instructional violence prevention programs are available for elementary schools, but only a handful are designed for secondary school students. “The most impressionable time for at-risk youth is the secondary school level.” (Preventing Escalation of Problem-Behavior) Most of these programs involve adult-led small group sessions on anger management, conflict resolution, etc. Role-playing and other interactive teaching methods are also used. Although these programs are all curriculum-based, they are often implemented much like group counseling sessions and only sometimes are they embedded within the larger context of a school-wide prevention approach. “Short-term outcomes for such programs are promising, however, there is limited data on their long-term effects.” (The Effectiveness of a School-Based Curriculum) “Repeated interventions that include only problem youth can be counter-effective.” (When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups) Grouping high-risk youth together can reinforce negative behavioral patterns in deviance training. This can increase rather than decrease the risk that they will engage in anti-social behavior subsequently.
One approach that has gained significant support in recent years is the profiling of potentially violent youth. This approach is based on the assumption that we can predict who will become violent. Although a great deal is known about early warning signs of violent behavior, the truth is that “many students fit these "profiles" and only very few will ever commit a violent act.” (The Inherent Limits of Predicting School Violence) Therefore, many students who will never commit violence are labeled as potentially violent. The label itself can lead to negative effects and, if paired with a segregated group intervention, the labeling can also significantly decrease the opportunities of the identified limit students.
Other violence prevention efforts rely on counseling students with disciplinary problems and mediating in specific incidents of conflict as needed. These are reactive rather than proactive approaches. The assumption underlying the counseling approach is that students who repeatedly get into trouble need specific attention and services. Counseling often involves parents and teachers. However, mediation of conflicts is incident, rather than person-based. The goal is to negotiate and resolve conflicts in a constructive manner as soon as they happen. Mediation and conflict resolution programs provide opportunities for modeling and rehearsing critical negotiation and resolution tactics.
Various school personnel can be in charge of the counseling and mediation. In some schools, the administrators, assistant principals, who are in charge of discipline problems handle counseling and mediation too. Some schools have trained school psychologists/counselors or violence prevention coordinators. The professional qualifications of these personnel vary, because there are no uniform educational requirements for school violence prevention coordinators. Yet the qualifications and training of personnel might be critical factors, determining the success or failure of these approaches.
Another approach is peer mediation. Although these programs can be effective in elementary schools, some evidence indicates that “high school mediations are not as effective.” (An Evaluation of an Organization) Schools are sincere in their efforts to confront the causes of violence and ease students' fears, and they are a variety of thoughtful programs. But are these programs used to their full potential if they are used at all?
At this time, only a handful of violence prevention approaches are implemented before violence occurs, and these programs can be costly to the school so not full effort is put into them. Instead of using the programs to their full extent, schools are likely to make decisions based on such factors as the availability of program materials and training, cost, ease of implementation, and public relations issues such as how visible a particular tactic might be. Thus, popular methods such as physical surveillance and zero-tolerance policies regarding guns and violent behavior may be convenient, but they are not necessarily the most effective approaches to prevent the development of violent behavior.
School safety is clearly one of our national priorities. We owe it to the children to make sure that the methods we use to promote school safety will work. We cannot justify large amounts of taxpayer money for programs that feel good or that appear to be working according to the statements of a few administrators, teachers, or parents. Instead, rigorous program evaluation studies are needed. With the most promising approaches, longer-term evaluations must also be conducted.
Decision making administrators can make meaningful choices by matching their goals with the primary goals of the various approaches. School-based violence prevention approaches can address outbursts of violent behavior, such as shootings, the precursors of violence, such as hostile school climate and bullying, and the fears and anxieties associated with each. However, the methods that address these primary goals can conflict with one another and have unintended effects. For example, the fears and anxieties of students cannot necessarily be reduced if the primary goal is to increase physical safety by means of increased surveillance. Therefore, choices need to be made between psychological safety and physical safety; proactive strategies and reactive strategies; targeted and whole school approaches; punitive and instructional methods; and, finally, between incident-based and person-based interventions.
WORK CITED PAGE
Gallup. (2001). Poll Release, March 6, 2001, on School Safety.
Gaughan, E., J. D. Cerio, and R. A. Myers. (2001). Lethal Violence in Schools: A National Study, Final Report. New York: Alfred University.
NCES. (2001). Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Justice.
Elliott, D. S., B. A. Hamburg, and K. R. Williams (Eds.). (1998). Violence in American Schools. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nansel, T. R., M. Overpeck, R. S. Pilla, W. J. Ruan, B. Simons-Morton, and P. Scheidt. (2001). "Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth." JAMA, 285, 2094-2100.
Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody Left to Hate: Teaching Compassion After Columbine. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Kaiser Family Foundation and Children Now. (2001). Talking with Kids About Tough Issues: A National Survey of Parents and Kids.
Juvonen, J., and S. Graham (Eds.). (2001). Peer Harassment in School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized. New York: Guilford Press.
Loeber, R., and D. Hay. (1997). "Key Issues in the Development of Aggression and Violence from Childhood to Early Adulthood." Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410.
Schwartz, D., L. J. Proctor, and D. H. Chien. (2001). "The Aggressive Victim of Bullying." In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.), Peer Harassment in School. The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized. New York: The Guilford Press, 147-174.
Mathews, J. (2001). "In the Classroom: Metal Detectors and a Search for Peace of Mind." Los Angeles Times, B2.
Mayer, M., and P. Leone. (1999). "A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption: Implications for Creating Safer Schools." Education and Treatment of Children, 22, August, 333-356.
Ellickson, P. L., and K. McGuigan. (2000). "Early Predictors of Violence." American Journal of Public Health, 90, 566-572.
Ekstrom, R. B., M. E. Goertz, J. M. Pollack, and D. A. Rock. (1999). "Who Drops Out of High School and Why? Finding from a National Study." Teachers College Record, 87, 356-373.
Thornberry, T., M. Moore, and R. Christenson. (2000). "The Effect of Dropping Out of High School on Subsequent Criminal Behavior." Criminology, 23, 3-18.
Allen, J., R. Weissberg, and J. Hawkins. (1989). "The Relation Between Values and Social Competence in Early Adolescence." Developmental Psychology, 25, 458-464.
Hawkins, D. J., D. P. Farrington, and R. F. Catalano. (1998). "Reducing Violence Through the Schools." In D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, and K. R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American Schools. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Samples, F., and L. Aber. (1998). "Evaluations of School-Based Violence Prevention Programs." In D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, and K. R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American Schools. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Henrich, C., J. Brown, and L. Aber. (1999). "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Developmental Approaches." Social Policy Report, Society for Research in Child Development, 13.
Olweus, D. (1994). "Bullying at School: Basic Facts and Effects of a School-Based Intervention Program (Annotation)." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 1171-1190.
Dishion, T., and D. Andrews. (1995). "Preventing Escalation of Problem-Behavior with High-Risk Young Adolescents: Immediate and 1-Year Outcomes." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 643, 538-548.
Farrell, A. D., and A. L. Meyer (1997). "The Effectiveness of a School-Based Curriculum for Reducing Violence Among Urban Sixth-Grade Students." American Journal of Public Health, 87, 979-988.
Dishion, T. J., J. McCord, and F. Poulin. (1999). "When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups and Problem Behavior." American Psychologist, 54, 755-764.
Mulvey, E. P., and E. Cauffman. (2001). "The Inherent Limits of Predicting School Violence." American Psychologist, 56, 797-802.
Gottfredson, D. C. (1987). "An Evaluation of an Organization Development Approach to Reducing School Disorder." Evaluation Review, 11, 739-763.
NCES (1998). Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.