Article 4 Butler

8/8/2019 Article 4 Butler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-4-butler 1/22

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3, 2007-2008

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL

VIOLENCE: IMPLICATIONS TO REDUCE

SCHOOL-RELATED VICTIMIZATION

Carrie M. Butler

Janet L. Mullings

Dianne Reed

Sam Houston State University

James Marquart

The University of Texas at Dallas

ABSTRACT

The purpose of our study was to: a) analyze factors predicting the physical victimization

by other students among a national sample of students in grades 7-12, and b) analyze the

impact of threats, destructive acts, and gang variables on fear of crime at school.

Current literature emphasizes the severity of the problem through alarming statistics on

juvenile fatalities and other types of violent victimization. Students carrying weapons to

school can worsen the threat and fear of violence. Based on results from our study,

threats of violence and destructive activities at school lead not only to increased fear of

violence, but also to incidences of physical victimization. In addition, undefined spaces

and gang influence at school play important roles in the outcome of physical

victimization and fear, concern, or worry about school violence

Introduction

iolence in American institutions is a social fact. Violence and

victimization are everyday features within families (Welsh,Stokes, & Green, 2000; Williams, Singh, & Singh, 1994),

churches (Welsh, Stokes, & Green, 2000), prisons (Matthews & Pitts,

1998), and military bases (Scarville, Burton, Edwards, Lancaster, &Elig, 1999). Schools are no different; violence in schools has been

V

49



50 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

reported in our society since the early 1900’s (Morrison & Furlong,

1994). Over the past decade, school violence has become a genuine

concern for students, parents, administrators, and social scientists. Our concern is not unwarranted. Between 1992 and 2001, 241 students and

school employees have been shot to death, 44 were stabbed to death,and another 16 were beaten to death (Stephens, 2001). The most

dramatic episode has been the Columbine attack where two highschool students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, opened-fire on

students in their school (Dority, 1999). They took the lives of 13

students, seriously wounded another 23, and then finally took their own lives (Dority, 1999). This tragedy is one of the forerunners to

mass hysteria and fear of violence in schools.

Outward violence is one result of an armed student body.

Kaufman, Walker, & Sprague (1997) reported that approximately

100,000 students carry weapons to school daily and students areharmed or seriously injured with these weapons. Hanke (1996)

reported that school districts in California and New York had

unusually high numbers of students carrying weapons. According tothe U.S. Department of Justice (as cited in Hanke, 1996), California

reported approximately 8,500 confiscated weapons on campus, while

Hostetler (as cited in Hanke, 1996) reported New York with over 7,200 weapons discovered on students. Weapons carried by students

include guns, knives, box cutters, and explosives. Unsurprisingly,

students avoid walking to school and using school restrooms due to

their fear of violence. Stefkovich & O’Brien (1997) reported that

students are not the only ones affected by violence and the threat of victimization. They reported that teachers and students alike consider

nonattendance at school to avoid harm. Kaufman et al. (1997) reportedthat students threaten over 6000 teachers each year and more than 200

are wounded by these students on campus.



Carrie Butler, Janet Mullings, Dianne Reed & James Marquart 51

Theoretical Perspectives to School Violence

A range of theoretical perspectives has emerged regarding

violence in schools. These theoretical perspectives include individual-centered processes, public health risk approach, environmentalcontextual schemas, and cognitive ecological interactions (Mayer &

Leone, 1999). Tolan, Guerra, & Kendall (1995) stated that a

developmental-ecological approach most clearly explained aggressionand violence. They further explained that the field is moving from

general risk factors to person-environment views of risk in terms of

understanding risks as a function of a person’s “developmentaltrajectory” (Mayer & Leone, 1999, p.335). According to Mayer &

Leone (1999), Tolan, Guerra, & Kendall presented a biopsychological

ecological framework of four nested levels: individual factors, close

interpersonal relationships, proximal social contexts, and societalmacro systems. A theme among many approaches is that of the

individual-environment interaction. With regard to school violence,

the organization of the school environment plays a critical role aseither a facilitator or inhibitor of violence and disruption (Mayer &

Leone, 1999, p. 335).

Undefined Spaces

Behre, Astor, & Meyer (2001) discussed the application of

territoriality and undefined spaces in terms of violence in schools. Thistheoretical framework maintains that individuals strive to have control

over certain places in which they associate (Behre et al., 2001).

Undefined spaces are informal areas that can include either unpopulated or heavily populated areas. As it relates to school

violence, students and teachers have areas in school that they control,

leaving other spaces undefined (Astor, Meyer, & Pitner, 2001).

Neither group encourages pro-social interaction in these areas nor dothey monitor them for danger. Teachers in particular may not oversee

undefined areas unless assigned (Behre et al., 2001). Behre et al.




(2001) claimed that territoriality and undefined spaces foster

environments in which violence occurs, subsequently heightening

students’ fear of violence.

Astor, Meyer, & Pitner (2001) also applied concepts of undefined spaces to students’ perceptions of violence and fear of crime. Their study utilized qualitative data from student interviews.

From their results, the authors concluded that insufficient adult

monitoring of overpopulated and unclaimed areas at school washighest among reasons for students’ perception of violence. In

addition, they found that middle school students were more likely than

elementary students to feel their safety was threatened at school.

Fear of Crime

Pearson & Toby (1991) conducted an analysis on fear of school-related crime. They used the School Crime Supplement for the

National Crime Survey. They reported that although actual

victimizations were low, students’ reported fear was significant

enough to conduct multivariate analyses. They discovered that fear of predatory crime was related to gangs at school, while controlling for

both location of school and grade of student. They also reported that

lack of adequate adult supervision increased fear traveling to and fromschool, and they concluded that students’ fear of predatory crime

played a major role in the escalation of actual victimizations.

Williams, Singh, & Singh (1994) conducted a study on fear of

crime in urban youth. They collected data from a sample of 1775

youth and examined defensive strategies used by them when theyleave their homes at night. They found that youth use defensive

measures, such as having someone with them; carrying a repellent;

and carrying whistles, to safeguard themselves from being victimized.The authors determined that fear of crime inflicts school-age youth in

ways that prohibit them from maximizing their school environment;




students may avoid extracurricular activities and other school events

based on fear of victimization.

Hanke (1996) discussed the discrepancy between actual crime

incidences and students’ fear of crime. Her review of literaturerevealed that violent crimes in schools engulfed students’ fears of mostother crimes. School administrators reported a small percentage of

violent episodes indicating that violent crimes in schools are

uncommon; however, they reported that property crimes in schoolswere much more prevalent. Although schools report low rates of

physical victimization, media headlines are nothing short of alarming

and dramatic (Hanke, 1996). The degree to which fear and crime isexacerbated by media portrayal of school violence is an area worthy of

future research.

Stretesky & Hogan (2001) reported on media portrayal of school violence on female college students’ perception of safety. They

discovered that intensive media portrayal of violent crimes skewedstudents’ perception of safety. They targeted the Columbine incident

and discovered that not only did it affect safety perceptions, but media

coverage instilled more fear of crime for these students than their own past experiences of victimization. Although the risk of victimization is

small, the fear of victimization is disproportionately high.

Risk Variables

Sloan, Fisher, & Wilkins (1996) referred to demographic risk

variables and prior victimization to explain the fear-crime paradox.

Prior experiences with victimization were defined in terms of actualvictimization and vicarious victimization. In addition, hearing about

particular crimes, equally elevated levels of fear. Implications of their

research can be extended to school-age youth and variables that perpetuate students’ fear of crime. Demographic risk variables include

victim vulnerability, such as being female, poor, or a minority group




member (Sloan, Fisher, & Wilkins, 1996). They found that individuals

in high demographic risk categories were more inclined to experience

higher overall fear than those of less vulnerable populations.

Purpose of the Study

Current research indicates alarming statistics on violent crimescommitted inside school buildings and in school areas that result in

serious bodily harm or death. Students have become more fearful of

violent crimes and as a result, carry weapons to school and choose

nonattendance to avoid the threat of harm. Theoretical perspectivesapplied to school violence include those more person-centered to

ecologically and socially based theories. Territoriality and undefined

space perspectives have been applied to explain that school

environments can either foster or inhibit violence. Poorly monitoredand unsupervised risk-prone areas contribute to students’ perception of

fear at school.

Actual victimization in schools remains problematic and fear

of violence can result in students carrying weapons on campus andincreased nonattendance. Likewise, gang presence at school has a

devastating impact on perceptions of safety and leads to increased fear

of predatory crime. The problem relates more to the perception of violence and the extension of fear in students. The purpose of our

study was to: a) analyze factors predicting the physical victimization

by other students among a national sample of students in grades 7-12,and b) analyze the impact of threats, destructive acts, and gang

variables on fear of crime at school.




Method

Secondary data analysis was conducted in our study using bivariate and multivariate analyses. We used the data collected by

Louis Harris & Associates. Interviews were conducted with 1,044 public school students in grades 3-12 for their most recent publicationof The Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher, 1999:

Violence in America’s Public Schools – Five Years Later (Binns &

Markow, 1999). The entire sample of 1,044 students in grades 3-12consisted almost equally of males and females (51% males and 49%

females). Thirty seven percent of the students were in grades 3-6, and

63% were in grades 7-12. Ethnic representation in the sample included66% White, 15% Black, 12% Hispanic/Latino, 5% Asian, 2% Native

American, and 1% other race.

The methodology for their study consisted of a two stagesampling design, resembling the design of similar studies conducted

by the U.S. National Center of Educational Statistics. Weighted data previously collected from the U.S. Center of Educational Statistics

was used to ensure representativeness of public school students

nationwide.

For our study the dataset was modified to include responses

from the students in grades 7-12. These students answered the itemson victimization on the The Metropolitan Life Survey of the American

Teacher, 1999: Violence in America’s Public Schools – Five Years

Later (Binns & Markow, 1999). The final sample for our analysesincluded 597 students. Students were categorized into minority (Black,

Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and other race) and non-minority

(White) for comparison on physical victimization and fear of

victimization items.




Instrumentation and Data Analysis

The items on victimization on the The Metropolitan Life

Survey of the American Teacher, 1999: Violence in America’s Public

Schools – Five Years Later (Binns & Markow, 1999) reflectedtheoretical perspectives of undefined spaces, as well as other contributing factors to fear of crime and physical victimization. The

items in our study consisted of two dependent variables (fear, concern,

or worry about school violence and physical victimization) and threeindependent variables (undefined spaces, gang measures, and threats at

school). Bivariate, logistic, and multiple regression analyses were used

to determine effects of undefined spaces, gang measures, and threats atschool on physical victimization and fear, concern, or worry about

school violence.

Dependent Variables

Physical victimization as a dependent variable was

characterized by actual incidences of assault and dichotomized into

either victimization or no victimization. Outcomes of physical

victimization were analyzed in chi-square, logistic, and multipleregression analyses.

Fear, concern, or worry about school violence consisted of a

summed scale of three items: Fear of school shootings, worrying

about being physically assaulted at school, and not feeling safe at

school. These items were analyzed in comparative analysis of meansfor victimized and non-victimized youth, and in simple multiple

regression analysis.

Independent Variables

A single item was used to represent undefined spaces in

school: Most violence occurs in halls or stairwells at my school . Thisvariable was theoretically consistent with research conducted by Behre

et al. (2001) in relation to undefined spaces, and students in this study




identified halls and stairwells as most likely places for violence in

their schools.

Gang measures consisted of five items on gang influence in

and around school premises. The items included gangs as part of school life, gang members as admired figures in school, gang violenceas problematic at school, and girls and boys as gang members in

school. These items were tested in comparative analysis, and logistic

and multiple regression analyses.

A single item categorized the variable threats at school :Threatening remarks or destructive acts are serious problems at my

school . This variable was used in chi-square, logistic, and multiple

regression analyses on outcomes of physical victimization and fear,

concern, or worry about school violence.

Findings

The purpose of our study was to: a) analyze factors predictingthe physical victimization by other students among a national sample

of students in grades 7-12, and b) analyze the impact of threats,

destructive acts, and gang variables on fear of crime at school. Tables1-5 present bivariate associations between non-victimized and

victimized students in the sample with regard to factors of interest in

this study. Males (61%) (see Table 1), non-minorities (69%) (see

Table 2), and eighth grade students (35%) (see Table 3), weresignificantly more likely to report prior victimization. Slightly less

than half (47%) of the sample reported physical victimization during

the last 12 months in 1998, with having been pushed, shoved, grabbed,or slapped as the most common response (95%) (see Table 4). The

variable representing undefined spaces (most violence occurs in the

halls and stairwells of my school) was equally distributed, with bothstudents who have experienced no physical victimization and those

who have experienced physical victimization reporting that this was

where most violence occurred (55%)




Table 1

Percentages of Responses by Gender of Students Who have experienced No Physical

Victimization and Those Who have Experienced Physical Victimization at School

(N=597)

Gender No Physical Victimization

%

Physical Victimization %

Male 36 0061**

Female 64 39

*p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 2

Percentages of Responses of Minority and Non-minority Students Who have

Experienced No Physical Victimization and Those Who have Experienced Physical

Victimization at School (N=597)

Variables No Physical Victimization

%


Minority 43 31

Non-minority 57 0069**

*p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 3

Percentages of Responses by Grade Level of Students Who have Experienced NoPhysical Victimization and Those Who have Experienced Physical Victimization at

School (N=597)

Grade No Physical Victimization

%


7th 10 13

8th 22 0035**

9th 07 11

10th 21 12

11th 13 13

12th 0027** 15

*p < .05. ** p < .01.




Table 4

Percentages of Responses from Students Who have Experienced School Violence or

Victimization in the Past Year (N=597)

Variables Percentage

Has a student kicked of bit you, or hit you with a fist? 45**

Has a student threatened you with a knife or gun? 11**

Has a student used a knife or you gun toward you? 06**

Has a student pushed, shoved, grabbed, or slapped you? 95**

*p < .05. ** p < .01.

As indicated in Table 5, physical victimization was

significantly more prevalent among students who reported the

presence of gangs in their schools. Specifically, students were morelikely to have been victimized if they reported that the majority of the

boys at school were gang members (mean = 1.3, p < .01), that gang

members were role models for them (mean = .6, p < .01), that most

other kids at school looked up to gang members (mean=1.6, p < .01),and that gangs played a big part of the daily life in and around the

school (mean = 1.2, p <.01). Furthermore, students who reported that

threatening remarks or destructive acts were serious problems at their schools were also significantly more like to have been victims (mean =

1.6, p < .01).




Table 5

Percentages Responses Regarding Gang Measures from Students who have

experienced No Physical Victimization and those who have experienced Physical

Victimization at School (N=597)

Gang Measures No Physical

Victimization

Physical Victimization

Mean Standard

deviation

Mean Standard

deviation

Many/Most boys in my

school are in gangs

1.1 .9 1.3 00.9**

Many/Most girls in my

school are in gangs

.8 .8 1.0 .8

Gang members are strong

role models for me

.4 1.0 .6 1.1**

Students at my school look

up to gang members

1.2 1.2 1.6 1.2**

Gang life is a big part of my

school

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.100

Gang Scale Score 4.7 3.9 5.7 4.2**

*p < .05. ** p < .01.

Logistic Regression Model Predicting Victimization

Table 6 presents the results for a logistic regression model thatwas developed to examine how the independent variables discussed

above might explain school victimization in a simultaneous model.

Logistic regression was used for this investigation as our dependentvariables (non-victimized and victimized) were dichotomous.

Supportive of our bivariate findings, the regression model revealed

that males were three-times as likely (odds = 2.90, p < .01) to report

victimization. Students in lower grades (odds = .84, p < .01) and non-minority students (odds = 48, p < .01) continued to be predictive of

victimization among this sample.




Finally, both the gang scale measure (odds = 1.06, p < .01) and

the perception that threats or destructive acts were serious problems at

school measure (odds = 1.22, p < .05) remained significant in themodel. Our measure for undefined spaces (halls and stairwells) was

not a significant predictor to this model. This finding suggests thatwhile students perceived that these were the areas where most violence

occurs in their schools, they are not necessarily the places wherestudents in this sample were victimized.

Table 6

Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Physical Victimization(N=597)

Variables B SE B Wald Odds Ratio

Gender 001.06** .18 36.2 2.90

Grade Level 00-.16** .05 09.8 0.85

Minority/Non-

minority

00-.71** .19 12.9 00.4

Threatening

Remarks or

Destructive Acts

are

Serious Problems

0019* .10 12.9 0.48

Gang Scale 00.06** .02 06.3 1.22

Most Violence

Occurs in Hallsor Stairwells

.08 .18 00.2 1.08

Constant .04 .42 0.01 Note. -2 LL = 744.6. Goodness of Fit = 595.1. Model Chi-Square = 77.62.

Significance = .0000. Correctly Classified = 64%

* p < .05. ** p <. 01.




Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Fear, Concern,

or Worry about School Violence

Our measure was a summed scale of three items (fear of school

shootings, worrying about being physically assaulted at school, andnot feeling safe at school) for fear, concern, or worry about violence

at school . This study examined what factors, including prior

victimization, might explain fear of school violence. Table 7 presents

results from an OLS multiple regression model with the summed scalefor fear of crime serving as the dependent variable. Several interesting

differences emerged when fear of school violence was examined

compared to the earlier model for actual victimization experiences.

Even though males were three times more likely to report actualvictimization, there were no significant differences in fear of school

crime by gender. Non-minority students were more likely to report

prior victimization, but minority students were significantly morelikely to report higher levels of fear of school violence (Beta = .15, p <

.01). Younger students consistently reported more victimization and

higher levels of fear of school violence (Beta = -.10, p < .01).

The presence of gangs in school and problems associated with

gangs remained significant in this model and explained the most

variance (Beta = .30, p < .01). Similarly, those students who reportedthat threatening remarks and destructive acts were characteristic of

their school had a significantly higher fear of crime (Beta = .18, p < .

01). Our measure for undefined spaces was significant in predicting

fear of crime; however, it was not in the predicted direction. Thosestudents who had higher levels of fear of school crime were less likely

to report that most violence occurred in halls or stairwells at their school. This finding suggests that perhaps threatening remarks and

destructive acts at school may create the perception that violence does

or could occur in undefined (poorly monitored) areas, although reportsof actual incidences is to the contrary. One explanation includes that

threatening remarks and destructive acts in halls and stairwells give




the perception that these areas are violence prone. Incidences of

physical victimization may actually be occurring to and from school,

or after school hours.

Table 7

Multiple Regression Coefficients Predicting Fear/Concern/Worry About SchoolSafety Scale (N=597)

Variables B SE B β

Gender -.16 .16 -.04

Grade Level 00-.13** .04 -.10

Minority/Non-

minority

000.69** 17 .15

Gang Scale 00016** .02 .30

Threatening

Remarks or Destruction

00.44** .08 .18

Acts are Problems

at School

-.39 -.15 .80

Most Violence

Occurs in Halls or

Stairwells at

school

.14 .16 .03

Has been Victim

of Physical

Victimization

3.34 .39

Note. R2 = .28 Significance. F = .0000. F = 32.6.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Finally, having experienced physical victimization within the

past year was an insignificant predictor of fear of school violence.Reports of physical victimization may be less critical to fear, concern,

or worry about school violence than threats at school. Consistent with

the findings of Sloan et al. (1996), vicarious victimization (hearingabout others’ victimization or threat of victimization) may explain

increased levels of fear in high school students, even though reports of

actual victimization had no significant effect on this variable.




Discussion

Our study examined factors predicting the physicalvictimization by other students among a national sample of students in

grades 7-12, and assessed how threats, destructive acts, and gangmeasures contribute to fear of crime at school. We discovered that

almost half of the students reported being victimized at school; mostlikely by being pushed, shoved, grabbed, or slapped. Consistent with

theoretical perspectives of undefined spaces (Behre, Astor, & Meyer,

2001), both victims and non-victims of crime in this study equallyagreed that most violence occurs in halls and stairwells. Our findings

yield interesting results about their perceptions and variables

associated with victimization and fear of crime.

Physical Victimization and Fear, Concern,or Worry about School Violence

Logistic regression analysis revealed that males were three

times more likely than females to experience physical victimization,although there were no differences between males and females on

reports of fear, concern, or worry about school violence. Similarly,

non-minorities were more likely than minorities to be victimized,although minority students reported higher levels of fear, concern, or

worry about school violence. The findings are analogous to reports by

Sloan et al. (1996) and Stretesky & Hogan (2001) in that females and

minorities experience a fear-crime paradox; actual victimization ratesare much lower than perceived victimization, leading to inflated fear

of victimization. In addition, it appears that threats of violence and

destructive acts at school, in combination with gang measures, are better predictors of fear, concern, or worry about school violence than

actual victimization.

Younger students (junior high students) reported higher levels

on both variables of physical victimization and fear, concern, and

worry about school violence. These students appear to be a more




vulnerable than older students, most likely because of adjustments to

new environments, different friends, and less structure and supervision

from adults. Younger students in high schools would benefit fromincreased preventive efforts in dealing with violence and victimization

issues before and after transition periods (Astor, Meyer, & Pitner,2001). Jang (2002) discussed this implication for drug and delinquent

activities for youth in the same age range; prevention strategies shouldinclude more attention and structure for students in middle

adolescence.

Undefined Spaces

Although students reported that victimization occurs in hallsand stairwells, it was an insignificant predictor of victimization in

logistic regression. This finding indicates that halls and stairwells are

perceived areas of victimization for students, but actual victimizationoccurs in other locations. In multiple regression analysis, undefined

spaces were significant in predicting fear, concern, or worry about

school violence, however with an inverse relationship. This may beexplained by the significant relationship of threatening remarks and

destructive acts at school predicting fear, concern, or worry about

school violence. Student victims and nonvictims who perceive halls

and stairwells to be more violence prone may witness or be victim to amajority of threats and destructive acts in these areas. Perhaps

threatening remarks and destructive acts in halls and stairwells are less

threatening than undefined areas in or around the school. Undefined

spaces might better be represented by unsupervised and less populatedareas at school, by undefined areas on the way to and from school, and

by poorly supervised after school activities. Future research mightinclude path analyses to determine mediating effects of undefined

spaces on threats and destructive acts at school and physical

victimization.




Gang Influence

Gang measures revealed significant relationships with physicalvictimization. Students who reported the presence of gangs in their

schools that most boys in school were in gangs, that gang memberswere role models, and that gangs played a big role in school life weresignificantly more likely to report physical victimization at school.

Bivariate analysis showed that students were more likely to be

victimized when threatening remarks or destructive acts were serious problems. These findings are consistent with juvenile street gang

behavior, such as bullying, and damaging or destroying property (i.e.

vandalism and criminal mischief). Future research should target

specific locations of gang-related behavior in and around the schoolenvironment.

Threatening Remarks and Destructive Acts

Threatening remarks and destructive acts at school showed tosignificantly predict physical victimization and fear, concern, or worry

about school violence. The bivariate analysis indicated those students

who reported physical victimization were significantly more likely

than non-victims to experience threatening remarks and destructiveacts at school. Likewise in logistic and multiple regression analyses,

threatening remarks and destructive acts at school were successful in

predicting physical victimization and fear, concern, or worry about

school violence. Future research should aim to determine where andwhen these threats and acts of destruction are occurring in order to

more effectively create a safer and less threatening environment for students.




Conclusion

Juvenile violence has remained problematic over the past few

decades. Recently, violence has become more prevalent and severe inschool institutions. Current literature emphasizes the severity of the problem through alarming statistics on juvenile fatalities and other

types of violent victimization. Students carrying weapons to school

can worsen the threat and fear of violence. Based on results from our study, threats of violence and destructive activities at school lead not

only to increased fear of violence, but also to incidences of physical

victimization.

There is reason to believe that undefined spaces, gang

influence, and threats and destructive acts at school play important

roles in the outcome of physical victimization and fear, concern, or worry about school violence. Victims and nonvictims equally perceive

undefined spaces (halls and stairwells) as areas where violence occurs,

however, these areas were not significant in predicting schoolvictimization. Logistic regression revealed an inverse relationship

between undefined spaces and fear, concern, or worry about school

violence. Threats of victimization and destructive activities were better

predictors of fear, concern, or worry about school violence thanundefined spaces, indicating that perhaps threats and destructive acts

occurred in halls and stairwells. Undefined areas where victimization

occurred may better be characterized by other locations in and around

the school environment. In addition, future research should consider the effects of undefined spaces as mediating variables to victimization

and fear of violence.

Considering the vulnerable status of younger high school

students, preventive efforts may help to decrease fear of violence and physical victimization. According to Jang (2002) on implications for

preventing drug and delinquent activities and Astor et al. (2001) on

preventing violence, school programs would be most successful during

middle adolescence before and after transition periods.




Gang measures and threats of violence and destructive

activities escalate both the rate of victimization and the fear of

violence. This finding is consistent with Pearson & Toby (1991) onreports of gang presence at school leading to increased fear of

predatory crime. Future research should identify specific locations of gang-related and other threatening behavior in and around the school

environment. These disturbances can be minimized by close adultsupervision and monitoring of high-risk areas. At the very least, it

seems logical to think that threatening and violent behaviors can be

curtailed in a controlled school environment.




REFERENCES

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Pitner, R. O. (2001). Elementary and

middle school students’ perception of violence-prone schoolsubcontexts. Elementary School Journal , 101(5), 511-519.

Behre, W. J., Astor, R. A., & Meyer, H. A. (2001). Elementary- and

middle-school teachers’ reasoning about intervening in school

violence: An examination of violence-prone school

subcontexts. Journal of Moral Education, 30(2), 131-153.Binns, K. & Markow, D. (1999). The metropolitan life survey of the

American teacher. New York, N Y: Louis Harris and

Associates, Incorporated.Dority, B. (1999). The Columbine tragedy. Humanist, 59(4), 7-11.

Hanke, P. (1996). Putting school crime into perspective: Self-reported

school victimizations of high school seniors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(3), 207-226.

Hostetler, A. J. (1995). School hazardous place for teens, survey says. Montgomery Advertiser , 31 March, 1A, 6A.

Jang, S. J. (2002). The effects of family, school, peers, and attitudes on

adolescents’ drug use: Do they vary with age? Justice

Quarterly, 19(1), 97-126.

Kaufman, M., Walker, H., & Sprague, J. (1997). Translating researchon safe and violence free schools into effective practices.

Eugene, Oregon: Institute on Violence and Violent and

Destructive Behavior , pp. 1-20.

Matthews, R., & Pitts, J. (1998). Rehabilitation, recidivism, andrealism: Evaluating violence reduction programs in prison. Prison Journal , 78(4), 390-404.

Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (1999). A structural analysis of school

violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer

schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 22(3), 333-

356.




Morrison, G. M. and Furlong, M. J. (1994). Factors associated with the

experience of school violence among general education,

leadership class, opportunity class, and special day class pupils. Education and Treatment of Children, 17 (3), 356-569.

Pearson, F. S., & Toby, J. (1991). Fear of school-related predatorycrime. SSR, 75(3), 17-125.

Scarville, J., Burton, S. B., Edwards, J. E., Lancaster, A. R., & Elig, T.W. (1999). Armed forces equal opportunity survey.

Washington, D. C: Defense Manpower Data Center: Survey

Program and Evaluation Division.Sloan, J. J., Fisher, B. S., & Wilkins, D. L. (1996). Reducing fear and

perceived risk of victimization on campus: A panel study of

faculty members, staff, and students. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 12(1), 81-108.

Stefkovich, J. A., & O’Brien, G. M. (1997). Students’ fourth

amendment rights and school safety: An urban perspective. Education & Urban Society, 29(2), 149-161.

Stephens, R. (2001). School associated violent deaths. National

School Safety Center: Westlake Village, CA.

Stretesky, P. B., & Hogan, M. J. (2001). Columbine and student perceptions of safety: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 29(5) , 429-443.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1989).Weapons in school . NCJ-116498. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Welsh, W. N., Stokes, R., & Greene, J. R. (2000). A Macro-level

model of school disorder. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 37 (3), 243-283.

Williams, J. S., Singh, B. K., & Singh, B. B. (1994). Urban youth, fear

of crime, and resulting defensive actions. Adolescence,29(114), 322-330.

Article 4 Butler

Documents

Transcript of Article 4 Butler