http://www.eurowrc.org/ >
Contributions
> Education_EuroWRC
|
http://www.eurowrc.org/ >
Contributions
> Education_EuroWRC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCHOOL-BASED
VIOLENCE PREVENTION IN CANADA: David M. Day
- Carol A. Golench This report was prepared on contract for the Corrections Branch, Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada and is made available as submitted to the Ministry. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada. This document is available in French. Ce rapport est disponible en français. Supply and Services Canada The purpose of the study was to examine the nature of school-based violence prevention policies and programs in Canada. The study included the following methods of inquiry: a literature review and systematic analysis of a national sample of 116 school boards' violence prevention policies and programs. The results indicated that there is a tremendous amount of activity within the education community to understand and come to terms with the issue of school-based violence and to identify and implement effective solutions. With regard to specific components, nearly all the school boards in the survey included a statement concerning suspension and expulsion of students. Other areas that school boards are addressing include delegating administrative responsibilities, communicating policy information to stakeholders, and promoting a positive school climate. As well, most of the documents we reviewed consisted of policy statements concerning some of the specific infractions included in our content analysis categories. Typically, these included physical assault, verbal harassment, intimidation/bullying/threats, and the presence of weapons. At the same time, there was an identified need for (a) more staff training opportunities in the areas of school violence and violence prevention and (b) high quality evaluations of policies and programs and good methods to report incidents of school-based violence. In conclusion, six general points emerged from the study. First, school board policy should be internally consistent, that is, each of the violence prevention policy statements should be logically related to one another. Second, board policies should be congruent with the violence prevention programs that are operating within each of the boards' schools. Third, policies should be comprehensive, incorporating as many of the 35 policy components identified in this report as feasible. As well, programs should be multifaceted. Fourth, board policies should have a community focus. The causes of youth violence are many and often lie outside the purview of the school system. Partnerships between schools and community groups must be developed for concerted, sustained, and comprehensive violence prevention efforts to occur. Fifth, school boards should have supplemental programs for students who are aggressive and violent. These programs must be supportive and corrective rather than punitive, demoralizing, and inflexible. Lastly, violence prevention solutions must address the root causes of violence, that is, the biological, familial, environmental, social, and academic factors that place a child at risk. The objective of the current study was to address two questions: What is the nature of school-based violence in Canada? and How are school boards responding to the issue? This study was undertaken in an effort to understand the state of the art of school-based violence prevention in Canada and to highlight some of the critical issues to help ameliorate this social problem. The study is a descriptive analysis of the policy documents and programs that school boards across the country have developed to deal with violence in schools. Compiling and summarizing the extant literature and available materials was seen as a first step in understanding, in an organized and systematic manner and on a national level, the scope of the problem and range of potential solutions. The study's objective was achieved through a (a) review of the Canadian and American literature on school-based violence and (b) content analysis of a national sample of school boards' violence prevention policies and programs. Letters were sent to 210 school boards across Canada requesting (a) policy statements about student behaviour, school discipline, and violent incidents as well as (b) descriptions of specific programs developed or implemented at schools within that board and any relevant evaluative data. A systematic analysis of the submissions of the responding school boards was subsequently undertaken to identify and analyze the main themes that were addressed in the policies and program descriptions. A total of 35 discrete content analysis categories was developed for this purpose. A total of 126 school boards responded to the survey, a response rate of 60%. The response rate ranged by province from 29.9% in Quebec (20 out of 67) to 100% in New Brunswick (4 out of 4) and Prince Edward Island (1 out of 1). Of the 126 respondents, 116 submitted policy and/or program materials. Eighty-two of the 126 boards submitted policy materials that were subjected to the content analysis. Thirty-four boards were involved in promoting programs or establishing safe school task forces or committees and 10 indicated that they had neither policies nor programs. The policy materials varied in comprehensiveness across the provinces and even within provinces. A large majority of the school boards included a statement concerning suspension/expulsion. Other frequently occurring components defined in Appendix E included delegating administrative responsibilities, communicating policy information to stakeholders, promoting a positive school climate, physical assault, defining a code of conduct, intimidation/bullying/threats, verbal harassment, weapons, police liaison, fighting, and reporting violent incidents. Components that occurred infrequently were aftermath support services for victims, responding to emergencies, early and ongoing identification of antisocial students, provisions for policy/program evaluation, involving committees for policy development, site security, dealing with school gangs, conducting incidence surveys, and screening curricula for violent content. Subsequent to the content analysis procedure, each of the boards' entire policy submission was classified into one of four general philosophical orientations or types identified as follows: (a) Response/Sanctions, (b) Expectations for Behaviour, (c) Identification/Prevention, and (d) Community Focus. These four types are conceptualized as philosophical or ideological underpinnings of the policy documents. Each classification, building on the previous type, represents a stage in the progression towards a more comprehensive (and presumably more effective) policy. The results indicated that the majority of boards were identified as having a Response/Sanctions focus (48.8%), popularly characterized as a "zero tolerance" policy. Thirty percent of the boards were classified as having an Expectations for Behaviour approach, 18.3% as an Intervention/Prevention model, and 3.7% as having a Community Focus . Clearly, there is a tremendous amount of activity within the education community to understand and come to terms with the issue of school-based violence and to identify and implement effective solutions. Moreover, through various channels including national and regional conferences, teachers' organizations, and university institutions, a great deal of information is currently available for policymakers. Within particular school boards, a large majority of boards have policies and/or programs to address the issue of violence and violent incidents. With regard to specific components, nearly all the school boards in the survey included a statement concerning suspension and expulsion of students. While having a long tradition in history, however, we believe that this approach serves only as a "quick-fix" solution by removing the offending student from the immediate environment and fails to address the long-term problem. In this regard, we recommend the development of alternative-to-suspension programs. Interestingly, such programs were identified as a relatively strong area in only one province and as a weak area in four. Other areas that school boards were addressing include delegating administrative responsibilities, communicating policy information to stakeholders, and promoting a positive school climate. The former two components indicate that school boards are proactively taking steps to ensure that the process of implementing policies is successful. With regard to the latter component, a positive classroom and school environment is essential as a "macro-level" strategy for addressing school-based violence and has the potential to deal with a wide range of related issues on a very broad level. Of course, it is also important to address these issues at the "micro-level," for example, implementing policies and programs to deal with specific incidents, aggressive individuals, and victims of violence. Most of the documents we reviewed consisted of policy statements concerning some of the specific infractions included in our content analysis categories. Typically, these were physical assault, verbal harassment, intimidation/bullying/threats, and the presence of weapons. It would seem that the next step in developing a comprehensive violence prevention policy is to implement procedures for responding to emergency situations such as serious assaults involving a weapon, arson, and gang-related activity. Perhaps a crisis intervention team could be developed. As well, measures could be taken to ensure that moderate levels of site security are maintained (e.g., adequate lighting, limited access to isolated stairwells, and increased adult supervision on the school playground) and to foster relations with the local police. Trespassers are another concern related to the security of schools (Symons, 1993). Most schools have signs posted prohibiting trespassers and some use two-way communication devices and senior students to monitor halls and lock external doors (Gentile, 1992). Another area for which there was a paucity of policy statements concerned staff development. The low frequency of this component would indicate that many school boards are missing the consensus-building opportunities that exist when staff are provided with the support needed to familiarize themselves with their board's policies and programs. Also, once staff clearly understand the relations among a student's developmental history, family background and circumstances, academic performance, and disruptive behaviour they may become more committed to the success of a prevention strategy. Lastly, there is an obvious need for evaluations of policies and programs as well as good methods to record incidents of violence in schools. All policies should contain a specific statement for self-evaluation, indicating the frequency and method of the evaluation. This ensures a procedure for monitoring policy and program impact and identifying areas for further development. In conclusion, six general points emerged from the study. First, school board policy should be internally consistent, that is, each of the violence prevention policy statements should be logically related to one another. Second, board policies should be congruent with the violence prevention programs that are operating within each of the boards' schools. Third, policies should be comprehensive, incorporating as many of the 35 policy components identified in this report as feasible. As well, programs should be multifaceted. Fourth, board policies should have a community focus. The causes of youth violence are many and often lie outside the purview of the school system. Partnerships between schools and community groups must be developed for concerted, sustained, and comprehensive violence prevention efforts to occur. Fifth, school boards should have supplemental programs for students who are aggressive and violent. These programs should be supportive and corrective rather than punitive, demoralizing, and inflexible. Lastly, violence prevention solutions must address the root causes of violence, that is, the biological, familial, environmental, social, and academic factors that place a child at risk. TABLE OF CONTENT
SCHOOL-BASED VIOLENCE PREVENTION IN CANADA:
ABSTRACT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION YOUTH AND VIOLENCE
THE ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE Biological Factors Environmental Factors THE SCHOOL BOARD'S RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE
METHODOLOGY
The Sample
RESULTS Policies and Programs Content Analysis of School Boards'
Policies Classification of Policies into Types DISCUSSION
Recommendations A Final Word About Policy REFERENCES APPENDIX A Programs for Addressing School Violence LIST
OF TABLES
This report is the result of a distillation process to yield the essence from reams of school board policies, reports, documents, handbooks, pamphlets, and letters that we received as part of the study. We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the school board representatives who responded to our request for information. We are also grateful for the support of Corrections Research, Ministry Secretariat, Solicitor General Canada which made this study possible, in particular, Dr. James Bonta for his helpful comments and guidance throughout. ------------------------------- Next: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
