Youth and Violence
school-based violence in Canada
Introduction
"Kids will be kids" is a common
phrase often invoked to account for the overt aggressiveness and
bullying behaviour among children.Somehow, however, over the
years, this quaint adage has lost its presumption of boisterous
innocence and youthful exuberance in reference to the aggressive
and antisocial behaviour of some of today's youth.
There is a growing perception in our society that
aggressive and antisocial behaviour among children and youth has
become more confrontative, violent, and commonplace.Youth
violence is also seen as more likely to involve weapons and
gangs, to be more destructive, more virulent, and to involve
more females and children of younger ages than ever before.While
there is a lack of hard evidence to support an actual increase
in the prevalence and severity of youth violence, there is,
nonetheless, a growing sense of urgency to address the many
facets related to this complex social issue.As Bala (1994) has noted, "Although one can ask how much of this increase is
due to heightened sensitivity to violence and an increase in
reporting rates, it is apparent that the public and
professionals are increasingly concerned about youth
violence" (p. 1).Clearly, violence among children and youth
is an issue that needs to be examined, understood, and
ameliorated through effective, concerted, and sustained efforts.
The present study is concerned with school-based violence
and the school board's response to violence involving children
and youth.The heightened awareness and sensitivity to this issue
over the past several years has led to concerted activity to
confront and prevent the problem.Within the domain of the legal
system, for example, we have heard calls for reforms to the ways
with which adolescent offenders are dealt.Demands to change the
current Young Offenders Act (YOA) have been made, to which the
current Minister of Justice, Alan Rock, has responded.Planned
changes to the YOA include increasing the maximum sentence for juvenile murderers from five to ten years and making it easier
for young offenders to be tried in adult court.
Likewise, we have heard demands for tighter controls and
stricter measures for dealing with youth violence within the
school system.An issue many school boards across the country are
now facing is how best to respond to school violence.Other
questions with which school officials are grappling as we move
into the middle of the 1990's and towards the second millennium
include: What is the nature and extent of youth violence in schools?; Are students becoming more aggressive and violent or
are apparent increases due to differences in reporting and a
greater sensitivity to and awareness of the issue?; Are
stricter, more severe, "law-and-order" responses the
best methods for dealing with school violence or would other
approaches be more effective?; Should school boards be revamping
their policies and practices concerning student behaviour and
student discipline, implementing conflict resolution programs,
modifying curriculum to promote anti-violence messages and
themes, and developing specialized programs for offending
individuals?
The Present Study
It is widely accepted that the school system plays a
pivotal role in addressing the issue of youth violence because
of the potential for reaching a large number of children
throughout childhood for early intervention and prevention
(American Psychological Association [APA], 1993; Caputo &
Ryan, 1991; Coie, Underwood, & Lochman, 1991; Matthews,
1993) and because teachers are ideally positioned to identify
children who have social, emotional, behavioural, and academic
problems that may require special assistance (Sandford, Offord,
Boyle, Peace, & Racine, 1992).Children spend the better part
of their formative years in school.While at school, they learn
self-discipline, respect for others, and sociomoral
reasoning.Much can be done within the school system to reduce
aggressive and violent behaviour among children and youth and to
increase and promote prosocial responses to conflict (Deutsch,
1993).The APA's report, Response to youth violence (1993), suggests that:
On the one hand, schools provide multiple opportunities
for bullying, harassment, intimidation, fights and other forms
of violence to occur....On the other hand, schools can also
provide children with repeated and developmentally appropriate
opportunities to follow sound principles of personal safety,
strengthen academic and social skills, develop sound peer
relationships, and learn effective nonviolent solutions to
social conflict (p. 74).
Presently, school boards across the country are developing
and revising policies to curb student violence.While addressing
the same mandate of reducing the prevalence and incidence of school violence, however, there are vast differences in the
comprehensiveness of board policies in terms of the range of
unacceptable behaviours with which the policies deal and the
array of suggested consequences that may be imposed.
Moreover, it appears that the development and
implementation of violence prevention policies and programs in
Canada is haphazard and sporadic.Indeed, a concerted effort on the national level is only now beginning to emerge.The Safe
School Task Force in Ontario has led to the development of an umbrella organization, the Canadian Association for Safe
Schools, which recently held its third conference in Toronto.
At present, there is no single resource or directory that
describes the range of school-based violence prevention policies
and programs in Canada.Thus, the objectives of the present study
were to: (a) review the literature on youth violence and
school-based violence in Canada and the United States in an attempt to discern the scope and extent of the problem and range
of potential solutions; (b) describe the nature of school-based
policies concerning student behaviour, student discipline, and
school-based violence in terms of their extensiveness and
comprehensiveness, based on the results of a national survey;
(c) describe the range of school-based programs implemented
across Canada in terms of the population served, specific
program activities, and overall goals and objectives; and (d)
examine the available data concerning evaluations of
school-based programs to identify those programs that show
promise in reducing or preventing school violence.
This report will be organized
into the following sections.
First, current data regarding youth involvement in crime,
in general, are considered to provide a context for the issue of
school violence.
Second, the literature on school violence both in Canada
and the United States is reviewed.
Third, the causes of violence in our society are presented.This
section will be brief as a comprehensive review of the
literature is beyond the scope of this study.Some excellent
sources are available for the interested reader (e.g., Kazdin,
1987; Loeber, 1990).
Fourth, the relevant literature is reviewed for suggested
strategies to deal with school violence.Fifth, the results of a
national survey of 126 school boards, concerning their policies
and programs about school violence, are presented.Lastly,
conclusions are drawn about the state of the art of school-based
violence prevention in Canada.
Such a review was seen as important given the current
climate of increasing violence in our society, in general, which
appears to be reflected in an increase in violence among our
youth.Compiling and summarizing the extant literature and
available resources is 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.This
report was prepared to assist policymakers to develop what we
believe are comprehensive school-based violence prevention
strategies.The report will also enable school administrators to
identify gaps in their existing policy documents and begin the
process of informed decision-making and priority-setting as a
step towards developing effective, long-range strategies.
This report is not meant as a handbook on how to deal with
school violence.There is already a plethora of excellent books, manuals, and other resource materials available.Although much of
the information emanates from the United States (e.g., American
Association of School Administrators, 1981; Curcio & First,
1993; Simpson, Miles, Walker, Ornsbee, & Downing, 1991;
Vestermark & Blauvelt, 1978), some comprehensive materials
have been developed in Canada and can be found, for example, in
Leading the way to violence-free schools: Conference handbook,
(British Columbia School Trustees' Association [BCSTA] &
British Columbia Teachers' Association [BCTA], 1993), Violence prevention manual, (Greater Victoria School District, no date),
Violence prevention materials in the schools (Manitoba Women's Directorate, 1992), Working it out together: A behavioral
handbook for teachers (St. James-Assiniboia School Division No.
2, no date), The Safe School Task Force resource kit (Safe
School Task Force, 1994a), and Prevention of violence in the
school (Lapointe & Laurendeau, 1989).
YOUTH AND VIOLENCE
Youth Crime in Canada
Many
adolescents commit antisocial and delinquent acts at some time
during their adolescence.Such manifestations of risk-taking,
rebellion, and rejection of traditional values are a part of
normal development.Atwater (1983), for example, reported that
75% of American youth admitted to committing one or more
delinquent behaviours during adolescence.This figure is likely
an underestimate as West (1984) reported that over 90% of
Canadian high school boys reported committing some delinquent
acts, based on self-reports.Typical behaviours include
swearing, fighting, shoplifting, truancy, drinking, and
experimentation with drugs.
Prevalence
rates for delinquent behaviour have also been reported for
school-aged children.LeBlanc, McDuff, Charlebois, Gagnon,
Larrivee, and Tremblay (1991), for example, found that 21.8%
of their sample of disadvantaged Canadian youth had committed
at least one of three serious delinquent offences (fighting
with a weapon, entering and stealing, or stealing goods worth
more than $100) between the age of 4 and 9 years.In his review
of the literature, Loeber (1987) reported that as many as 50%
of elementary-school children have engaged in theft and as
many as 37% of boys have been involved in physical
assault.Based on self-report data from an American sample of
748 children aged 11 to 12 years Richards, Berk, and Forster
(1979) found that 22% had defaced property, 9% had damaged
property, 5% had been truant, 3.9% had used marijuana, and
1.5% had stolen a bicycle.
In most
cases, however, the incidence of delinquent behaviours
diminishes as the youth enters early adulthood.This transition
comes about as a result of the individual assuming greater
responsibility for his or her own behaviour, making decisions
about what is socially appropriate and acceptable,
demonstrating the necessary self-control skills to conduct
oneself as a responsible individual, and showing empathy
towards others and establishing healthy relationships with
adults and peers.It is generally accepted that the school
system can help foster and promote these skills and build
self-esteem by conveying the message, through policy and
programming, that students are valued and respected rather
than feared, dismissed, or held in contempt.
Indeed,
only a small percentage of adolescents become identified as
"offenders" in a legal sense, as determined by the
YOA.The YOA, which came into effect in 1984, "applies to
all offences in the Criminal Code committed by a person
between the age of 12 and 17 years" (Roher, 1993, p.
1).Children under the age of 12 years cannot be criminally
charged but are covered under provincial child welfare
legislation such as the Child and Family Services Act (1984)
in Ontario.
Within the
general community, criminal behaviour resulting in an arrest
occurs among a small percentage of youth.Based on court
records, only 3% of the Canadian population of adolescents
aged 12 to 17 years were seen in youth court in 1992-1993
(Statistics Canada, 1993).Across the country, this figure
ranged from 1.2% in Quebec to 6.6% in the Yukon.In most cases,
the charges involved property crimes (e.g., theft under
$1,000, break and enter), accounting for 54% of the cases
heard in youth court in 1992-1993.In the same period, violent
offences accounted for 19% of the cases (Statistics Canada,
1993).
At the
same time, recent police data from the Uniform Crime Report
(UCR), indicated that the number of youths aged 12 to 17 years
who were arrested by the police in Canada, rose 18% between
1986 and 1992.Moreover, in the same period, the number of
charged youths who were charged with a violent crime rose 75%,
from 8% to 14%.Indeed, the rate of increase for violent crimes
was 2.3 times faster for young offenders than for adult
offenders.Most of this increase was due to a greater number of
minor assault cases (Statistics Canada, 1993).Interestingly,
the number of charged youths who were charged with a property
crime decreased 14% between 1986 and 1992.However, this figure
was less than the change rate for adult offenders which showed
a decrease of 33% (Hung & Lipinski, 1994).More recently,
an article in The Globe and Mail ("Crime rate,"
1994) reported that, while the crime rate, in general,
decreased by 5%, the rate for violent crimes among young
offenders increased by 13% in 1993.
It should
also be noted that a relatively small percentage of offenders
account for much of the criminal charges, particularly violent
crimes.Day, Minevich, Hunt, and Hrynkiw-Augimeri (1994)
reported that 21% of a sample of young offenders in Toronto
accounted for 65% of the total number of charges incurred by
the sample.This finding is consistent with other studies
conducted in the United States and England (Farrington, 1983;
Shannon, 1980; Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990).Within the
general population, only 6-7% of adolescents are responsible
for committing the majority of officially-recorded crimes
(Shannon, 1980; Tracy et al., 1990).
Youth
involvement in criminal behaviour is also reflected in
victimization rates. According to Statistics Canada (1992a)
"23% of all violent crime victims were teenagers between
12 and 19 years, double their representation in the 1990
Canadian population" (p. 1).Particularly disconcerting is
the finding that "23% of those accused of crimes against
younger teen victims were 12-15 themselves and a further 23%
were 16-19" (p. 1).Lastly, 30% of those accused of
violent crimes against older teens were 16-19 years
themselves.
With
regard to the use of guns, firearms are not as significant a
problem in youth crime in Canada as they are in the United
States."In 1990 there were 276 firearm deaths among 15-24
year olds in Canada" (Leonard, 1994, p. 128), or
approximately 7.2 firearm related deaths per 100,000
population.Firearm deaths were "the third leading cause
of death in this age group, ranking below motor vehicle
accidents (997) and non-firearm suicides (358)" (p.
128).It should be noted that these figures included both
accidental deaths and suicides.
In
comparison, the data for the United States paint a more grim
picture.Yoshikawa (1994) reported that arrests for those under
the age of 18 years for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
rose an astonishing 60.1% between 1981 and 1990, compared with
an increase of only 5.2% for those over the age of 18.McDonald
(1992) noted that "homicide is the second leading cause
of death among young people aged 15-24 years...and the leading
cause of death for blacks aged 15 to 24" (p. 1-2).In
1987, in the United States, the homicide rate for youth was
21.9 per 100,000 (Prothrow-Stith, 1991) and 84.6 per 100,000
for African American males in the same age group
(Wilson-Brewer, Cohen, O'Donnell, & Goodman, 1991).Lastly,
"youth age 16-19 have the highest rates of victimization
for rape, robbery, and assault and most are victims of their
own age group" (McDonald, 1992, p. 5).
In
summary, while milder forms of delinquent behaviour are
considered normal among adolescents, only a small percentage
of youth in Canada is charged with criminal offences.Most of
these are for property offences.At the same time, relative to
the adult crime rate which is decreasing, violent criminal
offences among adolescents are increasing.Finally, adolescents
are becoming the victims of violent crime at an increasing
rate, and often at the hands of other adolescents.These
findings are of concern to school officials as violence spills
over into the school setting, giving rise to the growing sense
of urgency of how to deal with antisocial and aggressive
behaviour among children and youth.In comparison, data
collected in the United States clearly indicate that the scope
of youth violence is much larger and more severe in nature
than in Canada.
The next
section reviews the literature on violence in schools.There is
no shortage of information concerning school violence.Much of
the available literature, however, is based on American data,
reflecting the American situation vis a vis the proliferation
of guns and weapons, heightened racial tensions, and the
escalation of gang activity and protection of turf.The
Canadian literature is not as prolific and the data are based
largely on impressionistic reports and formal and informal
surveys of school personnel.
Nonetheless,
however sparse, the Canadian literature will be reviewed
separately from the American literature.This will serve both
to highlight the differences in the scope and extent of the
problem between Canada and the United States and to point out
some of the possibilities that may be lying ahead for us in
Canada (rather than what is de facto awaiting us).Moreover,
while the American literature is valuable in furthering our
knowledge and understanding of the issues, there is a danger
of "fuelling the flames of fear" and creating an
illusory portrayal of school violence in Canada by focusing on
the American-based data which, although, readily available,
are a reflection of a social, political, economic, and
cultural situation that is not our own.
School-based Violence
Over the
past several years, violence within our schools has been seen
as an increasingly serious problem.Incidents range from minor
discipline problems such as disobedience, teasing, and
taunting, to obscene gesturing, verbal and physical threats,
aggression, bullying, assault (with and without a weapon),
vandalism, extortion, and gang-related activities.School
violence affects not only the perpetrator and the victim, but
the entire student body, the staff, and the community as a
whole, as well.
Moreover,
school violence is not a recent phenomenon.Events of violence
can be traced historically over the existence of
schools.Cusson (1990) relates an incident in which the
students of le Collège de La Flèche, during the Mardi Gras
festival in 1646, attacked their school armed "jusqu'aux
dents" requiring their teachers and servants to resort to
the use of firearms to resist them.Throughout the history of
education, events such as this are commonplace and
well-documented in the annals and minutes of the
administration of these institutions (du Boulay,
1673).Fortunately, today, students are not mounting mass
attacks against their schools.Nonetheless, there is a growing
concern with the violence that takes place on or around the
school premises.
(a) Canada
Surveys of
teachers in British Columbia (British Columbia Teachers'
Federation [BCTF], 1993), Ontario (Roher, 1993; Ontario
Teachers' Federation [OTF], 1991), Alberta ("Teacher
associations," 1992), Manitoba (The Manitoba Teachers'
Society [MTS], 1993), and Nova Scotia (Robb, 1993) indicate
that violence is of increasing concern in Canadian
schools.Indeed, an Environics poll conducted in April, 1993,
revealed that violence is the top educational concern, even
surpassing academic standards (MacDougall, 1993).
A survey
of 2,286 teachers in Manitoba reported that 47% had been
subjected to abuse (MTS, 1993).This represents a 37% increase
from a previous survey conducted in 1990.As well, 45% of the
teachers reported being verbally abused and 10% had been
physically abused.Only 7% of teachers reported being
physically abused in 1990.Moreover, 72% of the teachers and
42% of the administrators agreed with the statement,
"Abuse is on the increase."An interesting finding is
that only 12% of the teachers reported that there was any
support available for abused teachers from either the school
division or the MTS.Moreover, in a survey conducted in
Alberta, 50% of teachers reported that physical and emotional
abuse is on the increase.However, when asked if their school
had a policy or procedure to deal with abuse, 19% said
"no" and 62% reported that they "didn't
know" ("Teacher associations," 1992).
Another
survey of 1,440 principals, teachers, and caretakers at 700
schools in Ontario found that, while 95% of the respondents
reported feeling safe in their school, only 67.8% indicated
that they felt as safe now as they did five years ago (Safe
School Task Force, 1994b).This result was particularly evident
among staff at large urban secondary schools.In descending
order, the concerns that these school personnel had that made
them feel less safe at work were trespassers, verbal assaults,
working alone, school architecture, physical assaults,
weapons, lack of personal alarms, and a lack of two-way
portable communicators.
According
to Roher (1993), the results of a survey of 881 responding
schools conducted by the OTF (1991), revealed a 150% increase
in major incidents such as biting, kicking, punching, and the
use of weapons, and a 50% increase in minor incidents such as
verbal abuse over a three-year period, between 1987 and
1990.Much of this aggression was reported to have been
perpetrated against other students, although teachers and
other school personnel were also victims.The study also found
that an increasing number of teachers were assaulted while
breaking up fights; the incidence of trespassers had
increased, as did the reported consumption of alcohol on field
trips and athletic activities held outside the school; and the
possession of weapons had become a serious problem.
The
results of the OTF survey must be interpreted with caution,
however, as the number of schools that provided data for the
three time periods (1987-88, 1988-89, and 1989-90) varied.For
example, data were provided by 454 schools for the baseline
year, 881 schools for the second year, and 561 schools for the
third year.The study's findings, therefore, were based on the
number of incidents reported by nearly half the number of
schools for the first year as for the second year.The fact
that more schools contributed data for the second and third
years would artificially increase the incremental values
across time.Moreover, in a cautionary note, the OTF report
noted that "a significant number of schools did not
record any incidents of assault" (1991, p. 14-15).
Lastly, a
survey of 177 elementary and 173 secondary separate schools,
conducted by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers'
Association (OECTA, 1992) indicated that, between 1990-91 and
1991-92, the reported number of verbal assaults increased 6.1%
and 20.5% in elementary and secondary schools,
respectively.The reported number of physical assaults
increased 3.2% and 2.4% in elementary and secondary schools,
respectively.Some regional differences were observed as were
differences across elementary and secondary grade levels and
in schools of different size.With respect to student-teacher
incidents, verbal assaults were more likely to occur with less
experienced teachers whereas the reverse was true for physical
assaults: more experienced teachers were more likely to have
been subjected to physical assaults.Many teachers attributed
student violence to societal factors such as the economy, the
pervasiveness of violence in our society and the media, an
overemphasis on individual rights with an underemphasis on
individual responsibility, a perceived lack of sanctions in
the YOA, and lack of religion and general moral decay of
society.
At the
same time, an informal survey of 700 teachers in British
Columbia revealed that teachers felt a greater sense of fear
for the safety of their students than for their own safety
(BCTF, 1994).Indeed, surveys of students indicate that
school-based violence affects a large number of children and
youth.In a recent study of 850 Ontario students in grades 6-9,
45% reported that there was "some" to "a
lot" of violence in their schools and 29% said that they
felt safe "sometimes" or "not at all"
while at school (Ryan, Matthews, & Banner, 1993).However,
this finding is in contrast to a survey completed by students
in the Niagara Region of Ontario which found that a "vast
majority... feel safe at school, and are not particularly
concerned about their safety while at school" (Rodgers,
1993, p. 12).The disparity in findings is likely due to
regional differences.
In another
survey of 146 children in grades 3-8, in two inner-city
Toronto schools, Pal and Day (1991) found that 20% of the
respondents had experienced bullying "now and then"
or "more frequently."This rate of one child in five
is comparable to the figure reported in a similar survey of
211 students in 17 schools (which included both inner-city and
non-inner-city schools), grades 4-8, by the Toronto Board of
Education (Zeigler & Rosenstein-Manner, 1991).Moreover,
while the number of students who had ever been subjected to
milder forms of bullying (e.g., teasing) was comparable in the
two studies (37% and 33% in the Pal and Day and Zeigler and
Rosenstein-Manner studies, respectively), the rate for violent
bullying (e.g., hitting, kicking) was found to be higher in
the two inner-city schools reported in the Pal and Day survey
(34%) than in the Toronto Board of Education's sample (21%).
Pal and
Day (1991) also found that, when asked why students bully, the
two most popular responses were "to be cool" (63%)
and "to feel powerful" (58%).In this regard,
bullying appears to be a means by which children attempt to
fit in with or impress their peers or to enhance their
reputation as "tough."Interestingly, this response
pattern did not differ for children who were self-identified
as bullies.Note that these responses are the same reasons
given to account for why youth in Canada carry guns, with the
exception of "for protection" (Walker, 1994).The
response "low self-esteem" was endorsed by only 16%
of the respondents and slightly fewer of the self-identified
bullies.Lastly, an important finding that is often overlooked
when considering aggressive behaviour was that bullies were
often found to be victims of bullying themselves, usually at
the hands of a group of children who were older than they.
Self-report
surveys such as the one used by Pal and Day (1991) and Zeigler
and Rosenstein-Manner (1991), developed originally by Dan
Olweus (1991), may provide more accurate data on the
prevalence of school-based violence than those based on
teacher reports (Bonta & Hanson, 1994).Students may be
more aware than teachers of aggressive incidents in the
schools, particularly if there is a high degree of
underreporting.In addition, self-report surveys provide
valuable insights into the nature of bullies and victims that
cannot be obtained by other measures.Lastly, self-report
surveys have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of
school-based violence prevention programs (Day & Hartley,
unpublished data, 1994; Olweus, 1991; Pepler, Craig, Zeigler,
& Charach, 1993).
In the
absence of good data collected over multiple time periods, it
is difficult to determine, with any certainty, the level of
school violence in Canada.With the exception of the few
student surveys, much of the available data are based on the
perceptions of a single source, teachers.The difficulty with
this is that, teachers' views, just like any other source, are
not based on an unbiased assessment of the situation.Moreover,
we believe that the perceived level of school violence by
teachers is inextricably tied to (a) their sense of personal
confidence or self-efficacy to manage discipline problems,
both in the classroom and the schoolyard and (b) the level of
support they perceive to be available from the school
administration.This support is in the form of clear, concise
policies that adequately address the range of unacceptable
behaviours and delineate an appropriate array of consequences
and corrective measures that are implemented and followed
through in a firm, fair, and consistent manner.The greater the
sense of personal self-efficacy to manage behaviour problems
and the higher the perceived support from the school and the
school board, the lower the level of perceived violence.In
this way, we believe that school boards may achieve a
reduction in the level of school violence, as reported by
teachers, by establishing and enforcing policies and programs
of which teachers are aware and providing training workshops
to enhance teachers' level of knowledge and understanding of
aggression in children and youth and their personal skills to
prevent and manage behavioural problems in the classroom.
It is
interesting to note that some authors, like Rodgers (1993),
have contested the reported increase in school violence in
Canada, claiming that the prevalence has actually declined
(Fitzpatrick, 1994; J. Newman & G. Newman, 1980; West,
1993).Cusson (1990) noted that the rate of violent acts
committed by students of the Montreal Catholic School
Commission was the same in 1985 as it was in 1974, with the
exception of gang activity which involved 10.3% of the
students in 1974 and 17.5% in 1985.
In terms
of discerning what is reality and what is perception vis a vis
the incidence and prevalence of school-based violence, there
seems to have emerged two distinct camps.On the one hand,
there are those who appear to "hard sell" youth
violence, claiming that youth violence is virtually rampant on
our streets and in schools and that the face of youth violence
in Canada has changed so dramatically that, if nothing is done
now, we will invariably meet with the same destiny as seen in
the United States.As Auty noted, "the kids in our schools
are moving to the beat of a different drum, a rhythm foreign
to the experience of many educational decision-makers.We could
no longer afford the luxury of being out of touch" (p.
9).Note that this is the image that is perpetuated through the
media (Schmidt, Paquette, & Dickinson, 1990).
On the
other hand, there are those who tend to downplay the reported
levels of youth violence, dismissing increasing trends as
differences in definitions used, awareness, and methods of
reporting (Cusson, 1990; West, 1993).As West (1993)
admonishes, "[v]iolence in Canadian schools is
comparatively low key and we need to beware of simply assuming
our schools are going the way of American ones" (p. 7).
As noted
previously, these conflicting views may be attributed, in
part, to regional differences.For example, Rodgers (1993)
noted that students in the Niagara region, a predominantly
rural area of Ontario, claimed that, aside from some mention
of weapons in school, most notably knives, school violence was
a "non-issue" (p. 12).As well, Robb (1993) reported
that weapons were not a problem in Nova Scotia, although they
are seen as a problem in other provinces.A similar conclusion
was drawn in separate reports on the low incidence of youth
crime and school violence in Kelowna, British Columbia (Child
and Youth Committee, 1994) and Newfoundland (Fitzpatrick,
1994).
One thing
on which we can agree is that there is an increasing concern
for violence among children and youth.Aggression is no longer
something that can be easily dismissed as "kids will be
kids."There appears to be a growing sensitivity to and
public abhorrence for violence, in spite of its greater
acceptance in society; violence appears to be almost
ubiquitous as it pervades the media.So whether we are just
"seeing" more children and youth engage in violence,
where we did not "see" it before, is the result of
greater awareness or sensitivity, or whether the numbers are
actually growing, is debatable.The reality is that school
violence is a social problem, reflecting the violence in
society, in general.As such, it is difficult to ignore when a
knife is pulled on the schoolgrounds.While the use of weapons
is not proliferating in the schoolyards across Canada (Walker,
1994), they are seen with greater frequency by both school
personnel and students.This can and does lead to more serious
outcomes in schoolyard altercations.Moreover, teachers would
agree that they are spending more of their time having to
discipline students and this takes time away from their
teaching.
(b) United States
According
to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(1991), half of all crimes against teenagers occurred in
school buildings, on school property, or on the
street.Moreover, "44% of teachers in the United States
reported that student misbehaviour interfered substantially
with their teaching" (Aleem & Moles, 1993, p.
5).Another survey found that school principals considered
physical student conflicts (76%), vandalism of school property
(53%), and verbal abuse of teachers (55%) to be as serious a
problem as student and staff absenteeism, tobacco-related
offences, and lateness.Other serious problems were theft over
$10 (38%), trespassing (34%), racism (26%), and weapons (20%)
(Mansfield & Farris, 1992).
Although
Mansfield and Farris (1992) found that only 20% of principals
indicated that weapons were a problem, it is estimated that
568,000 teens or about 5% of the student population of
American schools are in possession of a firearm--about half as
many as carry pocket video games (Harrington-Lueker, 1992).The
weapons policy of the City School District of the City of New
York enumerates the following items as weapons: (a) pistol,
handgun, firearm silencer, electronic dart gun; (b) shotgun,
rifle, machinegun, or any weapon that simulates or is
adaptable for use as a machine gun; (c) switchblade knife,
gravity knife, cane sword; (d) billy club, blackjack,
bludgeon, chucka stick, metal knuckles; (e) sandbag and
sandclub; (f) slingshot; (g) explosive, incendiary bomb,
bombshell; and (h) airgun or spring gun (e.g., a BB gun).Other
items considered weapons include acid or other dangerous
chemicals, imitation pistols, loaded or blank cartridges and
ammunition, and sharp, pointed objects such as broken glass,
chains, wire, and nailfiles (Butterfield & Turner, 1989).
Statistics
on the prevalence of school-based violence in the United
States are astonishing.Violent assaults in schools are
reported to have escalated 14% in the years between 1987 and
1990 (Landen, 1992).Approximately 28,200 students are
physically attacked in schools each month (Hranitz &
Eddowes, 1990).Approximately 21% of students, ranging in age
from 12 to 19 years, fear an attack at school (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1991).Assaults on
teachers have increased at a steady rate from 41,000 to
110,000, between 1971 and 1979 (Goldstein, Apter, &
Harootunian, 1984)."The National Association of School
Security Directors estimates that each year there are 9,000
rapes, 12,000 armed robberies, 270,000 burglaries, and 204,000
aggravated assaults in schools.Moreover, an estimated 70,000
serious physical assaults each year are made on teachers"
(Rich, 1992, p. 35; see also Gorski & Pilotto, 1993;
Roper, 1991).As a national goal, the United States is
committed to the attainment of the sixth National Education
Goal which states that "[b]y the year 2000, every school
in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a
disciplined environment conducive to learning" (Aleem
& Moles, 1993, p. 1)
In
summary, there is an emerging perception that violence has
become more pervasive in society, including our schools.School
violence is reported to be on the rise and increasing in
intensity, particularly in the form of verbal assault, as
teachers see students becoming more confrontative.In the main,
violence is still perpetrated against other students (i.e.,
teasing, bullying, assault), although teachers can also be
victims.Some teachers in Canada reported that they have become
more hesitant to break up fights in the fear that they may
become seriously injured, particularly in the event that a
weapon is used (Robb, 1993).By and large, however, despite
regional differences, occasional serious occurrences, and
sensational and anecdotal reports, the data indicate that
Canadian schools are safe places for students and staff.
The next
section examines some of the causal factors associated with
the development of aggressive and antisocial behaviour in
children and youth.The development of associated features or
correlates of aggression in children such as impulsivity, poor
self-control, hyperactivity, and noncompliance are also
considered.As Landen (1992) noted, "[u]nderstanding the
causes [of violence] is crucial to determining appropriate
solutions" (p. 3; see also Crux, 1993).
THE ROOT CAUSES
OF VIOLENCE
Much of
the aggressive behaviour we observe among children and youth
is sufficiently mild to be no cause for alarm or concern.For
some children, displays of aggression are low level,
infrequent, and more likely reactive (i.e., responding to
others' aggression) than proactive (i.e., provoking aggression
in others).Sometimes, a child's aggressive behaviour will be
accompanied by other disruptive behaviours such as
inattentiveness, noncompliance, defiance, and poor
self-control.
For other
children, however, the level of aggression will be more
extreme, persistent, involve groups of children, and occur
across multiple settings (i.e., home, school,
community).Children with serious behaviour problems may meet
the criteria for conduct disorder, a psychiatric diagnosis
given for "a repetitive and persistent pattern of
behavior in which the basic rights of others or major
age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated"
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 85).According to
the Ontario Child Health Study (OCHS), 5.5% of the general
population of children in Ontario, between the ages of 4 and
16 years, meet the criteria for conduct disorder (Offord,
Alder, & Boyle, 1986).The OCHS also found that while many
cases come to the attention of mental health centres and other
social service agencies, a large number of children with
severe conduct problems goes undetected.
In terms
of its causal factors, aggression may be understood as
multiply determined, having determinants in both biological
and environmental factors.As well, it is important to
understand aggression and violence as having a developmental
progression or trajectory.In this regard, strategic prevention
and intervention efforts must be both multifaceted and
developmentally appropriate.
Biological Factors
Research
on the biological bases of aggressive behaviour has examined a
range of factors.Studies on genetic influences, for example,
have noted a greater preponderance of criminals among sons
whose biological parents were also criminals (Lytton,
1990).The well-documented finding that males have a greater
propensity for aggression than girls has been attributed to
higher levels of testosterone and the presence of the Y
chromosome. Indeed, some research examining the incidence of
aggression among males with an extra Y chromosome (XYY) has
found higher rates of criminal convictions than among XY males
(Crowell, 1987), although the findings of these studies have
been disputed (Mednick, Moffitt, Gabrielli, & Hutchings,
1986).For girls, early onset of menarche has been associated
with higher rates of antisocial behaviour (Caspi &
Moffitt, 1991; Magnusson, Stattin, & Allen, 1986).However,
the observed delinquency among early maturing girls occurred
only when they also associated more with older girls (Loeber,
1991).Nevertheless, while the specific causal factors remain
undiscovered, a biological basis of aggression relating to
gender differences appears to hold even beyond the effects due
to sex-specific socialization practices (Eme, 1979).
In
addition to these inherited biological characteristics,
acquired biological deficits can also influence the child's
behaviour patterns.Even before birth, factors may conspire
against the developing fetus, predisposing it towards
impulsive, hyperactive, and aggressive behaviour.A lack of
proper nutrients during critical periods of development or
pre- or postnatal exposure to toxic agents (e.g., fetal
alcohol, lead, drugs) may result in mild or severe deficits in
cognition and behaviour.These deficits may lead to a wide
range of conditions such as poor motor coordination, low
intelligence, hyperactivity, language impairment, impulsivity,
self-control problems, poor frustration tolerance, social
information-processing deficits, and learning
disabilities.These features are known to be markers of
aggressive behaviour in children.
Moffitt
(1993) has shown how early neurological abnormalities, giving
rise to later verbal deficits, may lead to the development of
aggression, antisocial behaviour, and conduct disorder.
[A] preschooler who has difficulty understanding
language may resist his mother's efforts to read to him, which
delays his school readiness.When he enters school, the modal
curriculum may not allow for teaching that is tailored to his
readiness level....After a few years of school failure, he
will be chronologically older than his classmates and, thus,
socially rejected....He may be tracked into a remedial class,
containing pupils who have behavioral disorders as well as
learning disabilities.Daily association with conduct
disordered pupils brings familiarity with delinquent
behaviors, and he adopts delinquent ways to gain acceptance by
peers (p. 138).
It is generally acknowledged that "children with
verbal deficits rely more on physical modes of
self-expression; resorting to hitting rather than
discussion" (Moffitt, 1993, p. 137).Wilson and Herrnstein
(1985) have also suggested that:
low verbal intelligence contributes to a
present-oriented cognitive style which, in turn, fosters
irresponsible and exploitative behavior....Normal language
development is thus an essential ingredient in prosocial
processes such as delay of gratification, anticipating
consequences, and linking belated punishments with earlier
transgressions" (Moffitt, 1993, p. 142).
As can be
seen, a relatively minor neurological problem resulting in a
verbal deficit may lead a child into a potentially negative
spiral of academic failure and peer rejection, on a pathway
towards delinquency.Moffitt's scenario also emphasizes the
role of labeling, leading to special class placement and
association with a deviant group in the development of
antisocial behaviour.
Child
temperament has also been identified as a contributing factor
in the development of childhood aggression.Some infants may be
described as fussy or having a "difficult"
temperament.These infants are not easily soothed and cry
often.Many parents of such infants come to experience
difficulties in the caregiving role, feeling unable or
incapable of providing for their child.As a result,
disruptions may arise in an effort to socialize their child,
as the parent becomes increasingly less involved in directing
the child's behaviour and in the teaching process.This could
have long-term implications leading to poor social functioning
at school.For example, in a study conducted by Buss, Block,
and Block (1980), at seven years old, children identified as
highly active three-year olds, were rated by their teachers,
as "aggressive, manipulative, noncompliant, and more
likely to push limits and stretch the rules in many social
situations" (Moffitt, 1993, p. 140).
Environmental Factors
(a) The Parent-Child Relationship
While the
presence of certain biological deficits may place a child at
risk for aggressiveness, environmental factors may mitigate
these negative influences.For example, a child with a serious
language deficit who receives special attention, guidance, and
support from his or her family may learn to cope with and
compensate for the effects of the condition.Indeed, it is well
known that a caring, loving, attentive, supportive upbringing
during infancy provides the foundation for a secure attachment
throughout one's life.Children who are securely attached to a
primary caregiver are less likely to develop behaviour and
social problems such as aggression and poor peer relations and
are better able to regulate their negative emotional states
(e.g., anger) than their insecurely attached counterparts
(Greenberg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993).Sroufe (1988) posited
that a secure attachment relates to "the child's
developing sense of inner confidence, efficacy, and self-worth
and aspects of intimate personal relationship (the capacity to
be emotionally close, to seek and receive care, and to give
care to others)" (p. 26).
At the
same time, however, numerous forces external to the child
(i.e., social and environmental factors) have been identified
as contributing to the development of maladaptive outcomes
such as academic, social, and behavioural
problems.Considerable attention has been given to the quality
of the parent-child interaction, for example, as contributing
to the development of childhood aggression.As noted
previously, the affective quality of the parent-child
relationship in early infancy, as reflected by the parent's
ability to be attentive, responsive, sensitive, and reinforce
positive social interactions with his or her child relate to
the healthy social, emotional, and physical development of the
child.However, in the absence of an early supportive
parent-child relation, such as one characterized by a
neglectful, unresponsive, inattentive, or overly protective
parent, maladaptive child outcomes are likely to ensue.Factors
that could adversely affect the early attachment process
include life stress, family hardship, lack of parental social
support, parental psychopathology, and child health problems
(Greenberg et al., 1993).
As the
child matures and becomes more independent, the nature of the
parent-child relationship takes on a new dimension as the
parent spends considerably more time attempting to guide and
control or manage his or her child's actions and
behaviours.For the parent, noncompliance and the use of
effective disciplinary responses become critical issues during
this period.The extent to which the parent's discipline style
yields compliance and also fosters growth and independence in
the child, the more positive the parent-child
interaction.Moreover, the degree to which parents feel
successful (i.e., high perceived self-efficacy) in managing
their child's behaviour, the more positive the parent-child
relationship.In a study conducted by Day, Factor, and
Szkiba-Day (1994), for example, it was found that parents who
felt effective in managing their child's behaviour, that is
experienced a high degree of self-efficacy in the caregiver
role, were less likely to use coercive discipline techniques
such as hitting, spanking, slapping, and yelling in response
to child misbehaviour and also rated their child as having
fewer behaviour problems than parents who perceived themselves
as having a low degree of self-efficacy.In this way, the
quality of the parent-child interaction was enhanced by both
the parents' feelings of self-efficacy and their use of
non-coercive discipline techniques.
Extensive
research has also shown that an ineffective parenting style,
particularly the use of harsh and inconsistent discipline
techniques are good predictors of aggression and conduct
problem behaviours (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber,
1986).Based on a decade of research, Patterson (1982) has
developed a model of parent-child interactions that lead to
the development of childhood aggression.The typical scenario
described by Patterson begins with the parent asking the child
to do (or not do) something.The child responds by ignoring the
parent's command.The parent responds by increasing the
intensity of the command and begins yelling at the child.The
child responds in kind by yelling back.The parent, feeling
frustrated by the lack of compliance, escalates the
interchange by physically grabbing the child, to which the
child responds, increasing the intensity further, by hitting
and kicking the beleaguered parent.At this point, feeling
frustrated and defeated, the parent withdraws from the
situation as the child returns to his or her previous
activity.
In this
scenario, the parent's feelings of ineffectiveness as a
caregiver are positively reinforced while the child's use of
aversive behaviours in response to the parent's request for
compliance is negatively reinforced as a result of the
parent's ultimate termination of the initial request.As well,
the child learns to control other people's behaviour through
coercive means and to use yelling, grabbing, and other
aggressive tactics to deal with conflict
situations.Furthermore, as Patterson et al. (1989) noted,
"[t]he training for deviant behavior is paralleled by a
lack of training for many prosocial skills" (p. 330).
(b) From the Family Environment to the School Setting
It is also
well documented that the early training the child receives in
the home for aggressive behaviour carries over into the school
setting in the form of comparable coercive interactions with
teachers and peers (Ramsey, Bank, Patterson, & Walker,
1990).It is not a far leap to recognize that the escalations
in aversive behaviours described in Patterson's coercive
family process model are equally applicable to many encounters
experienced by some teachers with students in the classroom or
on the playground.As we have seen for parents, it is obviously
important that teachers refrain from entering into a power
struggle (i.e., coercive process) with students as this
invariably leads to an escalation in "control
tactics" from which neither the teacher nor the student
comes out a winner.Many effective techniques for dealing with
conflict situations with children and youth are available,
some of which are described in the teacher manuals and
handbooks referred to previously.
(c) Personal Identity
In late
childhood and early adolescence, the influence of the family
diminishes as the peer group and school environment play a
larger role in the adolescent's life.Peer pressure becomes a
significant factor as the search for an identity and a desire
to fit in looms large.As well, various patterns of thinking
such as a heightened self-consciousness or egocentrism,
characteristic of adolescents, become prominent.This can
become manifested as two beliefs about the self: (a) that
everyone is looking at them, that is, that others are as
preoccupied with their behaviour as they are, known as the
"imaginary audience" and (b) that they are virtually
impervious to harm, that is, that nothing bad will happen to
them and that they are so unique that no one can understand
how they really feel, known as the "personal fable"
(Santrock, 1981).The imaginary audience belief leads to
attention-getting behaviour and a desire to be visible and
"on stage."The personal fable construction leads one
to engage in risk-taking behaviour such as experimentation
with alcohol and drugs, having sex without birth control, even
engaging in petty crimes such as shoplifting.While these
thought patterns, in themselves, do not lead to aggressive and
antisocial behaviour, they may be contributing factors for
those adolescents whose developmental history carries with it
problems of academic and social competence, peer rejection,
poor self-concept, low self-worth, and early aggressive
behaviour.This may hold particularly for those adolescents
who, due to disruptions in their family, home, and school life
(due to factors reviewed above) experience a lack of ties to
conventional social bonds, hold antisocial attitudes, and
develop an outward appearance of tough, anti-authority
posturing.
(d) Contextual Factors
Canada is
a country with a changing demographic profile.The median age
of the population is rising and is expected to continue to
rise until the year 2036 (McKie, 1993).Over the past several
decades, many changes have resulted in threats to our social
and economic security: increased rate of divorce, more
single-parent families, particularly female-led, more
dual-income households, wage freezes, and job
losses.Eighty-two percent of lone-parent households were
mothers who tend to be younger than their male counterparts
(La Novara, 1993).Changes in the workforce have led to
hundreds of thousands of full time employment positions lost
since 1990 and an unemployment rate of 9.6% in November, 1994,
(Statistics Canada, 1994).In 1966, a typical unemployment
figure was 3.4% (Forum Directors Group, 1993).
One of the
most significant changes observed over the past two decades is
the increasing number of people living in poverty.What is most
disturbing is the trend towards more younger people, under the
age of 25 years, and particularly young families, living in
poverty with the concomitant number of children living under
the poverty line."The rate of poverty among young
families has grown from 21% in 1981 to 37% in 1991, while the
poverty rate for elderly families (65 years and over)
decreased from 13% to 8% during the same timespan....In 1992,
approximately 40% of all welfare beneficiaries were dependent
children" (Forum Directors Group, 1993, p. 8).The
Canadian Institute of Child Health (CICH; 1994) reported a
number of negative outcomes for poor children including more
health, mental health, and academic problems.The results of
these sweeping changes are that, for a growing number of
children, their primary needs are not being met and, as a
result, "their development, prospects, and future
productiveness are being seriously undermined"
(Steinhauer, 1994, p. 15).
A number
of longitudinal studies has examined the effects of these
environmental risk factors on developmental outcomes in
children and youth (e.g., Offord et al., 1986; Offord, Boyle,
Racine, Fleming, et al., 1992; Werner, 1985).A risk factor is
defined as a variable that "increases the likelihood that
a subsequent negative outcome will occur (such as
delinquency)" (Loeber, 1990, p. 4).In Canada, the OCHS
examined the effects of a variety of environmental risk
factors on school and social impairments and on the presence
of a diagnosable psychiatric disorder in several thousand
children aged 4 to 16 years over a four-year period, between
1983 and 1987.
According
to the OCHS, there was a high degree of overlap among risk
factors in families that were studied.For example, the rate of
social assistance among single-parent families was 41.1%.The
rate for two-parent families was 2.2%.Fifty percent of
children living in subsidized housing were living in families
on social assistance (Offord, Boyle, & Racine,
1989)."Obviously, children who are environmentally
disadvantaged in one sociodemographic area are at great risk
of being disadvantaged in another" (p. ii).
With
regard to the prevalence of a psychiatric disorder, 18.1% of
children aged 4-16 years met the criteria for at least one
psychiatric diagnosis.The most prevalent disorders among boys
were hyperactivity (8.9%) and conduct disorder (8.1%).The
comparable rates for girls were 2.7% and 3.3%, respectively.In
contrast, the prevalence rate for an emotional disorder among
girls was 11.9%; the rate for boys was 7.9%.As with risk
factors, the rate of overlap among disorders, referred to as
co-morbidity, was also high.The largest overlap was between
hyperactivity and conduct disorder in the 4-11 year old group,
at almost 60%.In the 12-16 year old group, about 33% of the
conduct disordered youths were seen as hyperactive (Offord et
al., 1986).Lastly, "23.7% of the children with
psychiatric disorder also perform poorly at school; the rate
of poor school performance among those without psychiatric
disorder was 13.0%" (Offord et al., 1989, p. ii).
Risk
factors were also examined in terms of their relation to
aggressive behaviour (i.e., a conduct disorder diagnosis).It
was found that being on welfare and living in subsidized
housing were most strongly related to the presence of conduct
disorder in children.However, the authors noted that the
relationship between the disorder and low socioeconomic status
is likely not a direct one but is mediated by other variables
such as marital discord and disturbed family functioning.In
addition, low income was found to be the single best predictor
in the development of conduct disorder in children over the
study's four year duration.Again, the casual relation between
economic disadvantage and conduct problems remains unclear and
is probably due to the presence of other mediating factors
(Offord et al., 1992).
What is
clear, however, is that as we continue to experience an
increase in the number of children growing up in situations
characterized by economic privation, inadequate housing, and
lack of parental supervision we will continue to see more
children coming to school who are ill-prepared to deal with
the social, emotional, behavioural, and academic demands
placed on them by the rigours of the school setting.We know
that as the number of risk factors increases, so do the
negative outcomes that children experience.While studies have
shown that most children are able to cope with up to four risk
factors, beyond that, the chance of developing serious
learning and behavioural problems increases dramatically
(Werner, 1985).At the same time, as stated previously, the
presence of protective factors (e.g., social and academic
competence, large support network) serves to reduce or nullify
the person's response to environmental conditions that
predispose to a maladaptive outcome.In somewhat simplistic
terms, the aim of long-term prevention is to reduce the number
of risk factors in a child's environment and to increase or
strengthen the presence of protective factors.
A number
of other contextual factors have been implicated in the
development of aggression and violence in children.These
include parental criminality, parental stress, family discord
and violence in the home, child abuse and neglect, alcoholism
and psychiatric problems such as depression, living in high
crime neighbourhoods, the lack of a large social network of
friends and family from which children can draw for emotional
support, and the ubiquitous nature of violence in both the
entertainment and news media.
With
regard to the media, research conducted over the last 40 years
indicates that young children and teenagers in the United
States spend 28 and 23 hours each week, respectively, watching
television (APA, 1993).During the last 20 years, "the
level of violence on prime-time television has remained
constant at five to six violent acts per hour; there are 20 to
25 violent acts per hour on Saturday morning children's
programs" (p. 32).Canadian research indicates that, by
the time children graduate from elementary school, each one
will have witnessed in excess of 8,000 murders and over
100,000 miscellaneous acts of violence (Campbell, 1993), and
that, although they will spend a total of 12,000 hours
attending elementary school, as average viewers, they will
watch 18,000 hours of television over the same period
(Manley-Casmir, 1992).Films that are popular with young people
and are readily available on videocassette add many more
violent acts; "Die Hard 2 (264 violent deaths), Robocop
(81 deaths) and Total Recall (74 deaths) are part of
children's culture" (Campbell, 1993, p. 13).
As early
as 1969, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, Chairman of the National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence in the
United States, suggested that "a constant diet of violent
behavior on television has an adverse effect on human
character and attitudes....It encourages violent forms of
behaviour, and fosters moral and social values about violence
in daily life which are unacceptable in a civilized
society" (Hammonds, 1984, p. 16).The undesirable effects
of television have been confirmed in a series of three major
studies conducted in the United States in 1972, 1982, and 1992
which led to the "irrefutable conclusion that viewing
television increases violence" (APA, 1993, p. 33).
Two
additional concerns about media violence are first, through
media violence, children learn to value rather than devalue
the use of violence to solve conflicts.Second, children will
not learn, through mass media viewing, to use alternative,
prosocial responses to express intense feelings and deal with
conflict.The vocabulary and language skills needed to enact
these behaviours are learned from parents and other
significant adult role models in the child's life.
The
popularity of video games has also helped to compound the
negative effects of television.Children spend an estimated two
hours a day playing video games, in addition to the time spent
watching television.In many of these games, the player is
allowed to participate in the violent activity portrayed on
the screen.Although the themes of these games are most
frequently the triumph of good over evil, the way to success
often involves highly violent means, death, and destruction
(Provenzo, 1992).As well, the effect of visual images lasts a
lifetime; "Images have great power to evoke feeling,
shape beliefs, and inform behaviour" (Campbell, 1993, p.
12).Lastly, Provenzo (1992) suggests that the sex-role
stereotyping in video games is distorted and unacceptable, as
women are usually portrayed as victims, dependent upon the
actions of the games' male heroes.
Drugs and
alcohol also contribute to school-related violence.Gaustad
(1991) suggests that, aside from the harmful mental and
physiological effects of narcotics on the individual user, the
vast amounts of money that illegal substances generate has
resulted in an increase in the size and influence of youth
gangs.In the United States, the average "crack" user
needs over $250 per week to support his or her habit,
amounting to over $13,000 a year.Many of these users come from
families with an average income of less than $11,000 per year
(Donaldson, 1993).Pre-teenagers are often used by gangs to
serve as lookouts and couriers for the gangs' illicit drug
activity, since children of a young age (under 12 years in
Canada) cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution (Gaustad,
1991; Prothrow-Stith, 1991).Eventually, some of these children
may become "user-dealers" and are absorbed by the
gang for which they work.Although not all teenage users of
drugs are members of a gang and, in fact, most are not (Knox,
Laske, & Tromanhauser, 1992), it is wise to remember that
all drug activity in Canada and the United States is illegal
and that any use of drugs will enhance the activity and
strength of criminal organizations.
As can be
seen from this brief review, the causes of violence are many
and complex and the task facing educators a challenging
one.The search for general laws leads to the identification of
countless causal factors that are complexly related to
aggression and other maladaptive outcomes.Both biological and
environmental factors transposed over a developmental paradigm
are seen as contributing to the development of (a) markers of
aggressive behaviour such as impulsivity and poor
self-control, (b) aggressive behavior itself, and (c)
delinquent and antisocial tendencies, characteristics
associated with the conduct disorder diagnosis.Moreover, as
Loeber (1990, p. 31) noted, children and youth who act
aggressively do not just "spring out of the cabbage"
when they commit their first aggressive or antisocial act.Such
children bring with them a developmental history of risk
factors, as they display a progression from mild to more
serious disruptive behaviour patterns.
Lastly,
much of the literature is based on research conducted with
boys.Although there are relatively few published studies on
conduct problems in girls, the extant literature indicates
that different correlates and predictors come into play,
suggesting a need for gender-specific models and developmental
pathways (Keenan & Shaw, 1994; Zoccolillo, 1993).
The next
section reviews the literature concerning models for dealing
with violence in schools.Descriptions of specific school-based
programs that have been implemented in Canada and the United
States are presented in Appendix A.Where available, evaluative
data are integrated into the discussion of the programs.
THE
SCHOOL BOARD'S RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE
Violence
among children and youth is a social problem not just a school
problem (Auty, 1993; Guetzloe, 1992; Landen, 1992; Robb,
1993).As Berger (1974) noted, "school violence is simply
one manifestation of the modern violent urban society"
(cited in Newman & G. Newman, 1980, p. 3).Schools cannot be
expected to act alone to reduce the prevalence of youth violence
and prevent its future occurrence.As we have seen, the sources
of the problem often lie outside the domain of the
school.Paraphrasing Matthews (1992 cited in Riddle, 1993),
mobilizing resources to meet the needs of "at risk"
youth, families, and communities will have a more permanent
impact on the problem of school violence than simply a
punishment-focused, "law-and-order" response by school
boards.
Moreover,
youth violence is multiply determined and so requires a
multifaceted approach to be effectively reduced.A long-term
solution will involve a broad-based effort involving
partnerships with many community groups including parents or
guardians, government agencies, the juvenile justice system, the
police, children's mental health centres, racial and
ethnocultural minority organizations, the local business
community, and industry.According to Bala (1994), "there is
no single, simple philosophy and no single type of program which
will 'solve' the problem of youthful criminality" (p.
7).Moreover, the school board's response to youth violence must
itself be multifaceted.Developing discipline policies is only
one part of the solution.
It should
be emphasized, however, that, within any violence prevention
strategy, it is just as important to attempt to increase
alternate, prosocial behaviours as it is to reduce the offending
behaviour.Replacing one behaviour for another is a much better
approach for long-term change than simply eliminating the single
behaviour.In this regard, school-based efforts need to be as
comprehensive as they are concerted and sustained.
The Role of the School Board's Policies and Programs
It is
axiomatic to state that every student has the right to attend
school and feel safe from harm or danger.Basic to this right is
the right to study in surroundings that encourage the learning
process.School boards have a responsibility to ensure that the
school environment is conducive to learning.Related to this
issue of safety, some of the critical questions facing school
boards today are: How is the right to feel safe maintained and
enforced at school?; What should the school do in the event that
a student's right to feel safe has been violated?; How should
board policies balance the protection of the school community
with the rehabilitation of the offender?; What are effective
deterrents for different types of disciplinary problems?; and
How can a school board be seen as acting proactively in response
to violence in schools?
A school
boards' response to school-based violence, in terms of its
policies and programs, may be conceptualized on a number of
overlapping dimensions.Policies and programs may be reactive or
proactive.They may be targeted toward identified, aggressive
students, the entire student body, or staff.Policies and
programs may be directed toward younger children or older
children and adolescents.They may be single-focused or involve a
wide range of outcomes.Lastly, they may be designed to achieve
decreases in children's aggressive behaviour or increases in
prosocial behaviour.In developing a comprehensive, coordinated,
multifaceted approach to deal with school violence, a school
board should consider where on these dimensions their violence
prevention strategy can be placed.Ideally, a school board will
have policies and programs to address the full spectrum of each
of these continua.
The Public Health Model
In Schools
under seige (1992), Knox, Laske, and Tromanhauser present a
bleak vision of the future of the United States.They suggest
that America has already lost the wars on drugs, poverty, and
illiteracy and that if the attempt to reduce the effects of
violence and gangs do not succeed they propose that (a) America
will be relegated to a back seat in the international science
community as colleges and universities come under the sway of
gangs; (b) social strife and racial conflict will proliferate;
(c) American children will be adopted by more humane citizens of
European countries as Americans now adopt child victims of
conflict in places such as Lebanon and Yugoslavia; (d) gangs
will infiltrate local, state, and federal administrations and
even the armed forces; (e) schools may well be considered
"war zones" and come under the authority of the
judiciary; and (f) public nuisance laws will be used to close
schools as being facilities in which repeated criminal offences
are allowed to happen.In order to prevent this pessimistic
vision from becoming reality, the authors suggest that it is
imperative to develop strategies to counteract the violence and
antisocial behaviour that will lead to such an end.
The
dominant approach for dealing with juvenile delinquency and
school violence in the United States is to conceptualize the
problem and potential solutions within a public health model
(Coie & Jacobs, 1993; Guetzloe, 1992; Hawkins & Weis,
1985; Mercy & O'Carroll, 1988; Page, Kitchin-Becker,
Solovan, Golec, & Hebert, 1992; Prothrow-Stith, Spivak,
& Hausman, 1987).This approach emphasizes the need for a
long-term, concerted, multifaceted, community-based approach for
dealing with this complex social problem.
The public
health model conceptualizes violence and aggression as a
"disease" and identifies three major foci in the
violence prevention process, primary, secondary, and tertiary,
"depending upon the stage to which the disease has
progressed when the activity is initiated" (Guetzloe, 1992,
p. 5).Each focus has its own strategy for addressing the
problem.Primary prevention involves "the alteration of one
of the essential components of disease/disorder occurrence"
(p. 5) which is ideally achieved by eliminating the cause,
immunizing the victim, and changing the environment or
conditions that encourage the disorder.Secondary prevention is
concerned with the early identification of those who show
symptoms of the disease and corrective intervention.Tertiary
prevention involves more intensive treatment of those with the
disorder with the goal being rehabilitation.
According
to Guetzloe (1992), primary prevention of violence consists of
(a) public education as to the origins and preventions of
violence; (b) providing food, jobs, child-care and medical care
for all; (c) providing for the basic needs of all young
children; (d) encouraging prosocial behaviour in all children;
(e) regulation of the media to reduce or eliminate the
representation of violence; (f) reducing the availability of
illegal drugs; and (g) gun control.Secondary prevention is seen
as one of the responsibilities of the school system, with
collaboration from parents and other stakeholders.Within the
schools, provisions could be made for (a) an environment with
logical, clearly stated, and consistently enforced rules; (b)
opportunities for children and youth to learn non-violent means
of resolving conflict; (c) opportunities to develop prosocial
behaviours such as empathy, co-operation, and sharing (d) fewer
competitive games and activities; (e) opportunities for vigorous
exercise; and (f) opportunities to help others and to feel
success in this endeavour.Tertiary prevention involves
punishment, incarceration, and rehabilitation, and, in some
respects, may be beyond the scope of the school's domain with
the exception of the use of "time out," detentions,
suspensions, and alternative programs to suspension and
expulsion (Guetzloe, 1992).Although Guetzloe has served as the
main source for the above discussion, similar ideas are
presented and developed by Prothrow-Stith (1991) in Deadly
consequences.
Further to
the public health model, Weissberg and Elias (1993) argue for
the development of a comprehensive approach to school-based
health promotion and prevention.Their recommended approach
targets multiple outcomes and addresses a range of issues, in
addition to violence and delinquency, including AIDS, drug, sex,
career education, nutrition, cardiovascular fitness, and
self-esteem enhancement.Weissberg and Elias believe that health
promotion programming in schools cannot effectively deal with
these issues in piecemeal fashion, that is, using a variety of
"well-marketed packaged programs" (p. 180).Rather, a
comprehensive program tailored to the needs of the school
setting must be in place.This program would involve:
a broad spectrum of activities and services that
intersect to provide students and perhaps their families with
exposure to a range of cognitive, affective, and skill
development opportunities that contribute to overall competence
with respect to [physical, mental-emotional, and social] health
(p. 180).
In order
to provide direction for achieving this aim, Weissberg and Elias
(1993) have developed the Comprehensive Social-Competence and
Health-Education (C-SCAHE) programming model.Their model
involves (a) a broad conceptualization of health rather than a
focus on one categorical outcome; (b) developmentally
appropriate, planned, sequential K-12 classroom instruction; (c)
a focus on cognitive, affective, and behavioural skills,
attitudes, values, and perceptions of norms, and domain-specific
information about target social and health domains; (d) teaching
methods that ensure active student engagement, emphasize
positive change, and change the ways in which children and
adults communicate about problem situations; (e) multilevel,
multicomponent interventions to effectively address the
widespread social and health problems of children and
adolescents; (f) programs that are designed and delivered in
ways that are acceptable to and reach populations at risk; and
(g) systems-level policies, practices, and
infrastructure.Moreover, Weissberg and Elias argue that
effective school-based prevention must become institutionalized
within the infrastructure of the school system and seen as
integral to the curriculum in the same way that academic
curricula like reading, writing, and arithmetic are integral to
the school system.In order for the C-SCAHE program to be
effective, teachers must understand, accept, and endorse the
need for a school-based, health promotion and social competence
intervention.
Lastly,
the American Psychological Association (APA; 1993) has
articulated an approach for dealing with the problem of school
violence.Although, developed as a response to the American
situation, the report makes a number of recommendations that are
equally applicable to the Canadian scene.First, the report
suggests that the school's role in counteracting violence should
be to provide the educational programs by which children can
learn to reduce and prevent violence and promote the use of
prosocial skills and behaviour.Schools and the government should
be involved in:
efforts to develop, implement, and evaluate violence
prevention and aggression reduction curricula for use in schools
from childhood through the teen years.Such efforts would involve
teacher training, training for other school personnel,
curricular activities, coordinated parental support activities,
and technical assistance in implementing programs that apply
techniques known to be effective in reducing aggression and
preventing violence (p. 75).
Second,
the report recommends that "schools take a long view of
children's education regarding violence" by developing and
implementing programs that are "coordinated, systematic,
and developmentally and culturally appropriate" (p. 75) and
begin in the earliest grades and continue until
adolescence.Professional organizations should become involved
with schools in the preparation, dissemination, evaluation, and
development of assessment tools on an ongoing basis.The report
also encourages "schools to engage in the early
identification of children who show emotional or behavioural
problems related to violence and to provide for them or refer
them for appropriate educational experiences and psychological
interventions" (p. 75).Schools should provide after-school
programs and recreational activities as an alternative to gang
membership, prohibit the use of corporal punishment in the
schools and encourage parents to do likewise, and make
violence-reduction training a part of preservice and inservice
training for staff.Lastly, the report urges schools to become
involved in prevention and treatment programs for alcohol and
drug use that focus on the links between substance abuse and
violence and to develop programs and interventions designed to
eliminate hate crimes and dispel stereotypes that are physical,
racial, or sexual.
In
summary, conceptualizing the problem of and potential solutions
to school-based and youth violence within a public health model
(i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention) has framed
much of the American prevention literature.This model,
exemplified by the work of Guetzloe, Prothrow-Stith, and
Weissberg and Elias, advocates for large-scale, comprehensive,
multifaceted, and sustained community-based efforts.As an
observation, the Canadian literature which is much more recent
and smaller in sheer quantity of published articles has not
followed suit in embracing this model.This may be due to the
smaller scope of the problem and lack of a perceived urgency or
immediacy to find a solution, which only recently has
emerged.Indeed, whether the situation in Canada merits adopting
such a comprehensive, broad-based approach to deal with
school-based violence remains a question that has yet to be
examined.The next two sections present the methodology and
findings of a nation-wide survey conducted to investigate the
range of school-based, violence-prevention policies and programs
in Canada.
METHODOLOGY
The Sample
In order
to achieve the study's objectives, we attempted to conduct a
survey of 210 school boards across Canada.As a survey of every
school board in Canada was seen as impractical, we decided to
limit ourselves to school boards in larger urban areas.While it
is recognized that violence among children and youth is not
limited by particular geographical regions, population
densities, and so forth, there is a perception that the rate of
increase of youth violence is greater in urban than rural areas.
For the
purpose of this study, we adopted the Statistics Canada (1992b)
definition of an urban centre as "an area which has
attained a population of at least 1,000 and a population density
of at least 400 per square kilometre....Urban areas separated by
gaps less than two kilometres are combined to form a single
area" (p. 178).Subsequently, we identified the 65 largest
urban areas in Canada as the targets of the study.These urban
areas ranged in population size from Toronto (Greater Toronto
Area), with 3,550,733 people, to Charlottetown, with 33,153
people (see Appendix B for a list of the urban areas included in
the survey).
According
to the Canadian Educational Association (CEA) Handbook (1994),
these 65 urban areas are served by a total of 210 school
boards.In this way, we selected for survey the total population
of school boards serving these 65 centres rather than taking a
randomly selected sample.The population included public,
separate, and French language boards, as well as English boards
in the province of Quebec.Table 1 presents the percentage of
school boards surveyed in each province.As indicated in Table 1,
28.4% or 210 out of 740 school boards in Canada were
surveyed.Table 2 presents the percentage of French school boards
surveyed in each province.
Survey Method
In March,
1994, a letter was sent to a representative of each of the 210
targeted school boards describing the objectives of the study
and requesting policy, program, and evaluative information.The
name of the person who appeared at the top of the list in the
CEA Handbook (1994), for a given school board, was selected as
that school board's representative.The position of this person
was, typically identified as the Superintendent of Schools or
Education, Director of Education, Director General, or Directeur
général or Directrice générale.While the letter was
addressed to this person, in many cases, the task of responding
to the survey was delegated to another person, as indicated by
the name on the cover letter accompanying the school board's
response.The deadline for responding was either May 6 (English
version) or April 29 (French version).However, submissions
received after that were included in our analyses.Indeed, as a
result of followup telephone calls to increase our sample size,
submissions were received late in July.
TABLE 1
Sampling Distributions and Response Rates of School Boards
Across Canada
Province Total No. Boards
Contacted Responded
Response Rate
British Columbia
75 21
(28%) 1781.0%
Alberta
13423
(17.2%)1460.9%
Saskatchewan
10113
(12.9%) 7 53.8%
Manitoba
56 12
(21.4%)1191.7%
Ontario
147 62
(42.2%)4775.8%
Quebec
15567
(43.2%)2029.9%
New Brunswick
18 4
(22.2%)4 100%
Nova Scotia
22 4
(18.2%)3 75.0%
Prince Ed. Isle.
51
(20%)1 100%
Newfoundland
27 3
(11.1%)2 66.7%
Total
740210
(28.4%) 126 60.0%
In addition to surveying school boards, several other
methods were used to gather information.First, a brief article
was included in Data Based EduTrends, a national newsletter
about issues in education.The article described the study and
requested information about school-based policies and
programs.Second, individuals at school boards with particularly
unique policies or programs, with which the researchers were
already familiar, were contacted.Third, considerable effort was
made to contact school-based and university-based researchers
who may have been involved in evaluations of violence-prevention
programs.Indeed, this proved to be a highly successful technique
for gathering available evaluative information and we are
particularly grateful for those individuals who supplied us with
reports of completed work and works-in-progress.
Content Analysis Procedure
The policy
submissions provided by school boards were subjected to a
content analysis.This process began with the development of a
series of categories to describe the content of the policy
statements.In order to develop the categories, the first two
authors perused the submissions, noting the various aspects of
school-based violence to which the policies applied, general
themes, range of consequences, and so forth.Categories were then
developed in conjunction with the relevant literature to reflect
a broad range of areas related to the issue of school-based
violence.
TABLE 2
Sampling Distributions and Response Rates of French-Language
School Boards Across Canada
Province Total No. BoardsContacted RespondedResponse
Rate
Quebec
14357 (39.9%) 1526.3%
Ontario
12 4 (33.3%) 1 25.0%
Nova Scotia
11 (100%)1 100%
Total
15162 (41.1%) 1727.4%
Once the
list of categories was developed, a coding sheet (see Appendix
C) was prepared with which the second and third authors used to
code the submissions.The codesheet was divided into three
sections.The first section (items a-n) included those specific
items that the policy was designed to counteract (i.e.,
infractions).The second section (items o-aa) referred to
practices involved in the implementation of policies within
relevant systems and in particular schools.The third section
(items bb-ii) referred to various outcomes or responses stated
as expectations for students' violations of policy statements
and several miscellaneous categories.Definitions of the
categories are provided in Appendix D.Subsequently, the school
boards' policy documents were examined for statements,
pronouncements, provisions, procedures, guidelines, and so
forth, that reflected the different content analysis
categories.These policy statements, guidelines, etc. were then
coded into the appropriate categories.
The
categories were conceptualized as policy components.It was
expected that the greater the number of categories into which a
school board's policy could be coded, the more comprehensive
that board's policy.For example, if a policy consisted of
statements that could be coded into 25 of the 35 (71.4%)
categories, this policy was considered to be relatively
comprehensive.A 50% cutoff was used as an indication of a
policy's relative comprehensiveness.Note that equal weight was
given to each of the categories such that no one category or
policy component was viewed as more important or essential than
another.
In
addition, within provinces (and nationally), we examined the
percentage of boards that included in their policy documents,
statements that could be coded into a given category.This was
used an indication of the degree of strength or focus within the
province for a given policy component. For example, if 95% of
the boards' policies in Manitoba included a statement that was
coded into the category "fighting," then
fighting-related policy was considered an area of strength or
focus in that province.For ease of interpretation, we examined
the categories for which there was an 80% or greater
representation across the school boards as an indication of the
areas of strength and 20% or less for areas of relative
weakness.
In
conducting the content analysis, we confined ourselves to the
policy documents, that is, the "raw data," as it were,
that were received from school boards as a result of our
requests for information.As well, we did not differentiate
between draft and existing policies.Lastly, we maintained a
literal stance in the interpretation of the data, making no
attempt to imply or extrapolate policy that was not explicitly
identified as such.In some cases, this meant that a board which
sent information about violence prevention programs but none
about policy was treated as having no policy in place.Rather,
the program descriptions provided by the board were summarized
in the Directory, included as Appendix E of this report.[1]Confining
ourselves in the content analysis to the "data at
hand" also meant that many innovative programs that are
undoubtably operating in schools across Canada might not have
been represented in this study as they might not have been
included in their board's submission.
RESULTS
As
indicated in Table 1, the overall response rate for the survey
was 60% (126 out of 210 boards).Response rates ranged by
province from 29.9% in Quebec to 100% in New Brunswick and
Prince Edward Island.The response rates for French-language
school boards are presented in Table 2.
Policies and Programs
In our
request for information, we asked for policies, programs, and
evaluations that were extant in school boards.Some respondents
returned large packages containing extensive policies and
programs.Some sent policies only; some programs only; and some
sent good intentions.Of the 126 responding school boards, 116
(92.1%) were involved in some manner of counteracting
school-based violence through either existing policies and/or
programs, the development of policies and/or programs, or some
other related activity such as establishing a safe school task
force or committee.Eighty-two of these boards had some form of
policy in place.Thirty-four boards were actively engaged in
promoting programs or some other activity such as a task force
or committee while still in the process of developing
policies.Ten boards reported that they had neither policies nor
programs.Lastly, systematic program evaluation was the exception
than the rule with only five boards (4.3%) submitting a
completed evaluation of a program currently in use.At the same
time, additional evaluation reports were obtained for this study
as a result of further contact with particular researchers or
school boards.The results of these evaluations are presented in
Appendix A.
With
respect to policies only, 82 of the 126 responding school boards
(65.1%) submitted policies that were currently in use or in the
development stage (see Table 3).These "codeable"
policies were subjected to the content analysis.
As the
sample selection for the survey was based on population size,
the number of submissions received by province was skewed, with
a greater number of policy statements received from
Ontario.These submissions comprised 45% of the policies obtained
in the study.British Columbia followed next with 14 policies
received from the 17 respondents.The number of boards from
Quebec that contributed policy documents was very small relative
to the total number of responses received from that province.
Content Analysis of School Boards' Policies
The
results of the survey are presented first for each of the
provinces then for Canada, overall.In presenting the results, we
examined (a) the number of school boards that responded in each
province, (b) the percentage of boards that were represented in
at least half of the 35 policy components, (c) the areas of
relative strength, and (d) the areas that were underrepresented
in the province's policy documents.
(a) British Columbia
We
received responses from a total of 17 school boards of which 3
provided no policy materials.Therefore, the analyses were based
on the responses of 14 school boards.With respect to the 35
categories, the policy statements of only two of the school
boards were represented in over 50% of the policy components.
TABLE 3
Responding Boards Submitting "Codeable" Policies
Province RespondedPolicy Received
British Columbia
17 14 (82.3%)
Alberta
14 10 (71.4%)
Saskatchewan
73 (42.8%)
Manitoba11
10 (90.9%)
Ontario
4737 (82.2%)
Quebec
20 3 (15.0%)
New Brunswick
42 (50.0%)
Nova Scotia
32 (66.7%)
Prince Ed. Isle.
10 (0.0%)
Newfoundland
21 (50.0%)
Total
126 82 (65.1%)
Seven
areas of strength were identified among the policies in British
Columbia, that is, seven policy components were found to be
represented in most of the board policies.These included
provisions for suspension/expulsion (represented in 14 out of 14
boards or 100%), substance abuse (93%), physical assault (93%),
defining a code of conduct (93%), dealing with trespassers
(86%), intimidation/bullying/threats (86%), and reporting
violent incidents (86%).Other relatively strong areas covered in
the policy statements were delegating administrative
responsibilities (79%), communicating policy information to
stakeholders (79%), verbal harassment (64%), providing
alternative-to-suspension programs (64%), police liaison (57%),
involving committees for policy development (57%), and promoting
a positive school climate (50%).
We also
identified nine areas which were represented in less than 20% of
the school boards' policy documents.These included aftermath
services (14%), staff development (14%), gangs (14%), site
security (7%), sexual assault (7%), procedures for
program/policy evaluation (7%), responding to emergencies such
as bomb threats and arson (7%), provisions for conducting
incidence surveys (0%), and early/ongoing identification of
aggressive students (0%).
(b) Alberta
A total of
14 school boards responded from Alberta of which 10 submitted
policy materials.Only one school board's policy statements was
represented in more than 50% of the content analysis
categories.Among the codeable submissions, a strong focus was
observed in three policy areas, delegating administrative
responsibility (100%), suspension/expulsion (90%), and
communicating policy information to stakeholders (80%).Other
relatively strong areas were code of behaviour (70%), reporting
violent incidents (70%), promoting a positive school climate
(60%), delineating a range of consequences (50%), substance
abuse (50%), and verbal harassment (50%).
Less than
20% of the school boards included information that could be
classified into 11 of the categories including
alternative-to-suspension programs (20%), trespassers (10%),
sexual assault, (10%), gangs (10%), site security (10%), staff
development (10%), early/ongoing identification (10%), aftermath
programs (10%), procedures for policy/program evaluation (10%),
responding to emergencies (0%), involving committees in policy
development (0%), conducting incidence surveys (0%), and
screening curricula for violent content (0%).
(c) Saskatchewan
The
results from Saskatchewan are less clearly defined due to the
relatively low number of policy materials submitted (3 out of
7).None of the three submissions had statements that were
represented in at least 50% of the 35 categories.Two policies
had statements that were represented in 34% and one included
statements that were represented in 31% of the content analysis
codes.
All three
policy submissions had statements concerning
suspension/expulsion and delegating administrative
responsibilities.Two of three submissions were represented in
nine of the categories including weapons, sexual harassment,
communicating policy information to stakeholders, promoting a
positive school climate, and delineating a range of
consequences.Eleven of the categories were reflected in one of
the boards' policy documents and 13 categories were reflected in
none of the policies including trespassers, discrimination,
gangs, site security, recording violent incidents, staff
development, police liaison, involving committees, conducting
incidence surveys, early/ongoing identification, screening
curricula for violent content, intervention/prevention programs,
and aftermath services.
(d) Manitoba
We
received responses from 11 school boards of which 10 provided
policy statements.Four of the policies were represented in more
than 50% of the content analysis categories.Among the
submissions, a strong focus was observed in six areas, physical
assault (90%), suspension/expulsion (90%), weapons (80%),
fighting (80%), promoting a positive school climate (80%), and
reporting violent incidents (80%).Between 60% and 70% of the
boards provided statements concerning
intimidation/bullying/threats (70%), delegating administrators
responsibilities (60%), and police liaison (60%).Half of the
boards provided information on sexual assault, sexual
harassment, code of conduct, communicating policy information to
stakeholders, screening curricula for violent content, and
evaluation.
Twenty
percent of the boards provided statements on
robbery/extortion/theft, substance abuse, emergency situations,
recording violent incidents, and alternative-to-suspension
programs.Ten percent of the boards included information
concerning gangs, involvement of committees, and early/ongoing
identification of aggressive students.None of the policies
included procedures for site security, incidence surveys, or
screening curricula for violent content.
(e) Ontario
Thirty-seven
policies were provided by the 47 responding school
boards.Twenty-eight of the policies (75.7%) were represented in
more than 50% of the policy components.A strong focus was
observed in ten areas including physical assault (95%),
suspension/expulsion (95%), weapons (89%), verbal harassment
(89%), communicating policy information to stakeholders (86%),
sexual assault (84%), promoting a positive school climate (84%),
trespassers (81%), intimidation/bullying/threats (81%), and
fighting (81%).Components that were found in 50-70% of the
boards' policies were sexual harassment (78%), delegating
administrative responsibilities (78%), police liaison (78%),
committee involvement (70%), reporting violent incidents (70%),
discrimination (70%), intervention/prevention (68%), code of
conduct (65%), vandalism (59%), and delineating a range of
consequences (57%).On the other hand, only 16% of the policies
included statements on responding to emergencies, 8% on
screening curricula for violent content and early/ongoing
identification of aggressive students, and 5% on conducting
incidence surveys.
(f) Quebec
Although
we received 20 responses from Quebec, only three included policy
materials.Thus, the data representative of Quebec was limited
and not necessarily generalizable to the province.Of the
responding boards, only one was represented in more than 50% of
the policy categories.All three of the boards included policy
statements concerning substance abuse and promoting a positive
school climate.Two of the boards included information on 14
categories including weapons, intimidation/bullying/threats,
robbery/extortion/theft, discrimination, fighting, physical
assault, sexual harassment, delegating administrative
responsibilities, code of conduct, communicating policy
information to stakeholders, intervention/prevention, police
liaison, and suspension/expulsion.Policy categories that were
represented in none of the board materials included gangs, staff
development, screening curricula for violent content,
delineating a range of consequences, and
alternative-to-suspension programs.
(g) New Brunswick
Two of the
four responding school boards provided policy materials.Neither
of the materials was represented in more than 50% of the
categories.One was represented in 43% and the other in 29% of
the categories.The two boards provided statements concerning
seven of the categories including delegating administrative
responsibilities, code of conduct, communicating policy
information to stakeholders, involvement of stakeholders,
promoting a positive school climate, and
suspension/expulsion.One board provided information concerning
an additional eleven categories including trespassers,
intimidation/bullying/threats, robbery/extortion/theft/
fighting, physical assaults, intervention/prevention programs,
and alternative-to-suspension programs.None of the two boards
could be classified into the remaining 17 categories.
(h) Nova Scotia
Two of the
three responding boards submitted policy materials.One of the
boards included information that was classified into 29% and one
in 26% of the categories.Four categories were reflected in both
of the school boards' policies including vandalism, verbal
harassment, delegating administrative responsibilities, and
suspension/expulsion.Half of the boards were represented in 11
categories including weapons, trespassers, physical assault,
reporting violent incidents, police liaison, and delineating a
range of consequences.None of the boards included information
that could be classified into 20 of the categories including
discrimination, gangs, substance abuse, staff development,
early/ongoing identification, and evaluation.
(i) Prince Edward Island
While our
single response from PEI did not provide a specific violence
prevention policy, it did include an extensive policy concerning
child abuse and family violence.It is our understanding that in
this administration it is the responsibility of individual
schools to provide policies for discipline and matters
concerning aggressive and antisocial behaviour.
(j) Newfoundland
One of the
two responding boards provided policy materials.The board's
policy document was represented in 19 or 54% of the categories
including weapons, intimidation/bullying/threats, vandalism,
robbery/extortion/theft, fighting, physical assault, sexual
harassment, gangs, delegating administrative responsibilities,
promoting a positive school climate, and
suspension/expulsion.Policy statements were absent in the areas
of trespassers, discrimination, gangs, bomb threats, involvement
of stakeholders, conducting incidence surveys, early/ongoing
identification, delineating a range of consequences,
alternative-to-suspension programs, and procedures for
evaluation.
(k) Canada
Given the
wide range in the number of school boards across the provinces
that submitted policy statements, the results for Canada were
determined by taking an average of the percentage of boards
within each province that included a policy statement reflecting
a given policy component.In other words, for each policy
component, the percentage of boards in each province that
submitted a policy statement was summed and averaged to yield
the rate for Canada (see Table 4).This procedure also gave each
province an equal weight in contributing to the nation-wide
statistics.Note that these Canada-wide results do not include
Prince Edward Island as the one responding board from this
province did not submit a policy document that could be coded.
TABLE 4
An Example of How the Results for Canada were Determined: The
Number and Percentage of Boards in Each Province that Included
the Policy Component, "Fighting," in their Policy
Document
Province NumberPercentage
British Columbia6/1443
Alberta 4/10 40
Saskatchewan2/3 67
Manitoba8/1080
Ontario 30/3781
Quebec 2/3 67
New Brunswick1/2 50
Nova Scotia 0/2 0
Newfoundland 1/1 100
Mean for Canadaa58.7
Range Across the Nine
Provinces 0-100
aNote:Prince Edward Island was omitted from these
analysis as no "codeable" policy documents were
submitted.
The
results indicated that 13 of the 35 policy components (37.1%)
were observed in at least half of the 82 submitted policy
documents.The most frequently occurring component was the almost
universal presence of a policy for suspension/expulsion,
recorded in an average of 93.6% of the school boards in each of
the nine provinces (range=67-100% across the nine
provinces).This was followed by delegating administrative
responsibilities (M=87.1%, range=60-100%) and communicating
policy information to stakeholders (M=77.7%,
range=50-100%).Other frequently occurring policy components
included promoting a positive school climate (M=76.8%,
range=50-100%), physical assault (M=72.4%, range=40-100%),
defining a code of conduct (M=69.8%, range=33-100%),
intimidation/bullying/threats (M=66.8%, range=30-100%), verbal
harassment (M=65.4%, range=33-100%), weapons (M=63.2%,
range=0-100%), police liaison (M=61.3%, range=0-100%), fighting
(M=58.7%, range=0-100%), reporting violent incidents (M=58.1%,
range=0-100%), substance abuse (M=55.0%, range=0-100%), and
involvement of stakeholders (M=52.1%, range=0-100%).
Components
that occurred infrequently (i.e., an average of less than 20%
representation in each of the provinces) were aftermath support
services for victims (M=19.8%, range=0-100%), responding to
emergencies (M=19.6%, range=0-100%), early and ongoing
identification of aggressive students (M=14.2%, range=0-100%),
procedures for policy/program evaluation (M=14.1%, range=0-50%),
involving committees for policy development (M=13.6%,
range=0-57%), site security (M=8.8%, range=0-33%), dealing with
school gangs (M=7.7%, range=0-35%), conducting incidence surveys
(M=4.2%, range=0-33%), and screening curricula for violent
content (M=3.2%, range=0-21%).
The
results for the remaining 12 items were as follows: vandalism
(M=50.0%, range=0-100%), sexual harassment (M=47.6%,
range=0-100%), intervention/prevention procedures (M=47.4%,
range=0-100%), robbery/extortion/theft (M=39.9%, range=0-100%),
sexual assault (M=35.2%, range=0-100%), delineating a range of
consequences (M=37.2%, range=0-67%), intervention/prevention
programs (M=32.4%, range=0-100%), trespassers (M=31.4%,
range=0-81%), recording violent incidents (M=29.2%,
range=0-100%), staff development (M=28.1%, range=0-100%),
discrimination (M=26.2%, range=0-70%), and alternative-to
suspension programs (M=24.7%, range=0-64%).
Classification of Policies into Types
Subsequent
to the content analysis procedure, it became apparent that each
of the board's entire policy submission could be classified into
one of four general
TABLE 5
A Comparison of the Content of the Four Policy Types
Provisions of PolicyType IType II Type III Type IV
Definition of Infractionsyesyesyesyes
Specific Sanctions yesyesyesyes
Models for Behaviour no yesyesyes
Focus on Disciplineno yesyesyes
Identification of Potentialno no yesyes
Problemsa
Programs to Prevent andno no yesyes
Counteract Problems
Identification of Non-Schoolno no no yes
Sources of Problem Behaviour
Partnership with Communityno no no yes
Agencies
a Refers to in-school identification of potential
antisocial behaviour problems.
philosophical orientations or types identified as
follows: (a) Response/Sanctions, (b) Expectations for Behaviour
(c) Identification/Prevention, and (d) Community Focus.These
four types were 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 basic principles underlying the four types
are (see also Table 5):
Type IResponse/Sanctions - punishment for misbehaviour.
Type II Expectations for Behaviour - development of a
model for appropriate behaviour with expectations for students
to follow it.
Type IIIIdentification/Prevention - strategies and
programs to inhibit antisocial behaviour.
Type IV Community Focus - inclusion of community groups
in initiatives to address the problem of school-based violence.
The first
level of policy (Response/Sanctions) focuses on the belief that
a clear message of "consequences will follow unacceptable
behaviour" is the best deterrent for aggression.Thus,
policies delineate infractions and consequences.This type of
policy is essentially reactive in nature in that it makes
provisions for dealing with violent behaviour after it has
occurred.Note that this should not necessarily be labeled a
"zero tolerance" position as several consequences or a
range of consequences may be identified for a specific
infraction.[2]
The second
level of policy (Expectations for Behaviour) focuses on the idea
that fair, clear, and equitable rules will prevent the further
incidence of inappropriate behaviour.These policies contain the
provision for consequences but do not focus on these as the main
element of policy.Rather, the development of acceptable
behavioural patterns and the establishment of appropriate models
to emulate in order to promote prosocial behaviour take
precedence over punishment.Policies of this type recognize a
need to act before violence occurs.
Policies
at the third level (Identification/Prevention) focus on the
identification and reduction of student behaviour
problems.Attention is directed towards activities designed to
reduce violence such as through promoting positive interpersonal
relations.Peacemakers, conflict management, and peer counselling
are policy/program initiatives characteristic of this
type.Adherents of this policy type recognize that interpersonal
conflict does arise and believe in the notion of preparing
students to deal with its inevitability (i.e., inoculation
theory).
The fourth
level (Community Focus) is characterized by the recognition that
the root causes of school-based violence go beyond the borders
of the school grounds.This type of policy, most closely aligned
with the public heath model, acknowledges the importance of
working outside the school system with community agencies.In
adopting this type of policy, school boards recognize that
violence, in itself, is not a problem of the school but a
problem that students (and staff) bring with them to school.As
well, particularly central to this orientation is the
involvement of community-based agencies in the development of
strategies to address a range of issues that are related to
school-based violence including child abuse and family violence
(MacNeil, 1993).
With
respect to classifying the policies, the majority of boards were
identified as having a Response/Sanctions focus (48.8%),
popularly characterized as a "zero tolerance"
policy.Nearly 30% 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.
With
regard to the small number of boards that were classified as
having a Community Focus, we recognize that many school boards
have adopted community-based programs to deal with related
issues such as domestic violence.However, in classifying the
policy documents, we were looking for this community focus to be
pervasive in both the policy statements and programming
efforts.Therefore, only a few school boards met our stringent
criterion.
Interestingly,
a progression along the continuum from Type I to Type IV
orientations was found to correspond to an increase in the
number of policy components each type represented (Figure
1).Therefore, it would appear that the philosophical position
that leads policymakers to involve external agencies also leads
them to include a greater number of policy components.
A Brief Historical Comparison
In many
respects, policies have not changed a great deal over
time.Consider the policy statements presented in Table 6
concerning duties of pupils and discipline.These statements
delineate the expectations for students' behaviour while at
school, e.g., to be attentive, quiet, and orderly, as well as
the consequences for the policies' violation.In this case, the
consequences referred to are suspension and expulsion.
This
policy was, in fact, adopted by the Toronto Public School Board
in 1893.Indeed, a cursory examination of school policies of
today reveals that, in some respects, surprisingly little has
changed in 100 years.In comparison, consider the current policy
statements presented in Table 7 from three school boards in
three different provinces.Aside from wording, the assumptions
and expectations for student behaviour of these policies appear
to be identical to the Toronto Board's policy of 1893.Perhaps we
need to examine whether these assumptions are still tenable
today given the shifting social and economic situation which
many families are confronting (Edwards & Young, 1992;
Steinhauer, 1994).
Figure 1:
Policy Components: Average Number per Policy Type
TABLE 6
A School Board's Policy Relating to Expectations for Student
Behaviour and Student Suspensions
III.DUTIES OF PUPILS
All pupils shall--
1. Obey
their teachers.
2. Conform
to the regulations of the Board.
3. Be
attentive, quiet, and orderly in school.
4. Be
respectful to their teachers and all persons in authority, and
kind and obliging to each other.
5.
Promote, as far as possible, the comfort and improvement of
others.
6. Speak
the truth on all occasions.
7. Refrain
from playing games, likely to excite ill feeling.
8. Refrain
from indelicate or profane language, from mocking or nick-naming
their school-fellows or others; from chewing or spitting in
school, and from other improper practices.
IV.DISCIPLINE
1. Pupils may be suspended for any of the following
reasons:
(1)Truancy,
persisted in.
(2)Absence
for six half-days in four consecutive weeks without a reason
satisfactory to the Principal, showing that the absence was
caused by the sickness of the pupil, sickness in the family, or
other urgent reason.
(3)Lateness,
if repeated after four notifications have been sent to the
parent or guardian in a session.
(4)Leaving
school without permission.
(5)Determined
opposition to authority.
(6)Repetition
of any offence after notice.
(7)Habitual
neglect of duty.
(8)The use
of profane, obscene or other improper language.
(9)General
bad conduct, and bad example to the injury of the school.
(10)
Writing any obscene or improper words on the fences,
out-buildings, or any part of the school premises.
(11) Bad
conduct on the way to or from school.
(12)
Throwing stones or other dangerous missiles while under school
control.
(13)
Bringing tobacco, lucifer matches, firearms, fireworks, or any
explosives to school, or having them in possession there.
(14)
Destroying or injuring school property, if their parents or
guardians refuse to repair or make good the damage.
(15)
Pupils may be suspended for a first offence under sub-sections
5, 12,13, or 14 above, but in other cases parents or guardians
shall be notified on the proper form concerning the misconduct
of their children before suspension.
2.Principals may re-admit pupils suspended for the
first time.Pupils who have been previously suspended shall be
re-admittedby one of the Inspectors.Suspended pupils shall be
re-admitted only on the personal application of the parent or
guardian.Pupils who have been suspended for misconduct shall not
receive medals, prizes, or honor certificates.
3. Any pupil adjudged so refractory by the Board that
his presence in school is considered injurious to the other
pupils, or whohas been convicted of crime by the Police
Magistrate, or in any Court, may be expelled from school, and
sent to an IndustrialSchool or other special school.
TABLE 7
Three School Boards' Policies Relating to Expectations for
Student Behaviour and Student Suspensions
School Board A
This Code of Conduct is intended to encourage students
to:
!conduct themselves in a polite, responsible and
considerate manner in class, on school property, travelling to
and from school, and when attending school related activities
away from campus.
!respect the property of others.
!attend classes regularly and punctually.
!dress in an acceptable manner.
!be considerate of others - their thoughts, feelings
and background
!use appropriate language
!be sensitive to and contribute to the maintenance of a
positive school environment.
!be free of illegal drugs, and other substances than
can be abused, alcohol, and weapons while under the jurisdiction
of the school.
!be aware of their own rights and responsibilities and
to exercise these in a positive manner.
School Board
1. Suspension by a Teacher and Teacher's Reports
Relating to Suspension
A teacher may suspend a student from class period where
a student is guilty of:
(1) Open opposition to authority
(2) Wilful disobedience
(3) Habitual neglect of duty
(4) The use of improper or profane language, or
(5) Other conduct injurious to the moral tone or
well-being of the school.
School Board C
DUTIES OF A STUDENT
Under the Education Act, Regulation 262: Schools
General, Section 23(1) states:
"A pupil shall:
a)be diligent in attempting to master such studies as
are part of the program in which the pupil is enrolled;
b)exercise self-discipline;
c)accept such discipline as would be exercised by a
kind, firm and judicious parent;
d)attend classes punctually and regularly;
e)be courteous to fellow pupils and obedient and
courteous to teachers;
f) be clean in person and habits;
g)take such tests and examinations as are required by
or under the Act or as may be directed by the Minister;
h)show respect for property."
DISCUSSION
The
findings of this report indicate 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.Indeed, recent
conferences sponsored by the Canadian Association for Safe
Schools, British Columbia School Trustees' Association/British
Columbia Teachers' Association and British Columbia Teachers'
Federation, catalogues of violence prevention materials such as
that prepared by the Manitoba Women's Directorate, and
publications from educational institutions such as the Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) and Brock University
are acting as national clearinghouses for information for those
involved in policymaking.
Within
particular school boards, a large majority 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.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.Indeed, the long-term implications of
suspending and expelling students, some of which are discussed
in Appendix A, need to be carefully examined.For example, the
practice likely contributes to the further marginalization of
students who are already at risk for school failure.
In this
regard, the development of alternative-to-suspension programs is
encouraged.Interestingly, such programs were identified as a
relatively strong area in only one province and as a weak area
in four.Further discussion of alternative-to-suspension programs
is provided in Appendix A.
Other
areas which school boards in Canada 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.It is essential that members
of the school administration are made aware of their roles and
responsibilities for violence prevention policy.However, it is
also important that all stakeholders including students, parents
or guardians, and others with a vested interest in the school be
aware of both the content of the policy documents (e.g., code of
conduct, range of consequences, etc.) and the procedures,
regulations, and guidelines for implementing board policy (e.g.,
protocols for responding to violent situations or students).
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 and aggressive
individuals.
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 comprehensive violence prevention policies 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
established.While a school may never have to respond to an
emergency situation, it is best to be prepared with a clear
policy statement.
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
(Riddle, 1993; Ryan, Matthews, & Banner, 1994).Community
policing initiatives such as police liaison programs appear to
hold some promise (Ryan et al., 1994).
Trespassers
and gang activity are another concern related to the security of
schools (Symons, 1993).Many schools have signs posted
prohibiting trespassers and some schools use senior students to
monitor halls and lock external doors.Other schools use two-way
communication devices for security purposes (Gentile, 1992).
Another
area for which there was a paucity of policy statements
concerned staff development.The relatively low frequency of this
component suggests 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 relationship among a student's developmental
history, household circumstances, poor academic performance, and
disruptive behaviour they may become more committed to the
success of a prevention strategy.
Lastly,
there is an obvious need for evaluation of policies and programs
as well good methods to record incidents of violence in
schools.The ongoing evaluation of policy is an essential
component in the policy process (Golench, 1992).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.
At the
same time, the overwhelming evidence based on a review of the
literature is that evaluations of school-based violence
prevention programs are rare (Aleem & Moles, 1993; Gaustad,
1991, Wilson-Brewer et al., 1991).In a survey of 51 school-based
violence prevention programs in the United States, 30% were
found to have no evaluation or had outdated or unavailable data
(Wilson-Brewer et al., 1991).Programs that did have an
evaluation typically only monitored program implementation
(referred to as "process" evaluation) and not program
impact (referred to as "outcome" evaluation).Moreover,
difficulties with interpreting evaluation results of
school-based interventions resulted from considerable
theoretical, methodological, and pragmatic limitations of the
research.Cohen and Wilson-Brewer (1991) reported that most
evaluation studies of school-based violence prevention
interventions used nonexperimental and correlational designs
which make cause and effect statements difficult.As well,
because of the ease of measurement, the primary findings
reported in most evaluations are short-term changes in
knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behaviours.
We suggest
that, where it cannot be done internally, school boards develop
relations with community- or university-based researchers to
conduct high quality evaluations of policies and programs.This
type of partnership has been successfully achieved in a number
of school boards in Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick.As
well, government could become involved in devising and
implementing systems for collecting and reporting incident data,
as is currently being done in Ontario.
Barriers to Implementation
We
recognize that there are a number of barriers to the
implementation of a concerted, sustained violence prevention
strategy.Primary among these is the lack of funding to support
such an effort.Second a lack of funding for staff development
often undermines the effective implementation of a violence
prevention policy or program.Providing opportunities for staff
training to upgrade their knowledge and skills serve to optimize
the success of a program.Lastly, the cost of program evaluation,
in both time and money, hinders the examination of policy and
program effectiveness.Frequently, programs are initiated with
adequate funding and good intentions, but the long-term view
does not include provision for a comprehensive evaluation with
sufficient follow-up to assess the program's impact.Certainly,
an infusion of funding demonstrates a commitment from government
and administration to violence prevention that is not lost on
school personnel.
Limitations
While the
intent of this study was to develop a comprehensive overview of
existing policies and programs in Canada designed to counteract
school‑based violence, we realize that the findings are
limited by our response rate and the nature of the responses we
received.As a result, no attempt was made to generalize these
results to rural areas in Canada or beyond the material we used
as data.We also recognize that the issue of school‑based
violence does not manifest itself in the same form and to the
same degree throughout the country and that these regional
differences will necessitate developing policies that are
individualized to the needs of the particular school board.
With
regard to programs, we recognize that we were limited by the
nature of information we received in that, in many cases,
programs were not described fully but were briefly mentioned in
accompanying correspondence or were included in listings of
school‑based programs operating within individual
schools.We speculate that the prevalence of violence prevention
programming within school boards is higher than our data would
indicate.We also recognize that school‑based violence
prevention programs are a relatively recent practice and, as
such, available evaluation data are rather scant.It is also too
early to evaluate the true impact of these programs as they have
not been in place long enough.
Lastly, a
survey such as this must be considered within its historical
context.Conducted at another time, the study's findings could be
vastly different.In Ontario, for example, shortly after this
study began, the Minister of Education and Training issued a
directive mandating that each school board in the province have
in place a violence prevention policy by September, 1995 and
that the process for developing these policies begin no later
than September, 1994 (Ontario Ministry of Education and
Training, 1994a).The results presented here, therefore, are
essentially a "snapshot" of the country's school-based
violence prevention efforts as of July, 1994.
Conclusions
Six
general points emerged from this study.First, a school board's
violence prevention policy should be internally consistent, that
is, the various statements, procedures, and provisions should
relate to each other to form a unified document.For example, if
a school board has an elaborately detailed policy concerning
weapons, e.g., defining what constitutes a weapon, outlining the
consequences for an infraction, and so forth, it goes without
saying that the board should also have a policy concerning less
severe behaviours such as intimidation/bullying/threats,
harassment, and fighting.Policies should build up from the less
to more serious behaviours, otherwise, the policy as a whole
appears disjointed.
Second, in
addition to being internally consistent, policies should be
congruent with programs.For example, if a conflict resolution
program is implemented within a board's schools, this
preventative approach to dealing with school violence and
promoting prosocial skills should be reflected within the
board's policy documents.
Third,
policies should be comprehensive.In our view, policy documents
should incorporate as many of the 35 components identified in
this report as feasible.In addition, violence prevention
programs should be multifaceted in order to address the various
aspects of this issue.For example, programs could be targeted
toward (a) the school "community" and student body as
a whole (e.g., conflict resolution, curriculum-based programs,
promoting a positive school climate and academic excellence),
(b) teachers (e.g., staff development), (c) identified children
and youth (counselling and support services, social skills
training, alternative-to-suspension programs), (d) victims of
violence (e.g., aftermath services, protocols for responding to
emergency situations), and (e) the community outside the school
(e.g., police liaison programs, involvement of community groups
in the development of violence prevention policy).The public
health model serves as an example of a comprehensive approach to
school-based violence prevention that addresses a wide range of
related issues.
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.Certainly, schools need to
forge working relationships with parents or guardians, as well
as the juvenile justice system, police, children's mental health
centres, social service agencies, government agencies, racial
and ethnocultural minority organizations, local business, and
industry to address the problem jointly.However, government
agencies and community groups should also take the initiative to
develop partnerships with school boards.As well, as we have
seen, having a community focus was associated with a more
comprehensive violence prevention policy.
Fifth,
school boards should have supplemental programs for students who
are disruptive, aggressive, and violent.These programs should be
supportive and corrective rather than punitive, demoralizing,
and inflexible.There will always be a group of children and
youth who require specialized services such as social skills,
self-control and anger management training, and individual
counselling and therapy.Placing students in special education
and behaviour classrooms is often not sufficient to address the
range of needs for some students or for behaviours to generalize
to the regular classroom setting.As well, programs targeted to
the entire school community may not be effective with an
aggressive population (Day & Hartley, 1993).
Supplemental
programs may be provided either internally, using the school
board's ownresources, or through the services of a
community-based social service agency that specializes in
difficult children and youth.A collaborative community-based
program that has had considerable success in providing a range
services to schools is the Earlscourt School-based Program (ESP;
Hartley & Levene, 1994) offered by Earlscourt Child and
Family Centre in Toronto.
The ESP
(see also Appendix A) is a multifaceted program for children
between the age of 6 and 12 years.The program is staffed by a
psychologist, who is the Program Manager, two social skills
group facilitators, and a family worker.A range of services is
offered including prevention-oriented classroom-wide and
school-wide activities, intensive intervention for identified
aggressive children and their families, and teacher support and
training.The prevention components, designed to promote a
positive school culture and prevent the escalation of behaviour
problems, include peer mediation, social skills training in the
classroom, and school-wide prosocial theme weeks.Select students
are trained as peer mediators to provide conflict resolution
services in the playground.Prosocial theme weeks highlight and
reinforce prosocial behaviour through special school-wide
activities and, as well, the themes are integrated into the
classroom curriculum.The core program component is the half-hour
weekly classroom-based social skills training sessions that are
co-led by the ESP staff and classroom teachers.These sessions
enable all students to learn and practise social skills (e.g.,
problem solving, making and maintaining friendships, and dealing
with bullying).The intervention components for identified
aggressive children, i.e., remedial social skills training and
parent outreach, build on the classroom-based social skills
training.Teacher-identified aggressive children receive remedial
cognitive-behavioural social skills training which is done
either individually, in pairs, or small groups.Each identified
aggressive child has an individualized behavioural goal and is
withdrawn from the classroom on a weekly basis to receive
intensive practise to facilitate the achievement of this
goal.Progress is regularly evaluated by the ESP staff with the
child, teacher, and parents.The nature of the family outreach
services varies from information-sharing about the child's
progress to helping parents get their child involved in age
appropriate community recreational activities, to parent
management training.Finally, teacher training services are
offered to enhance teachers' competence and confidence in
dealing with aggressive behaviour problems and in continuing
some of the program components once the ESP staff leave the
school.Given limited mental health resources , the ESP operates
on the "train-the-trainer" model that aims to increase
teachers' skills to continue with this prevention/intervention
model.Future program developments involve increasing parental
involvement in school activities.Forming partnerships between
parents and school is important not only to ensure the academic
success of the children, but also as a key factor in violence
prevention initiatives.The ESP exemplifies a successful
partnership between a community agency and school setting in the
provision of a range of violence prevention and intervention
services.
Sixth,
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.Moreover, prevention and intervention strategies (including
consequences for inappropriate and aggressive behaviour) must be
appropriate to the developmental level of the target population
and be consonant with psychological principles of personal
growth.For some children, biological deficits which contribute
to or exacerbate some of the marker variables of aggression such
as speech and language problems, learning disabilities, poor
attention, or hyperactivity could be addressed through
medication or specialized support services.Providing child
caregiving experiences to high school students and prenatal
classes for pregnant teenagers is an effective preventative
measure.
Family
factors associated with the development of aggression such as
insecure attachment, harsh and abusive discipline, and lack of
parental monitoring could be addressed through parent management
training provided by staff from a children's mental health
centre or child welfare agency.Within the school setting, a
relationship could be established with high-risk families to
maintain regular contact and support between the parent or
guardian and the teacher, guidance counsellor, and principal.As
well, the school could be opened up to the community to provide
drop-in centres or parent relief programs.
Programs
to address the environmental and social risk factors could
include social skills training, enhancing awareness about
related issues such as teen pregnancy, birth control, and drug
and alcohol abuse, and promoting good peer relations, prosocial
behaviour, and nonaggressive responses to conflict
situations.After-school programs could be provided as
opportunities for children to build friendships and develop
outside activities and hobbies (Grizenko & Pawliuk, 1994).To
address the specific risk factor of a lack of positive
relationships that some children experience, teacher- and
peer-mentoring programs could be implemented.Lastly, academic
risk factors are a prime target for schools in that a range of
specialized learning opportunities and support services could be
made available for identified children.As well, identification
and remediation of academic problems as early as kindergarten
and grade 1 may lower the risk of children falling behind in
school.
In
conclusion, we believe that a school boards' response to school
violence must address children's and adolescents' need to feel
valued and respected.Students, for example, should have a role
in the development of violence prevention policies.In this way,
they will come to feel that the rules are theirs.This will
enable them to feel empowered, to have a stake in the system,
and to take ownership and responsibility for the problem of
school violence and the solutions (Berger, 1974; Brooks, 1994;
Rodger, 1993).While this may seem antithetical to the popular
belief that youth have too much independence, it is through
empowerment that young people learn how to make responsible
decisions as they move into adulthood.
Second,
school boards must not succumb to the populist view that youth
are a threat and to be feared; that they are
"out-of-hand" and need to be controlled.This
perspective leads to the perceived need for stricter and harsher
law-and-order responses.Schools need to promote a healthy,
prosocial environment, have clear, comprehensive policies, a
range of developmentally appropriate consequences for
inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour, and multifaceted
violence prevention programming.School boards' policies and
programs must be imbued with an attitude that the school system
is not one to give up on difficult students but is willing to
work with all students on an equal partnership in order to
reduce the prevalence of school-based violence and facilitate
the development of prosocial skills and behaviours.At the same
time, we know that youth violence is not a school's problem, it
is a social problem and, as such, members of the education,
mental health, welfare, and legal systems must work together in
a concerted fashion to develop a viable solution.
Recommendations
As a
result of this study we are able to make a number of
recommendations for policymaking at school boards across
Canada.These recommendations fall into four areas: (a) the
actual expression of written policy, (b) the content of policy,
(c) programs, and (d) general recommendations.
(a) The Expression of Written Policy
Policy
documents, like course outlines and other school board documents
are in the public domain.It is advisable that these documents be
written using language that makes them accessible to the general
public.In conducting the content analysis, we found that the
policy statements were written in a variety of formats.Without
implying that every school board follow an identical format for
writing policy, we would like to make a number of suggestions to
enable boards to develop clearer violence prevention policies.
1.Policy
should be specific.Policy statements can generally be short and
to the point.Definitions and explanations can be contained in
the operating procedures and regulations which are attached to
the policy and form an integral part of the policy document.Many
policies we received lacked a specific focus.Others were more
direct and to the point.
2.The
language of policy should be the language of common speech.Any
use of jargon or of complex legal terminology should either be
eliminated or clearly defined.In these litigious times it is
essential that all parties affected by policy be absolutely
clear about the exact meaning of all terms used in documents.
3.Policy
should be clearly identified as to content.In conducting the
content analysis, we found it misleading that there were
numerous applications for what school boards considered to be
violence prevention policies.We recommend that all elements of
policy that refer in any way to the philosophy or practice
related to violence prevention be clearly labeled as such.
4.In
writing policies to reduce school‑based violence, it is
necessary to remember that, while we typically identify violence
as either weapons‑related or overt behaviour, violence can
be covert, subtle, and insidious appearing as discrimination,
harassment, and intimidation.School administrators should ensure
that all forms of violence are addressed in policy.
5.Education
authorities should more closely examine the process of
policymaking so that policies are thorough, comprehensive, and
effective.The process of policymaking is complex, involving more
than the simple process of decision-making by a board
committee.Policymakers should seek advice and involvement from
representatives of all groups affected by a specific
policy.Violence prevention policy is no different in this
respect.The process of developing policy to counteract violence
should involve as many different viewpoints as possible for a
comprehensive strategy.
(b) The Content of Policy
6.The
provision for developmentally appropriate and age-specific
consequences with escalating repercussions that are also
consonant with psychological principles of personal growth is
essential to the development of a violence prevention strategy.
7.Policy
statements should be all-inclusive.For example, there is no need
to write separate policy statements to deal with the violent
behaviour of students and staff.All acts of violence should be
treated consistently.If it is necessary to establish different
consequences for student-staff violence than student-student
violence, include this difference as part of the range of
consequences rather than drafting separate policy
statements.Similarly, violent acts committed by staff against
students should also be included in this policy statement.
8.Policy
documents should be comprehensive.More specifically, we
recommend that policies and programs be developed for
alternative-to-suspension, intervention/prevention, and
aftermath support services, staff development, stakeholder
participation, early and ongoing identification of potential
antisocial and aggressive behaviour, and responding with
emergency situations.
9.Policymakers
should strive for Type IV (Community Focus) policies.Policies
with this orientation were found to be the most proactive.
10.Some
legal concepts, such as the ideas of "search and
seizure" and arrest are more properly the realm of the law
and should be left to the discretion of law enforcement
officers.Policy should clearly indicate the boundaries between
the influence of the school authority and that of civil
authorities.
11.There
needs to be congruence between a school board's violence
prevention policies and the array of programs that are
implemented within that school board.
12.More
consideration in policy should be given to the physically and
mentally challenged members of the school community.In our
examination of Canada‑wide policies, only two documents
made provision for these students.For example, a perfectly
reasonable evacuation plan might not consider the evacuation of
students in wheelchairs.
13.School
boards should engage in ongoing evaluation of their
policies.Documents should contain the provision for a regular
review and evaluation process of violence prevention policy.
(c) Programs
14.Strong
administrative support is a basic element in the implementation
of violence prevention programs.Without this support, staff
efforts will be undermined; with it, a positive school climate
can be fostered.
15.It has
been observed that programs frequently do not reach the students
who are most in need.Programs such as peer counselling and
conflict mediation are generally aimed at the general
population, embraced by those students who, for the most part,
do not require this form of intervention, while the potentially
difficult students remain unaffected.It is our recommendation
that high risk students receive the benefit of more intensive
services.Moreover, fostering partnerships with outside agencies
that specialize in services for aggressive children and youth
may serve school boards well.
16.
Students should be involved in the development, implementation,
and evaluation of programs.
17.Implemented
programs should be appropriate to the situation within the
specific school community.Prepackaged programs may be useful for
increasing student awareness, but frequently do not address
local needs and situations beyond that.Therefore, school boards
should remain flexible in terms of implementing a violence
prevention program.This was best described by some school board
officials as having a program "dropped in" fully
formed from the outside.Needs assessments were identified in
some board materials as an important first step in program
implementation.
18.As with
policy, evaluation is essential to the ongoing effectiveness of
anti‑violence programs.All those individuals affected by
the program including staff, students, parents or guardians, and
community groups, should be involved in the evaluation process
and this process should be ongoing.
19.School
boards should keep a central registry of the programs that are
operated in the schools of their jurisdiction.The results from
program evaluations should also be kept with the registry.
(d) General Comments
20.When
dealing with representatives of the media, it is wise to rely on
one spokesperson.While this is not a preventative issue per se,
the use of a media resource person ensures that all information
released to the media is consistent.Some school boards have
included in their policies, procedures for communicating with
reporters.
21.School
boards should make it a priority to build school playgrounds
that accommodate the needs of children.Barren school grounds,
lacking in playground equipment and poured in asphalt and
concrete do not promote the kinds of play activity that
facilitate cooperative, prosocial behaviour and foster
creativity.Moreover, injuries resulting from aggressive
incidents may be more serious on surfaces of gravel than grass.
22. School
boards should ensure that teachers are committed, enthusiastic,
and comfortable with a particular program to facilitate its
successful implementation.A teacher's enthusiasm, coupled with
solid knowledge of and skills in the issues presented, are
necessary for students to deal with topics that can be
difficult, complex, and challenging.
23.Teacher
training at Faculties of Education should address the entire
issue of school-based violence prevention by teaching about
conflict resolution, methods for working collaboratively with
community agencies, and the need to include violent prevention
information in the course curriculum.
24. School
boards should develop relations with community- or
university-based researchers to conduct or collaborate on high
quality evaluations of policies and programs.
25.Collaborative
efforts involving school personnel, students, parents or
guardians, community agencies, local business, and the police
should be involved in the ongoing process of identifying and
addressing the roots causes of violence behaviour in their
community.
26.With
respect to the previous recommendation, in order to carry out
this form of policy and program development, expenses will be
incurred.Governments, school boards, social service agencies,
local business and industry should be encouraged to contribute
funds to develop and sustain violence prevention programming.
A Final Word
About Policy
Policy is
the official public face of an organization.It is the way in
which those who interact with the organization come to know the
organization and the way in which those who are employed by the
organization are directed to develop procedures and programs for
the dissemination and promulgation of the business of that
organization.
Policies
within school systems have a variety of layers.First, there is
the actual policy statement which represents the official
position of the school board on a specific issue.Second, there
are the regulations which are the definitions and specific
requirements that the board sees as necessary to implementing
the policy.Third, there are the operating procedures and
guidelines for those who must actually make the policy work in
day-to-day activity.Finally, there exist programs--the tools of
policy, the blueprints for building the outcomes of policy.
An analogy
can be seen in a developer who wishes to build a housing
project.Analogous to the policy would be the intent to build a
specific number of houses.Regulations would conform to the
decision to build houses of a certain size on certain sized
lots.Operating procedures would dictate the materials used, the
designs of the houses and the layout of the subdivision and
programs would be the actual plans given to the builders to
build the houses.As anyone in the housing industry knows, the
original planning stage involves municipal utilities, planning
committees, and many other interested parties.It should be so
with violence prevention policy, as well.
"The
development of clear, concise policies and procedureswith widely
known and accepted definitions...can serve as
powerful...preventive interventions" (Roark, 1987, p.
369).This, in itself, implies that policies themselves, stated
clearly, and widely advertised, can be the first step in a
prevention strategy.Gottfredson and Gottfredson (1985), offer
advice to the policymaker, recommending mechanisms to monitor
the implementation of programs, plans to evaluate the programs
and perseverance.
Based on
the work of Golench (1992) and Musella (1987), good policy
should contain (a) an exhaustive policy development process that
focuses on the desired outcomes and involves input from all
parties in any way affected by the policy; (b) a concise, clear
policy statement; (c) strategies for policy implementation; (d)
a monitoring process to note the achievement of outcomes; and
(e) a review and evaluation process to ensure the policy is
appropriate and effective.
REFERENCES
Adams, A. T. (1992). Public high schools: The uses of
rehabilitative and punitive forms of discipline: A finalreport.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354633).
Adams, S., Pardo, W. E., & Schniedewind, N. (1991).
Changing "the way things are done around here."
Educational Leadership, 49(4), 37-42.
Aleem, D. & Moles, O. (1993). Review of research on
ways to attain Goal Six.Washington, DC: Office of
EducationalResearch and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 357 446).
Allen-Meares, P. (1990). Elementary and secondary
school improvement amendments of 1988 and the future of social
services in schools. Social Work in Education, 12, 249-260.
Alschuler, A. J. (1980). School
discipline: A socially literate solution. New York: McGraw-Hill.
American Association of School Administrators. (1981).
Reporting violence, vandalism, and other incidents for schools.
Arlington, VA: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1993). Violence
and youth: Psychology's response. Washington, DC: Author.
Andersen, N. & Ventura, G. (1994, March).
Television and violence. YTV News in Class, 1-8.
Asante,
M. K. (1991). Afrocentric curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49,
28-31.
Atwater, E. (1983). Adolescence. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Auty, S. (1993). The Marquis de Queensbury rules don't
apply. Brock Education, 3(1), 9-11.
Baer, J. (1993). Children as peacemakers. Democracy
& Education, 41.
Baird, W. (1991). Analysis of the safe schools
committee survey. Research Report No. 90/91-12. Scarborough,
Ontario: Scarborough Board of Education.
Bala, N. (1994, February). The legal response to youth
violence. Paper presented at the National Conference on Youth
Violence in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.
Berger, M. (1974). Violence in the schools: Causes and
remedies. Bloomington, IN: The Phi Delta Kappa Education
Foundation.
Bonta,
J. & Hanson, R. K. (1994). Guaging the
risk of violence: Measurement, impact and strategies for change.
Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General Canada.
Braaten, S. & Braaten, B. (1988). Responding to death and grief in a school. The Pointer, 32 (4), 27-31.
British Columbia School Trustees' Association &
British Columbia Teachers' Association. (1993). Leading the way
to violence-free schools: Conference handbook. Vancouver,
British Columbia: Author.
British Columbia Teachers' Federation. (1994). Task
force on violence in schools: Final report. Vancouver, British
Columbia: Author.
Brooks, R. B. (1994). Children at risk: Fostering
resilience and hope. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64,
545-553.
Buss, D. M., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1990).
Preschool activity level: Personality correlates and
developmental implications. Child Development, 51, 401-408.
Butterfield, G. E. & Turner, B. (1989). Weapons in
schools: NSSC resource paper. Malibu, CA: National School Safety
Centre. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 537).
Campbell, S. (1993, November). Media violence and
children. The Bulletin, p. 12-16.
Canadian Education Association. (1994). Canadian
Education Association Handbook. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Canadian Institute of Child Health. (1994). The health
of Canada's children: A CICH profile.Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
Canadian Teachers' Federation. (1990). Thumbs Down: A
classroom response to violence towards women, Ottawa, Ontario:
Author.
Caputo, T. & Ryan, C. (1991). The police response
to youth at risk. (Report No. JS4-1/1991-8E). Ottawa, Ontario:
Solicitor General Canada.
Carlsson-Paige, N. & Levin, D. E. (1992). A
constructivist approach to conflict resolution. The Education
Digest, 57, 11-15
Caspi, A. & Moffitt, T. E. (1991). Individual
differences are accentuated during periods of social change: The
sample case of girls at puberty. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 157-168.
Child and Youth Committee. (1994). A statistical
analysis of selected youth involvement in statutory agencies in
Kelowna.Kelowna, British Columbia, Author.
Cohen, S. & Wilson-Brewer, R. (1991). Violence prevention for young adolescents: The state of the art of
program evaluation. Washington, DC: Carnegie Council on
Adolescent Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 356 441).
Coie, J. D. & Jacobs, M. R. (1993). The role of
social context in the prevention of conduct disorder.
DevelopmentalPsychopathology, 5, 263-275.
Coie, J. D., Underwood, M., & Lochman, J. E.
(1991). Programmatic interventions with aggressive children in
the social setting. In D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The
development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 389-410).
Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Collison, B. B., Bowden, S., Patterson, M., Snyder, J.,
Sandall, S., & Wellman, P. (1987). After the shooting stops.
Journal of Counselling and Development, 65, 389-390.
Committee for Children. (1987-1988). Second Step, grade
1-3 pilotproject: Summary report. Seattle, WA: Author.
Committee for Children. (1988-1989). Second Step, grade
4-5 pilotproject: Summary report. Seattle, WA: Author.
Committee for Children. (1989-1990). Second Step, grade
6-8 pilotproject: Summary report. Seattle, WA: Author.
Committee for Children. (1990). Second Step: A violence
prevention curriculum. Seattle, WA: Author.
Community Child Abuse Council of Hamilton-Wentworth.
(1993). RSVP: Guide for the Transition Years. Hamilton, Ontario:
Author.
Connell,
R. W. (1994). Poverty and education. Harvard Educational Review, 64,
125-149.
Crime rate down by 5% in 1993. (1994, August 24). The
Globe and Mail, p. A1.
Crowell, D. H. (1987). Childhood aggression and
violence: Contemporary issues. In D. H. Crowell, I. M. Evans,
& C. R. O'Donnell (Eds.), Childhood aggression and violence:
Sources of influence, prevention, and control (pp. 17-52). New
York: Plenum.
Crux,
S. C. (1993). Why is violence in our schools? Brock Education, 3(1),
23-24.
Curcio, J. L. & First, P. F. (1993). Violence in
the school: How to proactively prevent and defuse it. Newbury
Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Curwin, R. L. & Mendler, A., N. (1980). The discipline book: A complete guide to school and classroom
management.Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Cusson,
M. (1990). La violence à l'école: Le problème et les
solutions. Apprentissage et Socialisation, 13, 213-221.
Day, D. M. Factor, D. C., & Szkiba-Day, P. J.
(1994). Relations among discipline style, child behaviour
problems, and perceived ineffectiveness as a caregiver among
parents with conduct problem children. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Sciences, 26, 520-533.
Day, D. M. & Hartley, L. (1993, August). Evaluating
a school-based program for aggressive children: Comparing
outcomes for different levels of service. Poster presented at
the American Psychological Association annual meeting, Toronto,
Canada.
Day, D. M., Minevich, A., Hunt, A. C., &
Hrynkiw-Augimeri, L. (1994, May). Early detection of young
offenders: Identification of risk and protective factors. Paper
presented at the Biennial University of Waterloo Conferenceon
Child Development, Waterloo, Ontario.
The Department of Community Health, The Montreal
General Hospital (1989). Prevention of violence in the school:
Teachers' manual. Montreal, Quebec: Author.
Deutsch, M. (1993). Educating for a peaceful world.
American Psychologist, 48, 510-517.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York:
MacMillan.
Donaldson, G. (1993). The ville: Cops and kids in urban
America. New York: Ticknor & Fields.
Druckman, D., Broome, B. J., & Korper, S. H. (1988). Value differences and conflict resolution: Facilitation or delinking?
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 489-510.
du
Boulay, C. E. (1673). Historia universitatis parisiensis tome 6.
Paris: Pierre de Bresche et Fançois Noël. Reprint Frankfurt
am Main: Minerva, 1966.
Duke, D. & Canady, R. (1991). School policy. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Duke, D. L. & Meckel, A. M. (1980). Managing student behavior problems. New York: Teachers College.
Edwards, P. A. & Young, L. S. J. (1992). Beyond
parents: Family, community, and school involvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 74,72-80.
Elias, J. & Clabby, J. F. (1988). Teaching social
decision-making. Educational Leadership, 45, 52-55.
Eme, R. (1979). Sex differences in childhood
psychopathology: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 574-595.
Farrington, D. P. (1983). Offending from 10 to 25 years
of age. In K. T. Van Dusen & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), From
children to citizens: vol. 3 Families, schools, and delinquency
prevention (pp. 27-50). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ferrone, D. A. & Piraino, N. V. (1990). Suspension
with a plus. The Canadian School Executive, 10(3), 15-17.
Fine, E. S. (1993). Developing a model program.
Democracy & Education, 42-43.
Fine, M. (1991). Facing history and ourselves: Portrait
of a classroom. Educational Leadership, 49(4), 44-49.
Fitzpatrick, C. (1994). Violence prevention: A working
paper and proposal for action. St. John's, Newfoundland: Avalon
Consolidated School Board.
Forum Directors Group. (1993). Keynote paper. D. P.
Ross (Ed.), Family security in insecure times (pp. 1-18).
Ottawa, Ontario: National Forum on Family Security.
Franklin, E. (1991, February). Conflict
resolution: One school's approach. OPSTF News, 6, 6-8.
Gaustad, J. (1991). Schools respond to gangs and
violence. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 337 909).
Gentile, R. J. (1992). Security at our schools.Meeting
the challenge: Scarborough Board of Education. Scarborough:
Ontario, Scarborough Board of Education.
Goldstein, A. P., Apter, S. J., & Harootunian, B.
(1984). School violence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Golench, C. A. (1992). An analysis of educational
policy process. Unpublished manuscript.Toronto, Ontario: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Gorski, J. D. & Pilotto, L. (1993). Interpersonal
violence among youth: A challenge for school personnel.
Educational Psychology Review, 5, 35-61.
Gotlieb, H., Lennox, C., Kronitz, R., Allan, M., Hart,
J., & Read, E. (1994, March). The kindergarten intervention
project: Facilitating the development of children's prosocial
behaviours. Poster presented at the Society for Research in
Child Development conference, New Orleans, LA.
Gottfredson, G. D. & Gottfredson, D. C. (1985).
Victimization in schools. New York: Plenum.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., & Hybl, L.
G. (1993). Managing adolescent behavior: A multiyear,
multischool study. American Educational Research Journal, 30,
179-215.
Grealy , J. I. (1979). School crime and violence:
Problems and solutions. Fort Lauderdale, LA: Ferguson E. Peters
Greater Victoria School District. (no date). Violence
prevention manual. Victoria, British Columbia: Author.
Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen,M. (1993). The role of attachment in the early development of
disruptive behavior problems. Developmental Psychopathology,
5,191-213.
Grizenko, N. & Pawliuk, N. (1994). Risk and
protective factors for disruptive behavior disorders in
children. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 534-544.
Guetzloe, E. (1992). Violent, aggressive, and
antisocial students: What are we going to do with them?
Preventing School Failure, 36, 4-9.
Hammonds, K. E. (1984). Your child and good health: Six
topics in urban preventive child health. Washington, DC:
Progressive Health Associates. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED
253-331).
Harrington-Lueker, D. (1992). Metal detectors. The
American School Board Journal, 179, 26-27.
Hartley, L. & Levene, K. (1994). The Earlscourt
School-based Program (ESP). Toronto, Ontario: Earlscourt Child
and Family Centre.
Hawkins, J. D. & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to delinquency
prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6, 73-97.
Hayman, P. M., Sommers-Flanagan, R., & Parsons, J.
P. (1987). Aftermath of violence: Posttraumatic stress disorder
among Vietnam veterans. Journal of Counselling and Development,
65, 363-366.
Health and Welfare Canada. (1993). The Mountain and
Beyond: The interdisciplinary project on domestic violence.
Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
Hébert,
J. (1991). La violence à l'école. Montréal, Québec: Les Éditions
Logiques.
Hickcox, E. S. & Bedard, G. (1994). Youth leadership challenge project evaluation report. Toronto, Ontario:
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Hochman, S. & Worner, W. (1987). In-school suspension and group counselling: Helping the at-risk student.
NASSP Bulletin, 71, 93-96.
Holt, K. C. (1991). A rationale for creating
African-American immersion schools.Educational Leadership,
49(4), 18.
Houston, R. & Grubaugh, S. (1989). Language for
preventing and defusing violence in the classroom. Urban
Education, 24,25-37.
Howorko, A. & Johnson, G. (1993). Child abuse and
neglect. The ATA Magazine, 73(4), 30-32.
Hranitz, J. R. & Eddowes, E. A. (1990). Violence: A
crisis in our homes and schools. Childhood Education, 67, 4-7.
Hung, K. & Lipinski, S. (1994). Questions and
answers on youth and justice. Department of Justice: Ottawa.
Hutchins, D. (1993). Peacemakers project: Bala Avenue
Community School. Orbit, 24(1), 29.
Jaffe, P. G., Hastings, E., & Reitzel, D. (1992). Child witnesses of woman abuse: How can schools respond? Response, 14(2),
12-15.
Jaffe, P. G., Sudermann, M., Reitzel, D., & Killip,
S. M. (1992). An evaluation of a secondary school primary
prevention program on violence in intimate relations. Violence
and Victims, 7, 129-146.
James,
J. M. (1993). Conflict resolution: Programs and strategies at the
secondary level. Orbit, 24(1), 26-27.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Teaching
students to be peacemakers. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Dudley, B.
(1992).Effects of peer mediation training on elementary school
students. Mediation Quarterly, 10(10), 89-99.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Dudley, B., &
Burnett, R. (1992). Teaching students to be peer mediators.
EducationalLeadership, 49, 10-13.
Johnson, B., Whittington, V., & Oswald, M. (1994).
Teachers' views on school discipline: A theoretical framework.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 24, 261-276.
Kaminer, W. (1994, May). Crime and community. The
Atlantic Monthly, 111-120.
Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Conduct disorder in childhood and
adolescence. Newbury Park, SA: Sage.
Keenan, K. & Shaw, D.S. (1994). The development of
aggression in toddlers: A study of low-income families. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 53-77.
Kneedler, P. (1990). Securing your campus. Thrust for
EducationalLeadership, 48-50.
Knox, G. W., Laske, D. L., & Tromanhauser, E. D.
(1992). Schools under seige. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Kongshem, L. (1992). Securing your schools: Are metal
detectors the answer? The Executive Educator, 14(6), 30-31.
LaLonde, M. (1993, November). Police in schools:
Cooperative partnerships in British Columbia. Paper presented at
the conference on The Canadian Institute, Toronto, Ontario.
Landen, W. (1992). Violence and our schools: What can
we do? Updating School Board Policies, 23(1), 3-6.
La
Novara, P. (1993). Changes in family living. Canadian Social Trends, 29,
12-14.
LaPoint, V. (1992). Accepting community responsibility
for African American education and socialization. Journal of
Negro Education, 61, 451-454.
Lapointe,
Y. & Laurendeau, M. C. (1989). Prevention
of violence in the school. Montreal, Quebec: Montreal General
Hospital.
La
Rose, M. (1993). One school acts on discipline. FWTAO
Newsletter, 12(2), 40-44.
LeBlanc,
M., McDuff, P., Charlebois, P., Gagnon, C., Larrivee, S., &
Tremblay, R. E. (1991). Social and psychological consequences, at 10 years old,
of an earlier onset of self-reported delinquency. Psychiatry,
54, 133-147.
Leithwood, K. & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of
the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review
of Educational research, 52, 309-339.
Lennox, C., Gotlieb, H., Kronitz, R., Hart, J., Allan,
M., & Read, E. (1991). Aggressive children: A school-based
kindergarten program.In B. Rutherford Jr., F. A. DiGangi, &
F. R. Mathur (Eds.), Severe behavior disorders of children and
youths (pp. 42-51).Boston: Little Brown.
Leonard, K. A. (1994). Firearm deaths in Canadian
adolescents and young adults. Canadian Journal of Public Health,
85, 128-131.
Leroux, L. & Mantha, R (no date). Les
"petite violences" à lécole primaire, Éduquer et prévenir.
Ville d'Anjou, PQ: Commission scolaire Jérôme-Le Royer.
Lions Clubs International and Quest International.
(1992). Lions‑Quest Skills for Adolescence (3rd ed.).
Granville,Ohio/Waterloo, Ontario.
Loeber, R. (1987). The prevalence, correlates, and
continuity of serious conduct problems in elementary-school
children. Criminology, 25, 615-642.
Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of
juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency. Clinical
PsychologyReview, 10, 1-41.
Loeber, R. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family
factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct
problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.),
Criminal justice: An annual review of research (pp. 29-149).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lystad, M. (1982). Violence in the home: A major public
problem. Urban and Social Change Review, 15, 21-25.
Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys'
conduct disorder: A reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology,
26, 683-697.
MacDougall, J. (1993). Violence in the school: Programs
and policies for prevention. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian
Education Association.
MacKechnie, W. I. (1967). Discipline
in an educational setting. In L. Stenhouse (Ed.), Discipline in
schools: A symposium (pp. 1-42). London: Pergamon.
MacNeil, J. K. (1993). Searching
for solutions: A study on preventing child sexual abuse.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan.
Madak, P. R. & Bravi, G. D. (1992). An evaluation
of Second Step: A violence prevention curriculum in a western
Canadian elementary school (Report No. CG 024 596). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 542).
Magnusson, D., Stattin, H., & Allen, V. (1986).
Differential maturation among girls and its relations to social
adjustment: A longitudinal perspective. In P. B. Baltes, D. L.,
Featherman, R., & M. Lerner (Eds.), Life span development
and behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 113-134). Hillsdale,NJ: Earlbaum.
Makin, K. (1994, May 23). Educators, police forced to
join forces. The Globe and Mail, p. A5.
Manitoba Teachers' Society (1993). Report on the abuse
of teachers in Manitoba schools. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Author
Manitoba Women's Directorate (1992). Violence
prevention materials in the schools. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Author.
Manley-Casmir, M. (1992). Children, culture, and the
curriculum of television: The challenge for education.
Transition, 22(4), 10-12.
Mansfield, W. & Farris, E. (1992). Public school
principal survey on safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools.
Washington, DC: National Conference for Education Statistics.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342 131).
Markwood A. J. (1988). Negotiated conflict resolution
comes to school: A survey of nine examples. Amherst MA: National
Association for Mediation in Education.
Matthews, F. (1993). Youth gangs on youth gangs.
(Report No. JS4/1-1993-24E). Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General
Canada.
Mattingley, R. & Lennon, G. (1990-1991). Conflict
resolution - curriculum insert. FWTAO Newsletter, 9(3), 1-8.
McDonald, G. J. (1992). Reducing youth violence:
Coordinated federal efforts and early intervention strategies
could help.Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 056).
McKie, C. (1993). Population aging: Baby boomers into
the 21st century. Canadian Social Trends, 29, 2-7.
Mednick, S. A., Moffitt, T., Gabrielli, W., &
Hutchings, B. (1986). Genetic influences in criminal behavior: A
review. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow. (Eds.),
Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior (pp. 33-50).
New York: Academic.
Mendler, A. N. (1993). What
do I do when...? How to achieve discipline with dignity in the
classroom. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Mercy, J. A. & O'Carroll, P. W. (1988). New
directions in violence prevention: The public health arena.
Violence and Victims, 3, 285-301.
Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board. (1994).
Peer mediation pilot project - 1992/93evaluation: Executive
summary/December, 1993. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Moffit, T. E. (1993). The neuropsychology of conduct
disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 135-151.
Moles, O. (1990). Student discipline strategies:
Research and practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Moore, B. & Beland, K. (1992). Evaluation of Second Step, preschool-kindergarten, a violence prevention
curriculum kit: Summary report. Seattle, WA: Committee for
Children.
Mulligan, S. & Mitchell, D. (1992-1993). Family
violence prevention and curriculum development. Women's
Education des Femmes, 10(1), 34-37.
Murdick, N. L. & Gartin, B. C. (1993). How to
handle students exhibiting violent behaviors. The Clearinghouse,
66, 278-280.
Murdoch-Morris, P. (1993). The peaceful school: An
elementary school perspective. Orbit, 24(1), 27-28.
Musella, D. F. (1989). Problems in policy
implementation. In M. Holmes, K. A. Leithwood, & D. F.
Musella (Eds.), Educational policy for effective schools (pp.
93-111). Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press.
Newman, J. & Newman, G. (1980). Crime and
punishment in the schooling process: A historical analysis. In
K. Baker, & R. J. Rubel (Eds.), Violence and crime in the
schools (pp. 1-28). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. Justice and
delinquency prevention, 1991: Annual report. Washington, DC:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 422).
Offord, D. R. Alder, R. J., & Boyle, M. H. (1986).
Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of conduct disorder.
The American Journal of Social Psychiatry, 6, 272-278.
Offord, D. & Boyle, M. (1993). Helping children
adjust: A tri-ministry project. Orbit, 24(1), 25.
Offord, D., Boyle, M., & Racine, Y. (1989). Ontario
child health study: Children at risk. Ottawa, Ontario: Queen's
Printer.
Offord, D. R., Boyle, M. H., Racine, Y. A., Fleming, J.
A., Cadman, D. T., Munroe Blum, H., Byrne, C., Links, P. S.,
Lipman, E. L., MacMillan, H. L., Rae Grant, N. I., Sandford, M.
N., Szatmari, P., Thomas, H., & Woodward, C. A. (1992).
Outcome, prognosis, and risk in a longitudinal follow-up study.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 31, 916-923.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among
schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based
intervention program.In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.),
The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp.
411-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and
what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
O'Neill, P. (1992). Violence and its aftermath.
Canadian Psychology, 33, 119-127.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Ministry of the
Solicitor General. (1984). Values, Influences, and Peers.
Toronto,Ontario: Author.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1994a).
Violence-free schools policy. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1994b).
Challenging problems, hard choices.Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Ontario Teachers' Federation (1991). Survey of teacher
assault incidents in the years 1987-1988, 1988-1989, 1989-1990.
Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Oppenheimer, J. & Zeigler, S. (1990). Suspension and other approaches to discipline. The Canadian School
Executive,9(10), 29-30.
Opération
surveillance - ANJOU. (1993). Il y a du PEP à St-Joseph: Projet
d'une écolepacifique. Ville d'Anjou, PQ: Author
O'Reilly,
E. M. & Sargent, J.E. (1994). Student
suspensions and expulsion: A background study. Nepean, Ontario:
Carleton Board of Education.
Orpinas, P. K. (1993). Skills training and social
influences for violence prevention in middle schools: A
curriculum evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Texas.
Page, R. M., Kitchin-Becker, S., Solovan, D., Golec, T.
L., & Hebert, D. L. (1992).Interpersonal violence: A
priority issue for health education. Journal of Heath Education,
23, 286-292.
Pal, A. & Day, D. M. (1991). Bullying at school: A
survey of two inner city schools fromthe Metropolitan Toronto
Separate School Board. Toronto, Ontario: Earlscourt Child and
Family Centre.
Pankow, M. & Iozzo, V. (1994). Positively
Proactive. Ottawa, Ontario: Ottawa Roman Catholic School Board.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process.
Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E.
(1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior.
American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.
Patus, M. (1993). Managing aggressive tendencies in
adolescents. Brock Education, 3(1), 19-22.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Zeigler, S., &
Charach, A. (1993, July). Bullying: A community problem. Paper
presented at the Biennial Meeting of the International Society
for the Study of Behavioural Development, Recife, Brazil.
Peterson, M. P. (1993). Physical and sexual abuse among
school children: Prevalence and prevention. Educational
Psychology Review, 5, 63-86.
Piccoli, R. (1987). The effectiveness of training high
school students in the prevention of domestic violence.
Unpublished master's thesis. California State University, Long
Beach, California.
Polanyi, M. (1994). Students speak out on violence.
Education Today, 6(3), 9-12.
Prothrow-Stith, D. (1987). Violence
prevention: Curriculum for adolescents. Newton, MA:
Education Development Center.
Prothrow-Stith, D. (1991). Deadly consequences. New
York: Harper Collins.
Prothrow-Stith, D., Spivak, H., & Hausman, A. J.
(1987).The violence prevention project: A public health
approach. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 12, 67-69.
Provenzo, E. F. (1992). The
video generation. The American School Board Journal, 179(3),
29-32.
Quast-Wheatley, L. (1988). Sexual victimization: A
trauma needingthe attention of educators. The Pointer, 32,
11-14.
Ramsey, E., Bank, L., Patterson, G. R., & Walker,
H. M. (1990). Generalization of the antisocial trait from home
to school settings. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
11 200-223.
Reardon, B. A. (1988). Educating for global
responsibility: Teacher-designed curricula for peace education,
K-12. New York: Teachers College.
Reid, J. B. (1993). Prevention
of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating
interventions to developmental findings. Developmental
Psychopathology, 5, 243-262.
Rich, J. M. (1992). Predicting and confronting
violence. Contemporary Education, 64, 35-39.
Richards, P., Berk, R. A., & Forster, B. (1979).
Crime as play - delinquency in a middle class suburb. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Riddle, M. (1993). Youth violence and the gang concept.
Brock Education, 3(1), 4-8.
Roark, M. L. (1987). Prevention of violence on college
campuses. Journal of Counselling and Development, 65, 367-371.
Robb, N. (1993). School of fear. OH&S Canada,
43-48.
Robinson, P. & Killip, S. M. (1992). Conflict
busters: An elementary school peer mediation project. London,
Ontario: The Board of Education for the City of London.
Rodgers, M. (1993). Helping students, families, and
schools of the Niagara Region resolve conflict. Brock Education,
3(1), 12-14.
Rogers, A. B. (1988). The development and evaluation of
a violence prevention program for secondary schools. Unpublished
master's thesis. Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Roher, E. M. (1993). Violence
in a school setting. Brock Education, 3(1), 1-4.
Roper, W. L. (1991). The prevention of minority youth
violence must begin despite risks and imperfect understanding.
Public Health Reports, 106, 229-231.
Roy, I. (1993). Violence is preventable: How some
schools are educating students to be peacemakers. Brock
Education, 3(1), 16-18.
Ryan, C., Matthews, F., & Banner, J. (1993).
Student perceptions of violence: Summary of preliminary
findings. Toronto, Ontario: Available from Central Toronto Youth
Services.
Ryan, C., Matthews, F., & Banner, J. (1994). The
anti-violence community school: A police/school partnership
model. (Report No. JS4-1/1994-4). Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor
General Canada.
Safe School Task Force. (1994a). The Safe School Task
Force resource kit. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Safe School Task Force. (1994b). A survey of Ontario
school employees. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Safe School Task Force/Canadian Association for Safe
Schools (no date). Information Overview. Toronto, Ontario:
Author.
Sandford, M. N., Offord, D. R., Boyle, M. H., Peace,
A., & Racine, Y. (1992). Ontario child health study: Social
and school impairments in children aged 6 to 16 years. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31,
60-67.
Santrock, J. W. (1981). Adolescence: An introduction
(3rd ed.). Dubuque, IO: Wm. C. Brown.
Schmidt, Y., Paquette, J., & Dickinson, G. (1990).
Violence in the schools: A neglected research agenda. Education
& Law Journal, 3, 49-90.
Schostak, J.F. (1986). Schooling the violent
imagination. New York: Routlegde & Kegan Paul.
Selman, R. L., Schultz, L. H., Nakkula, M., Barr, D.,
Watts, C., & Richmond, J. B. (1992). Friendship and
fighting: A developmental approach to the study of risk and
prevention of violence. Development and Psychopathology, 4,
529-558.
Shannon, L. W. (1980, November). Assessing the
relationship of juvenile careers to adult criminal careers.
Paper presented at the Conference of the American Society for
Criminology, San Francisco, CA.
Sharon, D. (1991). Connecting violence in families and
communities: Schools' initiatives and the role of educational
television, Toronto, Ontario: OECA.
Simpson, R. L., Miles, B. S., Walker, B. L. Ornsbee, C.
K., & Downing, J. A.(1991).Programming for aggressive and
violent students. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional
Children.
Slee, R. (1988). Discipline and schools: A
curriculumperspective. South Melbourne, Australia: MacMillan.
Smith, D. D. (1984). Effective discipline. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Smith, S. J. (1992). How to decrease bullying in the
schools. Principal, 31-32.
Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., Delucchi, K. L., Schaps,
E., & Battistich, V. (1988). Enhancing children's prosocial
behavior in the classroom. American Educational Research
Journal, 25, 527-554.
Sroufe, L. A. (1988). The
role of infant-caregiver attachment in development. In J. Belsky
& T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment.
Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
St. James-Assiniboia School Division No. 2. (no date).
Working it out together: A behavioral handbook for teachers.
Winnipeg, Manitoba: Author.
Statistics Canada. (1992a). Teenage victims of violent
crime, Juristat Service Bulletin, 12 (6), 1-17.
Statistics Canada (1992b). Urban areas. Ottawa,
Ontario: Supply and Services Canada. 1991 Census of Canada.
Catalogue No. 93-305.
Statistics Canada. (1993). Youth court statistics.
Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
Statistics Canada. (1994).The Daily, December 2.
Steinhauer, P. D. (1993). Youth
in the 80s and 90s: A fifteen year trend - Where do we go from
here? (mimeo). Prepared for the Coalition of Children, Families
and Communities. Toronto, Ontario.
Sudermann, M., Jaffe, P., & Hastings, E.(1993).
ASAP: A School-Based Anti-Violence Program. London, Ontario:
London Family Court Clinic.
Symons, C. (1993, February). Dealing with the violent
intruder: An early warning code for schools. The Canadian School
Executive.
Tattum, D. P. (1989). Alternative
approaches to disruptive behavior. In N. Jones (Ed.), School
management and pupil behavior (pp. 64-82). Philadelphia, PA:
Falmer.
Teacher Associations survey members on issue of
violence. (1992, March 24). The ATA News, p. 5.
Theilheimer, I. (1992). Are the kids alright?
Transition, 22(4), 4-5.
Toronto Board of Education. (1994a). Conflict
resolution programs at the Toronto Board of Education. Toronto,
Ontario: Author.
Toronto Board of Education. (1994b). The anti-bullying
book: Towards an inclusive school.Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Toronto Board of Education, Research Department.
(1994c). Research review: Conflict resolution at secondary
schools, 1992-1993: Summary of evaluation results. Toronto,
Ontario: Author.
Tracy, P. E., Wolfgang, M. E., & Figlio, R. M.
(1990). Delinquency careers in two birth cohorts. New York:
Plenum.
Tremblay, R. E., McCord, J., Boileau, H., Charlebois,
P., Gagnon, C., LeBlanc, M., &Larivée, S.(1991).Can
disruptive boys be helped to become competent?Psychiatry, 54,
148-159.
Tremblay,
R. E., Vitaro, F., Bertrand, L., LeBlanc, M., Beauchesne, H.,
Boileau, H., & David, L. (1992). Parent and
child training to prevent early onset of delinquency: The Montréal
longitudinal experiment study. In J. McCord & R. R. Tremblay
(Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth
to adolescence (p. 117-138). New York: Guilford.
Tucker, W. (1991, February). Domestic
violence: An educational issue. OPSTF News, 6 17-20.
Verrall, E. (1994). The effects of TV: Part I -
curriculum insert. FWTAO Newsletter, 12(3), 1-8.
Vestermark, S. D. & Blauvelt, D. (1978).
Controlling crime in the school. West Nyack, NY: Parker.
Vitaro, F. & Tremblay, R. E. (1994, December).
Disruptive behaviour in young boys at risk of delinquency: An
experimental study aimed at prevention. Paper presented at the
National Crime Prevention Council Workshop "Community
safety and crime prevention: Focus on children and youth,"
Montreal, Quebec.
Walker, S. G. (1994). Weapons use in Canadian schools.
Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General Canada.
Waterloo County Board of Education. (no date). The
learning environment and student behaviour in our schools:
Issues and strategies. Kitchener, Ontario: Author.
Weissberg, R. P., Caplan, M. Z., & Sivo, P. J. (1989).
A new conceptual framework for establishing
school-based social competence promotion programs. In L. A. Bond
& B. E. Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention and promotion in
the schools (pp. 255-296). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weissberg, R. P. & Elias, M. J. (1993). Enhancing young people's social competence and health behaviour: An
important challenge for educators, scientists, policymakers, and
funders. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 2, 179-190.
Werner, E. E. (1985). Stress and protective factors in
children's lives. In A. R. Nicol (Ed.), Longitudinal studies in
child psychology and psychiatry (pp. 335-355). New York: Wiley.
West, W. G. (1984). Young offenders and the state: A
Canadian perspective on delinquency. Toronto, Ontario:
Butterworth.
West, W. G. (1993). Escalating problem or moral panic?:
A critical perspective. Orbit, 24 (1), 6-7.
Whittington, R. & Moran, G. (1990). Teaching
nonviolence through time out: A curriculum for elementary school
classrooms. Social Work in Education, 12, 237-220.
Williams, J. E. (1993, February). Principles of
discipline. The American School Board Journal.
Willis, S. (1993). Schools test new ways to resolve
violence. ACSD Update, 35(10), 1-8.
Wilson-Brewer, R., Cohen,. S., O'Donnell, L., &
Goodman, I. F. (1991). Violence prevention for young
adolescents: A survey of the state of the art. Washington, DC:
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 356 442).
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative
protection: Effects of early family support and education on
chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115,
28-54.
Zeigler, S. & Pepler, D. (1993). Bullying at
school: Pervasive and persistent. Orbit, 24(1),
29-31.
Zeigler, S. & Rosenstein-Manner, M. (1991). Bullying at school: Toronto in an international context (Research Report
No. 196). Toronto, Ontario: Toronto Board of Education.
Zoccolillo, M. (1993). Gender and the development of
conduct disorder. Developmental
Psychopathology, 5, 65-78
|