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 physica l victimization by other students among a national sample of students in grades 7-12, and b) analyze the impa ct of threa ts, destruct ive acts, and gang vari able s on fear of crime at scho ol. Current literature emphasize s the severity of the problem through alarming statistics on juvenile fatalities and other types of violent victimizati on. 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 ofviolence, but also to incidences of physical victimization. In addition, undefined spaces and ga ng infl uence at sc hool pl ay important ro le s in the outcome of phys ic al 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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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.
52 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
(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;
Carrie Butler, Janet Mullings, Dianne Reed & James Marquart 53
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
Carrie Butler, Janet Mullings, Dianne Reed & James Marquart 55
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
56 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
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
Carrie Butler, Janet Mullings, Dianne Reed & James Marquart 57
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
58 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
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
%
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
66 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
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.
Carrie Butler, Janet Mullings, Dianne Reed & James Marquart 67
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.