Are they effect and appropriate?
BY Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc.; BSc.; Dip. Edu.
INTRODUCTION
The desire to conduct this study spawns from the level of concern caused by violence in our schools. Besides causing physical harm, there is the psychological distress associated with violence. It is important that the school environment be free from fear and experience, the desired level of safety. This is only achievable if the worsening trend of violence is eradicated. Teachers and students alike should be able to perform in a safe setting conducive to learning. The problem is an ongoing one therefore this study will concentrate on an evaluation of the effects and the methods used to prevent violence among grades 10 and 11 students. This will help to shed more light on the matter and will help to create awareness for school administrators and stakeholders of the various strategies, which are workable.
Schools are been portrayed as unsafe places, characterized by rapes, shootings, robberies, stabbings and beatings. The occurrence of acts of violence in the form of verbal threats, cursing, name-calling or fights is more frequent (Bastian &Taylor, 1991).
Grumpel and Meadan (2000) stated that although there is widespread violence in schools and it is been receiving much attention there is still a lack of clarity as to what constitutes school-based violence. This, some believe, may influence the reporting of prevalence rates. Batsche and Knoff (1994) stated that school violence is usually defined by acts of assault, theft, and vandalism or acts that may not be intentional but cause fear in either teacher or student. Gumpel and Meadan (2000) further classified aggressive behaviors as either acts that are clearly violent as in the case of those inflicting bodily harm or lower level type consisting of those including teasing, bullying or name-calling.
For the purpose of this research, violence is defined as behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2002). Although it is proving difficult to control the violence in schools, there is still the expectation that some form of order be maintained. This is of particular importance as besides being a threat to the personal safety of students and teachers, violence in schools is a challenge to the authority of school officials. When violence occurs on a school compound, it is viewed as an evident loss of authority (Norguera, 1995). The contributors to violence among adolescence have been attributed to several factors. These include conditions in the home such as harsh and ineffective parental discipline, (McEvoy & Walker, 2000) and frustration caused by students’ inability to resolve conflict (Johnson, Johnson & Dudly, 1992; Skiba & Peterson, 2000).
The influence of the community (Devine, 1995) is a causal factor of violence by norms and values. Devine further stated that teachers adopting a ‘hands off’ response to violence and concentrating only on their role in the classroom have led to the escalation of violence. The easy access to news and information through the Internet and other electronic media regarding the use of weapons is cause for concern as students adopt several types of deviant behaviour and act them out in school. Students are exposed to violence in the media, which can result in acceptance and emulation of aggression. Centerwall (1992); Ascher (1994) and Widom (1991) believed that exposure to violence causes one to commit acts of violence. Felner and Felner (1989) stated that family variables, individual characteristics and societal factors affect violence. Family variables include economic status, divorce, abuse as well as unskilled parenting. Individual characteristics include antisocial behaviour, psychological disorder and personality. Societal factors include access to weapons, media violence, community violence, or influence, as well as inequitable educational opportunities. Norguera, (1995) stated that teachers’ and administrators’ unfamiliarity with the environment from which students come, contributed to unfounded stereotyping of students. This affects a positive interaction between students and teachers evidence if the student is from violence prone areas or inner city communities. There is a relatively high occurrence of physical violence in schools. The incidents of violence discourage many Jamaican students from attending school, which is likely to impair the learning ability and school performance of students who are victims. (Soyibo & Lee, 2000).
Fear is instilled in both teachers and students alike, and time that should be spent teaching and preparing lessons must be spent formulating strategies to combat violence. Most violence prevention efforts represent thoughtful responses to the escalation of fear, violence and disorganization in schools. It is difficult to have one prevention programme for all troublesome school setting (Mulvey & Cauffman, 1999). A severe approach to dealing with school violence would create an atmosphere of mistrust and resistance (Norguera, 1995).
Coercive strategies he stated, would fail to produce a safe environment and interrupt learning. Norguera,(1995) highlights the fact that although coercive methods may stop violence in the short run, too often they create negative emotions that start their own cycle of undesirable behaviors (Ascher, 1994). To Norguera the use of security guards, metal detectors, fenced and grilled buildings seldom reduce the threat of violence. The violence in school cannot be eliminated totally; it can be lessened if there is an improved interpersonal relationship both within and outside the school community. The measures for prevention will yield varied result in different situations but this study will undertake to find out interventions, which are most effective.
Various studies have been conducted on violence in schools - its causes and effects and measures for prevention. This researcher is not aware, however, of studies being conducted to evaluate the success of the preventative measures employed. This study, therefore, will endeavour to include an evaluation of the measures implemented for the prevention of school violence. It should be of particular importance to school administrators, the Ministry of Education and other interested stakeholders. It should provide them with information which it is hoped would assist in future plans and actions towards making the school a safe place.
Taking everything into consideration the research will ascertain the extent to which violence in schools contributes to psychological and emotional distress among students. The use of coercive measures as a sole means of violence prevention in schools is not effective and may even increase the occurrence of negative behaviours. It is hypothesized that the correctional interventions used in schools do not influence the level of violence.
OBJECTIVES:
Within this construct, the objectives of the study are as follows.
i. to find out the effects of violence on the school population;
ii. to ascertain the main types of violent acts committed by secondary school students who are in grades 10 and 11 ;
iii. to find out what influence students to commit deviant acts;
iv. to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures used by schools’ administrators in order to reduce and or prevent violence in their institution
LITERATURE REVIEW
This research will examine the increasing trend of violence in our schools. The research will focus specifically on the reasons for students committing violent acts, the effects of violence on students as well as the strategies implemented to assist in a decrease in the incidents of violence. In addition, this research will evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions aimed at reducing violence in schools.
The review for the literature presents information that is of relevance to the study. These are the risk factors which contribute to the involvement of students in violence; the effect of violence in general and more specifically in schools; the strategies used to help in decreasing violence in schools as well as an evaluation of these methods. Risk factors relate to those characteristics of the person or the environment that are associated with an increased chance of maladaptive behaviour occurring (Compas, Houden & Gerhardt 1995).
The contributors to violence in schools are viewed as a reflection of what takes place in the communities, the home, the media and the school environment. It should not be surprising then, that an increasing number of students are involved in violence in one way or another as victims or perpetrators. Social learning theory posits that people acquire aggressive behaviours through observing and imitating (Bandura, 1977). This shows that violence is a learnt behavior. Hawkins and Catalano (1992) have identified several risk factors in young people that are predictors of later violence and antisocial behaviour. Among these factors is alienation which is linked to a lack of bonding to school, family and community stress. They believed that learning prosocial skills not only helped young people with their interpersonal relationships, but with their attitudes towards school as well. Such improvement would yield higher academic achievement and a more cooperative school climate. This would help to erase the negative and antisocial behaviour which students had. They stated that it was important not only to see the skills modeled but that they are practiced in a setting where feedback and reinforcement are provided for the choice of skills. In Jamaica there has been attempt by programmes such as Peace and Love in Schools (PALS) and Change From Within which teach skills to deal peacefully with conflicts.
An article by Prevention Institute (2001) concluded that the frequency of an individual’s exposure to risk factors predisposes him or her to the probability for increased engagement in violent behaviour. These are listed as individual factors, school factors and community factors.
Individual factors included poor academic performance, poor use of unstructured free time as well as delinquent peers. School factors had to do with the size of the school population, geographic location and gangs. The larger the school population the more likely it is for occurrence of violent acts. Schools situated in urban areas are more prone to report serious violent acts compared to those in more rural areas. In communities a lack of inadequate social amenities brought about a feeling of societal neglect by students. Their anger and frustration are vented by violence.
Violent behaviour is portrayed by the media as an appropriate way to solve problems. Young people therefore became desensitized to and accepted violence. The use of guns is yet another factor as the easy access to weapons increased its use. Like most other views expressed, students are most likely to be violent if they are witnesses of violence or are subject to childhood abuse. Students came to see the world as a dangerous place. To survive one had to be prepared to react to adverse situations which are always present. Such an attitude promoted a sense of defensiveness, suspicion, the need for standing one’s ground and inclination to offer reprisal for the slightest offence.
Other underlying factors are poor financial situation, stressful family environment with lack of proper role models, conflict in the home and poor communication skills. Mental illnesses and mental disorders impaired students’ ability to communicate and make right decisions. They are therefore at an increased risk of being perpetrators or victims of violence. Fernald and Meeks- Gardner (2003) cited that in Jamaica although students are exposed to violence those in the inner cities are exposed to greater levels of crime and violence. These students prove to be more aggressive and resort to violence to settle their problems.
Leone, Mayer, Malmgren and Misel (2000) noted that hyperactivity, limited attention span, restlessness, poor social skills favor the development of delinquent behaviour. The beliefs and attitudes of some students dictated that there should be retaliation for any and every situation. In addition students with certain disabilities for example emotional disturbances, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and specific learning disabilities are more likely to display antisocial behaviours.
Conditions in the home provided early onset of chronic patterns of antisocial behaviour. These are linked to harsh and ineffective parental discipline, lack of parental involvement, family conflict, parental criminality, child abuse or neglect (McEvoy & Walker 2000). Williams (1994) points out that Jamaica is primarily a matriarchal society. The absence of fathers in many households negates positive parental values particularly to the males. The increasing number of teenaged mothers heightens the problem of children being given proper parental guidance.
Cole (1995) believed that students are increasingly coming from backgrounds where antisocial behaviour is more the norm than the exception. The students are highly agitated and invested in antisocial attitudes and beliefs which made the use of antisocial solutions to interpersonal conflicts legitimate. They tend to see the behaviour and intentions of others as being biased against them. This bias helped to distort the ability to decode and interpret the social behaviour of others in a positive way. They frequently react aggressively to situations they view as challenging or threatening.
Shafii and Shafii (2001) stated that children learnt to resolve their own problems through the use of violent strategies which they see being used. They imitate the behaviour of others and receive positive reinforcement from their peers when they deal with interpersonal conflict in a positive manner. Based on the background many children experience, some of them will resort to violence when they have exceeded their tolerance of frustration. Portrait (2000) reported that many of the young people report a history of violence in their lives. It is further reported that at sometime they thought about hurting or killing someone. This reinforces that when violence is experienced, whether as victim or perpetrator there is the increased risk that an adolescent will resort to violence against others.
Skiba and Peterson (2000) showed that influences in the school and community helped to establish patterns of aggressive and violent behavior. Low school involvement, academic and social failures are some of the school factors named. There is failure to carry through rules as well as poor or inconsistent administrative support. In addition disciplinary practices in many schools are inconsistent and inequitable. Students from communities in which there is a lack of programmmes whether recreational or after school are prone to adopt violent behaviours. The absence of mentors helped to foster an adherence to antisocial behaviours. A lack of emotional or financial support may be gained through involvement in antisocial behavior.
Steinberg (1999) examined the role of the family as a contributor to violent behavior in children. He stated that exposure to violence or abuse in the home, exposure to hostile punitive parenting or growing up in a home environment in which parents are not sufficiently involved in the child’s life are among the most important risk factors for the child’s subsequent involvement in violent and other types of antisocial behaviour. He looked at the role of the family from six perspectives. These are modeling, biological factors, and mental health, parenting personality development, academic performance and peer pressure.
Biological factors relate to early abuse and neglect. Steinberg (1999) he pointed out that poor prenatal care, or pre-natal exposure to drugs could alter brain development. This led to some children having more difficulty containing aggressive impulses. Children whose parents are hostile and punitive as well as those whose parents are neglectful are at risk for developing all sorts of mental health problems. Children with mental health problems are at risk for developing patterns of antisocial and violent behaviours.
Negative parenting impaired proper personality development in children. They not only developed problems in controlling their emotions but also developed a biased way of looking at the world. They perceived that all people’s actions are intentionally hostile when in fact they may not be so. Children who had problems in schools often gravitated towards groups of other troubled children and these peer groups frequently became involved in antisocial behaviour. Adolescents looked to their peers for support. It is easier to display antisocial or violent behaviour when with their peers that they would not do if they are alone. Adolescents who had strong positive relationships at home are more able to resist peer pressure. In contrast a lack of parental involvement or supervision placed the child at risk for involvement in antisocial peer activities and increased the youngster’s vulnerability to negative peer influence.
Slaby (1994) maintained that violent students thought differently from their non-aggressive peers. Youths who are prone to violence sought fewer facts and had less insight into alternative solution. They often failed to anticipate the negative consequences of their behaviour. Violence in schools has several negative effects on students. Some of these are addressed in the next section. These students believe that if they are approached with violence they have to react violently otherwise they will be called derogatory names. The incidents of violence in schools not only posed a threat to the safety of students and teachers but also proved to be a challenge to the authority of school administrators. Many teachers are been verbally abused, physically attacked or threatened by students or their relatives (Smith, 2003). If schools are to be safe there should be a lack of psychological stress and physical harm (Nelson, Martella & Marchand –Martella 2002). The antisocial behaviour of students endangered the safety of school personnel (Mayer, 2001). Students and staff members suffered psychologically and physically because of violence in schools. Some incidents have been fatal.
It is believed that students feel powerless when attacked or provoked hence, they resort to violence when provoked in order to regain a sense of power (Santrock 2001). In schools in Jamaica incidents of shootings are few, the knife is widely used with frequent stabbings which occur, some of which are fatal. Students who were victims of violence may exhibit feelings of fear, anger, sadness, guilt, and mistrust. Violent or disruptive behaviour could destroy a positive learning environment. The fear that is generated by the acts of violence inhibits the ability of teachers to teach and students to learn. Cognitively the students who are fearful may have trouble paying attention, concentrating and learning. In order to ensure the safety of children, parents might keep children from school, thus affecting school attendance. Some may even be permanently removed. From a social point of view students who has either witnessed violence or been a victim may be either disruptive or aggressive and has difficulty relating to other students. Psychologically behavioural disorders may occur. Schools are prone to suffer from a lack of extracurricular activities as a response to campuses being unsafe. Violence in schools therefore interferes with optimal learning as an atmosphere of fear is established.
Bullying which frequently occurs in schools is often taken lightly but could have serious effects. Students who are bullied may suffer from depression, low self-esteem or anxiety. The facts that students may feel unsafe at school significantly interfere with learning. Schneider (1996) outlined the effects of bullying which he defined as purposefully doing harm to others. This is facilitated through ever repeating physical assaults, verbal and physical intimidation, harassment and constant molestation. The damage to the victim is of a mental nature rather than physical. The humiliation lasted for years, with the victims suffering from reduced self-esteem. This could affect academic and social outcomes. Victims suffer from emotional and psychological trauma and in extreme cases is lead to serious violence. Rigby (2001) show that students who have been harassed by peers has suffered depression and experienced suicidal ideation. Olweus (1993) reported that students subject to frequent bullying often sought refuge from teachers during breaks, avoid restrooms and other isolated areas or made excuses to be absent from school. They appeared distressed, unhappy and depressed with evidence of deterioration in interest and performance in school.
Boivin, Hymal and Hodges (2001) showed that there is a relationship between peer harassment and academic performance. Victims tend to develop negative attitude towards school and overtime school performance declined. Dodge, Bates and Pettit (1990) concluded from studies done that abused children tend to acquire deviant patterns of processing social information. This fosters the development of aggressive behaviours. Harm children has a bias to attribute hostile intentions to others and a lack of positive behavioural strategies to solve interpersonal problems. These patterns are found to predict the development of aggressive behaviours. The experience of physical harm led a child to conceptualize the world in deviant ways that later perpetuate the cycle of violence. The viewing of television violence overtime helps to reinforce hostile thoughts which the viewer might have (Anderson 1997). The viewer always seems to be able to recall the violent scenes in a graphic manner.
Osofsky (1999) report that exposure to violence could have significant effects on children during older development and as they form their own intimate relationships in childhood and adulthood. Although literature is produce on the various developmental stages, the literature relating to adolescents is found to be most relevant to this study. She posits that evidence from research revealed that adolescents exposed to violence particularly those exposed to chronic community violence throughout their lives, tend to show high levels of aggression and acting out, accompanied by anxiety, behavioural problems, truancy, school problems, and revenge seeking. Children expose to family violence often display internalizing and externalizing behavioural problems in comparison to children from non-violent families. Overall functioning, attitude, social competence and school performances are often affected negatively. Longitudinal studies according to the writer had revealed that children exposed to media violence overtime are most likely to engage in delinquent and aggressive behaviour. Media violence may increase negative behaviour because of the potential for social learning and modeling of inappropriate behaviour. Even when fictionalized violence that is dramatically portrays and glamorize is likely to have negative impact on children and increase their propensity for violence. Television programmes and movies show graphic acts of violence as well as provide violent role models with whom adolescents can identify (Cobb, 2001). By observing models in violent and aggressive behaviors the children react in a similar way. Many of the themes portray jealousy, revenge and violence (Santrock, 2000).
The long term viewing of television violence does have a negative effect on students as with a preference for “action movies” they can be seen acting out what is viewed. It should be noted however that if properly utilized and if guidance is given during viewing, the television can be used for educational purposes. Hawkins (1992) addressed the aspect of resiliency. He define resilient persons as those who are expose to potentially damaging environments, events or circumstances during the course of their development They are either able to resist them or overcome the effects of the high risk conditions. They have been identified as possessing among other qualities strong social competence and problem solving skills. This demonstrates why some students although faced with risk factors which promoted violence do not become violent or aggressive.
Christle, Joviette and Nelson (2001) looked at certain protective factors which account for one to be exposed to risk factors but do not display aggressive and violent behaviour. Like risk factors, protective factors may be strengthened through interaction with other factors. These include individual, family, school and community factors. Family protective factors are viewed against the background that there is an attachment to at least one family member. This member not only provides a sense of belonging but shows the child that he or she is valued. In the schools both teachers and administrators can assist by providing a positive and safe learning environment. There should be the setting of high yet achievable academic and social expectation. These should be facilitated. Students should be encouraged to be members of groups in the school as this would help to deter demonstration of aggression or violence. The social structure in the communities could help to prevent students from engaging in antisocial and violent behaviour.
Strategies to decrease incidents of violence
In order to decrease the threat pose by violence in the schools, many strategies have been utilized. This range from punitive to the more humane ones which include counselling and the teaching of conflict resolution skills. Skiba and Peterson (1999) outlined the many strategies, which are being implemented to help with the prevention or decline of antisocial or violent behaviour. These included the use of metal detectors, security guards, dress codes, zero-tolerance policies resulting in suspension or expulsion for certain types of aggression or threatening behaviour. Strategies for identifying students most likely to commit violent acts are formulated. The use of strong disciplinary tactics in response to disruptive behaviour is maintained.
Mulvey and Cauffman (2001) stated that despite the violence which occurs in schools, these institutions have proven to be one of the safest places for youths. The fact that violence does occur in schools has led administrators to devise various strategies to stem the incidents of violence. Some of these they believed did more harm than good to the students. Their focus is on the strategy aimed at identifying and intervening proactively with potentially violent students. This they thought posed several challenges. The nature of the problem may have social underpinnings and to focus solely on the individual would not achieve the desired result. Adolescents they stated are still undergoing developmental changes hence their characteristics are not fully formed. They reported that although it is not clear which intervention worked, the ones that focused on building specific skills are more likely to work. There should be on going evaluation of the factors that increased or decreased the likelihood of one being violent. Students should be encouraged to give information on students who are facing problems or prone to violence. This can only be achieved however, if there is a supportive and healthy school relationship. This would foster a sense of belonging, and decrease any feeling of alienation. Students would then feel freer to give information. On the contrary students’ feels mistrusted and uninvolved when administration adopted a zero –tolerance approach.
Lantieri and Patti (1996) described a programme that recognized that the ability to manage emotions, resolve conflicts and alleviate biases are fundamental skills to be taught. Schools which are viewed as being able to perform a socializing function in students are able not only to nurture their thinking abilities but to practice handling their emotions, learn how to deal with conflicts and gain exposure to societal values. To achieve this however, the skills for improving emotional competence should be taught.
Norguera (1995) stated that the search for solution has generated many strategies. Some of these are coercive and harsh while others are more humane. There has been a preference however for the harsher ones in an effort to maintain authority, power, and control. Some of the more popular measures include the enactment of zero tolerance policies which serves to remove students who are involved in violent acts. The methods used are through suspensions or transfers. Besides the use of these strategies, violent act or even non violent ones are treated as criminal offences. Despite the drastic approach being taken schools are still unsafe. The use of coercive methods interrupts learning and produces an environment of mistrust and resistance. Although schools have undertaken less coercive measure such as mentoring and the teaching of conflict resolution skills. The introductions of conflict resolution programs are instituted to teach students to settle their disputes in a non-violent manner. Through the use of adults as role models students are counselled and provided with a supportive environment.
The focus however is on the use of harsher methods. The contention is that violence must be countered with force. For schools to be safe it is assumed that they have to be like prisons, to identify, apprehend and get rid of students who are potential perpetrators of violence. In an effort to highlight the success of the various methods statistics are used to show the number of weapons confiscated and students expelled or suspended. The strategy employed is either to quantify the result of their effort or not to present at all, the latter being used because a lack of information being transmitted would suggest that violence is under control.
The extent of violence in schools in Jamaica
A study by Soyibo and Lee (2000) among high school students revealed that 27% of the participants had caused injuries to persons, 59.5% used weapons and techniques during violent acts including use of hands or feet, 59.1% used nasty words, 54.5% used punches and kicks, 26.5% used blunt objects, 18.4% used knives, 9.3% used ice-picks, 8.9% used machetes, 8.5% used scissors, 7.5% used forks, 6.9% used guns, other weapons (bottles and dividers) 6.7% and 5.5%.
Callender (1996) who conducted a study in schools in Jamaica’s capital found that 70% of students have seen fights in which a weapon is used. The knife is the most frequently used. 32% of students has been hurt in fights and needed treatment by the teacher. 50% of students reported that other students have deliberately damaged their property.
Meeks- Gardener (1999) found that 83.7% of a sample of 1710 knew children who took weapons such as a knife to school. 80% said children in their class fought a lot and are worried about violence at school. 40% reported that students threaten teachers with violence. 21% reported that students have actually attacked teachers at their school.
The Jamaica Teachers Association, the body that represents the nation’s teachers has constantly voiced concern regarding the present spate of violence in schools. Several factors has been put forward. These include presence of gangs, violence in communities, extortion of students by students, lack of furniture, shoot outs in garrison communities and a lack of proper fencing. Incidents reported to the Association revealed that between September 2002- May 2003 fourteen teachers are attacked by students, three by the community and twelve teachers suffered injuries on the job. Over this same period twenty-eight students were attacked by other students, eight by members in the community, while thirteen are injured at school. Three students are killed at school over this period (J.T.A. Reporter, p 24). As impressive as the above statistics might appear they do not reveal a true picture of the extent of the violence that takes place as not all incidents are recorded. Most often, the more serious incidents are the ones that are recorded or gain public attention. Incidents of violence in schools occur on a daily basis, whether it is bullying, quarrels or fights.
Evaluation of strategies implemented to decrease incidence of violence
Although there is evidence to show that punitive methods have been widely used, studies have shown that they are not very effective means dealing with violence. In some cases it is thought that it exacerbates the problem. Suspension and expulsion are seen primarily as increasing the risk of disruption of one’s education and eventually dropout and delinquency (Skiba & Peterson 2003). Mayer and Leone (1999) believe them to be ineffective and may actually increase school disorder. Skiba and Peterson (1999) stated that relying on zero tolerance for school safety teaches that in order for there to be safe schools their rights and liberties will have to be suspended. This gives rise to troubled youths. DiGiulio (2001) believed that rather than schools educating and teaching skills of socialization, they have adopted methods, which were more legal in nature. The student offender in his opinion received a sentence of expulsion or suspension from the school setting. He stated that when teachers carefully constructed a classroom environment which modeled respect and trust students would have a laboratory for learning to interact in a positive and safe environment.
He contends that punitive measures gave rise to violence as they only relocate the problems. Schools protected their image with a “get tough” policy. Aggressiveness required intervention rather than relocation. There should therefore be reconsideration of the dismissive, punitive measures. Like other studies he agreed that schools relied on after the fact remedies. There should be more education to foster prosocial behaviour in order to counteract antisocial behaviour. Most often disruptive behaviour was considered to be a problem of the individual. Instead the social environment or context of the conflict should be examined. An understanding of the conflict would inform more appropriate or effective intervention.
Ascher (1994) was critical of the methods being used and referred to the schools as “fortresses.” He thought that schools were more of a garrison type in which not many teachers felt at ease despite the concerns for safety. He stated that rather than offering reassurance, metal detectors, other mechanical devices, as well security forces were seen as providing a false sense of security. It was a symbol of failure to create safe schools. Sophisticated devices could not detect all the weapons entering a school, as it was not easy to secure every entrance to the school. The methods extracted a significant portion of the budget and served to increase rather than alleviate tensions in the schools. This was endorsed by Skiba and Peterson (2001) who believed that although the measures may improve safety they impact negatively by creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
Flannery (1998) reported that some methods undertaken were short, “quick fix” methods or sophisticated multifaceted long term programs. Many were successful but some were not. Lack of success was due to the programmes being developed without evidence of the potential for their effectiveness. The evaluation of the program was crucial for assessment and improvement. Assessment should continue during the period when the program was being implemented. This would facilitate changes to accommodate new developments and improve outcomes.
Data from a study conducted by National Association of Social Workers (2001) revealed that students who gained knowledge and skills in resolving conflicts were able to apply the skills to conflict situation. They choose more assertive and less aggressive responses to situations after they have received conflict- resolution training. The programme is effective in reducing both overt and covert conflicts. Students resolve conflicts on their own by using the skills learnt. The social workers reported less referrals, or referrals requiring less conference time to resolve.
Smith and Sandhu (2004) reported that most policies are seen as punitive rather than edifying. Most of the approaches are problem focused in that they target negative behaviour as oppose to building alternative prosocial skills. In addition the majority of the strategies are reactive in the sense that they occur in response to undesirable behaviour. The strategies instead should proactively operate to prevent the occurrence of such behaviour. A sense of connectedness between students, peers, family, school and community should be fostered. This would reduce the likelihood of students becoming engaged in negative and antisocial behaviours.
The measures, although sometimes effective, has negative effects. These includes the placing of a significant financial burden on limited school funds, a reduction of time for classroom instruction and a decline in teacher and student morale (Glasser 2000). Curwin and Mendler (1999) are critical of the zero- tolerance policy being applied to every type of violent act. It is considered to be unfair as the same treatment cannot be met out to every problem. A denial of one’s education for relatively minor reasons is view as a violation of one’s rights in a democratic society.
Steinberg (1996) stated that the main reasons for schools failure occurred outside the school and classroom. The ability of school to deal with the larger problem is limited because of the effects of larger social factors. Schools on a whole tended to disregard the contributing forces outside the boundaries of the school. The factor includes parental disengagement from students’ lives and their performance, activities, which compete with academic performance and exposure to a variety of risk factors.
Stanley, Juhnke and Purkey (2004) states that violence programmes are define to reduce violence without addressing school culture, academic achievement and existing student, parent and faculty concerns. The programmes appear to treat symptoms instead of causes. Although it is possible to create a school where everyone feels safe it would be representative of a fortress rather than a school. Schools they believe should be both safe and conducive to academic success. Casella (2003) focused on the use of zero tolerance policy in schools. He reported that zero tolerance policy attempted to prevent violence by punishing young people because of their potential for or display of violence. He further stated that the policy could create blockades for all students. It provides the addition of another risk factor to lives that are already overburdened with risk factors. Some students by the support they have may be able to manoeuver their way back to success after an expulsion or suspension. Not all students are afforded such privilege.
Expulsion therefore, takes on different meaning when one student who is expelled can afford tutoring and another is unable to do so. The conclusion is that the consistent application of the policy does not mean that all students receive the same punishment. Schools need well-developed discipline policy which should not only attempt to solve the problem of violence. Such policy should ensure that no student was “derailed” from his or her education or put in circumstances that increase the likelihood of criminality in the future. It is stated that a failing aspect of zero tolerance is that it steers youths from school property to various outplacements and sometimes into prisons. The policy is used to deal with mild offences it is never initially meant to address. Violence prevention and discipline policies should deal with the context of situations. The nature and history of conflicts, the relationship between those involve and the meaning that people make of situations are all part of that context. Students should be kept involved in school, be held accountable with the availability of a safe school. Help should be provided to students with the greatest difficulties. It is evident that use of suspensions or expulsions as a means of curtailing school violence. They do not achieve the desire result or solve the problem of violence. There is however, failure of the studies to show the perceptions of the students to being expelled or suspended. This is important, as some students prefer not to be in school. Students after returning from a suspension sometimes continue with the same type of antisocial behaviour as before.
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study will investigate the effects of violence in schools and an evaluation of the interventions used in an effort to curtail the level of violence among students of Grades 10 and 11. The design of this study is explanatory (i.e. utilizing quantitative techniques). The hypothesis is the use of coercive measures as means of violence prevention in schools are not effective and may even increase the occurrence of negative behaviours. There are three areas to be measured in the study. The first is the experience with violence. The second is the effect of violence and the third is an assessment of the interventions that are use to deal with violence. Permission to conduct this study will be obtained from the Ministry of Education. Parental consent will also be sought.
CONCEPTUALIZATION
Identification of variables.
Dependent variable: - Levels of violence
Independent variable: - Correctional Interventions
OPERATIONALIZATION
Levels of violence – An index of the number of offences that are committed by the students that warrants negative reinforcement (i.e. punishment).
Correctional Interventions – The number of corrective interventions used by school’s administrators in an effort to tackle the social deviant behavior of pupils.
POPULATION AND SAMPLING
The participants consisted of 195 adolescents taken from grades 10 and 11 of three co-educational high schools in Jamaica. These adolescents are between the ages of 15 and 17 years of age. These grades are the last two grades of the secondary education. Participation is voluntary. Participants are heterogeneous as not all are from the same area, background or the same age.
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT
The instrument of data collection is a self-administered questionnaire with items categorized in particular subheadings. This study will be a cross-sectional study. The justifiable reasons for the choice of Cross-sectional instead of Longitudinal research are due to costs and the time requirement of results. The independent variables are the acts committed, the acts witnessed, and other socio-demographic variables and the methods used to assist in a decrease of violence in schools. The dependent variables are the experiences with violence, the effects of violence, the causes of violence and the strategies used to help in decreasing violence.
The convenient sampling method will be used for this study. This sampling method is a non probability sampling technique. Although the sampling technique is a non-probability, the method used will be able to gather information on a particular selective group of students.
See appendix 1 for a copy of the questionnaire. The questionnaire which will be used consisted of 48 items and is developed from information in the literature review. The instrument will be divided into three sections. Most of the items are forced choice or likert scale. Questions will comprise of open-ended questions.
The first section sought to gather personal demographic information. Interval values such as the age, sex, academic year of the student are included. The family unit is the nominal value use. Section two generates items relating to the participant’s experiences with violence in the home, school and community and the effects. This is thought to be important as the literature will revealed a correlation between the witnessing of violence or being subject to violence and the conduct of violent or antisocial behaviours. This section consists of forced choice (yes –no) and likert scale. The third section consists of items relating to the interventions and their
effectiveness. Some items are open-ended questions requesting information from the participants on their thoughts on strategies to assist in a decrease of violence in schools.
DATA -- COLLECTION
Permission will be obtained from the principals of the two schools in the study for recruiting participants. Participants for the study will be obtained through contact with the schools’ Guidance counsellors. Participation will be voluntary which is stated explicitly in informed consent letter. The parents of the participants along with the participants will require signing the informed consent form in order to participate. They will be informed of the purpose of the research and the reasons for which the results would be used. The original time specified to answer questions will take approximately 25 minutes.
The questionnaire will be administered in the schools over a three-week period. Classroom teachers and Guidance counsellors will assist with the administration of the questionnaire during a regular class period. Before handing out the research survey the researcher will described her to the participants. The purpose of the study will be explained as well as the right to withdraw. Teachers and participants will be informed that the results would only be used for the purpose of the research. Response effects will be minimized as the teacher and researcher remained at the back of the room out of the full view of the participants. Students will be permitted to hand in the completed survey whenever they are finished. The completed surveys will be placed in an unmarked envelope as soon as they are handed in. At the end of the exercise the researcher thanked teachers, participants and principals.
The instrument will be submitted to the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of the West Indies before administrating.
To protect the identity of the students in the research several steps are employed:
(1) The students are asked not to write their names on the questionnaire.
(2) The name of the school will not to be written on the questionnaire.
(3) Students are asked to place the questionnaire in the envelopes themselves.
DATA ANALYSIS / DATA PRESENTATION
All copies of the questionnaire are coded, numbered and keyed into the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS 12.0). Percentages and frequency distribution of the responses of the students will be recorded. Comparisons are made. Some data will be presented using tables and graphs. In order to establish any relationship between the variable, the researcher used cross tabulation.
REFERENCES:
Ascher, C. (1994). Gaining control of violence in the Schools: A view from the field. New York: Teachers College, Erick Clearinghouse on Urban Education and Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory, Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bastian, L. D., & B. M. Taylor. (1991). School Crime: A national crime victimization. Survey Report. Washington, DD: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Batche, G.M. & H.M. Knoff. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23, 165-174.
Biovin, M., S. Hymel, & E. Hodges. (2001). Toward a process view of peer rejection and harassment. In Juvoner, J., & S. Graham (eds). Peer Harassment in school the plight of the vulnerable and victimized (p. 265-289). New York: Guilford Press.
Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale consequences, and alternatives. Teachers Colleges, 872-892.
Cole, T.B. (1995). Targeting guns: Firearms and their control.
Curwin, R.L & A. Mendler. (1999). Zero tolerance for zero tolerance. Pht. Delta Kappan, 78, 326-333.
Diguilio, R. C. (2001). Educate, mediate, or Litigate? What teachers, parents, and administrators must do about student behaviour by Robert Diguilio. Publisher Conii Press.
Dodge, K., L. Bates & G. Pettet. (1990). G.S. . . Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678-1683.
Felner, R.D & T.Y. Felner. (1989). Primary prevention programs in the educational context: A transcational ecological framework analysis. In L.A. Bond & B.E. Compas (eds.). Primary prevention and promotion in schools (p.255-296). Newberry Park: Sage Publications.
Flannery, D. J. (1997). School violence: Risk preventive intervention and policy (Urban diversity series, 109). Cleveland, O.H.: Case Western University.
Glasser, W. (2000). School violence from the perspective of William Glasser. Professional School Counselling, 4, 105-112.
Gumpel, T. P. & H. Meadan. (2000). Childrens perceptions of school – based violence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 2000, 391-404.
Johnson,D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Dudley, B. (1992). Effects of peer mediation training on elementary school students. Mediation quarterly, 10 (1), 89 - 99
Hawkins, J.D., & R.R. Catalano. (1992). Violence in American Schools: A New perspective, (ed). Elliott, D. S., Williams, K. R. & Hamburg, B. A. England: Cambridge University Press.
Lantieri, l. & Patti, J. (1999). Waging peace in our schools: Boston, Mass.; Beacon press.
Leone, P.E., Mayer, N.J., K. Malmgren, & S.M. Misel. (2000). School violence and disruption: Rhetoric, reality, and reasonable balance. Focus on exceptional children, 33, 1-20.
Mayer, M. & P. Leone. (1999). Structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer schools. Education and treatment of children, 22, 3:333-356.
McEvoy, A. & R. Walker. (2000). Antisocal behaviour, academic failure and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 8, 130-140.
Mulvey, E.P., & Cauffman, E. (2000). The inherent limits of predicting school violence. American psychologist, 56, 797 – 802.
Mulvey, E.P., & Cauffman, E. (2001). The inherent limits of predicting school violence. American psychologist, 56, 797-802
Nelson, J.R., R.M. Marchand, N. Marchand-Martella. Handbook of research in emotional and behavioural disorders. Robert B. Rutherford, Mary Magee, D. Sanip R Mahur, (eds). Education, 2004.
Norguera, P. (1995). Reducing and preventing violence: An analysis of causes and an assessment of successful programs. In 1995 Wellness lectures. CA: California Wellness Foundation.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying as school: What we know and what we can do.
Osofsky, J.P. (1999). The impact of violence on children. Future of children, 9, 33-49
Santrock, J.W. (2001). Adolescence. 8TH edition, New York :Mcgraw-Hill
Shafii, M. & S.L. Shafii. (2001). Preventing violence in schools. Stuart W. Twemlow, M.D. (2004). Psychiatric times, xxi, 4.
Skiba, R. J. & R. L. Peterson.( 1999). The dark side of zero-tolerance: can punishment lead to safe schools. Phi delta kappan, 80 (5), 372-382.
Skiba, R. J. & R. L. Peterson. (2000). The school shooter. A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, V.A: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Skiba, R. J. & R. L. Peterson. Best practices in violence prevention and intervention. National summer institute for social workers, Nashville, in June 2001.
Smith, D. C. & D. S. Sandhu. (2004). Toward a positive perspective on violence in the schools: Building Connections. Journal of Counselling and Development, 82, 287-293.
Soyibo, K. & M.G. Lee. (2000). Domestic and School violence among high school students in Jamaica. West Indian Medical Journal, 49, 3:232-236.
Stanley, P.H., G.A. Juhnke, & W.N. Purkey. (2004). Using an invitational theory and practice to create safe and successful schools. Journal of Counselling and Development, 82, 302-309.
Widom, C. S. (1991). The role of placement experience in mediating the criminal consequence of early childhood victimization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 195-209.