Preventing Lethal School Violence

Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development

Series Editor Roger J.R. Levesque Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

For further volumes: www.springer.com/series/7284

Jeffrey A. Daniels  •  Mary C. Bradley

Preventing Lethal School Violence

Jeffrey A. Daniels West Virginia University Department of Counseling 504-E Allen Hall Morgantown, WV 26506-6122 USA [email protected]

Mary C. Bradley Indiana University Southeast Hillside Hall 0011 New Albany, IN 47150 USA [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-4419-8106-6 e-ISBN 978-1-4419-8107-3 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2011921933 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY  10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in ­connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

This book is dedicated to my loving family – Susan, Katie, and Bobbie, without whose support much of what I do would not be possible; to my parents, John and Joan, for planting a firm foundation in my early years. To Dana and Thalia, whose friendship spans time and distance. And to the innumerable educators and law enforcement officers who dedicate their lives to making our schools safe. Jeff Daniels To Anne and Ken. You’ve given me everything, seen me through my toughest moments and celebrated my biggest triumphs. I dedicate this work to you for all you sacrificed for me. To Margaret and Mark. I would not be who I am without the love and support you gave me. I love all of you. Mary C. Bradley

Contents

1  Introduction to Lethal School Violence...................................................

1

Overview......................................................................................................   Nature of Lethal School Violence............................................................   History of LSV......................................................................................... Research Findings........................................................................................   Parameters of LSV...................................................................................   Prevalence of LSV...................................................................................   Characteristics of School Shooters..........................................................   Use and Limitations of Profiling..............................................................   The Safe School Communities Model..................................................... Summary...................................................................................................... References....................................................................................................

1 1 1 3 3 8 9 10 11 12 13

2  Costs of Lethal School Violence................................................................

15

Overview...................................................................................................... Research Findings........................................................................................   Effects of Lethal School Violence on Students........................................   Effects of Lethal School Violence on Faculty/Staff................................. Summary...................................................................................................... References....................................................................................................

15 15 15 19 25 25

3  Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence...........................................

29

Overview...................................................................................................... Research Findings........................................................................................   Types of Bullying.....................................................................................   Characteristics of School Bullies.............................................................   Negative Effects of Bullying....................................................................   Bullying As It Relates to Acts of Lethal School Violence.......................   Programs to Prevent Bullying at School..................................................   General Violence Prevention Principles.................................................. Summary...................................................................................................... References....................................................................................................

29 30 30 32 35 36 36 40 41 41 vii

viii

Contents

4  Averted School Rampages.........................................................................

45

Overview......................................................................................................   Rationale: Learning from Successes........................................................   Methodological Issues............................................................................. Research Findings........................................................................................   News Reports of Averted School Rampages...........................................   Averted Shooting Rampages....................................................................   Averted Incidents vs. School Shootings................................................... Summary...................................................................................................... References....................................................................................................

45 45 47 49 49 51 52 55 55

5  Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events.................................

57

Overview......................................................................................................   Definitions................................................................................................   Crisis Negotiations................................................................................... Research Findings........................................................................................   Content Analysis of News Reports..........................................................   School Counselor Case Study..................................................................   Qualitative Study of School Personnel....................................................   Recommendations.................................................................................... Summary...................................................................................................... References....................................................................................................

57 58 59 60 61 63 64 66 68 69

6  Building a Positive School Climate...........................................................

71

Overview...................................................................................................... Research Findings........................................................................................   Positive School Climate: What Is It? How Do We Define It?.................   What Makes Up the School Climate?......................................................   What Is the Impact of a Positive School Climate?...................................   Positive School Climate: How to Create It.............................................. Summary...................................................................................................... References....................................................................................................

71 71 71 72 80 82 84 84

7  The Safe School Communities Model......................................................

87

Overview...................................................................................................... Research Findings........................................................................................   Skills Instruction......................................................................................   Expected Student Behaviors....................................................................   Engagement with the Community...........................................................   Student Self/Other Awareness.................................................................   Positive Adult Interactions....................................................................... Summary...................................................................................................... References....................................................................................................

87 88 89 92 93 94 94 96 97

Index..................................................................................................................

99

About the Authors

Jeffrey A. Daniels earned his Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He is currently a professor in the Counseling Psychology program at West Virginia University, Morgantown. His professional interests relate to averted lethal school violence and barricaded hostage events in schools. Dr. Daniels continues to be engaged in research that examines these aspects of school violence. These unique contributions to the understanding of lethal school violence have resulted in numerous publications and conference presentations. Mary C. Bradley earned her Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from Indiana University, Bloomington, where she began working with Dr. Daniels on his research of thwarted acts of school violence. Dr. Bradley has also researched nonlethal acts of school bullying, specifically as it relates to adolescent emotional and social-cognitive development. Currently an assistant professor of Counselor Education at Indiana University-Southeast, Dr. Bradley truly loves teaching and training future educators.

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction to Lethal School Violence

Overview Nature of Lethal School Violence School violence, although not a new phenomenon, has become a major worldwide concern within the past decade. A series of reports from the United Nations Educational, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Ohsako, 1997) was compiled that examined school violence in Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Israel, Jordan, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Peru, and Slovakia. Across locations common forms of violence included disrespectful behavior, bullying, various forms of harassment, and lethal violence. Despite the considerable attention given to nonlethal forms of school violence, particularly bullying, less has been written about lethal school violence (LSV). Even less research has examined LSV that has been averted. As we begin to examine means of curbing LSV, it is important that we clearly define the domain. In this chapter, we first present school violence within its historical context, followed by an examination of the parameters of acts that constitute LSV. Within this discussion, we will also examine prevalence rates. We will then address characteristics of school shooters, and end with limitations of behavioral profiling as a means of identifying potentially violent students before they act. We will limit our discussion of the impact of LSV in this chapter, but will delve deeper into this in Chap. 2.

History of LSV It is a misconception that school violence is a recent phenomenon. Midlarsky and Klain (2005) describe four types of school violence: the rebellion, acting out of anger, violence out of protest, and what they term “the random act of violence” (p. 39). These authors traced school violence, within these contexts, from as early J.A. Daniels and M.C. Bradley, Preventing Lethal School Violence, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3_1, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

1

2

1 Introduction to Lethal School Violence

as ancient Mesopotamia, through the medieval times, to Colonial America, and into present times. Midlarsky and Klain (2005) cite clay tablets from Mesopotamia that describe student misbehavior that represents violence. Furthermore, Midlarsky and Klain (2005) describe conditions in European schools in the seventeenth century, such as armed students, duels, and beatings of teachers in France. It appears that the first school shootings took place in France in 1646 during an armed attack on a college in an effort to free a student who was being punished. Two students were killed in another incident in 1646 during a fight between a Humanities and a Philosophy class at Aix College, also in France. Midlarsky and Klain (2005) describe a rebellion at Die College 3 years later, again in France, in which barricaded students shot pistols and attacked passersby with swords. Midlarsky and Klain (2005) document approximately “300 student mutinies each year” (p. 41) in Colonial America, usually in the form of students throwing and locking their teachers out of the schools. These authors point out that most of these acts of violence were “motivated by rebellion, protest, and anger” (p. 41). However, school violence took a turn in the twentieth century with the first mass killing of students and staff, the so-called random act of violence. In 1927, a disgruntled member of the school board, Andrew Kehoe in Bath, Michigan, detonated dynamite and hundreds of pounds of explosives in the local Bath Consolidated School (Cornell, 2006). The explosions came after Kehoe killed his wife and set fire to his farm. The result was 45 deaths, mostly of children, and 58 additional injuries. What precipitated this horrific act? Bond had recently been levied for a new school; Kehoe blamed the increased property taxes on his financial difficulties which threatened the loss of his farm. This, America’s most deadly school killing, was premeditated – Kehoe apparently had spent several months placing the explosives in the school. The first documented random school shooting, in which students were chosen deliberately as the targets, occurred in San Diego, California in 1979. Sixteen-year-old Brenda Spencer opened her bedroom window and began firing her 0.22 caliber rifle across the street at children in the playground of Cleveland Elementary School. The school’s custodian and principal died, while eight children were injured. When asked why she did this, her reply became a number one hit in England by the rock band The Boomtown Rats: “I don’t like Mondays.” Since that time multivictim school shootings have become, unfortunately, more common. Between September 1992 and October 2008, there have been 25 incidents at US schools in which at least one of the victims, or the perpetrator, was a child or adolescent (National School Safety Center [NSSC], 2008). The number of fatalities associated with these events is 78, with many more injuries. Although the main data for this book comes from US K-12 schools, the most lethal student-initiated school rampage to date occurred at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, when college student Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting rampage. The result was 33 fatalities (Kaminski, Koons-Witt, Thompson, & Weiss, 2010). Among public, K-12 schools, the most deadly rampage in the USA was at Littelton, Colorado’s Columbine High School, with 15 fatalities (Larkin, 2007). On March 21, 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise shot and killing his grandfather and his grandfather’s ­companion. He then went

Research Findings

3

to his school, Minnesota’s Red Lake High, and killed five students and a teacher before committing suicide (Sallee, 2005). Although the focus of this book is on LSV within the USA, the phenomenon of rampage school shootings is certainly not limited to the USA. There have been recent school shootings in Canada, Finland, and Germany, as well as in other countries throughout the world. Because the majority of research has been conducted in the USA, the following discussion is limited to those incidents that occurred in the USA.

Research Findings Parameters of LSV The United State Secret Service, in partnership with the United States Department of Education, conducted a study of school shooters. In their report, they defined school violence as that which occurred in school, on school property, at ­school-sponsored activities, or to a member of the school community on his or her commute to or from school (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002). Thus, LSV is that which occurs in any of the above parameters that results in the death of one or more individuals. LSV may, therefore, include suicide, domestic murder/suicide, gang-related deaths, fights that result in death, barricaded captive situations that end in one or more fatalities, and rampage school shootings. We now turn our attention to a brief discussion of each of these domains of LSV. This discussion focuses predominantly on prevalence, although we also highlight some of the adverse effects on the school community. However, Chap. 2 delves deeper into the social costs of LSV to both students and faculty. To the interested researcher, it must be pointed out that empirical research in most of these domains is lacking, suggesting a need for serious inquiry by scholars. Suicide.  Occasionally, an individual chooses the school as the location for committing suicide. Although the number is small, the effects are drastic. Every year the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics publish a report on school-related crimes. Between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000, there were eight suicides at schools. Six of these were children/adolescents, and two were adults. Another organization, the National School Safety Center (NSSC, 2008), has been compiling school-associated violent deaths since 1992–1993 academic year. Between September 1992 and October 2008, there were a total of 81 suicides on or near campuses in the USA. The following discussion centers on 63 individual suicides; the remaining 18 incidents will be addressed in later sections, including domestic violence murder/suicides, rampage shooting/suicides, and barricaded captive suicides. According to the NSSC, there have been 58 known student suicides on or near campus between September 1992 and October 2008. The causes of some of the violent deaths at schools may remain unknown, however, so the number of suicides may actually be higher. The methods used by students who have committed suicide

4

1 Introduction to Lethal School Violence

at school include shooting (n = 48), hanging (n = 9), and jumping (n = 1). When we break this down by sex, the majority of student suicides are completed by males (48, 82.8%). Of the male suicides, 40 (83.3%) shot themselves, 7 (14.6%) hanged, and 1 (2.1%) jumped. Of the females, eight (80%) shot and two (20%) hanged themselves. In total, there is an average of 3.4 student suicides on or near campus per year in the USA. During the same period, from September 1992 to August 2008, five adults committed suicide on or near school grounds. Two individuals (a male and a female) who were not affiliated with the school shot themselves on school grounds. Two individuals, a superintendent and a maintenance worker (both males) hanged themselves at the school, and one teacher (male) jumped from a nearby bridge. In most incidents, an adult member of the school found the victim, thereby sparing the students from the trauma of discovering a body at their school. In addition, there were three staff/administrators who committed suicide at school during this same time frame. Despite the low frequency of individuals committing suicide at school, these forms of lethal violence can be extremely upsetting. Anecdotal evidence points to the trauma faced by students, staff, and administrators following a school-based suicide. In the aftermath of these events, news reports often highlight the shock, dismay, and helplessness survivors frequently express. For example, in December 2000, a student committed suicide in his car by shooting himself in the head in the school’s parking lot. The event was public, with several students witnessing the trauma. Classmates reported such adjectives as “horrible” “unreal,” and “anger” about the situation (Fausset & Krikorian, December 2, 2000). One study has been published in which the effects of a student suicide (not committed at school) were documented (Maples et al., 2005). In this situation, an eighth grade student committed suicide over the weekend. The authors describe the impact on the school and their activities in the following days and weeks. In addition to the expected responses, there were a couple of unexpected reactions. One was that students responded with anger when the administration decided not to memorialize the student at school out of fear of copycat suicides. A second was that students who were close to the victim became angry at other students who were not very close to the victim, when they expressed emotions. The authors point out that for many of these “fringe” students, the suicide triggered unresolved issues in their life. Maples et al. (2005) also described the challenges to school counselors following the suicide of a middle school student. The effects of a student’s suicide span surviving students, teachers, administrators, and the community at large. Predictably, the death of a student elicits many feelings among students, including a recapitulation of their own possible grief issues, depression, and suicidal ideations. Although similar effects may be observed among teachers, Maples et al. (2005) found that many wanted to move on and get back to “business as usual” as quickly as possible. Administrators understandably want to allow students time to grieve, yet may feel in a Catch-22 by not wanting to focus too much on grief. They may feel pressure from teachers to get the school back to normal as fast as possible. Some teachers were even reluctant to allow students to leave class to see a counselor, if they

Research Findings

5

believed the student was not sufficiently close to the victim (some teachers referred to these students as “professional mourners” [Maples et al., p. 398]). On the other hand, administrators were cognizant of the need to allow students to grieve, fearing possible copycats. Despite the trauma of a student off-campus suicide, we argue that a suicide that is completed at school where others witness it or see the body holds the potential to be more traumatic to the school community. This is an act of final violence, the entirety of the school the student’s collective victim. We suggest that a completed suicide on campus has the potential to be more traumatic to a wider number of individuals in the school community. As we mentioned briefly, occasionally a teacher or other adult commits suicide. We found no research that examined the impact of these events on the school when the suicide was completed at the school. One study detailed intervention efforts following a teacher’s suicide (again, not on school grounds) (Kneisel & Richards, 1988). In this situation, an elementary school teacher who was suffering from depression committed suicide in a rather dramatic manner. The local media did not cover the story well, implying in an editorial that working with young children can be stressful. The authors (Kneisel & Richards, 1988) indicated that some students consequently expressed guilt. Fortunately, since the 1980s, mental health professionals have been instrumental in educating the media about how to report ­school-based tragedies. Kneisel and Richards (1988) describe several postvention activities that were implemented following the suicide of this teacher. For example, it is important to provide staff and students with accurate information about the event to minimize rumors. The information shared must be developmentally appropriate and not be too detailed, so as to protect the privacy of the victim and her/his family. Both students and faculty/staff also need a time and place to share their feelings and reactions; this usually takes place in a group format. Also, individual counseling needs to be available to anyone who desires it, at any time. Although not all can be prevented, there are some things people can do to lessen the likelihood of suicide attempts. Numerous sources provide lists of warning signs that people who work with children and adolescents may use to identify at-risk individuals. The website http://www.teensuicide.us/ is a good source. Once an at-risk youth has been identified, there are resources available to help him or her. Such resources include school counselors, social workers and psychologists, local mental health professionals, websites that provide information, and teen suicide hotlines. The important point is to get help and not try to rescue the student alone. Without competent intervention, the results could be tragic. Domestic murder/suicide.  It is true that schools are a microcosm of the larger society in which they are situated. It is equally true that members of a school community therefore bring with them their personal and social issues when they enter school property. The Bureau of Justice Statistics from the United States Department of Justice reports annual data on violent and nonviolent crimes, including intimate partner violence. Between 2001 and 2005, a staggering 9,750 women and 570 men were victims of nonlethal intimate partner violence at schools. This translates into

6

1 Introduction to Lethal School Violence

1.9% of total female victimizations and 0.5% of total male victimizations during that time period occurring at schools. In addition to nonlethal domestic violence, schools are also the infrequent site of domestic murder–suicides. Between July 1992 and April 2008, there were six incidents on or near campuses, resulting in 12 deaths (NSSC, 2008). Three of these incidents entailed an individual murdering his or her estranged partner before committing suicide. In two incidents, an individual murdered a person on school grounds, whom he suspected was having an affair with his wife before killing himself. Finally, in one situation, a student killed his ex-girlfriend before committing suicide. We found no research that examines the impact of domestic murder/suicides at schools on members of the school community. However, as with other forms of LSV, we argue that the effects of these incidents are far-reaching. The research that has been conducted that pertains to this discussion addresses the effects of students’ home experiences with domestic violence (e.g., Margolin & Vickerman, 2007; Vickerman & Margolin, 2007). A recent study estimated the number of children and adolescents who live in violent households in the USA (McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006). These authors projected from a sample of 1,615 married or cohabiting heterosexual couples: according to their estimations approximately 15.5 million children, from birth to age 17, live in households wherein at least one violent act occurred during the past year. Interestingly, they found that female-to-male violence was more prevalent and tended to be more severe than male-to-female domestic violence. Of course, this finding runs counter to much of the literature on domestic violence, so replication is necessary. This estimate needs to be qualified; the authors inquired if any one or more of 11 acts were committed either by the interviewee or against the interviewee. Thus, being pushed one time constitutes a violent family according to McDonald et al. (2006). However, a family in which weekly assaults with weapons occurs is also violent. Although violence is violence, does a mild isolated event constitute the same reaction as one or more extreme events or chronic events? Future research needs to consider the frequency, duration, and severity of violent acts. Although posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is usually precipitated by ­exposure to an event that is potentially life-threatening that falls outside of the bounds of normal life, Margolin and Vickerman (2007) showed that PTSD can result from a child’s exposure to his or her “normal” life events if these events are violent. They cite an estimate that between 13 and 50% of children exposed to domestic violence will develop PTSD; 13% of children in a community sample actually were diagnosed with PTSD, while 50% had symptoms of PTSD (Rossman, Hughes, & Rosenberg, 2000). Because symptomology does not imply the fullblown syndrome, the more accurate number, when asserting PTSD among children exposed to domestic violence is 13%. In summary, although little is known about the effects of intimate partner violence that occurs at schools, we know that children from violent homes are at risk for psychological difficulties such as PTSD. We also know that on occasion that violence spills into the schools when an employee is victimized while at work. When this occurs the number of victims and people traumatized by this violence increases because the act becomes public.

Research Findings

7

Gang-related deaths.  There is a gang presence in many schools in the USA, and with that presence comes occasional violence. Between 1992 and June 2008, there were 53 total gang-related deaths at schools or at school functions (NSSC, 2008). The majority (n = 45) of the victims were students; however, during that same time period two staff members were killed in gang violence (a principal and a teacher), and one parent, picking up his child from school, was shot. Five additional ­individuals were killed on or near school grounds in gang violence, although these people were not attending the school at the time of the incidents. The majority of these deaths involved shootings (n = 38), although there were 12 individuals who were stabbed or slashed. Three additional gang-related student deaths were the result of beatings. Most victims were males (n = 45), although there were eight female victims. With respect to the locations of these deaths, the majority (n = 25) occurred somewhere on the school’s campus, and 13 were near the school. Six gang-related deaths occurred in the building (hallways, cafeteria, classroom, and bathroom), and three took place across the street from the school. Three additional deaths occurred while the victims were driving or walking to or from school, two were at bus stops, and one was on the bus. Gang violence may thus become school violence when the conflicts occur at or near school. This form of violence may take place among students or may be “outside,” yet still impact the school. Barricaded captive situations.  Although barricaded captive situations will be addressed in greater detail in Chap. 5, a brief overview of prevalence will be presented here. Barricaded captive situations include hostage and non-hostage situations in which one or more people are held against their will. The distinction between hostage and non-hostage situations relates to the captive-taker’s motive. In a hostage taking, the captives are held to influence a third party, usually in exchange for demands (Vecchi, Van Hasselt, & Romano, 2005). In a non-hostage situation, the captives are held for expressive purposes and are referred to as victims rather than hostages. The motive of the captive-taker in these situations is as an expression of his or her psychological turmoil. Although no official organizations gather data on barricaded captive-takings in the schools, I (JD) have been studying these events and maintaining an ongoing database for several years (e.g., Daniels, Royster, Vecchi, & Pshenishny, 2010). From February 2, 1988 to October 31, 2008, there were 27 barricaded captive situations in US schools. Although this translates to an average of 1.3 per year, the incidence has risen dramatically since 2000, with 22 of the 27 situations occurring in that 8-year period. Whether this reflects an actual increase in the number of incidents or an increase in media attention to this form of violence is unknown at this time. Most of these incidents involve a student at the school engaging in an expressive captive-taking; however, in five incidents the captive-takers were external intruders into the schools. All but one of the captive-takers was male. Most school barricaded captive situations end without any fatalities (Daniels et al., 2010). In six of the 27 incidents, there were one or more fatalities, resulting in 12 deaths. Two of these captive-takers committed suicide, while the remainder killed one or more captives before being shot by police. It is, therefore, promising that when a student takes captives at his (or her) school, the most likely outcome will be a safe surrender.

8

1 Introduction to Lethal School Violence

Rampage school shootings.  When people think about LSV, they are most likely to think of the multivictim shootings that became headline news during the 1990s. This form of school violence is what Midlarsky and Klain (2005) refer to as the random acts of violence, and Newman, Fox, Harding, Mehta, and Roth (2005) classify as rampage school shootings. Although dramatic, these events account for very few of the school- or youth-related violent deaths in a given year (Cornell, 2006). During 1999, the year of the Columbine tragedy, for example, school shootings accounted for less than 0.1% of youth deaths in the USA (Cornell). Nevertheless, one school shooting is one too many. Between 1992 and August, 2008, there were 14 multivictim murders resulting in a total of 52 fatalities (NSSC, 2008). Although there were more multivictim incidents during this time frame, some were classified as domestic murder/suicides and others were gang related. Since the 1990s, numerous researchers and Federal agencies have investigated school shootings (e.g., O’Toole, 2000; Vossekuil et al., 2002), and much has been learned about school shooters. Despite the stereotypes perpetuated in the popular media, there is no single “type” of student that becomes a shooter. The press would have us believe that students who are loners, have been long-term victims of severe bullying, have family problems, and wear black trench coats are likely to pull out a gun and open fire when faced with an interpersonal crisis. The reality is that some shooters resemble this profile, but many more were popular, are as likely to be the bullies as the victims, come from average families, and do not dress out of the ordinary. There is no valid profile of a student who may become a shooter (Vossekuil et al., 2002). This point will be expanded upon later in this chapter; namely, that profiling is not a valid option for identifying potential school shooters. Another misconception about school shooters is that they take in the insults, the physical and emotional abuse until they “go postal.” Vossekuil et al. (2002) found that school shooters do not suddenly snap; rather, the shooting is the end result of a long line of behaviors leading up to that dramatic action. Consequently, students frequently exhibit multiple warning signs in the weeks and months leading up to the attack. O’Toole (2000) identified clusters of behaviors, personality characteristics, and environmental factors that may signal a student is troubled and in need of intervention. She stresses that these characteristics are not meant to be used to profile students; rather, they signal that a student may be experiencing enough distress that help should be offered. More detail about characteristics of school shooters will be addressed later in this chapter and again in Chap. 4.

Prevalence of LSV From the above discussion, we can begin to understand the scope of LSV. We have examined five forms of LSV: suicide, domestic murder/suicide, gang-related, barricaded captive events, and multivictim rampages. We have found, among these classifications, a total of 192 fatalities between September 1992 and October 2008 (NSSC, 2008). However, this does not capture the full-extent of LSV during

Research Findings

9

this time frame. The NSSC reported a total of 433 school-related violent deaths, which were classified into eight causal clusters: Bully-related (12), gang-related (53), hate crime (2), interpersonal dispute (115), robbery (9), sexually motivated (3), suicide (82), and unknown (157). In addition, the NSSC listed 16 accidental deaths, which we do not consider in this discussion. Finally, the NSSC has a category for drug-related deaths, of which there have been no lethal incidents. In the 17  years that the NSSC has been gathering data on violent deaths in schools, there have been 69 suicides, which represent approximately four per year in the USA. There were six domestic murder/suicides resulting in 12 fatalities at schools in this period, which translates into approximately 0.35 incidents per year. A total of 53 gang-related deaths at schools in the past 17 years equal to 3.1 per year, and the 52 fatalities from rampage school shootings represents approximately three per year. We have been examining barricaded captive events in schools and have found 27 incidents since 1988. The six incidents in which fatalities occurred have all been since 2001, which represents 0.75 per year during that time frame.

Characteristics of School Shooters Numerous agencies and researchers have been studying the “school shooter” phenomenon, adding multiple perspectives to the problem. For example, the US Department of Education studied school violence and developed a list of 16 early warning signs characteristic of violent youths (Dwyer, Osher, & Warger, 1998). The Federal Bureau of Investigation also studied school shooters, those students who entered a school or school property and began shooting their teachers, classmates, and others (O’Toole, 2000). In addition, the United States Secret Service has studied school shooters, lending their expertise related to threat assessment (Vossekuil, Reddy, Fein, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2000). From these multiple perspectives, a clearer understanding of children and adolescents who become deadly violent is emerging. Through the research efforts of these agencies, much has been learned about school shooters. For example, all of school shooters were males, and most were Caucasians. We know that their acts are not impulsive expressions of rage, but are carefully planned responses to identifiable stressors (Vossekuil et al., 2000). School shooters also commonly give warning signs, either by telling others what they are intending to do or “leaking” their thoughts into writings and art projects (O’Toole, 2000; Vossekuil et al.). We also know that in more than half the cases of school shootings, the perpetrators had been the victims of long-term bullying (Vossekuil et  al.). Many school shooters have a history of personal, familial, school, and community difficulties (O’Toole). In most cases of school shootings, the perpetrator experienced a recent stressor that was perceived as overwhelming, such as the ending of a relationship or interpersonal rejection (O’Toole). Finally, there is much evidence pointing to poor relationships with family members as a risk factor. Despite these findings, it is important to note that there are no defining ­characteristics of school shooters. Consequently, early calls for checklists of warning

10

1 Introduction to Lethal School Violence

signs or development of behavioral profiles of potential school shooters have been overridden. To conclude this chapter, we now turn to the problems of behavioral profiling of potentially violent students.

Use and Limitations of Profiling Behavioral profiling emerged from the work of forensic psychologists and criminologists (Hicks & Sales, 2006). Traditionally, profiling has entailed attempting to identify the characteristics of a criminal based on evidence left at the crime scene. More recently, behavioral profiling has come under attack as a means of targeting ethnic minorities by law enforcement officers. Turvey (1998) described these two behavioral profiling methods as inductive behavioral profiling and deductive ­behavioral profiling. Inductive behavioral profiling entails the use of demographic information about a group of criminals and applying this information to an individual that exhibits similar demographic characteristics. Thus, if we know, for example, that many serial killers are male, tortured animals, started fires, and wet their beds as children and adolescents, and we are working with a child who tortures animals, starts fires, and wets his bed, we may inductively surmise that this child is at risk of becoming a serial killer. Inductive profiling requires that certain criminal populations be intensively studied to develop a set of common characteristics. Inductive behavioral profiling has some advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, these methods are easy to use. No special training in forensic sciences is necessary for an individual to use these methods (Turvey, 1998). Moreover, Turvey pointed out that general profiles can be assembled rather quickly and easily by the profiler. Thus, a school administrator or school counselor with little or no forensic training can match the characteristics of violent youth with those of a given student. On the negative side, general behavioral profiles are often based on small sample sizes and look only for commonalities among the individuals under investigation. Thus, the ability to generalize to a given individual may be limited. Second, the samples from which profiles are taken are gathered only from those criminals who have been caught. Nothing is really known about those who continue to evade capture and prosecution. Bluntly stated, what we know about a given criminal population is about the unsuccessful individuals, not the successful ones. Perhaps the most worrisome limitation of inductive behavioral profiling is the risk of false positives, where an innocent person is identified for intervention or implicated in a crime (Mulvey & Cauffman, 2001). Because these methods require little or no formal training, the school administrator or school counselor may believe an innocent student is capable of becoming violent. Clearly, there are ethical and legal ­considerations involved with false-positive identification. The student may be singled out and labeled as dangerous when he or she in reality is not dangerous. Turvey (1998) noted the example of Richard Jewell, who had been falsely accused in the “Olympic Park Bombing” in Atlanta as a well-known example of a case of a false-positive. In contrast to inductive behavioral profiling, deductive behavioral profiling makes use of data gathered from a crime scene in an effort to infer the personality

Research Findings

11

of the perpetrator. The profiler will carefully examine details of the specific crime, the crime scene, autopsy data, and characteristics of the victim (Hicks & Sales, 2006) to arrive at his or her conclusions. Thus, whereas inductive profiling attempts to identify a person before a crime has been committed, deductive profiling takes place after the crime has been committed. As with inductive methods, there are strengths and limitations to deductive profiling methods. Because the profiler has much training and experience, one strength of these methods is that the profiles tend to be more accurate than inductive profiles (Turvey, 1998). The profiler makes use of all of his or her training and experience to identify specific personality traits of the criminal, rather than making use of generalities developed from other criminals. Deductive profiling can also be helpful in understanding the individual more fully. For example, the Modus Operandi and signature behaviors may be understood through these methods. A final advantage is that behaviors can be assessed over time. Although considered an advantage, the intensive training that is involved also may be considered as a disadvantage. There are not many professionals who are qualified to conduct deductive behavioral profiles. The primary concern for issues related to LSV is that these methods work from a crime that already has been committed in an effort to narrow the pool of potential suspects. Thus, these methods are not applicable when trying to identify individuals who are at risk for possible future violence. Therefore, it is not possible to use deductive profiling methods to identify at-risk youth. Behavioral profiling has been shown to be rather ineffective as a set of methods related to school violence (Reddy et al., 2001). Additionally, it has been argued that these methods have serious ethical issues, in that they may label or falsely identify or accuse students who are not potentially violent (Burns, Dean, & Jacob-Timm, 2001). Moreover, there is the possibility of false negatives, wherein a potentially violent individual does not match the criteria of violent youth, which is not identified for an intervention, yet becomes violent (Burns et  al.). Therefore, we cannot ­recommend the use of behavioral profiling as a means of identifying potentially violent students.

The Safe School Communities Model Over the past several decades, the nature of education has shifted. What was once a matter of teaching students the “Three Rs” and civic responsibility is no longer adequate. Today’s educators must also consider the very real topic of school safety. But how do we enhance the security of our schools? How do we prevent or at least diminish acts of violence? It is our goal in this book to offer a model for creating safe school communities that will answer these questions. This book presents a novel approach to averting LSV. While models of school safety exist, none are based on a comprehensive synthesis of factors that have been identified from the research that has been conducted. We offer the Safe School Communities Model (SSCM) which addresses the roles and responsibilities of ­students, faculty/staff/administrators, law enforcement officers, and the

12

1 Introduction to Lethal School Violence

c­ ommunity-at-large. Specifically, throughout the remainder of this volume, we review in a nontechnical manner what research has discovered about preventing LSV. In Chap. 2, the social and psychological effects of LSV on the entire school community are identified. We identify the effects on both students and faculty alike. In Chaps. 3–5, we review the research that has been conducted on bullying, averted shooting rampages, and barricaded captive-taking situations in schools, respectively. Chapter 6 addresses what has been discovered about creating a positive school climate, and Chap. 7 presents the complete SSCM, based on the findings presented in the previous chapters. The SSCM includes five domains, including instruction in specific skills (for both students and faculty/staff), expected student behaviors, school–community engagement, students’ self- and other-awareness, and positive adult interactions. Within each of these domains are specific factors that have been identified from the research reviewed in this book. The Skills Instruction domain includes teaching students in such skills as communication, decision making, problem solving, and conflict resolution, among others. Faculty and staff skills include crisis response training, quality instruction, and professional development. Some of the factors included in the Expected Student Behavior domain are setting limits on unacceptable behavior, consistent consequences for unacceptable behavior, enhanced monitoring and supervision, and not tolerating disrespectful behavior. The domain Engagement with the Community includes efforts to engage/interact/integrate the school with the community and extracurricular activities. Student Self/Other Awareness includes understanding emotions (one’s own and others’) and social, emotional, and ethical learning. Finally, the Positive Adult Interactions domain includes such factors as displaying warmth and positive interest, equitable treatment for all, breaking the “code of silence,” treating all people with dignity and respect, and modeling respect for diversity. The SSCM is a novel approach to averting LSV through creating safe school communities, and multiple practical applications will be included in the final chapter of this volume.

Summary In this chapter, we have provided an introduction to the topic of LSV. Despite the attention given to this issue over the past couple of decades, LSV has been documented since recorded history. We define LSV as acts of violence that occur at school, at a school function, or to people commuting to or from school, which result in fatalities. These include suicide, domestic violence, gang-related violence, barricaded captive events, and rampage school shootings. Research has been reviewed that addresses the prevalence of LSV and characteristics of school shooters. We also presented an overview and critique of one method of profiling potentially violent students that some have advocated – behavioral profiling. Finally, we introduced the SSCM and oriented the reader the remainder of the book. In Chap. 2, we turn attention to the social and psychological costs of LSV on both students and the faculty.

References

13

References Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Jacob-Timm, S. (2001). Assessment of violence potential among school children: Beyond profiling. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 239–247. Cornell, D. G. (2006). School violence: Fears versus facts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daniels, J. A., Royster, T. E., Vecchi, G. M., & Pshenishny, E. E. (2010). Barricaded captive events in schools: Mitigation and response. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 587–594. Dwyer, K., Osher, D., & Warger, C. (1998). Early warning, timely response: A guide to safe schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Fausset, R., & Krikorian, M. (2000, December 2). Teen stages suicide in front of classmates. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Times. Hicks, B. D., & Sales, S. J. (2006). Criminal profiling: Developing an effective science and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kneisel, P. J., & Richards, G. P. (1988). Crisis intervention after the suicide of a teacher. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 165–169. Kaminski, R. J., Koons-Witt, B. A., Thompson, N. S., & Weiss, D. (2010). The impacts of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings on fear of crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 88–98. Larkin, R. W. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Maples, M. F., Packman, J., Abney, P., Daugherty, R. F., Casey, J. A., & Pritle, L. (2005). Suicide by tenneagers in middle school: A postvention team approach. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 397–405. Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. A. (2007). Posttraumatic stress in children and adolescents exposed to family violence: I. Overview and issues. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 613–619. McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Ramisetty-Miklar, S., Caetano, R., & Green, C. E. (2006). Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violence families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 137–142. Midlarsky, E., & Klain, H. M. (2005). A history of violence in the schools. In F. Denmark, H. H. Krauss, R. W. Wesner, E. Midlarsky, & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Violence in schools: Cross-national and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 37–57). New York: Springer. Mulvey, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2001). The inherent limits of predicting school violence. The American Psychologist, 56, 797–802. National School Safety Center (2008). National School Safety Center’s Report on School Associated Violent Deaths. Retrieved November 4, 2008, from http://www.nssc1.org Newman, K. S., Fox, C., Harding, D. J., Mehta, J., & Roth, W. (2005). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. New York: Basic Books. Ohsako, T. (1997). Violence at school: Global issues and interventions. Laussane, Switzerland: UNESCO. O’Toole, M. E. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Reddy, M., Borum, R., Berglund, J., Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2001). Evaluating risk for targeted violence in schools: Comparing risk assessment, threat assessment, and other approaches. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 157–172. Rossman, B. B. R., Hughes, H. M., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2000). Children and interparental violence: The impact of exposure. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis. Sallee, M. W. (2005). A national tragedy requires focus, not finger pointing. Children and Schools, 27, 131. Turvey, B. E. (1998, January). Deductive criminal profiling: Comparing applied methodologies between inductive and deductive criminal profiling techniques. Knowledge Solutions Library. Retrieved May 5, 2001, from http://www.corpus-delecti.com/Profiling_law.html

14

1 Introduction to Lethal School Violence

Vecchi, G. M., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Romano, S. J. (2005). Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current ­strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 533–551. Vickerman, K. A., & Margolin, G. (2007). Posttraumatic stress in children and adolescents exposed to family violence: II. Treatment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 620–628. Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. Vossekuil, B., Reddy, M., Fein, R., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2000). U.S.S.S. safe school initiative: An interim report on the prevention of targeted school violence. Washington, DC: US Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center.

Chapter 2

Costs of Lethal School Violence

Overview On Wednesday October 1, 1997, Luke Woodham opened fire on a prayer group prior to classes at his Pearl, Mississippi high school. In the aftermath, the culture of the school and the community were forever changed. Reflecting about the events of that fateful day, school counselor Becky Rowan described the after effects: “The next days, weeks, and months were filled with sketches. Rumors of cults, hit-lists, bomb threats – all kinds of things that caused fright” (Rowan, 2001, p. 124). In Chap. 1, we briefly described some of the impacts of lethal school violence (LSV) on survivors. The obvious effects of LSV are to the victims: injuries, a ­shattering of a sense of normalcy, and loss of life. Although the effects also go beyond victims to encompass all of society [in 2001, the US Surgeon General labeled youth violence a national public health concern (Koplan, Autry, & Hyman, 2001)], we focus in this chapter on the social and mental health costs of LSV to students and the faculty/staff of the school. We begin with a discussion of fear and anxiety reactions among students, including the development of psychiatric symptomology. We then examine the effects of LSV on school attendance and academic performance among some students. Our focus then turns to the effects on faculty and staff, including fear and anxiety, health-related concerns, and work performance.

Research Findings Effects of Lethal School Violence on Students As we explore the effects of LSV we must consider different reactions over time from the onset of the violent act through the days immediately following the event and into the longer-term future of 6 months and beyond. Although the consequences we describe have been documented in the literature, we feel the need to caution the reader with the caveat that not all individuals will respond similarly. It is imperative J.A. Daniels and M.C. Bradley, Preventing Lethal School Violence, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3_2, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

15

16

2 Costs of Lethal School Violence

that interventions not be forced on anyone and that people who do not respond in a predictable manner be pathologized. Rather, each person needs to be taken as an individual, and any interventions be tailored to their particular needs. Fear and anxiety.  In the opening moments of an act of lethal violence at school, students and faculty will experience the fight or flight response. This is a normal reaction to a stressful incident and represents the body’s physiological reaction; preparing the body to fight or flee from the danger. Emotionally, this response is translated into fear and anxiety. In this section, we first define and distinguish between fear and anxiety and then describe the typical reaction to extreme trauma exposure. Again, a caveat is warranted: not all people will experience this reaction. Rather, what follows is a general discussion of documented reactions. Anxiety and fear are thought to be different constructs, but are frequently considered together (Foa et  al., 2005). Foa et  al. offered a concise definition of anxiety. “Anxiety refers to multiple mental and physiological phenomena, including a person’s conscious state of worry over a future unwanted event, or fear of an actual situation” (p. 162, italics in original). Some scholars believe that fear is innate in all animals, but anxiety is unique to humans. Furthermore, Foa et al. point out that fear is an adaptive response to a threat, whereas anxiety is more diffuse and can become excessive. Keeping these distinctions in mind, we will address fear and anxiety concurrently as similar, even parallel, emotions. Until recently, most of the research on responses to trauma has been conducted on adults. It was assumed that children’s reactions were similar. However, more recent research has shown that although children do have many reactions that are similar to adults, they also have some responses that are unique. There are both physical and psychological reactions to traumatic events (Shen & Sink, 2002). Among children physical reactions may include loss of appetite, enuresis, nausea, headaches, and stomach aches. Psychologically, children may experience withdrawal, feelings of helplessness, grief, thoughts of suicide, isolation, and school avoidance (Shen & Sink, 2002). Younger children may not recognize their reactions to trauma, so it is important that parents and professionals remain alert to their status following exposure. The extent to which an individual experiences adverse reactions to trauma is influenced by several different considerations. In a recent speaker series conducted by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network Terrorism and Disaster Network Committee, Melissa Bymer (2009) described factors that increase the risk of negative outcomes following exposure to school violence. These include whether an ­individual was exposed directly to the violence and if he or she was injured. Moreover, it is important to know if the person was a family member or friend of the deceased or of the aggressor. Does the exposed individual have a history of depression, suicidal thoughts, or has he/she previously attempted suicide? Does she or he have a history of risk-taking, shyness, anxiety, or self-consciousness? Does the individual have a known disability or has an Individualized Education Program (IEP)? Finally, has the person experienced previous loss or trauma? Answering yes to any of these questions increases the risk for negative outcomes following school violence. After an act of LSV, victims have experienced a wide array of psychological difficulties. In the aftermath of a shooting at Heritage High School in Georgia,

Research Findings

17

victims and their families underwent counseling for as long as 2  years after the incident (Sullivan & Guerette, 2003). These victims and their families were treated for anxiety, depression, and family problems. Some adolescents developed an indifferent outlook toward life following the shooting, not seeming to care about anything. Some parents became overprotective, while others loosened the reins and became overindulgent. Both of these parental responses added tension in the family. One survivor became socially detached and turned to drugs. In addition to these difficulties, following the shooting at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Fox, Roth, and Newman (2003) reported feelings of “shock, grief, frustration, lack of privacy, and for the families of Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Goldman [the shooters], shame, remorse, and the sense that they had been judged in the court of public opinion as parental failures” (p. 125). This highlights an important consideration, which is that the families of the perpetrators of LSV are often blamed and ostracized, which adds to the grief they, too, experience. In his book, Comprehending Columbine, Ralph Larkin describes these negative reactions from the community to the Harris and Klebold families (Larkin, 2007), as well. With regard to diagnosable psychological disorders, victims of LSV and other members of the school community may develop acute stress disorder (ASD), and ultimately, posttraumtic stress disorder (PTSD). ASD is an anxiety disorder with symptoms including psychological numbing, feeling dazed, derealization, depersonalization, and dissociative amnesia. There may also be a reexperiencing of the event through recurrent images, flashbacks, thoughts, dreams, or other symptoms. Consequently, the victim may avoid events or situations that remind him or her of the traumatic situation. These symptoms occur within 1 month of the trauma (American Psychiatric Association, 2004). As we shall discuss later in this chapter, ASD may result in increased absenteeism. Some individuals exposed to acts of LSV may develop PTSD. PTSD is ­characterized by four clusters of symptoms following exposure to trauma (American Psychiatric Association, 2004). The first cluster includes intense fear, a sense of helplessness, or horror. All of these symptoms are typical reactions to LSV (Ardis, 2004; Nims, 2000). The second cluster of symptoms is a persistent reexperiencing of the event through dreams or invasive memories (flashbacks) in which the event is reexperienced both physiologically and cognitively. The third cluster involves persistently avoiding stimuli associated with the traumatic event. The individual also may feel a general psychological numbness. The fourth cluster includes persistently amplified arousal (including sleep disturbance, irritability, difficulty concentrating, hyper-vigilance, or exaggerated startle response). Symptoms may represent an acute reaction (development within 3 months of the trauma) or a chronic condition (persisting for longer than 3  months). Symptoms of PTSD may be delayed in their onset, ­sometimes not surfacing until 6 months or more after the violence at school occurred (American Psychiatric Association, 2004; Flouri, 2005). To summarize this section, people exposed to LSV, whether directly as victims or indirectly as members of the school and local community, encounter multiple psychological effects. These effects include fear and anxiety as well as depression, social withdrawal, and family problems. Symptomology may develop for ASD or

18

2 Costs of Lethal School Violence

PTSD among some individuals. In a later section of this chapter, we will focus on the specific impact of LSV on teachers, administrators, and other school personnel. We now turn our attention to two additional consequences of LSV: school attendance and academic achievement. Attendance.  After a shooting the school will be closed for a period of time. During this time, the police will collect forensic evidence, students will be offered counseling services [we would add that counseling also be offered to school personnel (Daniels, Bradley, & Hays, 2007)], and the community will attempt to come to some understanding of the event and its impact. A question for administrators is for how long the school should remain closed. Principals feel the need to reopen and reestablish a sense of normalcy as soon as possible (Newman, Fox, Harding, Mehta, & Roth, 2004). There needs to be some flexibility for surviving victims as they begin to deal with the violence; following an attack on their school, the attendance of some students may diminish. There are several possible reasons why a student may be hesitant to attend school following LSV. These include anxiety, social withdrawal, difficulties trusting that they will be protected, and avoidance. Moreover, students may experience reminders of their losses and the trauma while in the school. These are all important considerations when deciding on how and at what pace to proceed following an act of LSV. In a widely cited report, roughly 16,000 students missed school each day in the 1990s because of fears of violence (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997; as cited in Nims, 2000). While these were not necessarily the victims of LSV, it speaks to the scope of the problem of fear of violence. Too many students do not feel safe in school; that feeling is only compounded after the media attention given to a lethal school shooting. Following the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, Kaminski, Koons-Witt, Thompson, and Weiss (2010) found modest increases in fear for safety among college students at the University of South Carolina. Newman et  al. (2004) found that student attendance was negatively impacted in schools where a shooting took place, specifically in Paducah, Kentucky and Jonesboro, Arkansas. For many students, this is a temporary situation and attendance will improve as they continue to adjust. For others, however, decreased attendance may ultimately lead to dropping out of school. It is imperative that educators reestablish bonds with survivors so they can begin to feel connected with and safe at school. Academic performance.  It should come as no surprise that academic ­performance decreases for some students following LSV. Because the students are working through the trauma and its accompanying sequelae, academics may take on less importance in their lives. Abraham Maslow (1954) developed a hierarchy of needs that can be used to conceptualize this issue. The base of the hierarchy is the ­physiological or survival needs, followed by safety needs. If these basics are not met, then the higher needs (such as self-actualization, which includes seeking ­fulfillment of one’s potential) will not be a priority. Students who have had their sense of safety shattered must come to realize they are once again safe at school before they can concentrate on their academics. Research has shown a positive correlation between students’ perceptions of safety at school and academic achievement (see, for example, Osher, Dwyer, &

Research Findings

19

Jimerson, 2006). The converse can also be stated: students who do not feel safe at school will have lower academic achievement. This relationship may partially be explained by the increased absenteeism noted for students who feel unsafe, and those who have experienced LSV. It may also be partially explained through an understanding of Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy, as noted above. To summarize, there are multiple social and emotional effects of LSV on students. We have examined psychological consequences of LSV, including fear and anxiety, depression, and a host of additional problems. Perhaps as a result of these ­psychological issues, students are also at greater risk for poor attendance and lower academic achievement. In the remainder of this chapter, we turn our attention to the impact of LSV on teachers and other school personnel.

Effects of Lethal School Violence on Faculty/Staff Schools have done a terrific job of developing crisis response plans and responding to LSV by providing support and mental health services to students (Telleen, Kim, Stewart-Nava, Pesce, & Maher, 2006). However, in our studies of school captivetaking situations, we found that this same support was not always provided to teachers who themselves had been taken captive (Daniels, Bradley, & Hays, 2007). In the remaining pages of this chapter, we will address some of the consequences of LSV on teachers, administrators, and others employed at the school. For the sake of brevity, we refer to any adult who works in the school simply as school personnel. We begin our discussion by turning again to fear and anxiety, followed by healthrelated concerns and end with the impact on work performance. Fear and anxiety.  Teachers and other school personnel are not immune from violence in schools. Each year the US Departments of Education and Justice release a report on school crime statistics. In a recent issue, DeVoe et al. (2004) reported that annually, from 1998 to 2002 “teachers were the victims of approximately 234,000 total nonfatal crimes at school, including 144,000 thefts and 90,000 violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault)” (p. 32). This represents an annual average rate of “32 thefts, 20 violent crimes, and two serious violent crimes per 1,000 teachers” (p. 32). These data suggest that “teachers may be three times more likely to be victims of violent crimes at schools than are students” (Kondrasuk, Greene, Waggoner, Edwards, & Nayak-Rhodes, 2005, p. 640, italics in original). Research has examined teachers’ (Binns & Markow, 1999; Fisher & Kettl, 2003) and school social workers’ (Astor, Behre, Fravil, & Wallace, 1997) perceptions of school violence. Fisher and Kettl found that 52% of teachers have feared a student, with 26% fearing a student within the past year. One consequence of teacher victimization is that the adults’ authority is undermined (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). When this occurs, discipline problems are likely to arise. Ultimately, students’ safety also is compromised when school personnel are victimized. Astor et  al. (1997) surveyed school social workers about their perceptions of school violence. They found that over 20% believed violence in their

20

2 Costs of Lethal School Violence

schools was a big or very big problem, while 37% believed it was a moderate problem. Thus, social workers believe, as does the American public (Rose & Gallup, 1998), that school violence is a problem. The victimization data support these negative perceptions of school safety. Astor et al. (1997) also asked school social workers about their personal experiences with violence and found that 35% had been assaulted or threatened during the past year. Most (77%) of these assaults or threats were carried out by students, but 49% reported that the assaulter or person making the threat was a parent. School personnel feel unsafe for good reason: They are more likely to be victimized at school than their students. As we discussed earlier in this chapter, the immediate response to a school shooting or other act of LSV varies. Collison et al. (1987) described the immediate reactions of school personnel to a school shooting. These included caring for the wounded, controlling students, clearing the halls, locking down the school, and restoring order. Newman et al. (2004) reported that as students and teachers were being shot at by Andrew Goldman and Mitchell Johnson at their middle school in Arkansas, teachers were dragging students to safety. Others began searching children for wounds and administering CPR where needed. In the days following LSV, school personnel are faced with the difficulty of being supportive and serving as role models to the students, while themselves dealing with an array of emotions. These emotions may include fear, worry and anxiety, insecurity, depression, and anger. In our study of school captive-taking situations (Daniels, Bradley, Cramer et al., 2007), one teacher who had been held captive in her classroom felt traumatized. She described how counselors were provided to the students in the hours after the event ended, but instead of counseling, she was invited to go home. Making matters worse, when she arrived the next morning, she was asked to call the parents of her students who had also been held captive to describe the event to them. In consequence, she felt repeatedly victimized, with no professional support ever offered. A similar finding was reported by National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2003 in schools at which a shooting occurred. Specifically, teachers at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas “were deeply affected by the shooting, but some felt ill prepared to deal with their own suffering because so much emphasis was put on preparing them to deal with their own students’ reactions” (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2003, p. 126). Similarly, when asked about their biggest regrets in the handling of the shooting in Paducah, Kentucky, administrators said “they did not give enough support to the teachers and other school staff ” (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004, p. 160). Although it is critical that students receive help and support following an act of LSV, that support cannot be given by traumatized or impaired school personnel. Careful screening must be conducted by mental health experts to assure that all members of the school are cared for and that only school personnel who are coping effectively are asked to be involved with supporting students. In considering the long-term impact of LSV on school personnel, we need to understand how they were functioning prior to the attack. Preexisting mental health concerns, family problems, substance abuse, and poor coping strategies may all

Research Findings

21

c­ ompound the effects of the event. Some studies have shown that family and marital problems came about after the LSV (e.g., Newman et al., 2004). Without background information, it is difficult to determine if these problems, and subsequent divorces, would have occurred even if a shooting had not taken place. However, we do know that external stressors and job stress, in particular, have a negative impact on some relationships (Perrone & Worthington, 2001). Job–family role strain has been shown to negatively impact relationship quality. It seems intuitively reasonable that school personnel who are struggling with the aftermath of LSV will experience strains in their relationships and that in some cases this added strain may lead to divorce. Some individuals may have preexisting mental health concerns that are ­exacerbated by the trauma. People who were previously traumatized and may be experiencing PTSD may feel retraumatized. Their subsequent reaction to, and ability to cope following LSV may be limited. School personnel suffering from depression may have their feelings of helplessness intensified as a result of the unpredictability of LSV. Research has also found that some individuals turn to alcohol or drugs to cope with the trauma of LSV (e.g., Newman et  al., 2004). Again, if these were people with preexisting substance use disorders, or who have been in recovery, the event may trigger a relapse or intensification of the substance use. Thus, although the above negative outcomes have been documented following LSV, we need to consider the individuals’ preexisting conditions. In addition to prior functioning, the severity of a person’s reaction to LSV may be related to factors reviewed earlier in this chapter. For example, if the person was a direct victim versus an indirect victim, the reaction may be stronger. If the person was close to fatally wounded victims (such as a fellow teacher or administrator or one’s student), we again would expect a more intensified reaction. In many states, youth who are charged with planning a school shooting are convicted of making terroristic threats. The parallels between school shootings and terrorism are many. Likewise, the psychological impact of being in a school during a rampage shooting is similar to what we see among survivors of terrorist attacks. Alexander and Klein (2005) reviewed the psychological aspects of terrorism. Because the aim of terrorism is to inflict terror on the populace, Alexander and Klein suggest that the psychological impact of a terrorist attack is greater than the impact from natural disasters. The most common disorders observed in samples who have been traumatized by terrorism are PTSD and depression. Following such incidents as the Oklahoma City and Nairobi bombings, as many as 35% of the survivors report PTSD (North et al., 2005). The research on psychological reactions of school personnel to LSV is virtually nonexistent. Newman et al. (2004) documented the effects on teachers of the rampage shooting at Jonesboro, Arkansas. “[E]ven the simplest acts force them to relive painful memories. Watching movies with guns, violence, or death reminds them of what they went through…Some teachers find themselves becoming hysterical during routine fire drills” (p. 212). Although it cannot be determined from this description if these teachers have developed PTSD, there are symptoms present – reliving of the event, reexperiencing the trauma as a result of similar stimuli (fire drills), and an overall negative impact on one’s daily functioning. This latter finding is particularly

22

2 Costs of Lethal School Violence

salient to the incident in Jonesboro: The shooters pulled the fire alarm, and as people exited the building they were fired upon. For some teachers at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas, their emotional problems did not emerge until later. Because they were so focused on helping their students cope, many of these teachers did not attend to their own reactions until sometime later (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). There were some teachers and administrators suffering from PTSD 3 years after the attack. Early intervention may have lowered the number of PTSD cases. The psychological sequelae of LSV that we have examined are intrapersonal in nature. However, there are also documented negative outcomes on relationships. For example, research has shown that combat soldiers’ trauma symptoms negatively effect marital/relationship satisfaction for both the soldiers and their partners (Goff, Crow, Reisbig, & Hamilton, 2007). Some school personnel at Jonesboro’s Westside Middle School experienced relationship difficulties after the attack (Newman et al., 2004). “Some marriages broke up, and other people rushed to marry for emotional support, only to divorce shortly afterward” (p. 213). Thus, the strain of having a partner deal with the range of emotions affiliated with an extreme trauma such as a rampage school shooting can lead to irreparable relationship problems. Unless the relationship is strong or counseling is obtained, the result could be divorce or ending of the relationship. These data point out that an act of LSV has far-reaching ­consequences for the victims and their families. As we have seen in this section, school personnel are not immune from symptoms of ASD or PTSD, depression, and other mental health concerns following LSV. Moreover, for some individuals an incident of LSV can cause or exacerbate intimate relationship problems. In the weeks and months following LSV, some individuals may experience symptoms of these and other disorders or the full-blown syndromes. These disorders may require professional intervention, sometimes entailing extensive psychotherapy to overcome. We have argued elsewhere (Daniels, Bradley, & Hays, 2007) for the psychological needs of school personnel who have been direct or indirect victims of school violence. Health-related concerns.  The effects of stress on physical health have long been known. For example, in a study of average working adults, Ng and Jeffery (2003) found that higher levels of stress were associated with poorer diet, less exercising, and increased reliance on cigarettes. The authors suggest that these unhealthy behaviors may moderate the effects of stress on disease. That is, stress may take a greater toll on one’s health when it is accompanied by engagement in unhealthy behaviors. Other research has linked stress to heart disease and cancer (Baum & Posluszny, 1999; Pandya, 1998; Tennant, 2000), such that higher levels of stress are related to a greater incidence of these diseases. In his seminal work on stress, Hans Selye identified the stages through which the body responds to stress (Selye, 1976). His theory, termed the general adaptation syndrome (GAS), posits that the initial reaction to a stressor is Alarm. This is the body’s preparation for fight or flight and includes a surge of adrenaline. The second and third stages of the GAS are Resistance and Exhaustion, respectively. In the exhaustion stage, the body begins to wear down and becomes subject to a number

Research Findings

23

of health-related concerns. Selye saw that “disease is not only suffering (pathos) but also toil (ponos) that is, the fight of the body to restore itself toward normal” (Selye, 1956, quoted in Pfaff, Martin, & Ribeiro, 2007, p. 316). Exposure to long-term stress thus leads to disease. More acute stress may also lead to complications, although not the extreme illnesses affiliated with chronic stress. If that acute stressor impacts every facet of the individual’s life, it is likely to lead to declines of overall health. Trauma is an extreme stressor and we expect to see a decline in overall health among trauma survivors. Research on trauma has generally focused on soldiers (Goff, Crow, Reisbig, & Hamilton, 2007), domestic violence and/or abuse (Margolin & Vickerman, 2007; Vickerman & Margolin, 2007), sexual assault (Nishith, Mechanic, & Resick, 2000), natural disasters (Osofsky, Osofsky, Kronenberg, Brennan, & Hansel, 2009), and terrorism (Alexander & Klein, 2005). The literature indeed reveals a host of negative health outcomes following trauma exposure, such as those mentioned above. Additional negative outcomes on health include fatigue, headaches, gastrointestinal difficulties, sleep disturbances, hypertension, and relationship problems. As we previously discussed, teachers and other school personnel do not need to be directly victimized by LSV to experience negative impacts. According to Donald Nims (2000), “teachers who have witnessed violent incidents, fear violence, or cope daily with disruptive students often exhibit symptoms of stress akin to combat soldiers; they can suffer from fatigue, headaches, stomach pains, and hypertension” (p. 4). These secondary victims of LSV may, therefore, experience similar symptoms following the trauma as the direct or primary victims. The health problems reported by school personnel after the Jonesboro, Arkansas shooting included insomnia, facial ticks, significant weight gains or losses, and stressinduced epilepsy (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). Newman et  al. (2004) documented additional health problems among the staff in Jonesboro. Young school personnel became sick or died. “[O]ne person had an aneurysm; another – only 40-years-old – was diagnosed with cancer” (p. 213). As we discussed above, some of these health concerns may have been preexistent, but in this study teachers believed it was the stress of the shooting that contributed. And we know from Selye’s (1976) work that these health problems may be stress induced. Although sparse, the existent literature indicates that school personnel experience a range of health-related problems in the aftermath of LSV. As we have previously indicated, it is, therefore, imperative that the school and community come together after an act of LSV to assure that affected school personnel obtain mental health interventions and treatment as soon as possible. We now turn our attention to a final set of problems that may arise; those we term work performance difficulties. Work performance.  So far we have discussed both the personal and interpersonal tolls that school violence takes on school personnel. Not all teachers live in fear, and not all teachers are victims of violence. However, the research supports that a high number of teachers are victimized and that many are fearful. In this section, we turn to the research on the impact of school violence on teachers’ work performance. Again, this is an area that is lacking in research, and interestingly, none of the studies examine the impact of school violence on administrators.

24

2 Costs of Lethal School Violence

One study of urban teachers in Pennsylvania (Fisher & Kettl, 2003) found that 56% of the respondents believed violence or threats of violence negatively impacted the quality of education they provide. Unfortunately, the authors did not expand upon this point, so the extent to which their work quality suffered is unknown. Future research needs to explore this finding to provide greater specificity of the impact fear has on teachers’ performance. An interesting study was conducted in France that explored school violence and teacher disengagement (Galand, Lecocq, & Philippot, 2007). They found that student misbehavior, verbal victimization, and perceptions of violence in the schools correlated with teacher anxiety, depressive, and somatic symptoms. Importantly, Galand et  al. (2007) found that the impact of school violence on teacher disengagement was moderated by teachers’ reports of well-being. According to the participants in this study, well-being was related to supportive colleagues and strong administrative leadership. Therefore, teachers who experienced violence in their schools were less likely to disengage from their work when they had a supportive work environment. This last finding has important implications for cultivating a safe school culture, which is a topic we will expand upon in Chap. 6. In a related study, Dworkin, Haney, and Telschow (1988) surveyed urban teachers in the USA who had been victimized at school. It was found that the highest rates of victimization were among Caucasian elementary school teachers. Not surprisingly, the greatest levels of stress were also reported by elementary teachers. With respect to the impact of fear on work, Dworkin et al. reported that fear exacerbates work stress. In their words, “Fear or victimization events may serve as “last strain events” which exaggerate other stressors” (p. 169). Finally, Smith and Smith (2006) conducted a qualitative study of 12 high school teachers who left their jobs in Detroit. Specifically, the authors were interested in teachers’ perceptions of violence and the role that played in their decision to quit. Teachers reported that fear of violence significantly increased their stress level. The types of violence they reported included both violence within the school and violence within the surrounding community. Of the 12 participants, ten cited fear of violence as the reason for their attrition. They believed that this violence had become “a tangible threat to their safety” (Smith & Smith, 2006, p. 40), and either quit or moved out of the inner city to a less violent community. In summary, fear of violence has been shown to increase teachers’ stress, which is related to several negative outcomes. First, we have seen that teachers report a decrease in the quality of their work (Fisher & Kettl, 2003) when they fear for their safety. Second, school violence is related to teacher professional disengagement, if the teachers do not have adequate support systems at work (Galand et al., 2007). In addition, teachers’ fears of violence seem to exacerbate their experiences of everyday stressors (Dworkin et  al., 1988). Finally, perceptions of school (and community) violence were cited as a frequent reason for teachers’ attrition away from urban schools (Smith & Smith, 2006).

References

25

Summary In this chapter, we have examined the social and psychological effects of LSV on students and school personnel. We focused on students’ development of ASD and PTSD, school attendance, and academic performance. We also highlighted the development of ASD and PTSD among school personnel who have experienced LSV, health-related problems, and work-performance difficulties. In Chap. 3, we now turn our attention to a potential precursor to LSV, bullying. We will define different types of bullying behavior, relate bullying to LSV, and address methods to curb bullying.

References Alexander, D. A., & Klein, S. (2005). The psychological aspects of terrorism: From denial to hyperbole. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, 557–562. American Psychiatric Association. (2004). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revised. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Ardis, C. (2004). School violence from the classroom teacher’s perspective. In W. L. Turk (Ed.), School crime and policing (pp. 131–150). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Astor, R. A., Behre, W. J., Fravil, K. A., & Wallace, J. M. (1997). Perceptions of school violence as a problem and reports of violent events: A national survey of school social workers. Social Work, 42, 55–68. Baum, A., & Posluszny, D. M. (1999). Health psychology: Mapping bio-behavioral contributions to health and illness. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 137–163. Binns, K. & Markow, D. (1999). The Metropolitan Life survey of the American teacher, 1999: Violence in America’s public schools – five years later. Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http:// www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,4132,P2323,00.html Bymer, M. (2009, April 14). Recovery after school violence. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network Speaker Series. Collison, B. B., Bowden, S., Patterson, M., Snyder, J., Sandall, S., & Wellman, P. (1987). After the shooting stops. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 389–390. Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., & Hays, M. (2007). The impact of school violence on school personnel: Implications for psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 652–659. Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., Cramer, D. P., Winkler, A., Kinebrew, K., & Crockett, D. (2007). The successful resolution of armed hostage/barricade events in schools: A qualitative analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 601–613. DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., et al. (2004). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2004. (NCES 2005-002/NCJ 2055290). Washington, DC: US Departments of Education and Justice, US Government Printing Office. Dworkin, A. G., Haney, C. A., & Telschow, R. L. (1988). Fear, victimization, and stress among urban public school teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 159–171. Fisher, K., & Kettl, P. (2003). Teachers’ perceptions of school violence. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 17, 79–83. Flouri, E. (2005). Post-traumatic stress disorder: What we have learned and what we still have not found out. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 373–379. Foa, E. B., Evans, D. L., Walsh, B. T., Seligman, M. E., Gur, R. E., O’Brien, C. P., et al. (2005). Treating and preventing adolescent mental health disorders: What we know and what we don’t know. New York: Oxord University Press.

26

2 Costs of Lethal School Violence

Fox, C., Roth, W. D., & Newman, K. (2003). A deadly partnership: Lethal violence in an Arkansas middle school. In M. H. Moore, C. V. Petrie, A. A. Braga, & B. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Deadly lessons: Understanding lethal school violence (pp. 101–131). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Galand, B., Lecocq, C., & Philippot, P. (2007). School violence and teacher professional disengagement. British Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 77, 465–477. Goff, B. S., Crow, J. R., Reisbig, A. M., & Hamilton, S. (2007). The impact of individual trauma symptoms of deployed soldiers on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 344–353. Kaminski, R. J., Koons-Witt, B. A., Thompson, N. S., & Weiss, D. (2010). The impacts of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings on fear of crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 88–98. Kondrasuk, J. N., Greene, T., Waggoner, J., Edwards, K., & Nayak-Rhodes, A. (2005). Violence affecting school employees. Education, 125, 638–647. Koplan, J. P., Autry, J. H., & Hyman, S. E. (2001). Surgeon General’s report on youth violence. Pittsburgh, PA: US Government Printing Office. Larkin, R. W. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. A. (2007). Posttraumatic stress in children and adolescents exposed to family violence: I. Overview and issues. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 613–619. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2003). In M. H. Moore, C. V. Petrie, A. A. Braga, & B. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Deadly lessons: Understanding lethal school violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Newman, K. S., Fox, C., Harding, D. J., Mehta, J., & Roth, W. (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. New York: Basic Books. Ng, D. M., & Jeffery, R. W. (2003). Relationships between perceived stress and health behaviors in a sample of working adults. Health Psychology, 6, 638–642. Nims, D. R. (2000). Violence in our schools: A national crisis. In D. S. Singh & C. B. Aspy (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A practical guide for counselors (pp. 3–20). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Nishith, P., Mechanic, M. B., & Resick, P. A. (2000). Prior interpersonal trauma: The contribution to current PTSD symptoms in femal rape vicitms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 20–25. North, C. S., Pfeffenbaum, B., Narayanan, P., Thielman, S., McCoy, G., Dumont, C., et al. (2005). Comparison of post-disaster psychiatric disorders after terrorist bombings in Nairobi and Oklahoma City. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 487–493. Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2006). Safe, supportive, and effective schools: Promoting school success to reduce school violence. In S. R. Jimerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 51–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Osofsky, H. J., Osofsky, J. D., Kronenberg, M., Brennan, A., & Hansel, T. C. (2009). Posttraumatic stress symptoms in children after Hurricane Katrina: Predicting the need for mental health services. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2, 212–220. Pandya, D. (1998). Psychological stress, emotional behavior and coronary heart disease. Comprehensive Therapy, 24, 265–271. Perrone, K. M., & Worthington, E. L. (2001). Factors influencing ratings of marital quality by individuals within dual-career marriages: A conceptual model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 3–9. Pfaff, D. W., Martin, E. M., & Ribeiro, A. C. (2007). Relations between mechanisms of CNS arousal and mechanisms of stress. Stress, 10, 316–325. Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1998). The 30th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 41–56. Rowen, B. (2001). Coping with school violence: An eyewitness account. In M. Shafii & S. L. Shafii (Eds.), School violence: Assessment, management, prevention (pp. 117–127). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

References

27

Selye, H. (1976). Stress in health and disease. London: Butterworths. Shen, Y.-J., & Sink, C. A. (2002). Helping elementary-age children cope with disasters. Professional School Counseling, 5, 322–330. Smith, D. L., & Smith, B. J. (2006). Perceptions of violence: The views of teachers who left urban schools. The High School Journal, 89, 34–42. Sullivan, M. L., & Guerette, R. T. (2003). The copycat factor: Mental illness, guns, and the shooting incident at Heritage High School, Rockdale county, Georgia. In M. H. Moore, C. V. Petrie, A. A. Braga, & B. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Deadly lessons: Understanding lethal school violence (pp. 25–69). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Telleen, S., Kim, Y. O., Stewart-Nava, H., Pesce, R. C., & Maher, S. (2006). Implementing comprehensive safe school plans: Effective school and community mental health collaborations to reduce youth violence. In S. R. Jimerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 567–586). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tennant, C. (2000). Work stress and coronary heart disease. Journal of Cardiovascular Risk, 7, 273–276. Vickerman, K. A., & Margolin, G. (2007). Posttraumatic stress in children and adolescents exposed to family violence: II. Treatment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 620–628.

Chapter 3

Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

Overview In creating a safe, effective learning environment parents, teachers, and professionals must be aware of and concerned with nonlethal acts of school violence, such as school bullying. Although these acts are far less likely to result in serious injury or death, bullying can cause significant harm and distress to the entire school community. In this chapter, we will give a brief overview of school bullying and its effects. We will focus on the prevalence and impact of bullying on the entire school community and will also provide strategies for dealing with bullying. Bullying at school is not a new phenomenon. In fact some researchers contend that this problem has been around forever. Years ago, school bullying probably looked a little different than it does today. At one time these behaviors were considered to be a “normal” part of growing up, and no one was seriously concerned by it. And actually, up until the early 1990s, parents, teachers, and other school professionals still gave little thought to the issue of school bullying. Indeed, some parents and adults considered bullying to be a “rite of passage” (American Psychological Association, October 29 http://www.psychologymatters.org/­bullying. html) and “character building” (http://www.pathwayscourses.samhsa.gov/bully/ bully_intro_pg1.htm). Today, however, a number of people including students, parents, and school professionals are extremely concerned about school bullying. Although efforts have been made to decrease the violence and harassment occurring at school, evidence from numerous studies provides startling statistics about the frequency of school bullying. Such statistics would suggest that bullying is quite common and not decreasing (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992; Limber et al., 1997). Some studies suggest that more than one-third of middle school students have felt unsafe at school due to bullying and harassment (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Olweus, 1991). In a study of junior high and high school students, nearly 90% of students acknowledged they had witnessed a student being bullied; even more alarming is that 77% of these students reported being victimized by another student at school. Approximately 10% of high school students who dropped out of school reported fear of being

J.A. Daniels and M.C. Bradley, Preventing Lethal School Violence, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3_3, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

29

30

3 Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

harassed or attacked as the number one reason for not returning to school (Greenbaum, Turner, & Stephens, 1988). And although we would like to believe that such behaviors do not begin until middle and high school, research tells us otherwise. In a study of 4th through 6th graders, 25% of students reported that within the 3  months preceding the study, they had bullied another student with some regularity (Limber et al., 1997). Similarly, in the spring of 1998, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development supported a national survey of adolescent behaviors among US 6th through 10th grade students. Coordinated by the World Health Organization, the survey was part of a cross-national research project involving 30 countries. Results indicated that 10.6% of the sample admitted to bullying others “sometimes” and 8.8% reported bullying once a week or more. In addition, 8.5% of subjects reported being bullied “sometimes” and 8.4% reported being bullied at least once a week. Results from this survey indicated that incidence of youth bullying moderately frequently and those bullying frequently are over two million and over 1.5 million students, respectively (Nansel et al., 2001).

Research Findings Types of Bullying When bullying first captured people’s attention, parents and educators were concerned with overt, observable forms of harassment. These behaviors became known as direct forms of school bullying and as such research focused on physical, aggressive behaviors such as hitting, kicking, punching, tripping, and other related behaviors. However, over time we have learned that school bullying takes many forms, sometimes more indirect and covert. Research further distinguishes between physical and relational forms of bullying. And, most recently, we have seen a surge in a fairly new dimension of bullying: cyber- or internet bullying. Each of these forms of bullying will be discussed in greater detail. Although bullying takes many forms, most all of these behaviors can be captured into two broad categories: overt or direct bullying and covert or indirect forms of bullying (Bullock, 2002; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993). Overt forms of bullying are easily identifiable and are clearly meant to hurt or harm another person (Bullock, 2002; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993). This type of bullying might include behaviors such as hitting, kicking, pushing, stealing items from another, and displaying very rough and intimidating behaviors. Covert forms of bullying, sometimes referred to as indirect bullying, are more ambiguous behaviors and can be difficult for others to observe. Indirect bullying typically includes behaviors such as name calling, making faces, teasing, taunting, and making threats against another student. Because these actions or intentions are covert and often ambiguous, dealing with these incidents becomes tricky. The ambiguous nature of these behaviors makes it difficult to ­identify and prove the harmful intent. Additionally, it can be even trickier to ­intervene in such incidents.

Research Findings

31

Social aggression, also known as relational aggression, is another form of covert bullying. Relational aggression involves using peer and social relationships as a means for abusing or harming others (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Sometimes social aggression is subtle, less obvious, and also more difficult to spot. Relational bullying includes behaviors such as ignoring or excluding others, name calling, gossiping about others, and behaviors that damage or destroy another person’s friendships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). And although these behaviors may be more difficult to observe, their impact can be just as devastating as more overt behaviors. Unfortunately, however, although numerous states have adopted policies and legislation regarding physical and direct aggression, few schools have adopted policies that address or protect against verbal assaults, peer exclusion, and other forms of relational aggression. In the last decade and a half, relational aggression has been studied across samples of early school-aged children through young adolescents (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). These studies have used assessment techniques such as self-reports, teacher and peer reports, and naturalistic observations (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Results from these studies have shown relational aggression is more prevalent among girls than boys (Crick, 1996; Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and specifically that females are more likely to engage in name calling, spreading rumors, and excluding others, typically other females, from their peer group (Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996). Males, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in overt, physical forms of bullying. Reactive vs. proactive bullying.  Researchers also began to distinguish between proactive bullying and reactive bullying. Proactive bullying includes behaviors displayed in the absence of provocation. Simply stated, proactive bullies display aggressive behaviors even when they do not feel threatened by someone or something and instead bully for other reasons. Researchers conceptualize proactive bullying to be instrumental, or behaviors used for self-serving purposes. Reactive bullying, however, is quite different. Reactive bullying includes behaviors displayed when a student feels provoked or threatened by someone or something (Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Poulin & Boivin, 2000). These behaviors have been described as impulsive and defensive in nature (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992). This type of bullying is often followed by a visually intense physical reaction such as hitting or punching, kicking, and other such behaviors (Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997; Hubbard et al., 2002). Factor analyses and correlational studies have repeatedly shown a distinction between proactive and reactive bullies, particularly in children and adolescents (Poulin & Boivin, 2000; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). Reactive bullies tend to experience social, academic, and emotional problems (Dodge et al., 1997; Poulin & Boivin, 2000; Schwartz et al., 1998; Waschbusch, Willoughby, & Pelham, 1998). Interestingly, proactive aggressors are more likely to engage in criminal activity and substance abuse in adolescence and into adulthood (Pulkkinen, 1996; Vitaro, Brendgen, & Tremblay, 2000). Recent research, however, has shown that proactive and reactive bully groups are not always mutually exclusive; some students are both proactively and reactively aggressive.

32

3 Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

Cyber-bullying.  Technology is now being used as the newest medium for which to bully others. Cyber-bullying is a relatively new construct and captures this very thing – the use of technology to hurt or harm others. Today children and adolescents are using internet sources such as Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, blogs, and other social internet sites to pick on and harass each other. Similarly, cell phones allow the use of text, picture, and video messages to harm others. And although the harmful effects of such practices are just as, if not more, horrific than other types of bullying, research on cyber-bullying is surprisingly scarce. Because research is so limited, there is some question about what truly constitutes “cyber-bullying.” A research article published in 2008 reiterates the “lack of conceptual clarity” surrounding cyber-bullying and the negative impact this may be creating for our youth (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). These same authors offer the following criteria for cyber-bullying: 1 . The perpetrator’s actions are intended to hurt the victim 2. The victim must perceive these actions as hurtful 3. The actions must be part of a repetitive pattern of actions, offline or on 4. A power imbalance must exist between the perpetrator and victim. Educators and researchers have also attempted to get accurate statistics of the frequency of such behaviors. In 2004, i-SAFE America, an internet safety education foundation, surveyed over 1,500 students nationwide, in the 4th through 8th grades, about their experiences with cyber-bullying. Results from this survey indicated over 57% of students had received hurtful or angering things about themselves online, and 53% of students admitted to saying mean or hurtful things to someone online. And equally startling, 58% of these students reported that they had not told their parents or any adult about the harassment they had faced online (National i-Safe Survey, 2004). This may explain why most parents believe cyber-bullying is uncommon and that their children would never treat people this way (Keith & Martin, 2005). Some researchers have also found significant gender differences in the use of cyberbullying. Relational aggression, which we already acknowledged was a form of bullying most common among girls, uses friendships and social relationships as a way to hurt others. Research has found that girls more often than boys use text messaging, online conversations, and emails to inflict harm to others, typically other girls (Keith & Martin, 2005). A survey of girls ages 12–18 years indicated that nearly 75% spend the majority of their time online in chat rooms, sending instant messages or emails (Migliore, 2003). Boys, on the other hand, are more likely to make threats online and use websites to target others (Keith & Martin, 2005). With this use of technology, bullies can make life miserable for students quickly, publically, and all day long. Although more research is needed, we know enough to understand the seriousness of this new form of bullying and the great need to protect our children from it.

Characteristics of School Bullies So who are “school bullies?” Are certain students more likely to bully than others? Or are certain personality traits or characteristics more typical of students who bully?

Research Findings

33

We think it is fair to say that most of us imagine “a trouble maker” or “the bad kid” when we picture a school bully. And we picture this “type” of kid because that is what makes sense to us – this is the only type of kid who could cause such harm to others. But is this the case? Are all school bullies alike? And are all bullies unruly, disrespectful kids who create havoc everywhere they go? Researchers have given a lot of time and energy to answering these questions. Social and personal values.  Some researchers have argued that “values” could play a significant role in students who bully others, and specifically why these students behave in such ways (Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Researchers have hypothesized that school bullies have different perspectives on the cost of and the benefit for using aggressive behaviors (Sutton et al., 1999). More specifically, Sutton et al. pointed out that bullies evaluate and “value” aggressive behaviors as acceptable simply because these behaviors “work,” make things “easier” and make them “feel good.” Sutton et al. (1999) argued that the noticeable lack of empathy shown by bullies is even greater evidence of how their value system differs. They stated that in their decision to use aggressive behaviors, bullies do not report any empathy or concern for their peers. For some, lack of empathy for others’ feelings and well-being in conjunction with the justification of aggression simply because “it works” is morally wrong (Sutton et al., 1999). Other researchers (e.g., Baumeister, 2001; Marsh, Parada, Yeung, & Healey, 2001), however, dispute these hypotheses and caution against accepting such notions. These researchers are quick to point out that Sutton et al. (1999) have no hard evidence or research to support their claims. Sutton et al. propose that these hypotheses based on social cognitive decision-making research. However, although this research base is extensive, no social cognitive decision-making model addresses the issue of values. Instead, these models outline a five or six step decision-making process which they believe adolescents use in social situations. These decisionmaking steps include, but are not limited to, goal selection, behavioral selection, and the expected outcomes for using such behaviors. Sutton et al. simply postulate that bullies make the decision to act aggressively in the face of hurting others. The Social Information Processing model (Crick & Dodge, 1996), which Sutton et al. specifically refer to, is completely “value” free. This model, along with most all cognitive decision-making models, does not address moral concepts such as fairness, justice, and “right” or “wrong”. Low self-esteem.  When attempting to conceptualize students who bully their peers, teachers, school professionals, and researchers first tagged self-esteem as an important variable. Many people believed that students who bullied others did so in part because of low self-esteem. The research findings regarding self-esteem and bullies have been mixed, at best. A survey of middle and high school students indicated that students believed ­bullying occurred because of the bully’s lack of self-esteem (Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1993). O’Moore and Hillery (1989) also examined self-esteem, along with other psychosocial characteristics in children. Results from this study, indicated that children who more frequently engaged in bullying behaviors had lower self-esteem than students who bullied less frequently. In more recent research, low self-esteem

34

3 Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

and aggressive behaviors have also been found in older populations. In a study of college students, D’Zurilla, Chang, and Sanna (2003) found low self-esteem to be related to feelings of anger and hostility toward others. Similarly, Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, and Moffitt (2005) found that low self-esteem was related to externalizing problems such as aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency. But not all studies support these findings; and extensive research has been conducted on the relationship between aggression and self-esteem. Some of the first research of bullying and self-esteem began in Europe in the early 1980s. Bjorkqvist et  al. investigated the relationship between bullying behaviors and self-esteem. Results from their work showed that the average school bully had a relatively positive self-concept (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1992). Olweus carried out several major studies (1978, 1981, 1992) using measures such as stress hormones, personality tests, mother and peer ratings, teacher assessments, and other assessments. These empirical investigations, all of boys between the ages of 12 and 16, indicated bullies had unusually low levels of anxiety and low-to-average levels of insecurity. These results also indicated that bullies did not suffer from poor self-esteem. In fact, some studies indicated that contrary to popular belief, bullies reported positive views of themselves (Olweus, 1993). School bullies may achieve a sense of personal power and may gain social reinforcement from their peers for using aggressive behaviors toward others (Marsh et al., 2001). Given these results, Olweus concluded that if in fact school bullies experienced significant amounts of insecurity or low self-esteem, it was a much different experience than that of their victims. In addition, more recent studies have linked school bullying with inflated levels of self-esteem. Studies in the early 2000s showed that students with an inflated self-esteem were more likely to display aggressive behaviors when compared with students with average or low levels of self-esteem (Baumeister, 2001; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). In the same vein and even more surprising were results indicating that aggressive school children tend to overestimate their social competence and the quality of their relationships with their peers (Marsh et al., 2001). Although school bullies might perceive themselves to have good relationships with, and to be well liked by, their peers, that is not to say the feeling is mutual. A great deal of research has examined the link between aggressive behaviors and peer relationships, peer acceptance, and social status, or popularity. Like much of the research on school bullying, findings across these studies have been mixed as well. Sociometric status research has clearly shown aggressive youths are more likely to be rejected by their peers (Asher & Coie, 1990; Coie & Dodge, 1998). This same research also showed social skill deficits among aggressive youths (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). These findings are important for a number of reasons but particularly because negative peer status has been linked to a variety of maladaptive outcomes later in life (Coie & Dodge, 1983). However, other research results suggest that bullies do not fair too badly in their social relationships; in fact some studies indicate aggressive students experience positive peer relationships (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989; Estell, Cairns, Farmer, & Cairns, 2002; Farmer & Hollowell, 1994). Beginning as early as preschool and extending throughout their school years, most aggressive

Research Findings

35

youths belong to a peer group and usually befriend “like” peers (Cairns et al., 1989; Estell et al., 2002; Farmer & Hollowell, 1994). In fact, studies have shown aggressive peers to have as many reciprocating friends as their nonaggressive counterparts (Cairns et al.; Farmer & Hollowell, 1994). And one study even found school bullies to be more popular than their nonaggressive peers (Rigby, 1996). So, as is the case with much of the research about school bullying, findings are confusing and ­contradictory at best. Regardless, the effects of bullying can be devastating.

Negative Effects of Bullying On students. Numerous studies have outlined the negative consequences for victims of school bullying. Persistent exposure to bullying behaviors has been associated with behavioral and emotional threats to healthy development (Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1991). A number of researchers have suggested that peer victimization plays a significant role in the development of childhood and adolescent depression. For example, a study by Gilbert (1992) indicated that social psychological experiences similar to those of peer victimization may play a significant role in the development of depression and other forms of psychosocial maladjustment. Other researchers have shown that threats to social bonds, or relational aggression, can lead to anxiety, loneliness, or depression. Students victimized by school bullies are at risk for continued social rejection, depression, impaired self-esteem (Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1994), and difficulty building and maintaining secure relationships (Bullock, 2002). In addition, some victims of childhood bullies respond with retaliation, perpetuating the cycle of aggression, and violence against others (Olweus, 1993). Persons who engage in bullying behaviors are also at increased risk for future negative outcomes. Some research has shown that bullying behavior is a sign of potential aggressive or violent behavior elsewhere in a child’s life (Bullock, 2002). Other research findings indicated that students who bully may lack empathy and problem-solving skills and may learn to respond to conflict with physical aggression and violence (Loeber & Dishion, 1984; Vladimir & Brubach, 2000). The few studies that have examined the long-term consequences of bullying behaviors reported that individuals with a history of bullying are four times more likely to be convicted of criminal activity by their late 20s (Olweus, 1992). On school climate.  In addition to the negative impact bullying has on individuals, it also has a negative effect on the climate and culture of the school. Bullying can create a climate of fear and intimidation at school. Not only do victims of school bullies experience this fear, but also do teachers and administrators (Bosworth et al., 1999). To succeed in school, students must feel safe, secure, and comfortable in their environment (Bullock, 2002). Students who feel threatened physically, psychologically, or emotionally are hindered in their ability to achieve academic success (Bullock, 2002; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993). Teachers and administrators also may feel threatened by school bullies, therefore influencing their effectiveness as well.

36

3 Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

Bullying As It Relates to Acts of Lethal School Violence Perhaps part of the reason school bullying, or nonlethal acts of school violence, has garnered more attention in recent years is due to the highly publicized acts of targeted, lethal school violence. As we discussed in greater detail in Chap. 1, everyone remembers the horror of Columbine, Jonesboro, Arkansas, West Paducah, Kentucky and unfortunately, the list goes on. In the wake of such atrocities and the information gleaned from these incidents, people began to contemplate the connection to the “not so publicized,” daily occurrences of school bullying. In this next section, we will explore the possible connection of bullying to lethal acts of school violence. During adolescence, peer and social relationships are one of the most important, and sometimes most influential, relationships for a teen. We know that during this developmental period, adolescents spend most of their time with their peers are strongly swayed by the opinion of their peers, and are beginning to individuate from their parents and other adult figures. Some research has shown that adolescents’ behavior choices are more likely to be influenced by what their peers might think than what other adults might think (Bradley, 2007). Interestingly, Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, and Modzeleski (2002), in their final report of the Safe School Initiative, indicated that almost 75% of school perpetrators felt persecuted against, bullied, threatened, attacked, or injured by others. In several situations, the attackers experienced severe long-term bullying and harassment. In some cases, the assailants’ experiences of being bullied appeared to be a significant factor in the decision to make an attack at school. It is also important to note that there are also reports that many of the school shooters were not bullied, but were instead the bullies (e.g., Larkin, 2007). Supervisory Special Agent Terri Royster of the FBI is a juvenile crime expert and has stated that many shooters have used being bullied as a ready excuse for their actions (personal communication, 2008). Regardless of whether school shooters were bullied or were the bullies, there is a link that needs to be considered when developing a safe school community. Bullying cannot be tolerated.

Programs to Prevent Bullying at School In an effort to deter bullying and other violence at schools, school professionals have used a number of different interventions and programs. In the final section of this chapter, we will discuss some of the strategies schools have used and the programs that have been implemented. In particular, we will describe some “best practices” and “evidence-based” programs. We will discuss the evaluation and effectiveness of these interventions and what school professionals need to consider when developing their own prevention strategies. Common or traditional interventions.  When handling school bullying and other discipline issues at school, specifically issues related to safety, some strategies are fairly common and widely accepted among schools. Things like detention, being

Research Findings

37

sent to the principal’s office, holding parent conferences, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, and sometimes expulsion are some of the fairly common or traditional “consequences” to bullying or issues of physical aggression. In the late 1990s, research examined principals’ responses to bullying or other school safety issues (Heaviside, Rowand, Williams, & Farris, 1998). Results of this study indicated 39% of school principals in the US self-reported expelling, suspending, or transferring one or more students that school year due to fighting at school. In addition, 27% said that they used these same intervention strategies (suspension, expulsion, and school transfer) when a student brought a weapon to school. In the late 1990s, and early 2000s, another common strategy that swept through schools across the USA was Zero Tolerance policies. The specifics of these policies varied slightly from school to school, but the premise is that any violation of school rules, particularly in regards to safety, would not be tolerated. No matter how small the violation, the circumstances or the possible “explanations” for the violation, schools would enforce very strict rules and consequences for breaking such rules. We will return to this issue and examine it in greater detail in Chap. 7. But what do we know about these commonly used discipline tools? Very little research has examined the effectiveness of such strategies. In fact, some researchers and educators suggest that other interventions could be more useful and much easier to implement. For example, some schools have used metal detectors and/or security or surveillance cameras in the hallways, locker rooms, and bathrooms. In addition to obvious concerns over privacy issues, the use of such devices has received mixed reviews. Some researchers suggest that the use of metal detectors may have deterred students from bringing weapons to school (Astor, Meyer, Benbenishty, Marachi, & Rosemond, 2005). Rates of student expulsion due to firearms (brought to school grounds) decreased fairly significantly from the 96/97 school year to the 98/99 school year (US Department of Education and US Department of Justice, 1999). However, a direct link between the decrease in suspensions and the use of metal detectors cannot be made due to the limitations of research. And some argue that metal detectors and surveillance cameras are a detriment to the school climate and the overall learning environment. Finally, these are very costly to purchase and to use, thus limiting their potential impact. Programs used in schools.  In a nationwide study of school violence prevention/ intervention programs, 78% of responding principals reported having some program in their school to address school violence (Kaufman, Chen, Choy, Ruddy, & Miller et al. 2000). Of these interventions, 11% reported using a program that lasted 1 day or less. Just fewer than 25% of the schools reported using an on-going violence prevention program, whereas 43% of schools reported using both on-going programs and 1-day programs. The differences in the number of days in prevention programs call into question several points. First, what exactly is the purpose of each program? Secondly, what outcomes are schools hoping to achieve with these different types of programs (i.e., what can come from a 1 day or less violence prevention program)? But perhaps most importantly, and a major flaw in this research, is the question of what constitutes something to be a “prevention” or “intervention” program? The nature of this research does not allow for that answer. So, in considering these data,

38

3 Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

it is important to understand that a “violence prevention program” to one principal might mean suspension or expulsion. However, other principals might have only considered evidence-based practices and programs. And again, the purpose and desired outcome of each of these programs must be very different. A number of different independent organizations and sources have begun to assess and evaluate school violence prevention programs. Organizations such as The American Youth Policy Forum, Center for Mental Health Services, DOE Safe Schools, the Surgeon General’s Report, and other independent organizations disseminated information about the effectiveness of the multitude of intervention/ prevention programs schools can choose from. Their assessment of these programs resulted in three rating categories: effective, promising, or noteworthy. A program is deemed Effective, if it has been well implemented and proven to result in positive outcomes after being evaluated by rigorous research standards, including experimental and control group studies. A Promising program is one that has been implemented well and shown to have positive improvements that are scientifically defensible but has yet to be evaluated by rigorous research standards. And finally, a program is considered Noteworthy when positive improvements have been seen without the use of research evaluations. In this next section, we will highlight programs that have been evaluated by sources such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Blueprints for Violence Prevention, and other sources listed below. Due to space limitations, we will highlight programs rated as Effective, but cannot include an exhaustive list of these programs. Programs rated as effective. The Seattle Social Development Project (Astor et  al., 2005) aims to reduce aggressive and antisocial behaviors, drug use, and sexual promiscuity. It also works to improve communication between families and schools and increase school attachment for students and families. This program, used in 1st through 12th grade, has only been implemented in the Seattle area and provides specialized training to parents as well as to school districts and teachers. For example, during 1st and 2nd grades, parents attend seven family management training ­sessions. But during the 2nd and 3rd grades, parents receive an additional four ­training sessions about communicating with their child and their school and are given tips on how best to support their children’s academic efforts. During the 5th and 6th grades, parents receive training on how to talk to their children about drugs and alcohol and give their kids the skills they need to resist using drugs and alcohol. The Seattle Project also provides training for teachers. First grade teachers are trained specifically on communication, decision making, negotiation, and conflict resolution techniques. Sixth grade teachers, however, receive specialized training on refusal skills and how to help kids avoid drugs and alcohol. All teachers are trained to use techniques such as classroom management, interactive teaching, and cooperative learning. As evidenced by data collected, the implementation of this program has resulted in significant positive outcomes. At the end of 2nd grade, students involved in this program, when compared with a control group, showed significantly lower levels

Research Findings

39

of aggression, antisocial, externalizing, and other destructive behaviors. At the end of their 5th grade year, students involved in this program were less likely to be involved with alcohol or display delinquent behaviors, had greater family attachment and higher levels of attachment and commitment to school than peers in the control group. Similar findings resulted at the end of their 6th grade year. And perhaps most remarkable, at the end of their 11th grade year, students had less involvement in violent delinquent behaviors, sexual activity, and alcohol use. The Fast Track Families and Schools Together Program (Astor et  al., 2005) ­created two separate programs for different student populations. One of the Fast Track programs is focused on 1st through 5th graders and uses a curriculum-based program to teach students a specific skill set to help reduce aggressive and delinquent behaviors and to improve academic performance. This same program also aims to improve the overall school climate. The program teaches skills in problem solving, communication, and cooperation. It also provides tips for staying focused and on task. The Fast Track program was rigorously evaluated, separating classrooms into intervention and control groups and utilizing hierarchical linear modeling to assess outcomes across each group. The intervention schools received numerous classroom guidance lessons tailored specifically to grade level. Teachers attended a 2+ day training to implement direct classroom instruction, lead class discussions, and use stories and videos to teach students communication, self-control, and other inter- and intrapersonal skills. Children in intervention schools demonstrated lower levels of aggressive, hyperactive, and disruptive behaviors. Intervention schools demonstrated more positive classroom environments, as well as more positive ­overall school climates. The second Fast Track program is an on-going program that follows students from 1st through 10th grade. This program helps high-risk students, as identified as early as kindergarten by teacher and parent ratings on the Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). There are multiple pieces to this program including enrichment modules for children and their parents, friendship groups for students, and academic programming. Parents also meet with coordinators to ­discuss strategies for emphasizing the skills being taught to their children. Each piece of the program serves to help kids better understand their and others’ ­emotions, communicate and build friendships, problem solve, and have better ­self-control. Similar to the other Fast Track program, this program was rigorously evaluated. A number of reliable and valid assessment measures were used (i.e., CBCL, Child Behavior Change measure, Teacher Report Form, etc.) and data were also collected from parent and peer ratings of students’ involvement in aggressive activities or behaviors. Results showed that students in the intervention schools had higher scores on emotion recognition, emotional coping, and social problem solving. These same students also showed lower rates of aggressive behaviors, spent greater amount of time in positive peer interactions, received higher social preference scores, and earned higher grades in language arts classes. The final program that we will discuss is the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, a comprehensive, multilevel, school-wide program designed to reduce and prevent bullying among students in elementary, middle, and junior high schools

40

3 Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

(Astor et al., 2005). As part of a government initiative, the program is offered to all of Norway’s public schools. A growing number of schools in the USA now use the program, which was identified by the University of Colorado’s Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence as one of 11 Blueprint or Model Programs for Violence Prevention. Six large-scale evaluations of the program over a period of more than 20  years have yielded significant positive results. Some of the most significant results have been substantial reduction (approximately 30–50%) in the frequency of students’ reports of being bullied and bullying others, significant reductions in students’ reports of vandalism, theft, drunkenness, and truancy. Additionally, results have shown a significant improvement in the school climate, more positive social relationships, and more positive attitude toward school. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is built on four key principles of the school environment. The principles lead to developing a school environment that is characterized by: 1 . Warmth, positive interest and involvement from adults 2. Firm Limits on unacceptable behavior 3. Consistent enforcement of nonpunitive, nonphysical sanctions for unacceptable behaviors and violation of rules 4. Adults who behave as authority figures and positive role models. The program works at the school, the classroom, and the individual levels, and important goals are to change the “opportunity and reward structures” for bullying behavior. The idea is by doing so will result in fewer opportunities and rewards for bullying. To date, the worldwide data support these aims.

General Violence Prevention Principles So we have acknowledged different tools and strategies (i.e., detentions, suspensions, metal detectors, etc.) used by schools to deter acts of violence. We have also looked at specific programs implemented within the schools. But are there general principles of school violence prevention? And what can we, as researchers and educators, learn from these general principles? The Safe School Initiative Report (Fein, Vossekuil, Pollack, Borum, Modzeleski, & Reddy, 2002) suggests productive, proactive measures that educators, law enforcement officials, and other professionals can take to decrease the likelihood of violence occurring at school. The Report specifically indicated that professionals may focus their efforts on the prevention of violence within two principal areas: 1. Develop the capacity to identify and evaluate information that might indicate the risk of a potential violent attack occurring; 2. The employment of the results of these risk evaluations or threat assessments for developing strategies for preventing possible school-based attacks.

References

41

In addition to this, in 2005, multiple researchers collaborated on a project to determine the best practices and programs for school safety and safety interventions (Astor et al., 2005). This groundbreaking research assessed the effectiveness of the numerous school safety tools, interventions, and programs being used by schools around the world. Their research highlighted seven core components and ­implementation principals of effective intervention programs. These seven core components of effective programs are as follows. 1. Raise the awareness and responsibility of teachers, students, and parents regarding the type of violence in their schools. 2. Create clear guidelines and rules the entire school population must follow. 3. Target various social systems in the school and clearly communicate to the entire school community the procedures that must be followed before, during, and after violent events. 4. Focus on getting school staff, students, and parents involved in the program. 5. Use interventions that fit easily into the workings and the mission of the school. 6. Use faculty, staff, and parents to plan, implement, and sustain the program. 7. Increase the monitoring and supervision in nonclassroom areas (such as lunch rooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, playgrounds, etc).

Summary In this chapter, we provided an overview of school bullying, including the various forms that this violence may take. Of the factors implicated as contributing to lethal school violence, bullying has received the greatest research and policy attention. While the negative effects of bullying are clear, there are additional variables that warrant consideration in preventing LSV. These include the school culture, studentto-school attachments, and student engagement, among others. In Chap. 4, we will explore the current knowledge about averting LSV; our discussion will include some of these additional variables related to LSV.

References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. American Psychological Association. Retrieved October 29, from (http://www.­psychologymatters. org/bullying.html), (http://pathwayscourses.samhsa.gov/bully/bully_intro_pg1.htm) Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). The rejected child. New York: Cambridge University Press. Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Rosemond, M. (2005). School safety interventions: Best practices and programs. Children & Schools, 27, 17–32. Baumeister, R. (2001). Violent pride: Do people turn violent because of self-hate, or self-love? Scientific American, 284, 96–101.

42

3 Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic. Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 341–362. Bradley, M. C. (2007). The social information and emotional processes of middle school students who bully. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Bullock, J. R. (2002). Bullying among children. Childhood Education, 78, 130–133. Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariepy, J.-L. (1989). Growth and aggression: I Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320–330. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status: a fiveyear longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261–282. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 779–861). New York: Wiley. Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327. Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression. How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 1003–1014. Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33, 579–588. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms on reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-pyschological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social information processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146–1158. Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 37–51. Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349–371. Donnellan, B. M., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Low self-esteem is related to aggression, anti-social behavior, and delinquency. Psychological Science, 16, 328–335. D’Zurilla, T. J., Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2003). Self-esteem and social problem solving as predictors of aggression in college students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 424–441. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Emotion and social behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 119–150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 326–333. Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383. Estell, D. B., Cairns, R. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2002). Aggression in inter-city early elementary classrooms: Individual and peer group configurations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 52–76. Farmer, T. W., & Hollowell, J. L. (1994). Social networks in mainstream classrooms: Social affiliations and behavioral characteristics of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 143–155. Fein, R. A., Vossekuil, B., Pollack, W. S., Borum, R., Modzeleski, W., & Reddy, M. (2002). Threat assessment in schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and to creating safe school climates. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe

References

43

and Drug Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center, Washington, DC. Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The evolution of powerlessness. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum. Greenbaum, S., Turner, B., & Stephens, R. D. (1988). Set straight on bullies. Los Angeles, CA: Pepperdine University Press. Hazler, R. J., Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1993). What do kids say about bullying? Education Digest, 58, 16–20. Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in US public schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (ED). Hoover, H. J., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5–16. Hubbard, J. A., Smithmyer, C. M., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Flanagan, K. D., Dearing, K. F., et  al. (2002). Observational, physiological, and self-report measures of children’s anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive aggression. Child Development, 73, 1101–1118. Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S. P., Ruddy, S. A., & Miller, A. K., et  al. (2000). Indicators of School Crime and Safety, US Department of Education (NCES 2001-017) and US Department of Justice (NCJ-184176): Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubinfo.asp?pubid=2001017 Keith, S., & Martin, M. E. (2005). Cyer-Bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber world. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13, 224–228. Larkin, R. W. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Limber, S. P., Cunningham, P., Florx, V., Ivey, J., Nation, M., Chai, S., et  al. (1997). Bullying among school children: Preliminary Findings from a school-based intervention program. Paper presented at the Fifth International Family Violence Research Conference, Durham, NH. Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who fight at home and school: Family conditions influencing cross-setting consistency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 759–768. Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Yeung, A. S., & Healey, J. (2001). Aggressive school troublemakers and victims: A longitudinal model examining the pivotal role of self concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 411–419. Migliore, D. (2003). Bullies torment victims with technology. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.azprevention.org/In_The_News/Newsletters/Newsletters_March_2003_B.jsp Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. National i-Safe Survey. (2004). National i-Safe survey finds over half of students are being harassed online. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.isafe.org Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Oxford, England: Hemisphere. Olweus, D. (1981). What creates aggressive children? in Norm crisis and child rearing. Oslo, Norway: Didakta. Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D. Pepler & R. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In R. D. Peters, R. J. McMahon, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan (pp. 100–125). London, England: Sage. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell. O’Moore, A. M., & Hillery, B. (1989). What do teachers need to know. In Bullying: A practical guide for coping for schools. Harlow, CA: Longman Group. Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000). Reactive and proactive aggression: Evidence of a two-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 12, 115–122. Pulkkinen, L. (1996). Proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence as precursors to antiand prosocial behaviors in young adults. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 241–257.

44

3 Bullying and Lethal Acts of School Violence

Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: The Australian Council for Education Research. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. New York: Wiley. Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30–44. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1994). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755–1772. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Hubbard, J. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Lemerise, E. A., et al. (1998). Social-cognitive and behavioral correlates of aggression and victimization in boys’ play groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 431–440. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450. US Department of Education and US Department of Justice. (1999). 1999 Annual Report on School Safety. Washington, DC: Author. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11, 499–503. Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2000). Influence of deviant friends on delinquency: Searching for moderator variables. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 313–325. Vladimir, N., & Brubach, A. (2000). Teasing among school-aged children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 446 321). Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. Waschbusch, D. A., Willoughby, M. T., & Pelham, W. E. J. (1998). Criterion validity and the utility of reactive and proactive aggression: Comparisons to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and other measures of functioning. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 396–405.

Chapter 4

Averted School Rampages

Overview On what appeared to be a typical day at a large suburban high school, staff ­intervened when two young women began arguing in the cafeteria. As was the school’s policy, the two were taken to an assistant principal to work through the conflict. During the process, one student had left her book bag in the cafeteria. Also in accordance with school policy, when staff found the bag they brought it to the office to search it. There were typical items and a few atypical items – including a letter. Because it was the end of the day, the letter was placed on the assistant principal’s desk, and she finished the mediation between the students. In the next morning, the assistant principal opened the letter and grew increasingly concerned as she read. What caught her attention was mention of an MAC-10. Uncertain, she called one of the other assistant principals and asked what an MAC10 is. He responded that “It’s a gun. A really big gun.” Soon the well-rehearsed crisis intervention plan was implemented; the school resource officer (SRO) was called in and began his investigation; the six female students named in the letter were brought in for interviewing; local police were called; the district’s crisis ­coordinator was brought in. During the investigation, it was revealed that the six young women had planned to detonate bombs in the school and shoot people as they ran into the halls. After the rampage was over, they planned to convene on the school’s roof and commit suicide. The leader of the group was tried and convicted as an adult for multiple offenses.

Rationale: Learning from Successes Culminating with the Columbine tragedy, much research was conducted on the “school shooter” following the rash of rampage school shootings in the mid-to-late 1990s (O’Toole, 2000; Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002). Many insights have been gained into characteristics of school shooters, but perhaps the most striking is that, contrary to popular news reports, there is no “typical” J.A. Daniels and M.C. Bradley, Preventing Lethal School Violence, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3_4, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

45

46

4 Averted School Rampages

school shooter. Indeed, “school shooters” come from all walks of life, a variety of family backgrounds, range from being loners to popular, and range from struggling academically to perform well in school. One common theme among school shooters that has recently come to light is that the majority of school shooters struggle with mental illness (Langman, 2009). Psychologist Peter Langman studied police reports, psychological evaluations (where available) and shooters’ diaries, websites, and other personal communications to better understand the psychological makeup of school shooters. Of the ten students he studied, Langman identified three types: Psychopathic shooters, Psychotic shooters, and Traumatized shooters. According to this classification, psychopathic shooters tend to be narcissistic, lack a conscience, and are sadistic. They take pleasure in inflicting pain on others. Langman identified two psychopathic school shooters: Eric Harris (Columbine) and Drew Golden (Jonesboro, Arkansas). Psychotic shooters suffer varying degrees of psychosis, including schizophrenia and schizotypal personality disorder. These youths have lost touch with reality and are delusional. Some hear voices that were instrumental in carrying out the rampage shootings. Five shooters were classified as psychotic by Langman: Michael Carneal (Paducah, Kentucky), Andrew Wurst (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Kip Kinkel (Salem, Oregon), Dylan Klebold (Columbine), and Seung Hui Cho (Virginia Tech). Finally, Langman identified a subset of traumatized shooters. These were the severely abused children (either at home or by older children). Three shooters were classified as traumatized by Langman: Evan Ramsey (Bethel, Alaska), Mitchell Johnson (Jonesboro, Arkansas), and Jeffrey Weise (Red Lake, Minnesota). In addition to studies of school shooters, there has been research about the school shooting events (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004; Newman, Fox, Harding, Mehta, & Roth, 2004). Six school shootings were studied by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. The six incidents occurred in Rockdale County, Georgia; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Jonesboro, Arkansas; West Paducah, Kentucky; Tilden High School in Chicago; and Thomas Jefferson High School in East New York, respectively. Newman et al. (2004) also published the results of their extensive findings from the shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas and West Paducah, Kentucky. It was also Newman et al. who published their findings in the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine report (2004), so there is redundancy across sources. The National Research Council report attempted to understand the causes of these events. “In the inner-city cases, the shooting incidents involved specific grievances between individuals that were known in the school community. In contrast, the suburban and rural shooting incidents did not involve specific grievances. These shooters felt aggrieved, but their grievances were a more general and abstract sense of feeling attacked rather than a specific threat by an individual” (p. 4). The information about school shooters and shooting events that has been gleaned from these studies is invaluable. By understanding the values and motives of school shooters, we can be better prepared to identify warning signs and intervene with potentially troubled youth (Dwyer, Osher, & Warger, 1998). However, what can we learn about preventing lethal school violence from school and law enforcement

Overview

47

personnel who have been successful in averting school shooting rampages? While some early reports considered averted shootings (e.g., O’Toole, 2000), there was a general call to conduct research on averted school rampages (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). In the remainder of this chapter, we will take a closer look at the research that has been conducted to date on averted school shootings. We will begin with a discussion of methodological considerations for carrying out this type of research, followed by specific research findings. We conclude by comparing and contrasting these results with the results of studies on school shootings.

Methodological Issues Averted school shootings are a low frequency phenomenon, so traditional quantitative research methods are not adequate. Any study would suffer from a small sample size, resulting in low statistical power. Consequently, it is unlikely that significant results would be obtained. Moreover, because the study of averted school shootings is a new line of research, quantitative methods would be premature; researchers would not fully understand which variables to study (Heppner, Wampold, & Kivlighan, 2007). Therefore, studies of averted school shootings have made use of qualitative methods (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). Methodologies of two studies of averted school shootings and a third of a study in progress have been identified. These methodologies include content analysis, consensual qualitative research (CQR), and a mixed method design. In this section, we will provide an overview of the methods used in these three studies. The results described later in this chapter will be based on two of these three projects. In the first study of averted school shootings, we (Daniels et al., 2007) content analyzed news reports. In content analysis, the words in a text are “classified into much fewer content categories” (Weber, 1990, p. 12). Specifically, we were interested in information pertaining to five questions: 1 . What were the details of the plot? 2. How was the plotted rampage discovered? 3. What action steps were taken by the school once the plot was discovered? 4. What action steps were taken by law enforcement once the plot was discovered? 5. Where available, what were the final legal outcomes of the incident? Members of the research team independently searched news accounts of 30 foiled school shootings and captured words or phrases that answered the above questions. They then met as a team to discuss discrepancies until consensus was attained. This process continued until the categories were finalized for each question. Finally, all categories were discussed as a team to identify emergent themes, which “represent summaries of answers to each of the five research questions” (Daniels et al., 2007, p. 87).

48

4 Averted School Rampages

In another study, we (Daniels et  al., 2010) qualitatively studied four averted school shootings. We interviewed 11 school personnel, including school resource officers, who discovered and intervened to avert plotted rampage shootings. In this study, participants were asked four questions: 1. Please describe your specific roles that helped to prevent the act of violence from escalating; 2. Please describe specific systemic conditions that you believe contributed to the prevention of the violent act; 3. To what do you attribute the successful outcome of this situation? 4. What advice would you give to other school professionals who may be in a similar situation or may need help developing a violence prevention plan? In this study, we made use of CQR methodology (Hill et  al., 2005; Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997). In CQR, members of a research team examine the data ­independently and then meet to discuss their findings. Discrepancies are ­discussed until consensus is attained. Specifically, researchers first looked at the interview ­transcripts and pulled out statements that offered answers to each of the research questions. These statements are called blocks. Once agreement on the blocks was reached, team members then independently examined each block, ­looking for ­common themes that captured the essence of the blocks. Again, the team met together to discuss their ideas until consensus was attained. These themes are called domains. After the data had been classified into domains, team members read all the blocks in a given domain and searched for core ideas. Core ideas are summaries of the domains, worded more clearly and concisely than the original participants’ wording. The final step of CQR is a cross analysis, in which core ideas are explored across the cases that comprise the data set. “This process moves the data from the individual interview to the entirety of the sample” (Daniels et  al., 2010, pp. 74–75). As more data about averted school rampages become available, researchers will begin to move into more mixed methods designs, which combine elements of qualitative and quantitative data analyses. We (Daniels & Miller, 2009) are presently working on such a study, in which we are gathering qualitative data about averted shootings from school personnel and also gathering quantitative data about the importance and helpfulness of certain key variables identified by the US Secret Service in their study of school shooters (Fein et al., 2002). We now turn our attention to the few studies that have examined averted school shootings. Specifically, we will closely examine two published articles that examined LSV that had been thwarted. We first look at results of a study that attempted to define the parameters of averted LSV by content analyzing news reports (Daniels et al., 2007). Following this overview, we examine results of a qualitative study of school personnel who intervened to stop a potentially lethal shooting (Daniels et  al., 2010). Our focus will be on the findings of these studies and will be ­instrumental in our final discussion of averting LSV in Chap. 7.

Research Findings

49

Research Findings News Reports of Averted School Rampages Because little was known about averted LSV, we wanted to first “see what was out there.” We were already developing a database of news articles of averted incidents, from which we would later draw when we began interviewing school personnel who intervened (Daniels et al., 2010). We, therefore, determined to systematically explore these news reports to get a general idea of the parameters of averted LSV events. Consequently, I (Daniels) developed a research team of graduate students from a master’s program in counseling and a doctoral program in counseling ­psychology. As previously described, we attempted to gather information that would answer five questions. Results are reported for each question. What were the details of the plot? Six main categories emerged that pertained to the details of the plot. First, Characteristics of the suspect(s) included variables such as age, sex, and grade in school. Out of 30 incidents, there were a total of 58 students involved in the plots. All but five of the plotters were male. Most plots were to be carried out in high schools, although there were four and three planned for middle and elementary schools, respectively. Second, information about Intended victims was sometimes available when ­students developed a “hit list.” Others planned to target a specific type of student, such as the “jocks.” In one incident, the plan was to “kill as many people as he could,” with no specific individuals identified (Daniels et al., 2007, p. 87). Third, two-thirds of the incidents included information about subjects’ Communication and recruitment. That is, suspects tended to communicate their plans to others through such means as, email messages, letters, or verbally. In three incidents, the plotters attempted to recruit others to help them carry out their plans. A fourth category to emerge was Planning. This information was provided in approximately 3/4 of the incidents and included plans to shoot one or more people and apparent plans to carry out a copycat of Columbine. Other plans included maps of the schools with locations of bombs and/or shooters identified. One plan included the use of diversionary tactics (i.e., detonating a bomb at a local gas station to divert ­emergency workers before the school rampage began). Fifth, information about Weapons was provided for most of the incidents. Intended weapons included guns, bombs, knives, and swords. Finally, information about subjects’ Motives was ­available for 40% of the incidents. The most frequent alleged motive was retaliation for being bullied. Other motives included anger at a teacher or administrator, retaliation for being rejected (i.e., a recent break-up, or a girl refusing to go out with a suspect), being caught in an ­academic cheating scandal, drug use, and mental illness. How was the plotted rampage discovered? Information about how the plot was discovered was available for all but one of the incidents. Six categories emerged from the data. The first was that Other students came forward and reported the plans in just over half of the incidents. This is an important finding and is one we will

50

4 Averted School Rampages

discuss in greater detail later in this chapter. Second, 25% of the plots were discovered because of Alert administrators. This category included overhearing and acting upon rumors, responding to suspicious behaviors of the students, and conducting a search after the student was disciplined for another infraction (in which a letter was found). A third, albeit infrequent, category was that the Police received tips, either anonymously or by a concerned parent (17%). Additional categories about how the plot was discovered included finding notes or intercepting emails, staff overheard rumors, and specific threats were made. What action steps were taken by the school once the plot was discovered? The steps taken by schools once a plot was discovered varied across nine categories. These included Suspending or Expelling the student(s) and Notifying parents/ students and reassuring them of their safety. This category included providing counselors for students who were upset. Not surprisingly, another action step was to Call the police. Additional responses by the schools were to Enhance school security, place the building in Lockdown (or evacuate the school while it was being searched), Conducting an internal investigation, and Obtaining a restraining order against the suspect(s). Finally, schools Followed safety protocols and Searched lockers, book bags, etc. What action steps were taken by law enforcement once the plot was discovered? Information about what the police did once plots were discovered was provided for all but three of the incidents. Five main categories were identified, including Arresting or taking suspects into custody, and Conducting a search of the school and the suspect’s home, computer, or car. An obvious category was that police Conducted an investigation into the plots. They also Seized evidence, such as school maps and computer hard drives. Finally, the police Increased their presence at the schools by adding patrols. What were the final legal outcomes of the incident? Information about the legal outcomes was available for 27 of the 30 incidents. We identified nine categories to describe these outcomes. In over three quarters of the incidents plotters were charged or convicted of various crimes, such as making terrorist threats, conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of firearms on school grounds. Suspects were serving time in jail or a juvenile facility in just under half of the incidents, and in 40% of the cases a hearing was scheduled. Nine students were released to their parents’ custody, and in six cases the suspects entered a Plea of guilty, not guilty, or guilty by reason of insanity. Five suspects were ordered to receive Counseling; three were Barred from contact with the school or specific individuals; and in only two cases were the suspects Sentenced. We will return to the results of this and other studies in Chap. 7, when we discuss the implications and recommendations for creating safe school communities. This study points to several factors that will be integrated into the Safe School Communities Model that is described in Chap. 7. Now we turn our attention to a study of averted school shootings in which we interviewed school personnel who intervened (Daniels et al., 2010).

Research Findings

51

Averted Shooting Rampages Using the database of averted school rampages described above as a source of potential participants, we contacted school administrators about being interviewed (Daniels et al., 2010). Administrators at four schools consented to participate, out of which we conducted 11 interviews. In this section, we will briefly describe the incidents and then provide an overview of the results. The first school is a large high school in a suburb of a large metropolitan area of the Southwestern USA. The incident described at the beginning of this chapter occurred here. Five young women plotted a shooting and bombing spree, after which they would commit suicide. A sixth student, a male, was approached by the plotters to look for weaknesses in their plan (a sort of consultant). The threat was credible: they had gathered some weapons, mapped out locations of shooters and bombs, and looked at bomb-making instructions from the internet. The second school is a middle school in an urban area in the Western USA. It is located in a violent neighborhood, with widespread gang and drug activity. In this situation, a single student was planning a shooting spree. Minutes before the shooting was to begin, a student overheard him talking to his brother in the bathroom and reported the incident to a school counselor. When the principal and SRO approached him, he was just reaching into his book bag to pull out his gun and fire on his ­classmates, who were lining up for lunch. The third is a high school located in an urban community in the Midwestern USA. Four male students plotted to detonate bombs in the school, while one of the four would shoot police officers and administrators. A student overheard the ­students talking, and reported it to an administrator. It is unclear how close the group was to actually pulling off the act, but the students were found guilty and convicted. The fourth and final school is an elementary school in a smaller community in the Southwestern USA. Three boys plotted to murder the principal and her family in their sleep. They had chosen a date and had acquired some weapons (knives and a sword). A student whom they attempted to recruit went to the principal and reported the plans. During interviews they admitted to the plot, but later denied that they were serious. As was previously described, we analyzed the data using CQR (Hill et al., 2005; Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997). Six primary domains emerged from the data, with a seventh “other” domain dedicated to important issues that did not fit with any of the other domains. We now define each of the domains. The most frequently occurring domain was labeled School conditions, which describes circumstances set up to ensure a safe and effective learning environment. This domain also captures issues related to the school’s culture, breaking the code of silence (O’Toole, 2000), being aware of intruders and unusual activities, rules and regulations, and boundaries. The School conditions domain also entails information about the size of the school, the presence of monitors in the building and on school grounds, and the relationships between staffs and between staffs and students.

52

4 Averted School Rampages

The domain labeled Intervention describes actions taken after the plot was uncovered. This included people’s immediate responses (e.g., calling the police), gathering information, and interviewing the suspect(s). This domain also entailed getting help from the police and coordinating service providers (e.g., mental health counselors). Finally, the intervention domain included information about students coming forward and reporting the plot. The third domain, Crisis planning, captured statements that related to the need for, or importance of being prepared for crises. It also addressed issues of training for crises and development of relationships with external agencies (e.g., police departments) before a crisis occurred. We labeled the fourth domain Interpersonal relationship. This domain captures participants’ efforts to establish a trusting, ­personal relationship with a specific student or students, and relationships among students. It also refers to awareness of a student’s temperament and efforts to actively know the students in their holistic context (i.e., family, friends, and neighborhood). Prevention efforts was the fifth domain identified and captures statements that relate to efforts taken by the school to prevent violence (e.g., anti-bullying programs). The final domain, Problematic issues, includes information about things that did not go well, unanticipated events, and unintentional harmful events. A common problematic issue described by participants was their negative ­interactions with the media. These studies of averted LSV have pointed out some important information about school safety. We will highlight the practical recommendations from this line of research, as well as research highlighted in Chaps. 3 and 5, in Chap. 7. Now we close this chapter by comparing and contrasting findings from schools that averted LSV with those at which a shooting occurred.

Averted Incidents vs. School Shootings In their study of school shootings, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found several school dynamics that were common across schools at which a shooting occurred (O’Toole, 2000). In our studies of averted shootings, we found that schools countered some of these dynamics. Specifically, four school dynamics identified by the FBI will now be addressed, along with counter-findings from our studies. These include tolerance for disrespectful behavior, inequitable discipline, inflexible culture, and the code of silence. A common theme among schools at which a lethal shooting took place was tolerance for disrespectful behavior (O’Toole, 2000). This tolerance may be for individual students or groups of students; bullying has become a part of the school’s culture. Larkin (2007) highlighted this point in his retrospective study of Columbine. He documented that some teachers and coaches turned a blind eye to bullying and harassment that was occurring in the halls when the perpetrators were certain football players and wrestlers. This apparently was noted by Harris and Klebold in their journals and other communications, and the fact that it was allowed to occur a source of resentment to them.

Research Findings

53

Participants in our study of averted school shootings (Daniels et  al., 2010) described that how they worked to establish clear rules and boundaries and that no disrespectful behavior was tolerated. This applied to students and teachers alike. One principal stated that when he took over in his school there were some teachers who did not treat students with respect. In his words, “so the philosophy has changed to the point where you treat the kids with dignity, the teachers treat them with dignity, if they don’t, I don’t have them on campus.” Participants also talked about the implementation of anti-bullying programs in their schools as a means of changing the school’s culture. The assistant principal at one school believed that their anti-bullying efforts were instrumental in preventing the attack: “I think the anti-bullying campaign…and our own, um, school coach where all the teachers explain to the students, “if you have a problem you need to go see an adult immediately.” And that has been so engrained into the kids.” A second school characteristic identified by the FBI is inequitable discipline. “The use of discipline is inequitably applied – or has the perception of being ­inequitably applied by students and/or staff” (O’Toole, 2000, p. 23). Thus, this school condition may be a reflection of reality or people’s perceptions of reality. Either way, it leads to resentment and a deterioration of a positive school climate. Educators must work to not show favoritism or its opposite, especially when ­disciplining students. We all have memories of “the teacher’s pet” that was able to get away with things others could not. We also have memories of the child who, it was clear, was not liked by a teacher, and that child seemed to get away with nothing. Schools at which LSV was averted also seemed to address this problem through the same means as described above. That is, the participants described the ­establishment of clear rules and expectations and worked to assure that established consequences were applied regardless of who the student was who broke the rule. They also believed that setting clear boundaries was an important component of assuring a safe school environment. Third, it was found that an inflexible culture was present among some of the schools at which a shooting occurred (O’Toole, 2000). O’Toole described the school’s culture as “official and unofficial patterns of behavior, values, and ­relationships among students, teachers, staff, and administrators” (p. 23). When this culture becomes inflexible, it “is static, unyielding, and insensitive to changes in society and the changing needs of newer students and staff” (O’Toole). In their investigations of seven school shootings, researchers from the National Academies found that rapid social changes were occurring in suburban and rural areas (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). The communities were ­undergoing rapid growth and development, and the schools were ill-prepared to handle these changes. Although schools cannot do anything about rapid social changes in their communities, they can be proactive and responsive to these changes. In Chap. 6, we will address the importance of school–community collaborations in greater detail. However, for this discussion, it is important to note that in the schools we studied that averted a shooting participants talked openly about the importance of cooperating with and becoming integral to the larger community. This cooperation took the

54

4 Averted School Rampages

form of involving community and civic leaders in discussions of school safety, working closely with local law enforcement and emergency responders, and reaching out to parents. Principals talked about inviting the police to come to the school during the summer to practice their response to an active shooter scenario. Participants also said that some principals are hesitant to do this for fear of sending a message that they have a safety problem in their school. On the contrary, the principals we interviewed believed that they were sending the message to the community that they take the safety of their students seriously enough to prepare for the worst. Additionally, we found that the development of trusting relationships between school personnel and students was an important mitigating factor against an inflexible culture. One way positive relationships may be attained is by spending quality, nonclassroom time with students and getting to know them as people (Daniels et al., 2010). When schools actively establish positive relationships with students, they show that they are open to the needs of these students. It is important that students feel connected, that there is a trusted adult to whom they can turn. A final topic we address in this chapter is what O’Toole labeled the code of silence. In most rampage school shootings, the shooters informed others of their intentions prior to the actual event (e.g., O’Toole, 2000; Vossekuil et  al., 2002). They explicitly stated that either they were going to shoot people at the school, as in the case of Michael Carneal in West Paducah, Kentucky, or they engaged in behaviors prior to the event that indirectly communicated their intentions (i.e., the video Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold made for a class that depicted them on a school shooting rampage). O’Toole labeled this latter, indirect manner of ­communication leakage. The day after the shooting at Santee High School in southern California, one of us (Daniels) was listening to a news report on the radio. A student was being ­interviewed, and he broke down sobbing, stating that this was his fault. He clarified that the shooter, Charles “Andy” Williams, had told him over the weekend his intentions of going on a shooting spree. This student thought he was joking, and did not tell anyone. According to O’Toole, “Few [students] feel they can safely tell teachers or administrators if they are concerned about another student’s behavior or attitudes. Little trust exists between students and staff” (p. 23). What can be done about the code of silence? There is an adolescent norm against snitching. First, the notion of snitching needs to be reframed as helping. Snitching is about telling on someone to get them in trouble, whereas reporting one’s ­concerns is about helping that person or others. The principal from School 2 (presented ­earlier in this chapter) described his efforts to change students’ thinking about snitching: “One of the things that we work here at the school is that in this ­community any time you tell somebody something you’re a snitch. Well I’ve been here for a long time and so I’ve worked on the fact that this is how you prevent problems, it’s not snitching, you’re trying to help somebody.” In addition to changing students’ perceptions of snitching, our research points out the importance of, again, developing a culture of dignity and respect. Because the cause of the code of silence is that students do not feel like there is an adult to whom they can report their concerns, it is crucial that we change this. When

References

55

s­ tudents feel connected to at least one adult at school, they are more willing to come forward with their concerns (Daniels et al., 2010). It is not enough for students to serve as the eyes and ears of the school; they also must be willing to report what they see and hear with the knowledge that this information will be acted upon and that their identity as the reporter will be held in confidence. All too often in the past when students did report concerns, it was not adequately dealt with by the school (Dorn, 2006). Or worse, the identity of students who reported was not held in confidence, and they were then victimized in retaliation. Students need to know that those in the school who are charged with protecting them will act in their best ­interest. Thus, when school personnel overhear rumors or receive reports of disturbing behavior or concerns, it is of utmost importance that they treat it seriously and act upon it. Only then can the code of silence be broken.

Summary In this chapter, we have reviewed the research methods employed in studies of averted rampage school shootings and then addressed findings of studies on averted LSV. To date, the research on averted LSV has employed qualitative methods, which have revealed numerous important variables. Our current research is moving the discussion into the quantitative realm by using a mixed method design (i.e., combining elements of both qualitative and quantitative designs). Finally, we compared and contrasted findings from schools at which a school shooting was averted with schools at which a shooting took place. Clear differences among these types of schools have been found. Important implications of these findings will be addressed in Chaps. 6 and 7, wherein we explore strategies to build a positive school culture and prevention and mitigation of LSV.

References Daniels, J. A., & Miller, J. E. (2009, August). Uncovering a school shooting plot: A case study. American Psychological Association Annual Conference. Toronto. Daniels, J. A., Buck, I., Croxall, S., Gruber, J., Kime, P., & Govert, H. (2007). A content analysis of news reports of averted school rampages. Journal of School Violence, 6, 83–99. Daniels, J. A., Volungis, A., Pshenishny, E., Gandhi, P., Winkler, A., Cramer, D. P., et al. (2010). A qualitative investigation of averted school shooting rampages. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 69–95. Dorn, M. (2006). Weakfish: Bullying through the eyes of a child. Macon, GA: Safe Havens International. Dwyer, K., Osher, D., & Warger, C. (1998). Early warning, timely response: A guide to safe schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Fein, R. A., Vossekuil, B., Pollack, W. S., Borum, R., Modzeleski, W., & Reddy, M. (2002). Threat assessment in schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and to creating safe school climates. Washington, DC: US Depratment of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug Free Schools Program and US Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center.

56

4 Averted School Rampages

Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., & Kivlighan, D. M. (2007). Research design in counseling (3rd ed.). Belmont, California: Brooks Cole. Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205. Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572. Langman, P. (2009). Why kids kill: Inside the minds of school shooters. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Larkin, R. W. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2004). In M. H. Moore, C. V. Petrie, A. A. Braga, & B. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Deadly lessons: Understanding lethal school violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Newman, K. S., Fox, C., Harding, D. J., Mehta, J., & Roth, W. (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. New York: Basic Books. O’Toole, M. E. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Chapter 5

Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events

Overview On Wednesday, September 27, 2006, at approximately 11:40  a.m., Duane Roger Morrison (age 53), dressed as an adolescent, entered room number 206 of Platte Canyon High School in the small mountain community of Bailey, Colorado. Duane carried a book bag which contained a Glock 22 .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun and a Smith and Wesson .357 revolver. He also claimed to have three pounds of C-4 plastic explosives, although it was later determined that he did not. Upon entering the classroom, Morrison ordered everyone out, except seven female students. Over the next 4 h, the quiet mountain town became the center of the national media spotlight. Local law enforcement officers called in SWAT and crisis negotiation teams from the greater Denver metropolitan area. Efforts were made to establish communications with Morrison; however, he refused to speak with anyone. Rather, information was conveyed through one of the captives. No demands were ever made by Morrison. One by one, Morrison began releasing captives. Each one told law enforcement officers that they had been sexually assaulted. At approximately 3:32 p.m., through one of the captives, Morrison communicated that the event would be over by 4:00  p.m. Given the facts that captives were being harmed, negotiations were nonexistent, and the belief that Morrison had a bomb, the decision was made for a tactical entry into room 206. The SWAT team blew a hole in the wall; simultaneously Morrison shot and killed 17-year-old Emily Keyes, and then turned his gun on himself. Two additional shots from the SWAT team hit Morrison. Although the situation ended in fatalities, it was later confirmed that, given the intelligence gathered, the team made the correct decision (Schaefer & Fuller, 2007). Because barricaded captive events have the potential to lead to injuries or even fatalities, it is essential to understand methods used by law enforcement agencies and educators that resolve them successfully. These lessons may then be added to the repertoire of educators who may be faced with an armed standoff. Fortunately, barricaded captive events in schools are not very common. In a study of events that

J.A. Daniels and M.C. Bradley, Preventing Lethal School Violence, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3_5, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

57

58

5 Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events

occurred over a 9  year period, Daniels, Royster, Vecchi, and Pshenishny (2010) found an average of three incidents in the USA per year. In this chapter, we present definitions of important constructs, briefly discuss crisis negotiation strategies, and describe results of research on barricaded captive events in schools. Finally, ­recommendations for educators and law enforcement personnel will be made.

Definitions As we begin our discussion of school “hostage” events, it is important to define some terms. One of the limitations of the hostage literature has been that a common ­language for the phenomena of interest has not been consistently used (Vecchi, Van Hasselt, & Romano, 2005). Consequently, comparison across studies may be ­hampered by the lack of consensus regarding terminology. Recently, Gregory Vecchi, Unit Chief of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit, and his colleagues endeavored to ameliorate this ­shortcoming. The following represent the most up-to-date ­definitions in the field. Barricaded hostage crisis.  Vecchi et al. (2005) indicated that in a barricaded hostage crisis one or more people are taken captive “for ‘instrumental’ or tangible reasons” such as using the hostages as leverage for the demands of the hostage taker (p. 535). An example of a barricaded hostage crisis occurred in School No. 1 in Beslan, Russia. On September 1, 2004, a group of heavily armed Chechen rebels entered the school and held over 1,200 personnel and students captive for 53  h. They demanded that the Russian government release political prisoners in exchange for the release of the hostages. As with most governments, the Russians appeared willing to negotiate, but not concede to the rebels. Consequently, the ­situation was resolved following a shootout that resulted in over 329 deaths, including 186 children (Moscardino, Scrimin, Capello, Altoè, & Axia, 2008). Barricaded crisis event.  In a barricaded crisis situation, one or more people are taken captive “for ‘expressive’ or intangible reasons” such as an expression of the captive taker’s emotional state or intent ultimately to harm and/or kill the victim(s) (Vecchi et  al., 2005, p. 535). An example of a barricaded crisis occurred on October 2, 2006, in a one-room schoolhouse in West Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. Charles Roberts (age 32) entered the Amish schoolhouse at approximately 10:25 a.m., and soon thereafter opened fire. When police entered the schoolhouse Roberts and five students were dead, and five other students were injured. It appears that Roberts did not want anything from his actions, other than to express to the world his inner turmoil. Captive:hostage vs. victim.  The word captive is an umbrella term for any person who is taken and held by another against his or her will. Depending on the motivation of the captive taker, the captive may be a hostage or a victim. A hostage is a person held against his or her will and is used by the captive taker for instrumental purposes in a barricaded hostage crisis (i.e., the hostage is used as leverage for the

Overview

59

captive taker’s demands). In contrast to a hostage, a victim is a person held by another for expressive reasons in a barricaded crisis event. The captive taker is expressing intense emotions or may suffer from mental illness and may intend, ultimately, to harm the victim(s). As previously stated, the captives are not used as leverage in these situations.

Crisis Negotiations In the 1970s, there was a rash of high-profile hostage events, several of which resulted in multiple fatalities (e.g., the Black September group’s siege of members of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, Germany). Shortly thereafter two members of the New York City Police Department, Harvey Schlossberg and Frank Boltz reasoned that if trained professionals could talk with captive takers, they may be able to convince them to surrender (McMains & Mullins, 2006). The result of their work, crisis negotiations (popularly known as hostage negotiations), has since been proclaimed the most effective nonlethal tool in the law enforcement toolbox (Regini, 2002). According to McMains and Mullins (2006), there are eight steps to crisis negotiations: 1. The negotiator must check his or her attitude (and convey an open, understanding stance) 2. Gather intelligence 3. Assess risk 4. Defuse intense emotions 5. Build rapport 6. Influence problem solving 7. Resolve the crisis 8. Debrief (the captives, the captive-taker, and the negotiation team). A primary objective is to establish lines of communication and build rapport with the captive taker(s). This is crucial for establishing trust, which will enhance the effectiveness of later strategies that aim to resolve the crisis. Building rapport occurs through consistent use of verbal strategies, such as active listening and communicating empathy. Active listening entails the strategies of mirroring (repeating the last few words of the person or the gist of what he or she just said), paraphrasing (repeating back what one has just heard in a more concise manner and in one’s own words), emotion labeling (identifying the person’s emotions), and summarizing (restating the content and emotions of the person’s communications). Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes, to see the world from his or her perspective. It has been described as “feeling with…” rather than “feeling for…” The latter is seen as sympathy and is rarely a facilitative stance in establishing trust. Psychologist Carl Rogers (1957) indicated that feeling empathy is not enough; rather there is a need to communicate that empathic understanding to the person with whom one is empathizing. Once the communication has been ­established,

60

5 Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events

r­ apport has been built, and the captive taker feels heard and ­understood, the next objective of crisis negations can begin, buying time. When a person makes the decision to take others captive, he or she is usually in a state of crisis. The passage of time will serve to diffuse the emotional crisis the person is experiencing. Researchers have conceptualized crises as occurring in four stages. The first stage is precrisis, in which the individual is unaware that an ­emergency is looming in the future. The second stage is crisis, wherein the ­individual experiences high emotionality, low rationality, and feels unable to cope. Third is the accommodation/negotiation stage, wherein the individual’s emotions decrease, rationality increases, and the person works through the problem. Finally, the person enters the resolution stage, with the development of an acceptable ­solution to the event (McMains & Mullins, 2006). One of the most effective strategies for working through the crisis stage is to buy time. Time allows the captive taker to decrease emotions and begin to look at the situation from a rational point of view. Time also allows for natural appetites and bodily functions to become an issue. How will the captive taker get food and drink? What will he or she do to relieve him/herself? Who will cover the captives while this is occurring? A simultaneous goal of crisis negotiations is, not surprisingly, diffusing intense emotions. As we have previously indicated, this goal will be attained through verbal strategies and the passage of time. Insofar as the captive taker remains at a high level of emotionality, appeals to reason will be unsuccessful, and further negotiations are likely to fail. Moreover, if the negotiator tries to move too quickly and does not allow the captive taker’s emotions to subside, the results could lead to a break in rapport. Worse, it could lead to injuries or fatalities to those involved. Throughout the entire process of negotiations gathering and evaluating ­intelligence is critical. The negotiation team must gather information about the ­captive taker(s), the captives, the space in which they are located, the weapons involved, the condition of the captives, and a host of other details is critical. Poor intelligence about any of these factors could prove fatal. Now that we have defined key terms and provided a brief overview of the crisis negotiation process, we turn our attention to research that has been conducted on school barricaded captive events. This research focuses on two primary domains: The mental health consequences for the captives and the actions of school and law enforcement personnel before, during, and after a barricaded captive crisis.

Research Findings The earliest research on school barricaded captive crises examined the aftereffects on the children who had been held captive. Vila, Porche, and Mouren-Simeoni (1999) conducted an 18-month longitudinal study of 26 children who had been held captive in an elementary school near Paris, France. In a similar vein, Scrimin et al. (2006) evaluated 22 children and their caregivers who had been held captive at

Research Findings

61

School Number 1 in Beslan, Russia. Results of these studies revealed significant posttraumatic stress symptoms, including post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among both the children and their caregivers (Scrimin et al.). Vila et al. also showed that children in the school who were not held captive exhibited symptoms of PTSD. Thus, the psychological impact of being held captive or being in a school where a barricaded captive event occurs has been demonstrated. More recently, Daniels et al. have conducted systematic research on barricaded captive events in schools. We content analyzed news reports of 19 events that occurred in the USA (Daniels et al., 2010) and conducted extensive interviews of various school personnel who were involved with events in three schools (Daniels et  al., 2007a, 2007b). Each of these studies will be described next, along with pertinent findings.

Content Analysis of News Reports To gain a better understanding of the scope of barricaded captive crises in schools, we (Daniels et al., 2010) content analyzed news reports of events occurring in the USA. Barricaded captive events in schools were found through a search of the Lexis-Nexis Academic database using the search strings school & hostage and school & barricade. Lexis-Nexis is a database of news reports from sources throughout the USA and the world. Between February 1998 and May 2007, news reports of 19 barricaded captive crisis events were found. We examined 21 variables: Date, Time, Incident Location, Offender Age and Sex, Captives (number of, age, and sex), Injuries, Deaths, Demands, Deadlines, Escapes, Releases, Presence or Absence of a School Resource Officer (SRO), Presence or Absence of Screening Devices, Behavioral Changes of the captive-taker prior to the incident, Weapons, the captive taker’s Expected Outcome, How the Incident was Resolved, Whether or not there was a Tactical Team, Whether or not there was a Negotiator, and the Negotiation Effectiveness. Our aim was to begin to discover important mitigation and response variables across these events. Although a comprehensive discussion of the results is beyond the scope of this chapter, there are several that are pertinent to our present purposes. First, we describe factors related to the schools and communities in which these events ­happened. Barricaded captive crises occur in any type of school and any community size. These events occurred in communities ranging in size of less than 800 to more than one million people. Although the majority of the events took place in high schools (n = 12), no school level is immune from this form of violence: Barricaded captive events also occurred in a one-room school house, elementary, and middle/ junior high schools. There were no clear patterns with respect to school safety measures. SROs were mentioned for only seven schools, and only five schools appeared to have metal detectors. The second set of findings pertains to factors related to the actual barricaded captive events. The majority of captive takers were students enrolled in the school

62

5 Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events

where they took captives. In only three of the 19 situations was the offender an external intruder. Most of the crises occurred in the morning hours or during lunch, with fewer in the afternoon. One incident occurred in the evening, when a teacher and student were staying after school and were taken captive by another student. The most common means by which incidents were resolved was through verbal strategies. Students, teachers and other school personnel, and law enforcement negotiators were able to talk the captive-taker into letting them go and/or surrendering. In almost all incidents, captives were unharmed. Unfortunately, of the 19 incidents, six ended in the death of the offender (either tactically or by suicide) and two resulted in injuries or fatalities to captives. Interestingly, in the two situations in which captives died the perpetrators were external intruders into the schools. Thus, students who take their peers captive infrequently injure or kill their captives or are themselves killed. A third set of factors examined by Daniels et al. (2010) relates to captive taker characteristics. All school captive takers were male, and they exhibited some form of behavioral marker that indicated something was not right or different prior to 15 (79%) events. Although there were no clear-cut patterns, such behavioral markers included changes in life circumstances (three were new transfer students to the school, a recent breakup with a girlfriend, and death of mother), and three captive takers were receiving treatment for a psychiatric disorder. The most frequently used weapon was a gun, although other weapons included knives and explosive/incendiary devices. Offenders released some or all captives in 15 incidents. Captive takers made specific demands in only six (31.2%) situations. Thus, it appears that the majority of events were expressive in nature rather than instrumental (Vecchi et al., 2005). Although Daniels et  al. (2010) provide a general overview of the extent of ­barricaded captive situations in schools, there are some limitations and cautions. First, our analysis was based on news reports. Although often informative, news reports are not necessarily scientific and are designed to grab the attention of the audience (and thus sell papers or airtime). Objectivity may, therefore, be ­compromised in the interest of this goal (Daniels et al., 2007), and the data are not scientific. Results of this study must, therefore, be interpreted with caution. Second, although there are some interesting commonalities across captive ­takers, we must caution educators and law enforcement officers against profiling. As we described in Chap. 1, profiling is problematic for four reasons: First, the intention of criminal profiling is to work backwards from a crime scene to deduce possible personality traits that have been expressed at the scene. This form of profiling has the goal of trying to narrow down the pool of suspects (Hicks & Sales, 2006) and has been termed deductive behavioral profiling (Turvey, 1998). There is no evidence that attempting to predict future criminal behavior by a set of warning signs or personality characteristics is accurate [which has been termed by Turvey (1998) as inductive behavioral profiling]. Second, given the low frequency of school barricaded captive crises, it is impossible to establish a base rate from which an accurate picture of a school captive-taker can emerge. Thus, the likelihood of false negatives is extremely high (i.e., we cannot assume that every male student who begins dressing in fatigues has problems at home and has recently experienced an interpersonal loss will come to school armed). Third, and related, profiling has

Research Findings

63

been criticized as a violation of students’ rights, in that it may label, falsely identify or accuse students who are not potentially violent (Burns, Dean, & Jacob-Timm, 2001). Finally, there is no accurate profile of a school shooter (O’Toole 2000; Vossekuil et al., 2002); therefore, as an extension of potential lethal school ­violence, we conclude that there is no accurate profile of a school captive-taker.

School Counselor Case Study In an effort to better understand the roles and functions of a school counselor before, during, and after a classroom barricade event, we (Daniels et  al., 2007a) presented a case study of one school counselor’s response. The scenario unfolded shortly after lunch, when a student entered his high school English classroom with a loaded rifle and demanded that everyone get to the back corner of the room. The 17-year-old student insisted on speaking with the principal, who negotiated for the release of the students and teacher. The principal was soon joined by the SRO. Within 15  min, the captive-taker was talked into surrendering his weapon to the SRO, and the situation ended without incident. The captive-taker in this situation was apparently motivated by expressive ­reasons (Vecchi et al., 2005). He had a history of depression and suicidal ideation, but had recently discontinued his counseling and medications. Although details about the conversation between him and the principal were not shared with the researchers, it appears that he was experiencing intense emotions during this time. The school at which the event occurred was a small high school in a rural Western community. There was one school counselor employed in the building. She was in her fifth year as a school counselor, although she was in her first year at the school in which the incident took place. Although she had received education related to managing crises, she had never experienced a potentially life-threatening situation until the captive-taking. The student involved in the captive-taking had been on the counselor’s radar for some time prior to the event. The student had previously spoken with her, and in fact she had conducted a suicide assessment the day before after several students informed her that they were concerned about him. During the actual crisis, the counselor’s roles were minimal. It was after the captive taker had surrendered that the majority of her functions began. Results of this study focused on her specific roles, systemic conditions she believed were related to the successful outcome, to what she attributed the successful outcome, and advice she had for other professionals. With regard to roles, this counselor described active interventions, communicating with other professionals, using her prior relationship with the captive taker, and awareness of some of his difficulties (school conditions). In this study, we (Daniels et  al., 2007a) defined active intervention as any action taken by the interviewee that was intended to ­prevent or mitigate the effects of the captive-taking. Interventions described by the school counselor included assessing the student’s suicide potential prior to the event, meeting with students and parents after the event, providing resources for

64

5 Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events

students, and coordinating mental health counselors who were brought into the school. Other roles described by this counselor related to communicating with other professionals, including contacting the district’s crisis response team, requesting mental health counselors from the community mental health center, and serving as the lead coordinator of these external professionals. In addition to specific roles, results highlighted conditions within the school and community systems the counselor believed played a part in the successful resolution of the barricaded captive event (Daniels et  al., 2007a). This counselor described conditions that had been set up in the school that she believed served mitigating functions. These school conditions included efforts by school personnel to form connections with all students and to spend time in the hallways during transition periods so that students see the presence of adults. Efforts to try to integrate the school into the functioning of the larger community were also seen as helpful. Finally, she described the value of the training received by the SRO and local law enforcement for responding to a school-based crisis. Another set of findings related to the counselor’s beliefs about the causes of the successful outcome of this event. Again, she indicated that the strength of ­relationships developed between faculty/staff and students was critical. She also saw that efforts of individuals to not escalate the situation were important (i.e., the teacher did not panic; nobody aggressively confronted the captive taker). This also related to the finding that the captives complied with his demands, rather than challenging him. Finally, people were able to use the relationship they had already established with the captive taker when they communicated with him. This served the important function of reminding him that the captives were people and not objects (McMains & Mullins, 2006). Finally, the school counselor was asked what advice she would like to share with other school personnel who may face a similar situation. Not surprisingly she ­maintained that it is of utmost importance for school personnel to develop trusting relationships with all students within the school community. Moreover, she stressed the importance of taking all rumors seriously and to obtain training in crisis response. The results of the study by Daniels et al. (2007a) were the first to offer a glimpse into how school professionals handle a barricaded captive event. The counselor related several important factors that she believed contributed to the successful outcome of this situation. However, this was a case study and, therefore, only included data from one person. In an effort to expand these findings, we (Daniels et al., 2007b) interviewed numerous school personnel from three different schools at which a barricaded captive-taking event occurred.

Qualitative Study of School Personnel We (Daniels et al., 2007b) conducted a study of three barricaded captive crises, with the intention of ascertaining what the school and law enforcement personnel did

Research Findings

65

that contributed to the successful resolution of each crisis. We now provide a brief description of the events, the interviewees, and the pertinent findings. School A was the school presented in the Daniels et al., 2007a study described above. It was a high school in a small community in the Western USA. The event was an expressive barricaded crisis because no substantive demands were made, and the captives were not used as a means to achieving the captive taker’s goals. The crisis ended without fatalities or injuries after the principal successfully talked the student into releasing the captives and eventually surrendering. At school A, the classroom teacher, the SRO, the school counselor, the assistant principal, and the principal were interviewed. School B was a middle school located in a rural community in the Southeastern USA. The event occurred during lunch time when the captive taker took another student at gun point. Initially, a teacher attempted to negotiate the release of the captive, until the SRO arrived and took over. As local police arrived, the SRO was able to garner the release of the captive, and the eventual surrender of the captive taker. This event was a hostage crisis because the captive taker wanted a car and was going to use the captive as a shield so he could escape across state lines. According to the SRO, he was apparently trying to escape severe abuse at home. At school B, the SRO and the intervening teacher were interviewed. School C was a high school in a rural community in the Western USA. The captive taker was a 17-year-old male, who entered his English class and ordered everyone into the back corner of the room. His motive was allegedly to rape and/or kill a young woman in the class. The principal and the SRO entered the room; the SRO drew his gun and ordered the perpetrator to drop his knives. At the same time, the principal ushered the victims out of the room. The captive taker eventually surrendered his knives and was taken into custody. This situation was an expressive ­barricaded captive crisis because the captive taker intended to harm one of the victims. At School C, the teacher, SRO, school psychologist, principal, and assistant principal were interviewed. As with the previous study (Daniels et  al., 2007a), results are presented in ­abbreviated form. The primary categories relate to salient roles of the interviewees, systemic conditions that were helpful in resolving the event, participants’ attributions as to the successful outcome, and advice they would offer to others. Throughout the discussion, we highlight in italics salient factors that will be incorporated into the Safe School Communities Model in Chap. 7. Participants highlighted several important roles in which they engaged. The most frequently described role related to “developing a trusting, open relationship with every student in the school” (Daniels et al., 2007b, p. 608). This particular role has been viewed as an essential ingredient for student connectedness (Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998). Ryan et  al. found that students who feel connected to their school are more likely to seek help when faced with problems. The finding that student-perpetrated barricaded captive events were mitigated as a result of efforts by school personnel to develop positive relationships with students lends further support to the connectedness hypothesis (Daniels et al., 2007b). Participants in this study also addressed supportive and informative roles following the incidents. Emotionally supporting students and parents was seen as an important

66

5 Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events

function in the school’s efforts to establish itself as a safe place, despite the incident. It must be noted that some participants, especially teachers who had been held captive, did not feel supported by the school or their colleagues afterward. Daniels, Bradley and Hays (2007) remind psychologists who respond to school crises not to forget about staff members who have been victimized. Participants were also asked about systemic conditions in the school and community that they believed contributed to the successful resolution of the events. “Many participants reported the importance of having school personnel present in the ­hallways and throughout the rest of the school” (Supervision & Monitoring) (Daniels et al., 2007b, p. 608). Physical presence in the hallways communicates to students that they are protected from harassment. It was also viewed as a means for faculty to get to know the students on a more personal level through informal interactions. When asked what they attributed the successful outcome of the event to, the majority of participants again emphasized having positive relationships with ­students. Dwyer, Osher and Warger (1998) discussed the importance of students serving as the eyes and ears of the school. However, in this study, we found that the eyes and ears must trust administration and teachers to intervene when the students come to them with concerns. Finally, participants were asked what advice they would offer to other educators who may experience a barricaded captive event. Again, not surprisingly, the most prevalent advice was to get to know all students and work to develop a sense of trust so they will come to adults, if they have problems or are concerned about another student. Karcher (2004) found that low student connectedness was associated with greater levels of violence in schools. The advice given by participants in the Daniels et al., 2007b study will serve to increase student connectedness.

Recommendations As a result of the research that has been conducted to date on barricaded captive events in schools and in concert with law enforcement practices, we offer several recommendations for school personnel and law enforcement officers who may intervene in similar situations in the future. These recommendations relate to prevention and mitigation efforts, intervention (or response), and post-incident considerations. We must note that following these recommendations does not ­guarantee that a barricaded captive-taking event will end successfully. Rather, adhering to these guidelines will increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. Prevention and mitigation.  Initial research has suggested some tentative preventive stances that may lower the likelihood that students will get to the point of taking captives in the schools. Because these are tentative, we must highlight the ­importance of further research to replicate and validate results that have led to these recommendations. The majority of student-initiated barricaded captive situations in schools appear to be expressive in nature, rather than instrumental. As such, it is important that educators engage in activities that will lessen the probability of students getting to a stage of crisis

Research Findings

67

that such extreme behavior signifies. In barricaded captive events that were resolved without injuries or fatalities, we (Daniels et al., 2007b) found that the most commonly discussed preventive/mitigating factor was the quality relationships school and law enforcement personnel established with all students. This includes, first, getting to know students and their families on a personal level. Educators may accomplish this by spending time with students outside of the ­classroom, for instance by eating lunch with students in the cafeteria and being present in the hallways during transition times. It is also important for educators to come to after-school activities such as athletic or performing arts events. Getting to know students on a more personal level also entails meeting and learning about the students’ families through formal (i.e., parent–teacher conferences) and informal (e.g., again attending after-school events) interactions. We (Daniels et al., 2007b) also discovered that once these trusting relationships had been established, students were more likely to come to faculty either if they were having problems or were concerned about another student who was having difficulties. Research has shown that in some instances, students came to school personnel with their concerns, but the adults did not adequately address these ­concerns (Dorn, 2003). Anecdotal evidence suggests that in some instances adult interventions actually made things worse for the victimized students of bullying (Dorn). Consequently, students were less likely to believe that adults could help them in the future. It is imperative that when students come to an adult with ­concerns the adult will act upon the information to help the student resolve the issue. In summary, to quote from the movie Field of Dreams, “If you build it, [they] will come.” Another prevention/mitigation recommendation is that educators and law enforcement officers set up the school climate to ensure student safety and the best learning environment possible. One of the 11 recommendations made by the US Department of Education and the US Secret Service following their study of school shooters was to assess the school’s emotional climate (Fein et  al., 2002). It is imperative that students feel safe, feel connected, and believe that adults have their best interest at heart. When students believe that educators are not going to protect them, tragic results may occur. For example, in a study of the Columbine High School rampage, Larkin (2007) reported that bullying and intimidation was frequently ignored when the perpetrator was a star athlete. More recently, reports of hazing incidents have surfaced in which school personnel failed to prevent or even stop abusive behavior (Korte, 2008). In one incident, a group of juniors on the school’s football team sodomized younger players with broom stick handles. The school district concluded that the coaching staff did not adequately supervise the players, and worse, failed to investigate reports of the hazing (Korte). The implicit message behind such negligence is that the bullying and abuse is acceptable and will be tolerated, if the perpetrator holds a certain level of status in the school. To what extent does ignoring abusiveness teach students that the adults in their school will not look out for them? To what extent will they then take matters into their own hands to protect themselves? Clearly, we can do better. Intervention/response. There are several key considerations when responding to a barricaded captive event in school. It cannot be overstated here: Every situation is different so establishing specific guidelines is not possible at this time. That being

68

5 Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events

said, there are several things that must be considered when responding to a ­barricaded captive event. First and foremost is the safety of all people in the school. Naturally, following established safety procedures is imperative, including such steps as calling for a lockdown and calling the police. Until the police arrive, the SRO should take the lead in resolving the situation, to the extent this is possible. Under most ­circumstances, the people involved should attempt to negotiate for the release of the captives. However, if the subject is highly agitated, such negotiation could lead to further ­escalation of the problem. Careful thought must be exercised in a crisis. A second recommendation for those in contact with the subject is to behave in ways that will not escalate the situation (Daniels et al., 2007b; McMains & Mullins, 2006). Communications need to be clear and nonthreatening and behaviors must not portray aggression. The importance of active listening has been well established as an effective means of de-escalating a person in crisis (Vecchi et  al., 2005). Although the majority of subjects’ motives in school barricaded captive events are expressive, one cannot assume that this to be the case. Through careful listening, the contact person can establish what the subject wants. Buying time and lowering the subject’s emotionality are necessary. Post-incident (recovery).  Barricaded captive events in schools are traumatic ­experiences for all involved (Moscardino et al., 2008; Scrimin et al., 2006; Vila et al., 1999). The most important post-incident activity is making mental health services available to anyone who has been affected. The students and faculty who had been held captive, as well as others within the school, may experience acute stress disorder and later develop posttraumatic stress disorder. Acute stress ­disorder may be ­diagnosed within days of a traumatic event, whereas a diagnosis of PTSD cannot be made until 6-month post-incident. Although most schools have the capacity to work with mental health concerns following a crisis, there is also a need to bring in ­additional counselors and psychologists. Mental health services should be offered to students and faculty alike (Daniels, Bradley, & Hays, 2007). However, such services must never be mandatory. As was shown following the 9–11 attacks on the World Trade Center, some people were reportedly harmed by well-intentioned crisis ­workers who attempted to insist on crisis counseling (Daniels, Bradley, & Hays, 2007). In addition to mental health services, participants in the study by Daniels et al. (2007b) described the importance of formally contacting parents as soon as possible with clear, accurate information about the incident. This communication serves to dispel rumors and to reassure parents that the school handled the event in a timely and competent manner. The school crisis response plan must include procedures for informing parents and the community. School districts may address parents through letters, phone calls, and/or public community forums.

Summary In this chapter, we have addressed a topic that until recently has received very little research attention. Barricaded captive-taking at schools is a form of interpersonal violence that has the potential to become lethal and frequently leaves deep

References

69

p­ sychological scars on the victims. We have defined the key constructs in this domain and then reviewed results of the few studies that have been conducted on school ­captive-taking. We concluded the chapter with several recommendations for school personnel and law enforcement officers who at some time may respond to one of these events. In Chap. 6, we begin to tie together the results of research into a description of methods of creating safe school communities.

References Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Jacob-Timm, S. (2001). Assessment of violence potential among school children: Beyond profiling. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 239–247. Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., Cramer, D. P., Winkler, A., Kinbrew, K., & Crockett, D. (2007a). In the aftermath of a school hostage event: A case study of one school counselor’s response. Professional School Counseling, 10, 482–489. Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., Cramer, D. P., Winkler, A., Kinebrew, K., & Crockett, D. (2007b). Factors related to successful resolution of armed hostage/barricade events in schools: A qualitative analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 601–613. Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., & Hays, M. (2007c). The impact of school violence on school personnel: Implications for psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 652–659. Daniels, J. A., Buck, I., Croxall, S., Gruber, J., Kime, P., & Govert, H. (2007d). A content analysis of news reports of averted school rampages. Journal of School Violence, 6, 83–99. Daniels, J. A., Royster, T. E., Vecchi, G. M., & Pshenishny, E. E. (2010). Barricaded captive ­situations in schools: Mitigation and response. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 597–594. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9318-4. Dorn, M. (2003). Weakfish: Bullying through the eyes of a child. Macon, GA: Safe Havens International. Dwyer, K., Osher, D., & Warger, C. (1998). Early warning, timely response: A guide to safe schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Fein, R. A., Vossekuil, B., Pollack, W. S., Borum, R., Modzeleski, W., & Reddy, M. (2002). Threat assessment in schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and creating safe school climates. Washington, DC: United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. Hicks, S. J., & Sales, B. D. (2006). Criminal profiling: Developing an effective science and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Karcher, M. J. (2004). Connectedness and school violence: A framework for developmental interventions. In E. R. Gerler Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of school violence (pp. 7–39). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Korte, T. (2008, September 23). Horrific football hazing case shakes NM town. The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FOOTBALL_ TEAM_HAZING?SITE=TXHOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Larkin, R. W. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. McMains, M. J., & Mullins, W. C. (2006). Crisis negotiations: Managing critical incidents and hostage situations in law enforcement and corrections (3rd ed.). Albany, NY: LexisNexis Anderson Publishers. Moscardino, U., Scrimin, S., Capello, F., Altoè, G., & Axia, G. (2008). Psychological adjustment of adolescents 18 months after the terrorist attack in Beslan, Russia: A cross-sectional study. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69, 854–859. O’Toole, M. E. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Regini, C. (2002, November). Crisis negotiation teams: Selection and training. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 1–5. Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 21, 95–103.

70

5 Successfully Resolved Barricaded Captive Events

Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 528–535. Scrimin, S., Axia, G., Capello, F., Moscardino, U., Steinberg, A. M., & Pynoos, R. S. (2006). Posttraumatic reactions among injured children and their caregivers 3 months after the terrorist attack in Beslan. Psychiatry Research, 141, 333–336. Schaefer. C., & Fuller, J. (2007, January). Case report, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, File no. 2006-002834. Turvey, B. E. Knowledge Solutions Library (1998, January). Deductive criminal profiling: Comparing applied methodologies between inductive and deductive criminal profiling ­techniques. Retrieved May 2, 2001, from http://www.corpus-delicti.com/Profiling_law.html Vecchi, G. M., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Romano, S. J. (2005). Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current strategies and issues in high-conflict resolution. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 533–551. Vila, G., Porche, L., & Mouren-Simeoni, M. C. (1999). An 18-month longitudinal study of ­posttraumatic disorders in children who were taken hostage in their school. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 746–754. Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: US Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center.

Chapter 6

Building a Positive School Climate

Overview So far in this book we have outlined the negative impact and the social and ­psychological costs of school violence. And although we have provided strategies for successfully resolving captive-taking situations inside of a school in the last chapter, what about preventing such acts from occurring? The answer, as usual, is a complicated one. Unfortunately, there is no absolute way to prevent school violence from occurring, but there most certainly are things that can be done to decrease the likelihood of it happening. In this chapter, we outline some very specific strategies that school administrators and other professionals can use to help decrease violence within the walls of their school. In this chapter, we discuss the construct of school climate, but specifically we focus on building a positive school climate. We describe the components of a positive school climate and, as outlined by the current research, the dimensions significant to its creation. We describe relevant constructs or components of school climate and explain, again as postulated by current research, the benefits of creating such a climate. We detail ways in which a positive school climate can be created by school professionals, administrators, students, and families.

Research Findings Positive School Climate: What Is It? How Do We Define It? Research on school climate is not a new or recent phenomenon; research on school climate began over 100  years ago (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009) and has continued, fairly consistently ever since. In 1908, educator and researcher Arthur Perry was the first to explicitly write about the importance and impact of school climate. In the 1950s, researchers began to systematically study the school climate. Halpin and Croft (1963) were the first to rigorously and specifically J.A. Daniels and M.C. Bradley, Preventing Lethal School Violence, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3_6, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

71

72

6 Building a Positive School Climate

e­ valuate the impact of school climate on student learning and development. Other early work focused on school effectiveness (Anderson, 1982; Creemers & Reezigt, 1999). But many of the early studies of school climate were focused more on observable entities such as the physical condition of the school (Anderson, 1982). And although research on school climate has continued through today, some questions remain unanswered and significant disagreement about this topic still exists among educators and researchers alike. Probably not surprising, educators and researchers have not reached 100% agreement on a definition of positive school climate. Some people refer to positive school climate; others refer to a positive school atmosphere, feeling, tone, setting, or milieu (Freiberg, 1999; Homana, Barber, & Torney-Purta, 2006). Additionally, researchers cannot agree if positive school climate is a subjective entity or an objective component of school life. Given these disagreements, however, there are some key concepts that we do agree on. In spite of the varying definitions and the subjective–objective debate over school climate, consensus exists about some significant aspects of school climate. First and foremost, researchers and educators agree that school climate ­encompasses the quality as well as the character of school life. Researchers agree that the quality and the character of school life reflect the norms, values, and expectations of individuals most affected by the school. Additionally, researchers and educators primarily agree that the students, families, and all school professionals within the school community hope to create a climate of safety. These same people also want a climate that promotes learning and supports students physically, emotionally, and socially. Researchers and educators agree that a sustainable, positive school climate fosters youth development and multiple learning styles, both of which are necessary for a full, productive life in the “real world” (Cohen et al., 2009). Researchers and educators also agree that the school climate is more than an individual experience and is larger than just one person. It is the collective experience of many key players; it is a group phenomenon and represents many facets of school life. School climate is created by a multitude of experiences, behaviors, and patterns of being. It is believed that the quality and character of the school reflects patterns of experiences and behaviors from everyone directly, and sometimes indirectly, involved in the school. This would suggest that not only do students, teachers, and other school administrators impact the school climate but support staff, substitute teachers, parents, and families are also reflected within the school climate. Additionally, any support services or agencies that play a role within the school have a significant influence on the school climate.

What Makes Up the School Climate? It is important to understand how these collective, group experiences and behaviors reflect the school climate. Again, this question provokes complicated and varying answers. A number of internal and external factors influence and shape people’s

Research Findings

73

experiences and perceptions of school life. Some educators and researchers suggest that patterns of experiences, and particularly patterns of behaviors, are directly related to the norms, goals, and values of the school. It is also believed that personal relationships among everyone directly and indirectly engaged with the school (parents, families, support agencies, etc.) have a significant influence on the school climate. However, these findings alone are not solely responsible for the makeup of the school climate. The primary role of the school is to educate students, prepare them, and equip them with the tools necessary for a healthy and successful life after school. It makes sense that the elements involved in the learning process have an impact on the overall climate of the school. Many educators strongly believe that the teaching and learning practices, the academic expectations, and the ­organizational structures within the school play a role in the climate. Again, there is no one agreed upon set of factors or dimensions that we know and believe create the school climate. However, virtually all researchers and ­educators agree that four major dimensions clearly and significantly shape the school climate. These four dimensions include safety, relationships, teaching and learning, and the external environment. Each of these areas needs to be explained in further detail; Table  6.1, however, gives a brief explanation of these dimensions and the elements embedded within each (as outlined by Cohen et al., 2009). Safety.  Everyone wants the school to be a safe and productive place for children, teachers, administrators, and families. No one wants students to feel at risk or unsafe when at school. Numerous research studies have indicated the negative impact of feeling unsafe at school; at least 10% of high school students who dropped out of school did so because they felt unsafe (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2001). Additionally, if teachers and administrators live in a state of fear while at school, Table 6.1  Four dimensions of a positive school climate Dimensions Safety   Physical safety   Social emotional safety Teaching and learning   Quality of instruction   Social, emotional, and ethical learning   Professional development   Leadership Relationships   Respect for diversity   School and community collaboration   Morale and connectedness Environmental–Structural   Space and structure of the building (enough space, sound structural building, and cleanliness)   Access to resources   Extracurricular activities available

74

6 Building a Positive School Climate

their attitude, behaviors, and effectiveness in the classroom can only be hindered. It is agreed that feeling unsafe at school is detrimental to everyone. There are two dimensions to school safety that impact the school climate: ­physical safety and social–emotional safety. Physical safety reflects the concrete aspects of the school such as the policies and procedures, school rules, crisis plans, and the overall attitude about risk and safety at the school. Social–emotional safety will be defined later in this chapter. Physical safety.  In regards to physical safety, it is important to have very clear and specific guidelines about a number of issues. Schools must consider the policies and guidelines for procedures such as “passing-periods” and students in the hallway during class time, lunch periods, and how students get to the cafeteria (i.e., are they escorted, are they going on their own, how many “classes” eat lunch at one time, etc?). If the school has open campus or open lunch (students allowed to leave school grounds during their lunch period) how is this monitored? Are there specific rules about where students can and cannot go during their open lunch time? Perhaps less obvious but equally important, what are the rules about letting students out of class 1–2 min early? Does a “bell” or some other universal structure indicate the end of a class period and the beginning of another? All of these conditions are of great relevance to the physical safety of the students. Unfortunately, many schools have overlooked the details of a number of these rules or regulations. In addition to having set rules, it is important that all adults in the school be aware of these rules and that everyone enforce them. A rule is ineffective if not enforced, and a large part of enforcing rules is determining and enforcing ­consequences. All adults in the school need to use the same disciplinary guidelines and must strictly enforce the consequences for breaking rules. There is no faster way to break down the authority of the school and its adults than inconsistent responses to school rules. Students may use this inconsistency to their advantage and it can create discontent and splitting among the adults in the school. Rules are only as effective as the extent to which they are followed and enforced. Another important factor of the physical safety of the school is the crisis plan. First and foremost, it is extremely important to have at least one crisis plan, ­sometimes more. Crisis plans outline what to do when a school is in crisis. This means having a plan for a bomb threat, having a plan, probably a much different plan, if a student brings a weapon to school, and yet a different plan for a ­captive-taking situation. And like all plans, these crisis plans need to be very specific. Some schools have not given adequate thought and detail to their crisis plans. Some schools, as shocking as it may sound, do not even have a sound crisis plan. Unfortunately, many school professionals still believe the old homage of “It could never happen to us, it would never happen here.” In today’s culture of aggression and violence, no school can afford to live by that sentiment. Social–emotional safety.  The second component of the school safety domain is the social–emotional safety of the students and everyone inside of the school. This type of safety refers to attitudes about individual differences, different cultures, and “groups” of people; attitudes and responses to school bullying; overall attitude about violence, aggression, and the resolution of aggressive acts within the school;

Research Findings

75

and the overall attitude toward school rules. Social–emotional safety, therefore, encompasses more of the cognitive perceptions of safety within the school and beliefs about how people should be treated. This component of safety, perhaps less obvious than the component of physical safety, is extremely important to attend to, although being very difficult at the same time. Much of the construction of social–emotional safety comes from developing the physical components of safety. For example, attitude and perception are influenced by actions and behaviors. Attitudes toward violence and aggression are largely ­influenced by how the administration responds to violent and aggressive acts (Kramer & Cook, 2004). The attitudes and beliefs about how others should be treated are also largely influenced by the expectations and demands of the ­administration. If the administration demands, through school rules and ­consequences, that everyone in the school be treated with dignity, respect, and kindness, students quickly learn how they are expected to behave. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the actions and behaviors of the adults and administrators significantly influence the attitudes and behaviors of the students. In developing a safe ­social–emotional climate at school, it is imperative that school administrators model, through their everyday interpersonal relationships, the type of environment they wish to create. The administration needs to perceive everyone as equal, while also acknowledging and respecting individual and group differences. Adults and ­administrators need to interact with all students in the same fashion; administrators should not alienate individuals or groups of people. To do so only sends a glaring message that it is acceptable to treat people differently based on visible individual or group variables. But if administrators model equal treatment of all people, especially all students, others are more likely to behave in similar ways. Teaching and learning.  As previously stated, the primary purpose of the school is to educate and prepare students to be healthy, productive citizens within the larger society. As such, the many facets of teaching and student learning are a large part of the culture and climate of the school. Therefore, it only makes sense that the norms, values, and beliefs about education/teaching and student learning ­significantly influence the overall experiences and feelings inside the school. When describing how the component of teaching and learning influence school climate, it is ­important to acknowledge the four elements of this domain. These four elements are quality of instruction; social, emotional, and ethical learning; professional development; and leadership. Quality of instruction.  Quality of instruction is obviously directly related to teaching and student learning. This element entails actual instructional styles and effectiveness as well as overall attitudes about student learning. This element involves instructional strategies, different teaching methods, and teachers’ attitude and appreciation of teaching. And finally, high-quality instruction is significantly influenced by feelings for students and beliefs about their learning styles and capabilities. High-quality instructors have received high-quality training. They also continue to seek training opportunities as the needs and demands of changing student ­population continue to evolve. Quality instructors have a philosophy of teaching based on their educational and training experiences, their teaching experiences, and relevant research. Quality instructors are aware of “best educational practices” and work to tailor these to the specific needs of their students.

76

6 Building a Positive School Climate

Respecting and acknowledging the diverse learners within the classroom is a key attribute of a high-quality instructor. This means an instructor must understand and honor that students learn in a number of different ways. In an effort to encourage and teach to all students, instructors must employ a variety of instructional strategies, using creativity and variety in their lessons. The attitude and beliefs of an instructor might be equally important as their classroom strategies and techniques. Unfortunately, we have all met that educator who is worn down or burned out on teaching. Quality instruction has to begin with the belief that all students can learn and that everyone deserves equal access to education. This attitude alone sends a message and stimulates a completely different environment than the one created by the “burned out” instructor. This attitude works to instill hope within students and build their sense of self-efficacy. This attitude also represents a caring professional who plays favorites to no one and gives the best of him- or herself to all students. In connection with this attitude, students are praised and positively acknowledged for their efforts and their ­ achievements. Help is offered and provided to all students. These attributes are the primary characteristics of high-quality instructors who provide high-quality instruction to their students and in turn contribute positively to the school climate. Social, emotional, and ethical learning.  Education is not just about textbooks, book reports, and standardized test scores. The social, emotional and ethical learning (i.e., SEEL) element of the teaching and learning speaks to these other components. SEEL reflects the preparation for living and functioning successfully within a democratic society. SEEL reflects the importance of learning to effectively communicate with others and build important social skills necessary to navigate “real world” issues. This element of the teaching and learning component of a positive school climate speaks to understanding “right vs. wrong” and ethical behavior, again necessary for “real world” success. This element also acknowledges and values varying “intelligences,” such as emotional intelligence and the ability to identify one’s own and others’ emotions. It also values the ability to regulate or manage emotions so as not to become debilitated by them. SEEL reflects the learning that takes place outside of a textbook yet still exists within the school and is an essential learning component for students. Professional development.  This element reflects the value placed on continual training of teachers and school professionals. The purpose of professional ­development is to assist everyone from school staff to classroom teachers in their efforts to bring the most accurate, up-to-date information to students. The ­opportunities should be driven by data, standards used to measure teacher ­effectiveness, and should be linked directly to student learning and student outcomes. Ideally professional development would be an ongoing and systematic aspect of how the school operates. Trainings and other professional development opportunities would be made available regularly and would be cost effective. Most importantly, however, the content and nature of the professional development opportunities would directly correlate with the needs of the classroom instructors and students. Leadership.  Leadership inside a school is vital. We cannot stress this point enough. Although each school functions within a larger entity (i.e., school district,

Research Findings

77

corporation, etc.), the leader of each school, the school principal, holds great responsibility and has a great level of influence. Although we will talk more ­specifically about the role of the school principal later in this chapter, a few points must be mentioned now. Every school needs a principal who systematically and purposefully works toward shared goals. The school must have a vision and a plan for the future, a conceptual framework which, in great detail, outlines how each component is ­connected to the goals and vision. The leader should make it clear how all these components work to support one another. As a leader, it is important to know the goals and vision of the school. It is even more important to clearly and precisely communicate these goals and this vision to those invested in the school. This would include not only teachers and other school professionals, but also students, parents, and the larger community. Families and community members must be aware of and understand the ideals of the school. Additionally, it is important that the school principal and other persons in leadership positions be visible and accessible to those invested; this means teachers, staff, students, and families. And finally, the principal must honor and respect everyone inside his/her building as well as all stakeholders outside the school walls. Relationships.  The interpersonal relationships of a school are of great ­importance to the culture and climate of the school. Additionally, the interpersonal ­relationships with families and other community members can be equally as important. Most researchers agree that in terms of the relationships, respect for diversity and ­differences, collaboration between the school and the community, and the overall morale and connectedness of all stakeholders are the key elements. Respect for diversity and differences.  Inside the school, hopefully one would see a great amount of diversity among students, teachers, and staff. Ideally, a collaboration of men and women, from all age groups, ethnic backgrounds, and SESs are ­represented among the students and adults. But, if a school is fairly homogenous in terms of ethnicity, or even age, other forms of cultural diversity are also important. Within every school, diversity and differences exist, whether it is visible to the naked eye or not. It is how these differences are treated that truly makes a difference within the school climate. In a positive school climate, adults in the building have cooperative relationships with and among each other. Ideally adults respect one another as individuals, but at bare minimum they respect each other as professionals and colleagues. And as ­colleagues who respect one another, decision making is more likely to be a shared process where everyone can have an equal voice and influence. People are more likely to feel “a part” of something in this environment. Ideally, teachers and administrators will have mutual respect for one another and the role each person plays. In this environment, people are more likely to work ­collectively toward a shared vision and more productive outcomes are likely to occur. And simply stated, people are more likely to like each other, usually resulting in a more pleasant place to work. Modeling these positive, healthy, adult relationships at school is important to the climate that is created; these relationships can significantly influence other

78

6 Building a Positive School Climate

important relationships in the school. If teachers and administrators have conflictual ­relationships among each other, this can easily create a “split” dynamic; meaning other persons within the building must ultimately “choose a side.” The split dynamic is not productive or healthy for anyone involved. It is equally important that positive relationships exist among the students. This does not equate to all students befriending and getting along with each other. But positive relationships mean that students are open to one another, and constant conflict does not exist between different groups of students. For example, some schools contain multiple cliques that carry disgust and disdain for each other. Other schools have the same student cliques but each group is apathetic toward one another – every group has their “rightful” place inside the school. All students do not have to like or get along with each other; but a positive school climate is more likely to exist if students at least allow each other to be and express themselves as they wish without discrimination and oppression. Creating such a student climate begins with the adult-to-student relationships in the school. Positive student-to-adult relationships constitute a key factor to the climate of the school. This sentiment cannot be overstated. How the adults in the school, ­particularly teachers, view and treat students is a major influence in the school climate. Addi­ tionally, how students perceive and behave toward the adults, ­particularly teachers and administrators, may be even more important to the ­climate. And how students treat teachers is going to be largely influenced by how the teachers treat them. Again, we come back to the importance of modeling. If students feel “heard” and respected, they are more likely to show respect in return. Additionally, issues of fairness and equity are incredibly important to students. Adults inside the school hold all the power and influence – as it should be. Students are greatly influenced by this power, and how it is used. If students believe teachers and administrators favor one group over another, the hostility and resentment created will likely generate another split dynamic. And the hostility and resentment only produces negative outcomes for everyone involved. Issues of equity and fairness are of great influence. Adults must provide the same ­opportunities, and consequences, for every student, especially if they wish to ­promote respect and a positive climate at school. School and community collaboration.  Sometimes schools and community ­organizations partner together to best serve students and their families. Some schools have community services inside their buildings (i.e., a school resource officer who is connected to the local police department, social service agencies such as food and clothing banks, community health organizations connected to the school). This sort of collaboration may help to effectively and efficiently provide holistic services for students and their families. This means that both the school and community must understand each other’s norms and values. Ideally, the school and community can find ways to emphasize shared goals and values, as well as to work with and compromise around their differences. Again, this allows for a supportive, collaborative relationship that benefits students and their families. Schools must directly connect to students’ families. Hopefully, parents want to be involved and informed of their children’s education, although we are not naïve enough to think that this is always so. Finding ways to have constant open

Research Findings

79

c­ ommunication, maybe through websites and other electronic sources or printed ­communications, given that not all families have access to the internet, may be helpful. And it is also important to have face-to-face conversations between schools and families so each can be informed about what’s happening with the other. The school can also systematically and directly give back to the community. In many schools, student clubs and organizations are required to volunteer or ­participate in philanthropy of some sort. This is an excellent way and an excellent example of collaboration and “give-and-take” between the school and the community. Having students spend a little time and energy at these activities can be incredibly supportive and helpful to the community. Morale and connectedness.  This factor speaks to the energy and the enthusiasm of the people inside the school. School connectedness is so important for students (Daniels, Bradley, Cramer et al., 2007; Daniels, Bradley, & Hays, 2007). Research conducted by Daniels et al. found that school barricaded captive events were more likely to be resolved peacefully when the captive-taker felt “connected to” or close to at least one adult in the building (Daniels, Bradley, Cramer et al.). In fact, when asked why they thought the captive event was successfully and peacefully resolved, most teachers and administrators involved in the crises reported the quality of the relationships and the connectedness to one another in the school (Daniels, Bradley, Cramer et al.). Students’ feeling of connectedness also has a large impact in the classroom. If students feel good about their school community and feel connected to their teachers, their attitude in the classroom is more positive (Chen, 2009; Cohen et al., 2009). Feeling connected to teachers and other adults in the school also impacts student performance and outcomes in the classroom. Students are more likely to work hard and earn higher scores when they feel connected to someone at school (Cohen et al.; Ross, McDonald, Alberg, & McSparrin-Gallagher, 2007). Morale and connectedness among school professionals and staffs are equally important. If teachers are enthusiastic about coming to work, enjoy being with the students and in the classroom, and if they enjoy working with their colleagues, these positive feelings can be contagious. When teachers feel more enthused about teaching, they are more effective in the classroom, they are more likely to engage with their students, and use more varied and creative instructional strategies to reach all students (Kunter et al., 2008). The morale and feelings of connectedness in the school have a large impact on the school climate but on so many other ­important variables as well. Environment and physical structure.  Not every school is created equal and not every school is operating under the same budget with access to the same number and kinds of resources. The structure and physical environment of the school has a significant influence on the climate. Some schools have large budgets that provide state-of-the-art technology in nearly every classroom. Other schools cannot buy enough textbooks for every student in their classrooms. The disparity in these two schools, and the impact this can have on the school climate is undeniable. But budgets are typically fixed and schools must work with what they have. It is important to be aware of how these conditions impact the students, their learning, and even their attitude toward school. Teachers can also be significantly impacted by resources or the lack thereof.

80

6 Building a Positive School Climate

Additionally, the physical condition and the cleanliness of the building can make a big difference. If the hallways and classrooms are dark, dingy, and dirty, this ­influences the “feel” of the building. On the other hand, a well-lighted, clean facility can enhance the atmosphere of the school. This influences how people feel when they walk into the room – so this can have a large impact on the morale, feelings of connectedness, and overall enthusiasm of teachers, staff, and students. The structure and overall amount of space in the building also has a significant impact. A small, rectangular classroom, jammed with individual chairs, 30 students and one teacher influences so many things. The activities that can be done are ­limited, the ability to move freely through the room and get to all the students is limited, and the overall atmosphere of this room can be stifling. This room creates a much ­different atmosphere than a spacious room with individual desks as well as larger tables for group work, and easy accessibility to and from the students. The students are apt to feel much different in each of these two rooms as well. Additionally, the size and location of the cafeteria and the gymnasium also have a significant impact. It might sound trivial and insignificant, but how big the cafeteria is and how far students must walk to get there has an impact on the school climate. A crowded cafeteria means a greater opportunity for chaos and conflict, as well as increased need for adult supervision. The size and location of the gymnasium can have a similar impact. The opportunities for games and other activities can be ­limited by the space available. And finally, another component of the structure and environment of the school is the extracurricular activities offered. The availability of these activities can be impacted by money as well as space (tennis courts, track and field activities, etc.). Denying students the opportunities to participate in these extracurricular activities can negatively impact their future. Some high school students actually use sports as a means to higher education and the money necessary to pay for their education. These activities allow some students to belong and feel a part of something bigger than themselves. For some students, it is these extracurricular activities that motivate them to perform in the classroom. Also, access to these extracurricular activities can help students to develop important life skills such as trust, team building, problem solving, and other essential social and communication skills.

What Is the Impact of a Positive School Climate? The climate inside the school has an impact on a number of things and people’s experiences with the school (Astor, Meyer, Benbenishty, Marachi, & Rosemond, 2005; Chen, 2009; Cohen, 2006; Comer, 1980). Studies have found that teachers’ commitment to the school and their feedback to the students has a noteworthy effect on student self-esteem (Hoge, Smit, & Hanson, 1990). Additionally, positive school climate has been connected with lower levels of absenteeism (deJung & Duckworth, 1986; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rumberger, 1987; Sommer, 1985).

Research Findings

81

A series of studies has also found a link between school climate and student health and effective risk prevention efforts (Cohen, 2001; Gottfredson & Wilson, 2003; Juvonen, Le, Kaganoff, Augustine, & Constant, 2004). Some of these studies have shown that positive health promotion and risk prevention efforts are correlated with safe, caring, and responsive school climates (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005; Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002). Related to this, mothers’ reports of their children’s use of alcohol and psychiatric problems are correlated with the social–emotional dimension of school climate (Kasen, Johnson, & Cohen, 1990). School climate can also promote, or complicate, meaningful student learning (Cohen et al., 2009). Research has found that school climate and the extracurricular activities offered have a significant impact on student motivation for learning (Eccles et al., 1993; Goodenow & Crady, 1997). Opportunities for community service and school debates have been shown to enhance the learning environment because they provide students the chance to actively engage and participate in the learning process. Presumably, these extracurricular activities are provided in a safe, collaborative environment, which in turn encourages students to work together and build on each other’s ideas and projects (Wentzel & Watkins, 2002). Similarly, positive school climate also promotes cooperative peer learning, group cohesion, respect and mutual trust (Finnan, Schnepel, & Anderson, 2003; Ghaith, 2003; Kerr, Ireland, Lopes, Craig, & Cleaver, 2004). This collaborative peer learning simulates real-life social situations and helps to prepare students for life outside of school (Bandura, 2001; Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001). And overall, a series of studies conducted in the USA and abroad have shown a correlation between positive school climate and increased academic achievement (Freiberg, 1999; Good & Weinstein, 1986; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1989; Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989; McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002; Sherblom, Marshall, & Sherblom, 2006; Whitlock, 2006). Again, schools described as safe, caring, and responsive have been shown to have greater levels of student attachment to their school. These same characteristics provide the best platform for social, emotional, and academic learning (Blum, McNeely, & Rinehart, 2002; Osterman, 2000). The relational component of a school, which is aligned with the characteristics of caring and responsiveness, also has a noteworthy impact on school climate. In recent years, greater attention has been paid to the relational dimension of school climate and specifically the issue of student connectedness. Student connectedness, or the degree to which students feel connected to or close to a teacher or other school professional, has been a powerful predictor of adolescent health issues and their academic outcomes (McNeely et  al., 2002; Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006; Whitlock, 2006). For example, school connectedness was associated with adolescent violence prevention (Karcher, 2002a, 2002b) and was found to be a protective factor against risky sexual behavior, violent behaviors, and drug use (Catalano et al., 2002; Kirby, 2001). In fact, these studies were instrumental to the US Department of Justice (2004), the US Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools network, and a large number of state departments of education promoting safe and caring schools (Cohen et al., 2009).

82

6 Building a Positive School Climate

Positive School Climate: How to Create It So far, in this chapter, we have defined a positive school climate, extensively ­outlined the four dimensions, as agreed upon by researchers, which contribute to a school ­climate, and addressed the extensive benefits of a positive school climate. In the remainder of the chapter, we will focus on how to develop and sustain a positive school climate. The role of the principal and other key school professionals will be discussed. The role of the principal.  The work of a school principal is never done. This line might sound like a cliché but it could not be truer. School principals carry huge responsibilities within the school and for all invested parties; from students, ­parents, teachers, staffs, and far more people, the principal is responsible for and must answer to each of these groups. Developing and sustaining a positive school climate is clearly in the best interest of the principal, because it will go a long way in ­pleasing each of the groups mentioned above and in forming a safe school community. Change starts with the principal; perhaps another cliché but also very true. The first thing principals must do is reflect, primarily on their perceptions and attitudes about the school. There is compelling research to suggest that second only to the classroom teacher, the school principal largely shapes student learning (Wallace Foundation, 2006). To be an effective principal, one must hold a positive attitude about the school, especially about the students and their families. If school principals believe in their students and acknowledge their strengths, this attitude will be reflected in their actions and their communications. But unfortunately, the reverse is also true: If principals hold negative, hopeless views of their students, this ­message is also communicated loud and clear to everyone. We believe that the beginnings of a positive school climate begin with the school leader, the principal. We believe the principal must enjoy and embrace her/his job, but most importantly must hold a positive, strength-based perspective of every ­student within the school. And the principal must loudly and clearly communicate this to his or her students every day. This can be done in a number of different ways; from complimenting students on a daily basis, to attending extracurricular ­activities, and encouraging students in every way possible, as often as possible. If a principal does not or cannot do these things, it is imperative for him or her to reflect on her/ his motives for holding this position. It is possible that the principal that cannot acknowledge and encourage every student might better serve the school and ­community in a different position. Evaluate the workforce: teachers and staff.  Principals are the ones primarily responsible for the adults working within the school. The responsibility of selecting teachers and staff to work with students is monumental in nature. On a daily basis, students are likely to have the most direct contact with their classroom teachers; teachers have a greater chance of connecting to students than most other adults in the school. It is no wonder that the relationships that exist between teacher and students shape the school climate in a number of ways.

Research Findings

83

Teaching is a privilege, as is the opportunity to work with students every day. Teachers have the chance to positively impact and change the life of their students. We believe that teachers must have a positive attitude about teaching and learning. We think it is imperative that teachers believe all students can learn, given the right tools. We believe all teachers must see the strengths and the skills in every one of their students. We acknowledge the difficulty in this; it is difficult to see the positive and the strengths in the student who constantly disrupts class, never comes to school, or consistently and publically challenges everything the teacher does. We acknowledge the difficulty in working with apathetic students; sometimes they sit quietly in class but never participate, never complete homework, and generally do not care about education at all. These students are perhaps the most difficult to work with. Yet, these are the very students that teachers and administrators need to impact. These are the students who have been given up on and passed on year after year to the next teacher. Sadly, many of these students have been written off by nearly every adult they have worked with, sometimes even their own parents. The more these students are treated this way, the more likely they are to believe it about themselves. But teachers have the chance to make a change with these students. Simply complimenting these students, connecting with them on their level, and acknowledging their strengths can go a long way. Teachers need to be evaluated, systematically and regularly. This sentiment cannot be stressed enough. Again, teachers usually are the adults who have the most direct and regular contact with students. Because of this, teachers must be evaluated and must be given feedback on a regular basis. And we feel strongly that teachers should not only receive feedback about their teaching style and strategies, but they should also receive feedback about their attitude and disposition toward students and the school as a whole. Teachers must believe that all students are capable of learning, given the right circumstances and tools. Teachers must also believe that students can be motivated to learn and work in school. The key is finding out how to motivate them as well as what motivates them. But first and foremost, teachers must believe that students do possess motivation. Believing otherwise only creates a dynamic of hopelessness. When teachers begin to think poorly of students or their level of motivation, it is almost an inadvertent sign of giving up on these students. And students perceive this and behave accordingly. Additionally, teacher effectiveness should be evaluated systematically, regularly, and from multiple sources. We believe that it is important to get students’ feedback about their experiences with their teachers. There are a number of different ways to gather such data, but confidential student evaluations can provide some very useful data. Additionally, we believe that teachers should be observed by an administrator or a trained specialist. Teachers should be made aware and consistently reminded of what they will be evaluated on as well as how they will be evaluated. As teachers reflect on their teaching and treatment of students, they communicate their commitment to the profession and to their students.

84

6 Building a Positive School Climate

Summary In this chapter, we have examined school climate and detailed a model that serves to build a positive school climate. Specifically, a positive school climate is one in which students are, and feel, safe; one that emphasizes teaching and learning, builds and maintains positive relationships among students and between students and staff, and structures the environment in a way that is conducive to a sense of community. We then offered specific recommendations for administrators that may aid in the development of a positive school climate. In the next chapter, we will examine more closely methods of preventing/mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from acts of lethal school violence.

References Anderson, C. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 368–420. Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Rosemond, M. (2005). School safety interventions: Best practices and programs. National Association of Social Workers, 27, 17–32. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Berlowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. (2005). The interpersonal roots of character education. In D. K. Lapsely (Ed.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 268–285). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Blum, R. W., McNeely, C. A., & Rinehart, P. M. (2002). Improving the odds: The untapped power of schools to improve the health of teens. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Adolescent Health and Development. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.sfu.ca/ cfrj/fulltext/blum.pdf Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention and Treatment, 5(Article 15), 1–111. Chen, G. (2009). Communities, students, schools, and school crime: A confirmatory study of crime in US high schools. Urban Education, 43, 301–318. Cohen, J. (2001). Social and emotional education: Core principles and practices. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Caring classrooms/intellgent schools: The social emotional education of young children. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from htttp://www.csee.net/resources/selbook). New York: Teachers College Press. Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical and academic education: Creating a climate for learning, participation in democracy and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 201–237. Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213. Comer, J. (1980). School power. New York: The Free Press. Creemers, B. P., & Reezigt, G. J. (1999). The role of school and classroom climate in elementary school learning environments. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 30–47). Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., & Hays, M. (2007). The impact of school violence on school personnel: Implications for psychologists (pp. 652–659). Professional Psychology: Research & Practice.

References

85

Daniels, J. A., Bradley, M. C., Cramer, D. P., Winkler, A., Kinebrew, K., & Crockett, D. (2007). The successful resolution of armed hostage/barricade events in schools: A qualitative analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 601–613. deJung, J., & Duckworth, K. (1986). High school teachers and their students’ attendance: Final report. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Document Reproduction Service N. ED 266 557. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., MacIver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle school on students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553–573. Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2001). Short-term strability and prospective correlates of bullying in middle-school students: An examination of poential demographic, psychosocial, and environmental influences. Violence and Victims, 16, 411–426. Finnan, C., Schnepel, K., & Anderson, L. (2003). Powerful learning environments: The critical link between school and classroom cultures. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8, 391–418. Freiberg, H. J. (1999). School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Ghaith, G. (2003). The relationship between forms of instruction, achievement and perceptions of classroom climate. Educational Researcher, 45, 83–93. Good, T. L., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986). Schools make a difference: Evidence, criticism, and new directions. The American Psychologist, 41, 1090–1097. Goodenow, C., & Crady, K. E. (1997). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 60–71. Gottfredson, G. D. & Gottfredson, D. C. (1989). School climate, academic performance, ­attendance, and dropout. ERIC Document ED308225. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1e/ ce/b4.pdf Gottfredson, D. C., & Wilson, D. B. (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Preventive Science, 4, 27–38. Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center of the University of Chicago. Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989). School climate enhancement through parental involvement. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87–90. Hoge, D. R., Smit, E. K., & Hanson, S. L. (1990). School experiences predicting changes in selfesteem of sixth and seventh-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 117–127. Homana, G., Barber, C., & Toreny-Purta, J. (2006, June). Assessing school citizenship education climate: Implicatins for the social studies. University of Maryland: Circle Working Paper 48. Juvonen, J., Le, V. N., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C. H., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Moncia, CA: Rand. Karcher, M. J. (2002a). Connectedness and school violence: A framework for developmental interventions. In E. Gerler (Ed.), Handbook of school violence (pp. 7–40). Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Karcher, M. J. (2002b). The cycle of violence and disconnection among rural middle school students: Teachers’ disconnectedness as a consequence of violence. Journal of School Violence, 1, 35–51. Kasen, S., Johnson, J., & Cohen, P. (1990). The impact of school emotional climate on student psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 165–178. Kerr, D., Ireland, E., Lopes, J., Craig, R., & Cleaver, E. (2004). Citizenship education longitudinal study: Second annual report: First longitudinal study. Slough, Berkshire, England: National Foundation for Educational Research. Kirby, D. (2001). Understanding what works and what doesn’t in reducing adolescent sexual risk taking. Family Planning Perspectives, 33, 276–281.

86

6 Building a Positive School Climate

Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Trust and distrust within organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kunter, M., Tsai, Y. M., Klusman, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, B., & Baumert, J. (2008). Students’ and mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and instruction. Journal of Learning and Instruction, 18, 468–482. McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The Journal of School Health, 72, 138–146. Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 72, 323–367. Perry, A. (1908). The management of a city school. New York: Macmillan. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 427–454. Ross, S. M., McDonald, A. J., Alberg, M., & McSparrin-Gallagher, B. (2007). Achievement and climate outcomes for the Knowledge is Power program in an inner city middle school. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 12, 137–165. Rumberger, R. (1987). High school dopouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57, 1–29. Sherblom, S. A., Marshall, J. C., & Sherblom, J. C. (2006). The relationship between school climate and math and reading achievement. Journal of Research in Character Education, 4, 19–31. Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170–179. Sommer, B. (1985). What’s different about truants? A comparison study of eighth graders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 411–422. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement, Amsterdam. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from http://www.wam.umd.edu/~iea US Department of Justice. (2004). Toward safe and orderly schools – The national Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Wallace Foundation. (2006). Leadership for learning: Making the connections among state, district and school policies and practices. New York: Wallace Foundation. Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31, 366–367. Whitlock, J. L. (2006). Youth perceptions of life at school: Contextual correlates of school connectedness in adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 13–29.

Chapter 7

The Safe School Communities Model

Overview Throughout this book, we have reviewed the research related to effective ­anti-bullying programs, averted lethal school shootings, resolved barricaded ­captive-takings, and building positive school communities. During this review, numerous factors have been identified. We have shown that averting lethal school violence is a system-wide responsibility. Before we present the model based on the research results, we must couch the discussion in four main points. First, preventing LSV does not entail a short-term program that will fix a school; it must be infused into the entire culture of the school and be ongoing. Second, any efforts to avert LSV must also be developmentally appropriate. Clearly, interventions that work for grade school children will not be the same interventions used for high school students. Third, efforts to create safe school communities must include students, parents, teachers, administrators, and all other school personnel, in addition to others from the community at large. In this chapter, we highlight the responsibilities of the school personnel and the students. A final point is that creating safe school communities does not include zero tolerance policies. Since their inception there has been much research to show that not only are zero tolerance policies ineffective at creating safe schools, but they also tend to harm the school’s emotional climate. In a report to the American Psychological Association, a panel of experts reviewed the research on zero tolerance and concluded that zero tolerance policies do not make schools safer (APA Task Force, 2008). In addition, the Task Force showed that students of color have been overrepresented in the disciplinary actions under zero tolerance. In the remainder of this chapter, we present The Safe School Communities Model (SSCM) that integrates each of the identified factors from the previous chapters. We organize this model around five primary domains: Skills instruction, expected student behaviors, engagement with the community, student self/other awareness, and positive adult interactions. The SSCM is described and implications and applications for educators and law enforcement officers are expounded.

J.A. Daniels and M.C. Bradley, Preventing Lethal School Violence, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3_7, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

87

88

7 The Safe School Communities Model

Research Findings Because 32 factors and conditions have been identified, we first highlight all that have been addressed in the previous chapters of this volume. These factors have been organized into five main clusters: Skills instruction, Expected student behaviors, Engaging with the community, Self/other awareness, and Positive adult behaviors. Table 7.1 offers an overview of these many factors. Figure 7.1 offers a visual ­representation of The Safe School Communities Model to prevent lethal school violence. Table 7.1  Identified factors Skills instruction Students   l  Communication skills   l  Decision-making skills   l  Problem-solving skills   l  Conflict resolution skills   l  How to cooperate with others   l  Enhance self-control   l  Friendship-building skills   Faculty/staff   l  Crisis response training   l  Quality instruction   l  Professional development Expected student behaviors   l  Limits on unacceptable behavior   l  Consistent consequences   l  Clear guidelines/rules that all must follow   l  Enhanced monitoring and supervision   l  Do not tolerate disrespectful behavior   l  Establish and enforce clear rules and boundaries   l  Take all rumors seriously and then act on them   l  Physical safety   l  Leadership Engagement with the community   l  Engage/interact/integrate with the community   l  Extracurricular activities Student self/other awareness   l  Understand emotions (own and others)   l  Social, emotional, and ethical learning   Positive adult interactions   l   Display warmth and positive interest from adults   l   Adults must behave as authority figures and serve as positive role models   l  Equitable treatment for all (continued)

Research Findings

89

Table 7.1  (continued)   l  Establish trusting relationships   l  Break the code of silence –  Reframe snitching to helping   l  Treat all people with dignity and respect   l  Form connections/relationships with all students   l  Provide social/emotional safety   l  Respect for diversity

Skills Instruction

Positive Adult Interactions

Expected Student Behaviors Safe School Community

Student Self/Other Awareness

Engagement with the Community

Fig. 7.1  The Safe School Communities Model

Skills Instruction Research on effective bullying prevention programs, averted school shootings, successfully resolved barricaded captive-takings, and developing a positive school climate has pointed to numerous skills that are important for students to attain. In addition, there are several important skills for school personnel to possess. Students come to school with some of these skills already. However, there are students who may never have been exposed to some of them, and the extent to which they have mastered these skills will vary. Student-acquired skills.  Among the student skills identified are basic communication, decision-making, problem-solving, conflict resolution, and friendship-building skills.

90

7 The Safe School Communities Model

It is also important that students learn how to cooperate with others (including ­negotiating) and develop self-control strategies. Many conflicts arise due to misunderstandings. The most effective means of clarifying, and hence avoiding conflict, is to use effective communication skills. While not all children and ­adolescents need to learn basic counseling skills, some of these principles may be taught to both students and teachers (Daniels, 2011), who may model effective communication. These are abilities that may be taught and then continually reinforced throughout the school. Such skills as active listening, restatements, and feeling identification can aid students in their interactions with others. Decision-making is an important skill to acquire. As students learn to weigh options and choose among the best alternatives, they develop the capacity to think through situations they encounter in life before acting. Consequently, impulsive decision-making (and impulsive reactions) are less likely to occur, and students begin to develop both problem-solving and self-control skills. Poor problem-solving abilities have been linked to poor judgment and, at times, rash behavior. For example, in an expressive captive-taking, the individual has reached an emotional breaking point and cannot think of any acceptable solutions other than violence. It is imperative that students learn how to solve problems in an effective way. Likewise, decision-making and problem-solving are linked to self-control. Many acts of violence are impulsive, although as we have shown in Chap. 4, large-scale acts of violence such as rampage school shootings are rarely impulsive, but are carefully planned and scripted. Students must learn how to control their emotions and their behaviors. We see a clear ­developmental progression with the acquisition of this skills set. My (JD) 4-year-old is learning how to control her behavior on a very different level than my 14-year-old. There is a process of refinement that occurs over time until, hopefully, people have the capacity to control their behaviors to the betterment of society. Another skill set that relates to decision-making, problem-solving, and ­self-control is conflict resolution skills. Students must learn how to navigate the inevitable conflicts that they encounter, and learn how to navigate a nonviolent resolution. In an ideal world, youth can use the skills already described, slow down, control their own reactions to the conflict, actively listen to the other person, and work with that person to reach an acceptable solution. They may also employ skills related to cooperation that have been taught and emphasized throughout the school. Much of conflict resolution and cooperation involves the ability to negotiate for a best possible solution in a situation. Many schools make use of either peer-mediation teams or meetings with a particular administrator. During these meetings, both sides have an opportunity to tell their side/perspective and to be heard. Ultimately an acceptable solution to both parties is negotiated. The final student-acquired skill we mention is friendship-building. For many students, it takes work to build friendships, and although we all assume that youth have developed this ability, it is not always the case. Observe the socially awkward student or the loner. There is commonly a lack of social skills, leaving this person without a friend. Teaching social skills early in elementary school makes sense, but there may also need to be instruction during adolescence when social groupings are more influential. Teachers and social scientists have commented on the changing

Research Findings

91

face of social relations with the proliferation of technology. How often have you seen a group of youth physically together, but not talking to each other because they are all texting somebody else? The long-term impact of this has not been assessed yet, but there is a concern that important face-to-face friendship skills may be ­jeopardized. In addition, much socialization now takes place on social networking sites, for better and for worse. While they are a great way to keep in touch, they also are too-frequently used by youth as a means of belittling and excluding others (see the discussion of cyber-bullying in Chap. 3). The student-acquired skills are not all independent of each other. Rather, as we have shown, they are all inter-related. The goals of decreasing the levels of violence in the school and creating safe school communities will become more likely as students learn and exercise all of these skills. Faculty-acquired skills.  The research suggests that school personnel also learn certain skills, including instruction in crisis response. Teachers also should take seriously their self-reflections to become high-quality instructors. Finally, all school personnel should continue to develop their knowledge and skills through professional development opportunities. Crisis response skills can, and indeed, should be learned by every employee of the school. It is of utmost importance that every adult receive hands-on training and know what his or her role is during a crisis. Schools must have an updated crisis response plan (updated yearly). There should be paper copies of this plan in various locations throughout the school, and there should be digital copies on CDs with these hard copies. Never have only digital copies; if there is not power or access to computers, they are worthless. The plan should also be sent electronically and in hard copy to local law enforcement. For the reader interested in developing a school safety plan, two good resources are Leadership Strategies for Safe Schools (Barton, 2009) and Jane’s Safe Schools Planning Guide for all Hazards (Dorn, Thomas, Wong, & Shepherd, 2004). Both of these resources include information about school safety plans, as well as multiple forms and checklists. Members of the school faculty are required to obtain professional development education every year. As we mentioned in Chap. 6, states must make opportunities available for faculty to attend sessions related to school violence. These sessions should also include elements of school safety that are described in this book. Professional development also includes workshops related to quality instruction. Teachers who are good at what they do tend to have better organized and better behaved classrooms. Students tend to like and respect these teachers. It is imperative, therefore, that teachers continually strive to be better teachers. Thus, attending professional development seminars and workshops is necessary. However, it is also important for teachers to have a life-long learning, self-reflective attitude. Much of averting school violence is about having knowledge and skills to avoid problems before they blow up. In this section, we have examined skills for both students and faculty that, when used properly, set a climate that is conducive to learning and cooperation. In this environment, the probability of aggressive and violent behavior is lowered. We now turn our attention to a set of expectations for student behavior.

92

7 The Safe School Communities Model

Expected Student Behaviors In safe schools, students know what is expected of them, and all school personnel work to enforce these behavior standards. Among the identified factors, schools set realistic limits on unacceptable behavior, consistently enforce violations with the established consequences, set clear guidelines and rules that must be followed, and monitor/supervise students’ behaviors. In addition, the adults in the school must exhibit effective leadership at all times, thereby enhancing their credibility, serving as good role models, and assuring fair and equitable treatment of everyone in the school community. Much of these conditions are about providing for the physical safety of the school. Safe schools define what is acceptable and what unacceptable behavior is. All school personnel know what is unacceptable, and cooperate to place limits on these behaviors. In schools that have experienced a shooting, it was not uncommon to have some adults ignore unacceptable behaviors, while others tried to intervene. In these schools, it was also noted that some students were allowed to misbehave, while others were not. Therefore, it is critical that the administration assure that all faculty members know what is unacceptable and intervene when it occurs, regardless of who the student is. Among the unacceptable behaviors identified in previous chapters of this volume is disrespectful behavior. Students need to know that disrespect of any kind will not be tolerated and that there are established consequences for infractions. Students cannot be disrespectful of teachers, staff, administrators, or other students. We do recognize that not all misbehavior will be noticed. We also do not want to convey that schools should be so tightly controlled that students are not free to express ­themselves. Such control only leads to rebellion. We are suggesting that to create a safe environment, mutual respect is necessary, and certain behaviors ­cannot be tolerated. Once unacceptable behaviors have been identified and defined, there must be consistent consequences for violations. The best consequences are made known before a problem arises, so all students know what is expected. Posting and ­discussing consequences also prevents inconsistent (or perceptions of inconsistent) meting out of punishment. Schools also need to have a set of basic rules, which are the dos and don’ts that all are expected to follow. We know from educational psychologists that having a limited number of positively worded rules is more effective than having many negatively worded rules. Again, students need to know what the ­consequences will be for rules violations. A final factor related to this discussion is that safe schools set and enforce clear boundaries. This includes the types of interactions between students and faculty that are appropriate or not, the sorts of interactions among students that are acceptable, and in general, the social limits on ­relationships. Although teachers need to be liked by their students, it is generally not acceptable from them to act like them. For example, there was a recent YouTube video of a teacher who came to class drunk and was dancing in the classroom. This is a clear boundary violation (among others!). In addition, safe schools do not leave students unattended: rather, there is ­adequate monitoring and supervision. Among class teachers, counselors,

Research Findings

93

a­ dministrators, school resource officers, and others are in the hallway monitoring and interacting with the students. During lunch, the staff does not eat in the ­teacher’s lounge, but sit at the tables with the students. There are certain places on any school campus that are out of the way and pose potential dangers. Administrators are aware of these likely trouble spots and go to them during movement times. This monitoring and supervision accomplishes three important goals: First, it serves to avert inappropriate behavior; second, it sends the message to students that they are safe because somebody is watching over them; and third, it offers multiple ­opportunities for students and faculty/staff to interact and bond. The final factor we identified that relates to expected student behavior is ­leadership. While this comes more directly from the adults in the school, effective leadership assures students that there is indeed a responsible adult in charge. Moreover, it offers valuable modeling from which students may learn. When students know what is expected of them, when they know that there are clear and consistent consequences for misbehavior, and when they know that they are being watched over, they are less likely to act out. On the positive side, they are more likely to become engaged with the school. The result is a safer school.

Engagement with the Community Numerous authors have highlighted the importance of school–community ­collaboration and engagement. Among the specific factors, we identified in earlier chapters of this volume related to this cluster is engaging, interacting, and ­integrating with the community and extracurricular activities. The main point here is that schools cannot be isolated from the larger community from which the ­students come. As students engage in the community, and the community is invested in the school, connectedness increases and the potential for violence decreases. The two identified factors, as in other sections of this chapter, are not clearly delineated and mutually exclusive. Indeed, there is much overlap between the two. Engaging/interacting/integrating with the community entails efforts to both reach out to and bring in members of the larger community. Many schools offer services to the community through various student clubs and organizations. These activities help students learn the importance of serving others and becoming productive ­contributors to society. They also help students to learn valuable leadership skills that can become a life-long asset to them. It is also valuable for schools to bring in members of the community. There are many ways to do this, such as bringing in senior citizens or college students to help with ­tutoring. Community leaders, such as police, fire and rescue, prominent ­religious ­leaders, mental health experts, a representative from local or city ­government, and a parent ­representative should be included when a school develops a crisis plan (Barton, 2009). Moreover, engagement with the community includes inviting local crisis responders to practice for a school crisis. This can be ­accomplished during the summer, with students ­volunteering to be included, which adds a sense of realism to the event.

94

7 The Safe School Communities Model

An important way to engage with the community is through extracurricular activities. Events such as musical performances, plays, and athletics bring in ­parents and others from the community, and foster a sense of pride in the school. They also build worthwhile skills among the student performers and offer public recognition for their accomplishments. Integrating the school and community accomplishes many of the goals of creating a safe school. The opportunities for these activities are limitless, yet the payoffs are remarkable. When students and community members interact in positive ways, everyone benefits.

Student Self/Other Awareness Students’ awareness of themselves and others is also important when creating a safe school community. Anti-bullying programs tend to highlight emotional ­intelligence as a critical component. This means that students are taught, at a ­developmentally appropriate level, to recognize, label, and understand their own and others’ emotions. Related to this awareness, is learning appropriate ways of expressing one’s feelings. Thus, rather than behaving in an impulsive and ­potentially antagonistic way to stressors or frustrations, when students learn how to recognize their emotions they are more likely to respond appropriately. We also identified the role of social, emotional, and ethical learning in the ­classroom as central to creating a safe school. While it is true that classroom instruction must focus on the knowledge and skills for which schools are accountable, it is equally true that students need to learn how to become socially, emotionally, and ­ethically well rounded. Ideally this type of instruction takes place in the home; ­however, we also realize that this is often not the case. Social, emotional, and ethical learning does not necessarily have to happen ­independent of traditional classroom instruction. One of us (JD) attended a White House Conference on School Safety in 2006, sponsored by President Bush. Craig Scott, brother of Rachel Scott (the first person killed at Columbine) talked about the importance of values or character education. He highlighted the fact that 50 years ago, standard classroom instruction was infused with ethical instruction. As an example, he stated that a math problem might be: “Ms. Jones drops 12 apples. She picks up five. Bob sees this, and picks up the rest for her. How many apples does Bob pick up for Ms. Jones?” In this example, students are learning the math, but they are also learning about prosocial behavior. As students learn appropriate social and ethical lessons, they begin to behave accordingly. Again, the result is fewer disciplinary problems and a more civilly functioning school.

Positive Adult Interactions The final set of factors we highlight are those of the adults in the school. Safe schools are characterized by several interpersonal stances taken by the personnel.

Research Findings

95

In addition to behaving as authority figures and serving as role models, positive adult interactions include exhibiting psychological warmth, showing positive interest in students, establishing trusting relationships with all students, and treating all people within the school with dignity and respect. It is imperative that efforts be made for all students within a school to have a connection with at least one adult. When students have such a connection, the code of silence has a greater likelihood of being broken should a concern arise. Also, by way of breaking the code of silence, the notion of snitching must be continually reframed from breaking a confidence to trying to help another. Another condition that serves to enhance the social environment is equitable treatment for all students. When certain students or groups are not treated fairly, morale decreases, as does feelings of connectedness. All of these factors combine to form a sense of social and emotional safety among the members of the school community. Interpersonally, we know that most people respond positively to individuals displaying warmth. Warmth implies that a person is kind, approachable, and ­trustworthy. Psychologist Carl Rogers suggested that the foundation for therapeutic change is based on the client’s perception of the therapist as genuine, empathic, and warm (Prochaska & Norcross, 2010). Once this occurs, the therapist is able to leverage this relationship to initiate change (Strong, 1968). Research has suggested that when students perceive one or more adults in their school as caring, as psychologically warm, good things happen. Student feel more connected to the school, morale increases, academic performance is enhanced, and levels of violence and aggression decrease. It is, therefore, necessary that students see the adults in the school as warm and interested in them. An example of interest comes from my (JD) wife’s uncle, a retired math teacher. His CD library runs from the hard rock of the ‘70s (now “classic rock”) through hip-hop, because he believed that it was critical to connect with students on a more personal level. Listening to the music students liked was a way for him to engage them in nonacademic ­conversations, and students loved him. Through warmth, caring, and interest, faculty and staff are able to establish trusting relationships with students. Trust cannot be compelled; rather, it is earned through repeated interactions that show the person the adult has his or her best interest as a priority. Trust is the cornerstone to breaking the code of silence. First, if a student is struggling with a problem, she or he will turn to friends and trusted adults. When this happens, it is of utmost importance that the adult act on this ­concern in an appropriate way. This does NOT mean keeping secrets! A teacher must never promise not to tell what a student is about to reveal. For example, if a student solicits a promise not to tell, and then reveals abuse, the teacher is in a ­difficult situation. Teachers are obligated by law to report known or suspected child abuse. A good response to the student asking for the teacher to keep a secret is “I cannot promise that. What I can promise is that if you tell me you are being hurt, I will talk with others who can help you and try to make you safe.” Students who feel there is at least one trusting adult in the school are also more likely to turn to that person to report a concern they have about another student. This, too, is a means of breaking the code of silence. As we pointed out in Chap. 4, when a teacher or other adult in the school is told of a concern about another

96

7 The Safe School Communities Model

s­ tudent, a proactive response is vital. In addition to trusting relationships with ­students, the school can work to reframe the idea of snitching to one of help-seeking. When students know that their concerns will be appropriately handled and that they are not doing the wrong thing by reporting their worries, they are more likely to talk with adults in the school. Respecting diversity is another key element of positive adult interactions. There is a growing corpus of literature showing the importance of tolerance and respect for differences. Marginalized students suffer from a number of maladies, including withdrawal, depression, anxiety, and missed school. If there are any prejudices existing, the entire culture of the school is poisoned. The morale will diminish, and the school will not be seen as a safe and caring place. Becoming aware of one’s biases is an important first step in combating prejudice. Good teachers, staff, and administrators also receive ongoing education about different cultural groups, so they learn best ways to interact with all students. Keep in mind that diversity is about race/ethnicity, but it also includes many more classifications of people. For example, diversity is expressed through various social groups (i.e., jocks, preps, and Goths), religious beliefs and practices, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual preference, and a host of other factors. In safe schools, all students are treated equitably, free of prejudice or discrimination. Another way of assuring that prejudice and discrimination are not present in the school is to treat all students with dignity and respect. In Chap. 4, we highlighted one principal’s beliefs about this manner of treating students and showed that it was a vital component of creating a safe school community. This same principal went on to describe how he wants teachers and staff to treat every student better than he has seen them treat their own children, because many of the students in his school never get this respect at home. One method of showing such dignity and respect is to not use derogatory language when speaking to or about students. He stated that every day every child must hear at least one positive statement from each of their teachers. The effects of these simple behaviors were sweeping. The end result of positive adult interactions with students is that the school becomes a place of social and emotional safety for everyone (including the adults). The climate improves, academic performance improves, and overall behavior improves. And the great thing about positive adult interactions is that they are all very simple behaviors and attitudes to implement.

Summary Throughout this chapter, we presented the SSCM based on factors identified in the research that contribute to the creation of safe school communities. This model offers a comprehensive plan for creating safe schools and includes instruction in specific skills, expectations for student behavior, engagement with the community, student self- and other awareness, and positive adult interactions. The SSCM offers a unique school violence prevention perspective in that it addresses roles and

References

97

responsibilities of students, faculty/staff, and the larger community. In addition, the SSCM is empirically based, deriving the factors from research into several domains of school violence prevention. Finally, the SSCM is a practical tool, providing both educators and law enforcement officers specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions that lead to safe school communities. Creating safe schools is an on-going process and should never be thought of as finished. It requires constant focus and attention and must include every member of the school community. Moreover, school safety requires involvement from the members of the larger community. Increasing school safety must be a priority of every educator. We have shown throughout this book that schools can be safer, and the SSCM provides a template for achieving this, one of the most important goals of society: Protecting and nurturing our children. Although we may never see schools in which there are no violent or aggressive incidents, we can work to decrease the chances of a lethal act of school violence and thereby increase the security of each child who walks through the doors of our schools.

References American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862. Barton, E. A. (2009). Leadership strategies for safe schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Daniels, J. A. (2011). Preventing school violence: Establishing student connectedness through effective listening. Manuscript in preparation. Dorn, M., Thomas, G., Wong, M., & Shepherd, S. (2004). Jane’s safe schools planning for all hazards. Surrey, UK: Jane’s Information Group. Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2010). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Strong, S. R. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 215–224.

Index

A Academic performance of students, 18–19 Acute stress disorder (ASD), 17 Attendance of students, 18 Averted school rampages averted incident vs. school shooting code of silence, 54–55 inequitable discipline, 53 inflexible culture, 53–54 school dynamics, 52 tolerance, disrespectful behavior, 52–53 averted shooting rampage, 51–52 characteristics of suspect, 49 law enforcement, 50 methodological issue, 47–48 mixed method design, 55 motives, 49 police received tips, 50 rationale, 45–47 B Barricaded captive events C-4 plastic explosives, 57 content analysis, news reports, 61–63 crisis event, 58 crisis negotiations, 57, 59–60 elementary school, 60 hostage crisis, 58 hostage vs. victim captive, 58–59 intervention/response, 67–68 law enforcement agency and educators, 57 law enforcement practices, 66 mental health services, 68 post-incident activity, 68 prevention and mitigation, 66–67

PTSD, 61 school counselor, 63–64 school personnel, qualitative study, 64–66 sexual assault, 57 SWAT, 57 Bullying acts of LSV, 36 adolescent behavior, 30 characteristics of bullies self-esteem, 33–35 social and personal value, 33 negative effects, 35 prevalence and impact, 29 prevention program common/traditional intervention, 36–37 Fast Track Families and Schools Together Program, 39 in schools, 37–38 Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 39–40 Seattle Social Development Project, 38–39 types aggressive behavior, 30 cyber-bullying, 32 overt and covert bullying, 30 reactive vs. proactive, 31 relational aggression, 31 violence and harassment, 29 violence prevention principle, 40–41 C Consensual qualitative research (CQR), 47 Crisis planning, 52 Cyber bullying, 32

J.A. Daniels and M.C. Bradley, Preventing Lethal School Violence, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8107-3, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

99

100 D Deductive behavioral profiling, 10–11 Domestic murder, 5–6 F Fast Track Families and Schools Together Program, 39 Fear and anxiety faculty/staff job-family role strain, 21 nonfatal crimes, 19 personal relationship problem, 22 school shooting, 20–21 student safety, 19 terrorism, 21 victimization, 20 students ASD, 17 physiological reaction, 16 PTSD, 17–18 shooting, 17 trauma exposure, 16–17 G Gang-related death, 7 I Inductive behavioral profiling, 10 Interpersonal relationship, 52 L Leadership, 76–77, 93 Lethal school violence (LSV) acts, bullying, 36 characteristics of school shooters, 9–10 disrespectful behavior an bullying, 1 history, 1–3 on faculty/staff fear and anxiety, 19–22 health-related concern, 22–23 work performance, 23–24 on students academic performance, 18–19 attendance, 18 fear and anxiety, 16–18 need to caution, 15 parameters barricaded captive situation, 7 domestic murder/suicide, 5–6

Index gang-related death, 7 rampage school shooting, 8 suicide, 3–5 prevalence, 8–9 profiling usage and limitation, 10–11 social and psychological effect, 25 SSCM, 11–12 Lexis-Nexis academic database, 61 LSV. See Lethal school violence M Modus Operandi and signature behavior, 11 Multivictim rampages, 8 O Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 39–40 P Positive school climate definition, 72 diversity and differences, 77–78 environment and physical structure, 79–80 feeling unsafe, 73 impact of, 80–81 interpersonal relationships, 77 leadership, 76–77 morale and connectedness, 79 physical safety, 74 power and influence, 78 professional development, 76 quality of instruction, 75–76 researchers and educators, 72 role of principal, 82 school and community collaboration, 78–79 school effectiveness, 72 school safety, 74 school violence, 71 social, emotional, and ethical learning, 76 social-emotional safety, 74–75 teachers and staff, 82–83 teaching and learning, 75 Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 6, 61 Prevention efforts and problematic issues, 52 Proactive bullying, 31 Psychopathic shooters, 46 Psychotic shooters, 46 PTSD. See Post traumatic stress disorder

Index R Rampage school shooting, 8 Reactive bullying, 31 Relational aggression, 31 S Safe School Communities Model (SSCM), 11–12 community leaders, 93 extracurricular activity, 94 factors and conditions, 88–89 interventions, 87 positive adult interactions, 94–96 school-community collaboration, 93 skill instruction conflict resolution skills, 90 crisis response skills, 91 decision-making, 90 faculty-acquired skills, 91 friendship-building, 90 professional development, 91 student-acquired skills, 89–90 student behaviors, 92–93 student self/other awareness, 94 zero tolerance policies, 87 School bullies self-esteem, 33–35 social and personal value, 33

101 School climate, 53 School condition, 51 School counselor, 63–64 School hostage events, 58 School resource officer (SRO), 61 School safety, 74 School violence, 71 Seattle Social Development Project, 38–39 Shooting rampage, 51–52 Social aggression. See Relational aggression Social-emotional safety, 74–75 SSCM. See Safe School Communities Model Student behaviors, 92–93 Student self/other awareness, 12 Suicide, 3–5 T Teachers and staff, 82–83 Teaching and learning, 75 Traumatized shooters, 46 V Violence prevention principle, 40–41 Z Zero tolerance policies, 87