University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Students' perceptions of school interventions to reduce violence

(USC Thesis Other)

Students' perceptions of school interventions to reduce violence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS 1

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE VIOLENCE

by

Armine Movsisyan

___________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Armine Movsisyan

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my family. Mom and dad, Guyane and Harutyun, thanks for your lifetime of
sacrifices, for your unconditional love, and unrelenting support. My brothers, Movses and
Tigran, till this day I look up to you as if I were still that five-year-old child. To my sisters Ani
and Aroxy, for making sure I was well nourished and for being by my side. To my nieces and
nephews, Guyane, Harut, Haik, Anahit and Hakob, you are my blessings, my remedy to my
scars, my beams of light in the fog and my hope for the future. I love you all unconditionally.
To my beloved grandmother Trvanda, Lusintak, Svachjyan. The beacon of our family
who always kept us united, may she rest in peace.
To the memory and honor of the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide.
To my aunts, uncles and cousins, I am thankful for their love, continuous encouragement
and understanding. A big ‘thank you’ to all the following families and their children; Vardivar
and Osana Chldryan, Abraham and Margarita Khubeseryan, Grigor and Taguhi Chldryan, Mary
Chldryan, Haik and Azatuhi Shadoyan, Sarkis and Srbuhi, Yeghish and Tigranuhi Sahakyan,
Anahit Sahakyan, Hratch and Yeranuhi Grigoryan, Hratch and Asdghig Sepetjian, Avedis and
Hasmig Keshishian, Harout and Anahit Kalaidjian, and the Badryan family.
To my incredible circle of friends who have given me hope. Vartan and Tatevig
Achabahian, Gevork and Sylvia Danayan, Hagop Seksenyan, Haik and Anna Sargsian, Aghas
and Anahit Melikyan, Karen and Liz Melikyan, Khachatour and Mariam Oghlakhchian, Harout
and Sirouhi Torkomian, Arshaluys Torkomian, Vahram Vartanian, Hrair and Anett Assilian,
Hovig Assilian, Gabriel and Anahit Nunez, and Hamayak and Elena Chilingaryan.
To my chant squad, for brightening up even the darkest night. Marc Balian, Shake
Darakchyan, Sareen Habeshian, Ari Kazanjian, Alex Keledjian, Hripsime (Rita) and Allison
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

3
Keshishian, Nareg Kourouyan, Mireille Keuroghlian, Talin Manoukian, Talar Mardourian,
Barkev Msrlyan, Briana Pambakian, Deeown Shaverdian, Sona Soghomonian, Mary Yazlyan
and Armand Yerjanian.
To my dissertation chair. Paula Carbone for her continuous guidance and extreme
patience through the course of the years. I am humbled by your wisdom, knowledge, and
compassion. Thank you for fostering my intellectual growth.
To my dissertation committee: I would like to thank the three people, without whom this
dissertation would not have been possible. Dr. Paula Carbone, Dr. Brendesha Tynes, and Dr.
Stowe, thank you for your time, strong direction and good will.
To my writing comrade Ryan McDonnell. Eat, Write, Revise and Repeat. I am sincerely
lucky to have crossed paths with you and cannot wait to start this journey.
To my cohort 2011: it is time to ‘step in it’ and I am grateful to know that we are stepping
in it together.
To every person who has experienced school violence. May the next generations
experience a world of respect and understanding in safe educational environments.
To Dr. Talin Kargodorian. My mentor, for her reassurance and positive reinforcement
over the course of the years. To my colleagues from AGBU Vatche and Tamar Manoukian High
School, for cheering me on. To Talar Boyadjian, for her willingness to lend a hand.
To my Alumni and current students from AGBU Vatche and Tamar Manoukian High
School. Thank you for your smiles and support during the past years. You have always served as
my source of inspiration and I wish you all the beauty in the world, endless moments of
happiness and the will to become change agents in our society. You are the story of my life.
Keep pushing on. Class of `08,`09,`10,`11,`12,`13,`14,`15,`16,`17,`18,`19, and the rest to come.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ...2
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….....5
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………… ...6
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study…………………………………………………………… ...9
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………. ...21
Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………………....44
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………….. ...64
Chapter 5: Discussion………………………………………………………………………....97
References………………………………………………………………………………….. ...106
Appendices
Appendix A: Prompt for English Teacher to Read to Class for Self-Selected…….....119
Student Participation
Appendix B: Interview Protocol — Students………………………………………...120
Appendix C: Interview Protocol – Administrator…………………………………. ...122
Appendix D: Summary of Participants Experiences with Violence and…………......124
Responses to Interventions
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. CHS Interventions to Reduce Violence: 2006 – Present…………………………. ...51
Table 2. Summary of Participants Experiences’ Per Academic Year, Grade Level,……… ...66
and Interventions

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Bar graph showing the percentage of “public schools recording and……………. ...13
reporting incidents of crime,” and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students,
by type of crime: School year 2007–08
Figure 2. Depiction of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model………………………… ...37

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

7
ABSTRACT
During the course of the last few decades, several intervention programs were developed across
the country to reduce school violence. Although efforts have been made in schools countrywide,
to prevent and intervene with school violence, it continues to be a pressing problem. The purpose
of this qualitative case study was to use students’ voices, from those students who had
experience with school violence, and to get their perspectives on intervention programs in a local
context in order to answer the research question: How do students who experienced violence in
school, as a victim or perpetrator, perceive the effectiveness of school responses to violence?
Bronfenbrenner’s most recent ecological model was used as the conceptual framework. 10 self-
selected online interviews were conducted with 9-12 grade students. Lastly, an in-person
interview with the assistant principal, was also conducted. Key findings emerged from
participants’ perspectives that answered the research question: (a) importance of a community-
wide effort as a response to school violence, (b) fostering relationships on-campus and (c)
exhibited the importance of participants’ attitudes in creating and maintaining safe schools.
There was an overwhelming consensus that participants were not seeking violence for the sake of
violence; they were either engaged with, or witnessed school violence because they felt as
though they had no choice. Participants’ perceptions of the school interventions centered around
their belief that they no longer had to witness or be afraid of violence, or in extreme cases, take
part in violence; they spoke about the interventions including open communication and
supervision as being a key factors. Participants’ described some of the approaches adults used as
interventions including restorative justice, grade level advisories, and open communication.
Essentially, participants’ decision making on whether or not to engage in violence was associated
by how they felt about their school, as revealed through their discussion regarding the summer
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

8
bridge program and school mottos which set the tone of the school. The overall findings
suggested developing programs that do not target specific youth, rather the adoption of universal
school wide programs through community wide efforts to reduce incidences of school violence
for the long-term. Implications for practice and recommendation for future research are
discussed at the end of the study.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

9
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
[T]he more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so
that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to
confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the
people or to enter into a dialogue with them. This person does not consider
himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the
oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at
their side.
— Freire (1970)

Statement of the Problem
Schools are taking a variety of measures to implement interventions for school violence.
Despite their efforts, students persistently experience violence on school campuses, which brings
into question the effectiveness of school violence intervention programs. Due to the rise of
school violence throughout the United States in the early 1990’s, parents believed that their
communities were not safe (Rose, & Gallup, 1999). The increased violent behavior of some
youth in combination with parents’ perceptions led to a movement to establish effective violence
prevention efforts. Based on a joint report from the Department of Education and Justice (NCES,
2001) violent crime has declined since the 1990’s. The percentage of students who reported
being victims of crime at school decreased from 10% in 1995 to 8% in 1999 (NCES, 2001).
Since then a myriad of youth violence prevention and intervention programs have been created
and used in schools and communities throughout the country, yet very little is known regarding
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

10
the effectiveness of many of them (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Czeh, Cantor, Crosse, & Hantman,
2000). School violence reports reveal that up to 8% of students in high school continue to report
having been threatened or injured on school property. Finkelhor (2009) confirmed that most of
society’s children are exposed to direct and indirect violence and that it is a frequent occurrence
in the United States and indicated significantly higher occurrences. This report revealed that
more than 60% of those surveyed experienced violence repeatedly in school and the community,
ranging from the ages of birth to 17 years old (Finkelhor, 2009). The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (2010) reveals that 828,000 nonfatal acts of violence took place among students
12 to 18 years of age in the year 2010. In addition, even though the official reports show a
decrease in overall crime, there is speculation that official statistics are often lower than the
actual rates of violence on campus due to biases in reporting which means that violence remains
a problem in American schools despite the efforts to prevent violence (Elliott, Hamburg, &
Williams, 1998). Although efforts have been made in schools countrywide, to prevent and
intervene with school violence, it continues to be a pressing problem (Gottfredson et al., 2000).
Moreover, very few of the programs that have been put in place have been rigorously evaluated.
The few thorough evaluations that have been conducted indicate that the money America spends
on youth violence preventions is spent on ineffective programs and policies (Mendel, 2000).
Even though there is an amalgam of information regarding violence in society, why
violence takes place, school responses and practices in response to campus violence, there
remain many avenues to explore to provide depth in the understanding of violence on school
grounds and how it may associate with students’ perceived experiences (Astor, Benbenishty,
Marachi, & Meyer, 2006; Astor & Meyer, 2001; Meyer, Astor, & Behre, 2004). Many important
social dynamics of such violent incidents on campuses have been identified, such as the circle
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

11
around the fighters, lack of disciplinary action, staff responses, how such incidents are recorded
or named, if at all, and role of bystanders, are not addressed in most school violence theories
(Benbenishty & Astor 2005). Violence is still a very real part of the school campus despite all the
efforts to eradicate it off school grounds, which means that either we do not have a full
understanding of the issue or we have not yet developed the proper intervention method (Astor,
Benbenishty, Marachi, & Meyer, 2006; Astor & Meyer, 2001; Denmark, Krauss, Wesner,
Midlarsky, & Gielen, 2005; Devine, 1996; Emmanuel, Muula, & Seter, 2008; Frey, Ruchkin,
Martin, & Schwab-Stone, 2009; Henry, 2009; Hsieh & Pugh, 1993;Khoury-Kassabri, Astor &
Benbenishty, 2008; Lockwood, 1997; Meyer, Astor, & Behre, 2004). It is likely that many
individuals have experienced violence on school campuses and it is also likely that students who
experienced violence have experienced some form of official intervention (Mendel, 2000). This
study will give voice to current students as participants in both violence on-campus and of their
reactions of interventions (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001; 2008; 2010).
Background of the Problem
Violence in schools is not a new concern for the United States public, rather a historically
ongoing battle nationwide as recorded by several Federally funded organizations including (U.S.
National Center for Education Statistics, 2011) show:
1. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) (1992-2010).
2. School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (1995, 1999,
2001-2009).
3. School Survey on Crime and Safety (1999-2000, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2007-08 and
2009-2010).
4. School and Staffing Survey (1993-94, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08)
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

12
5. Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and
2009)
According to the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, (2011) School Violence
in the United States reached its peak in 1993; during this year there were 42 homicides by
students and 13 violent crimes per 1,000 students at primary and secondary schools. By 2010,
there was a decrease to two homicides and four violent crimes per 1,000 students in secondary
schools. The cumulative data for the rate of violence in U.S. Schools shows a dramatic decline
since 1994, 10,000 in 1992 to 4,000 in 2007 (U.S. National Center for Education Statistics,
2011). During the 2009-2010 school year, 85% of public schools reported one or more crimes
had occurred at their school, resulting in about 1.9 million crimes during the school year. Of this
85%, 25 included violent crimes such as rape, sexual battery, physical attack or fight with or
without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or
without a weapon. 1% was reported to be serious violent crimes, such as rape, physical attack or
fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a
weapon. 5% were theft related and 9% were reported as other, including possession of a firearm,
explosive, knife or sharp object and distribution of illegal substances, and vandalism. In addition,
31% of U.S. public high school students reported they had been in a physical fights at least once
during the school year; of which the majority took place on school campus and involved
weapons (U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). In 2009, a higher percentage of
high school and middle school students reported they were afraid of attack or harm at school than
away from school; 4% versus 3% (Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2011). As a result
some students reported missing days of schools to avoid conflict. By offering students’
perceptions to their own experiences with violence on-campus, this study may bring insight as to
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

13
why students in one local context may be fearful, despite data indicating fewer incidences of
violence.
Official statistics can often be lower than the actual rates of violent behavior due to biases
in reporting (Gottfredson et. al., 2000). The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008 shows that
only 62%, of the 85% of the total types of crime, were reported to the police (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Bar graph showing the percentage of “public schools recording and reporting incidents
of crime,” and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by type of crime: School year 2007–08 by
The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School
Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008 (U.S. National Center for Education Statistics,
2011).

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

14
Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Czeh, Cantor, Crosse, and Hantman (2000), contend that
estimates of the incidence of crime, made from counts of reports of crime made to the police, are
lower than the estimates made from self-reports of individuals regarding crimes they have
committed, or the reports of citizens of their own experiences. In addition, any method that
depends on reports from an official, such as a principal or a police officer, will generally
underestimate crime or problem behavior because such behavior will be known to the official,
but the official may not regard some of the behavior as sufficiently serious instances to be
recorded or reported, which means the official may not report the incidences (Gottfredson et al.,
2000; Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981). Many reports are missing from the official record due
to biases of individuals who have the power to record them officially, and this study seeks to
provide a platform for students who have failed to make the official record regarding their
experiences with school violence and interventions (Johnson, 2009; Sleeter 2000).
These data question the reliability of reports for incidences of violence on-campus.
National statistics also indicate a growing concern regarding youth, crime, and education within
the last decade. The United States National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2011) shows
that the cumulative data for the rate of serious crime in United States schools had declined from
10,000 in 1992 to 4,000 in 2007, but fear due to serious crime, increased. The decreasing
numbers do not explain why more students are fearful of violence. During 2009-2010 school
year, 85% of public schools reported one or more crimes had occurred at their school: 1.9
million crimes during the school year. Also, 31% of the total amount of students enrolled
reported they had been in a physical fight at least one time during the school year on a school
campus (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). These reports indicate that despite
the efforts to prevent it, school violence persists on-campus.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

15
The data show that fear and violence continue to be issues in United States school
systems, negatively impacting the school environment, which can negate the learning outcomes
(Engle, Rutkowski & Rutkowski, 2009;Lord & Mahoney, 2007; Milam, Furr-Holden & Leaf,
2010; Osborne, 2007; Patton, Woolley, & Hung, 2011). One major effect of school violence is
the student retention rate. Hunt, Meyers, Meyers, Grogg, and Neel (2002) and Mayer (2001)
identify that school violence and dropout rates are directly correlated. The level of school
violence determines students’ drop out rates; the more students take part in violence on-campus
the more they tend to drop out thus interrupting their academic progress (Hunt, 2002; Mayer
2001). Emmanuel, et al. (2008) conducted a study on 13,857 private and public school students
and found that physical fighting amidst United States High School students is widespread and
positively associated with victimization and this can impede student learning. The existing
research serves as evidence that American society must address the issue of school violence and
find solutions.
Within the public educational system, schools often responded to the reality of violence
through violence-prevention and intervention programs. Hundreds of programs have been
developed over the course of two decades to address school violence, yet little is known about
their effectiveness (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005; Elliot, Hamburg, &
Williams, 1998). The challenge of using prevention resources to their fullest potential leads to
several issues beginning with the ability to identify effective prevention approaches and
programs. In an examination of the literature regarding these programs, researchers found only a
handful of programs that have been evaluated, and even fewer that have been considered
effective or promising which emphasizes the problem of the ineffective approaches to resolving
school violence (Juvonen, 2001). Many of the existing programs fall under four main categories
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

16
including: universal, selected, special classes, and collaborative (Juvonen, 2001). Large amounts
of both federal and state money are spent to support school violence programs that have no
supporting data on their effectiveness. Given the lack of data on program effectiveness,
educational leaders have few guidelines to assist in decision-making among the several programs
(Gottfredson et al., 2005; Juvonen, 2001). The popular interventions such as zero-tolerance and
physical surveillance policies (see chapter two for discussion of these interventions) regarding
school violence are handy, but not the most effective in preventing the development of violent
behavior (Juvonen, 2001). Moreover, differentiating between effective and ineffective programs
can be problematic for leaders because numerous agencies and organizations have published
recommendations on what works in violence prevention, but there is little consistency regarding
what they recommend since there is a lack of uniformly applied scientific standards for what
works (Office of the Surgeon General).
Gaps in the Literature
Since the 1990s school violence has reduced dramatically, yet it persists to be a problem
(Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2001 & 2011). Numerous interventions have been
developed and applied across the country to address school violence, but there are very few
results that come from these interventions (Park-Higgerson, Perumean-Chaney, Bartolucci,
Grimley, & Singh, 2008; Juvonen, 2001). This study will explore how high school students in
the local context experience school violence intervention(s), what students learn from them, and
why the impact of these interventions, if any, are not reducing the perpetration of school
violence. Despite the amount of literature available on school violence, researchers continue to
study violence and the problem of school violence is still prevalent. This leads to the question as
to whether the available information is being utilized to put it into action, and when it is put into
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

17
action, why does it not have better outcomes? The purpose of this study is to understand, from
the students’ perspectives, why there may continue to be a problem with school violence, in their
context, even though so much knowledge is available regarding its causes and effects that can be
put into action. Several interventions have been put into action, however given the wide array of
strategies it is a challenge to maintain sustainable change (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Furlong,
Greif, Bates, Whipple, Jimenez, & Morrison, 2005; Furlong, Morrison, & Pavelski, 2001;
Furlong, Sharma, & Rhee, 2000; Hong & Espelage, 2012).
The concept of school violence is a recent topic within the literature; the term “school
violence,” first appeared in the research journal Health Education and Behavior in 2002
(Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Even though researchers worldwide have conducted research in
school violence, much of the questions regarding the relative success or failure of prevention
programs are relatively underexplored (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). In addition, there is a lack
of discussion surrounding the meaning of school violence and intervention among school
professionals, students, and society (Astor & Meyer, 2001). Many of the studies that reveal
statistics are quantitative studies and do not give voice to the students themselves. Qualitative
research, with an emphasis on students’ stories, will organize students’ experiences in a way that
is meaningful because it is unmediated and a holistic form of knowledge that will allow spaces
for students to theorize publicly for themselves so that students are provided a venue to enter into
conversations about school violence (Sleeter, 2000).
According to current research, there are gaps in the study of violence in school in regards
to students’ perceptions of their relative experiences with school violence. The leading voices in
the literature are from school personnel and researchers, not students (Gumpel & Meadan, 2000).
This study will give students, in one local context, the opportunity to share their life experiences
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

18
with violence on-campus to understand their perceptions of interventions. Students’ voices will
offer more insight in their direct experiences with violence and how they perceive interventions,
that can potentially lead to a more in depth understanding of this problem and offer insight of
what can make an effective program.
This study holds promise in understanding one local context of school violence, as it
seeks to understand why school violence continues to be a major issue in United States schools,
and it will do so through the students’ perspectives. The gaps highlighted by the chief researchers
of school violence (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005; Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Gottfredson et al.,
2001 & 2005; Sherman et al., 1997; Thornton et al., 2000; Mendel, 2000; Elliot & Tolan, 1999)
will guide the research question of this study.
To address this problem the following question was designed:
Research Question
How do students who experienced violence in school, as a victim or perpetrator, perceive
the effectiveness of school responses to violence?
Purpose of the Study
The main goal of the research is to provide information on students’ perspectives on
violence and interventions in schools and based on students’ experiences in one local context,
and how they reveal to what extent professionals are able to counter school violence. By doing
so, this research can potentially clarify the meaning of school violence for school professionals,
students, and society and gain students’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of current
prevention and intervention programs. Students’ voices are important because experiences that
go untold tend not to enter collective memory and by giving students’ an opportunity to share
their stories, provides a way to put their experience together to gain a deeper understanding of
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

19
school violence and intervention programs (Sleeter, 2000, p.24-25). Sleeter further argues that
whoever gets to tell the educational stories affects “which stories get told and which perspectives
achieve the status of knowledge” (p.229).
Importance of the Study
Educators, administrators, and policy makers carry a major responsibility to ensure a safe
learning environment for every student. A school that has a safe and orderly environment “is one
in which students and teachers alike are safe and perceive that they are safe from both physical
and psychological harm” (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005, p. 88). The public trusts that
leaders will create and foster this safe learning environment (Tyler, 2001). The extent to which
leaders are able to create these environments, has a major effect on students’ academic
achievement, attendance in school, drop out rates, and learning motivation (Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005; Rueda, 2011). This study will bring in student voices concerning the issues
regarding school violence. These instances of violence on school campuses have a negative
effect on perception of personal and school safety, which affects the student’s readiness and
ability to learn (Astor, Benbenishty, Zeira, & Vinokur, 2002). The scope of this study focuses on
how students’ perceive the effectiveness of school responses based on their experiences with
school violence.
Definition of Terms
In initiating the development of this topic, it was realized that the field of education has
multiple definitions of school violence that could limit understanding without a clear definition
of key terms. The key definitions explain how the terms will be utilized throughout the
remainder of this study.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

20
The term school violence, or how violence relates to school, is a fairly new term in
modern research and literature. The term “school violence,” first appeared in the literature in
2002 (Astor, & Meyer, 2001; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). For the purposes of this study,
violence is defined as behavior intended to harm, physical or emotionally, persons in school and
their property (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005).
The term bullying will not be used to describe the context of school violence due to its
limitations because this term describe a form of aggression and violent behavior with specific
traits that only partly overlaps with other forms of violence in school (Benbenishty & Astor,
2005, p.7-8; Smith, Morita, Junger-Tas, Olweus, Catalano, & Slee, 1999).
Victimization is defined as a student’s report that another student or staff member
perpetrated school violence against him or her and this definition will be used to clarify what it
means to be a victim of, versus a perpetrator of, violence (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005, p.8-9).
Intervention is defined as reducing the risk of violence among youths who display one or
more risk factors for violence or preventing further violence or the escalation of violence among
youths who are already involved in violent behavior.
Summary
Even though there is developing literature regarding the topic of school violence and
intervention programs, national statistics show that school violence continues to draw concern
nationwide. Existing literature covers the causes, effects, victimization, school climate, parental
roles, roles of leaders, statistics of delinquency, and intervention, but is missing high school
students’ perceptions of school violence. This study will provide a platform for high school
students who have experienced violence on-campus to voice their perspectives and provide their
understanding of school violence and school responses to violence.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

21
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Deprived of the affective nourishment to which they were entitled, their only
resource is violence. The only path which remains open to them is the destruction
of the social order of which they are the victims.
— Spitz (1965)

In order to establish a foundation to implement a design focused on answering the
research question, a review of salient literature will be performed to set a basis for this study.
This study will explore how high school students experience school violence interventions in a
local context, what students learn from them, and why the impact of the interventions, if any, are
not reducing the perpetration of school violence.
Schools have taken various measures to improve school safety by increasing security,
changing rules and regulations, incorporating instructional programs, profiling violent students,
and using counseling and mediation, but it is not clear what really works (Juvonen, 2001).
Within these responses to violence, three categories emerge, which will be used to review the
salient literature. School violence intervention literature includes the following types of school
responses including: universal school-based programs, selected programs and targeted/intensive
programs. This literature review reveals that many of the studies conducted on school violence
interventions are quantitative and those that are qualitative focus on primary school levels.
Hundreds of youth violence prevention programs and intervention strategies are being used in
schools and communities currently around the country, yet significantly little is known about the
actual effects of many of them (Gottfredson et al., 2000). Out of the numerous intervention
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

22
programs, only a few have been evaluated and even fewer have been deemed effective or
promising (Juvonen, 2001). Existing evaluations indicate that the financial resources allocated to
violence prevention are spent on ineffective programs and polices (Mendel, 2000). Very few
intervention studies have provided enough information to assess impact, but those programs
which address both individual and school level risk factors seems to have more impact (Johnson,
2009). Johnson (2009) notes that programs could accomplish this by measuring students’
opinions as to the effectiveness of interventions. Various interventions are available, but all
indicate limited success. Focusing on students’ responses to the interventions may help
understand why.
Student Perceptions
Some researchers have examined students’ perceptions of school violence, however they
utilized quantitative analysis (e.g. Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Furlong et al., 2005; Hong &
Espelage, 2012) and contemporary qualitative studies indicate the need for research on students’
perceptions of interventions (Hong & Espelage, 2012; Johnson, Burke, & Gielen, 2012) .
Furlong and Morrison (1994) have described three methods that have been used to assess school
violence. First, surveys filled out by school officials. Second, surveys filled out by students,
asking how often they have experienced different phenomena. Third, opinion-surveys filled out
by students, administrators, teachers, and the general public to determine their attitudes to school
violence. This data collection method can bring about difficulty in measuring school violence
because the definition of violence is subjective and the survey questions are predetermined with
few choices (Gumpel & Meadan, 2000). According to Gumpel and Meadan (2000), some
researchers found that students’ reflections regarding school violence differs from the data
available from existing quantitative research due to the lack of uniform agreement of what
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

23
violence entails. This study will step away from this quantitative measure in order to understand
the subjective perceptions of students in an open-ended format in order to gain more insight and
depth regarding students’ personal experiences through qualitative methods. A significant first
step in understanding school violence is the understanding of the subjective perceptions by
different groups of school personnel including students, teachers and administrators (Gumpel &
Meadan, 2000).
Little is currently known about which factors associate with students’ perceptions of
safety or violence the most (Jimmerson & Furlong, 2006). Some studies have been conducted
worldwide that have given voice to students, teachers, and other personnel but not in the
secondary level (Astor & Meyer, 2001; Astor, Meyer & Pitner, 2001; Casella & Burstyn, 2002;
Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010; Finley, 2004; Gumpel & Meadan, 2000; McAdams &
Foster, 2008; Pietrzak, Petersen, & Speaker, 1998; Zeira, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2004). Pietrzak,
Petersen and Speaker (1998) found that primary school students perceived increasing levels of
violence on-campus, and the school professionals expressed that the resources of the school
system have not been directed at school violence to meet their concerns. This research provides
insight to student and personal perceptions at a primary level, but is limited in scope. Other
studies have shown that asking youths about the role of environment in neighborhood violence
has revealed, that youths’ apprehensiveness to express their perspectives can give insight to
school violence, and these individual perceptions can help identify which aspects of the school
environment students perceive as indications of school safety. Bsela (2009) conducted a
qualitative case study on the extent to which fifth graders perceived experiences with fear when
they entered sixth grade, to determine if it was related to school violence. Focus groups were
conducted in two Title I elementary schools with 20-32 students. The findings showed that fear
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

24
about violence in the elementary school equaled or exceeded students’ fears about middle school,
and sixth grade students suggested improved discipline plans, school safety and a need for
stronger student-teacher partnerships as way to solve this problem. Pearson (2010) conducted
student interviews to gain insight regarding their perceptions of cross cultural student violence in
an urban school and determined that proper prevention methods were necessary to stop this
violent behavior, but urged future researches to determine how. By using a mixed-methods
approach, Johnson, Burke, and Gielen (2012) were able to show that revealing students’
perspectives has the potential to improve the effectiveness of school responses to violence, but it
was guided by quantitative data analysis. This research is essential in order to give more voice to
high school students who have experienced school violence.
Students’ understanding of school violence is intricate and associated with their grade
level and school and there is a need to explore the way students perceive and think about
violence-prone subcontexts, especially in secondary schools, considering perceptions of students,
teachers and school personnel have been explored in prior research (Astor & Meyer, 2001; Astor,
Meyer & Pitner, 2001; Gumpel & Meadan, 2000; Pietrzak, Petersen, & Speaker, 1998). This
study will focus on high school students’ perceptions of both school violence and school
responses to violence.
Some scientific research has established the effectiveness of prevention programs,
however more research is necessary to know how to implement youth violence prevention and
intervention on a wider scale with higher fidelity, developing a way to monitor on a national
scale, and increase community and agency capacity for the implementation of these programs.
This requires the investment of time and resources, but the most important aspect is to continue
to find an effective approach to the problem of school violence (Gottfredson et al., 2005;
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

25
Thornton, Craft, Kahlberg, Lynch, & Baer, 2000; Thomas, 2006). School based violence
prevention trials are based on different sets of assumptions of what works and these assumptions
are rarely questioned (Sherman et al., 1997; Juvonen, 2001). Considering that the program
evaluations are mostly through the voice of individuals or groups who have access to make their
findings common knowledge, this study seeks to provide a different perspective, the secondary
student’s perspective, regarding the effectiveness of current interventions in order to provide a
new possible understanding of school responses to violence (McAdams III. & Foster, 2008;
Smith & Smith, 2006).
School Responses to Violence
No single approach or program can prevent violence due to the issue that no single factor
is the singular cause of violence (Prothrow-Stith, 1991). In order to reduce violence, broader
programs that focus on changing the environment and society are necessary, school-based
violence prevention programs that focus only on an individual’s behavior are proven to be
ineffective (Park-Higgerson et al., 2008).
Universal School Based Programs
Universal programs have three areas of focus including:
1. Instructional programs (Juvonen, 2001; Hong & Espelage 2012; Olweus & Limber,
2010).
2. Physical surveillance (Matthews, 2001; Mayer & Leone, 1999).
3. School policies (Elickson & McGuigan, 2000; Olweus & Limber, 2010; Mulvey &
Caufman, 2001).
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

26
Instructional programs: whole system.
Various instructional violence prevention programs are available for primary schools, but
only a handful are designed for secondary students (Juvonen, 2001). A primary example of a
model program for school-based prevention at the secondary level is the Blueprint Programs by
the Center for Prevention of violence at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (1996). This model is based on Dan Olweus’s systematic
program (Juvonen, 2001; Hong & Espelage 2012). The Blueprint Program provides instructional
materials, making it a universal instructional intervention that is designed for all students and not
a selected or profiled group. Its goal is to alter social norms by changing school responses to
violence. The materials incorporate anti-harassment policies, and help improve the social
awareness of staff and students. The series of exercises provided in the instruction allow students
to see problems from the perspective of the victim and raise consciousness about the role of
bystanders in encouraging violent behaviors. The program also includes teacher training and
information for parents about the program. To date, the best researched and most widely used
intervention is the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), but it focuses mostly on
bullying behaviors (Espelage & Swearer, 2004). In the U.S. OBPP program components are
utilized at four levels: school wide, classroom, individual and the community (Olweus & Limber,
2010). The OBPP has been evaluated in several large-scale studies in Norway and the U.S.
Findings indicate that the program is promising and current research in the U.S. are being
conducted to provide a more nuanced image of the effectiveness of the program with different
population by evaluating the effectiveness of particular program elements (Olweus & Limber,
2010). Further research is necessary to conduct an assessment of the conditions under which the
program could have the greatest effects.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

27
Another widely used program that targets students from grades K-12 is known as the
Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP). This program began in 1985 as a collaborative
effort between Educators for Social Responsibility and the New York City Public Schools and is
available to students from all socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. The structure of the
program is based on effective instruction in creative conflict resolution and inter-group relations.
RCCP included training for teachers (20 hours), inter-group relations, and regular classroom
instruction in creative conflict resolution, which are all based on a 51-lesson program
curriculum. The program also includes monthly follow up sessions with teachers, visitation by
expert consultants and peer mediation programs that help train students in mediation skills so
they can serve their schools outside of the classroom. This program was able to build a
partnership between the public and private spheres and has grown nationwide. RCCP now serves
over 400 schools in 16 urban, suburban and rural districts. Through RCCP, the majority of the
work is done by the teacher who receives the skills to teach conflict resolution, and they receive
continuous support to teach those skills to their students. They also conduct leadership training
for school administrators. Even though the research was conducted using a well-implemented,
semi-randomized controlled experiment with a large sample size, and received a promising
rating, further findings indicate that the program may not be as effective with higher-risk
populations that are likely to be more prone to violent and aggressive behaviors (Aber, Brown,
& Jones, 2003).
Another K-12 program, Straight Talk About Risks (STAR) was created in 1992, with the
aim of creating a program to resolve conflicts nonviolently. The Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence developed this curriculum in response to a growth of gun-related deaths of children and
teens. The Center worked with teachers, counselors, students and parents to develop the
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

28
curriculum. Education Development Center, Inc., an independent research firm conducted an
evaluation of STAR and found it to be more effective in primary levels: grades 3-5. Educators
found that enthusiasm declined per grade level and more innovative methods were necessary to
engage the older students. Additionally, the educators noted that the program needed
strengthening through practice and reinforcement thoughout the school day in all disciplines.
Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP) is a school-based universal violence
prevention program for middle school students. Within this program, students practice using a
social-cognitive problem solving model, to choose nonviolent ways of dealing with problems.
These techniques are taught in the classroom by a specialist and are incorporated within the
existing curriculum in health, science or social studies classrooms. As of January 2007 RIPP has
been implemented in more than 50 middle schools in the U.S. The program’s impact on violent
behavior was more evident in students who have high levels of problematic behavior (Farrell,
Meyer, & White, 2001). All of the school-based programs show some signs of effectiveness,
however, in the bigger picture, the programs were not able to reduce violent behavior
significantly.
Physical surveillance.
Several schools have taken measures to increase campus security and increase weapons
deterrence in response to violence. Communities have been supporting the presence of security
guards and officers employed by the school, district, or local law enforcement. Concerns have
been raised about the long-term effects of the presence of officers on students’ feelings of safety.
Mayer and Leone (1999), contend that having officers on-campus can bring a about a sense of
mistrust among students and even lead to increased disorder. The incorporation of advanced
surveillance has similar results. Mathews (2001) reports that less weapons are confiscated after
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

29
the measure to place metal detectors and to conduct searches, are put in place. However, whether
metal detectors can deter the use of weapons, or an incident from taking place, is unclear (Mayer
& Leone, 1999).
Mayer and Leone (1999) used a structural equation methodology to model possible
relationships measured, and latent variables, as relating to school violence. They noted that
creating environments that resemble systems of incarceration do not eradicate school violence;
rather they lead to the perpetration of more violent acts. They argue that successful interventions
would raise student accountability and create a space for positive communication rather than
treating schools like jails. Additional research is necessary because this study only examined a
small part of the larger system of variables related to school violence and possible interventions.
School policies.
Even though schools have begun to implement “get-tough” practices and zero-tolerance
policies to rid campuses of violence, there were unforeseeable consequences to these measures
that focus on removing students who participate in school violence from the school setting. The
“get-tough” practice came forth from a federal report published in 1983 regarding the state of
public schools and led to the adoption of various school policies including zero-tolerance
(Cullen, Clark, & Wozniak, 1985). Zero-tolerance began as a movement in response to weapons,
drugs, and violent acts and over time, it has evolved to include school or district wide policies,
and include harsh punishments for offenders (Skiba, & Knesting, 2001; Skiba, Ritter, Simmons,
Peterson, & Miller, 2006). “Get-tough” practices such as zero tolerance have proven to be
ineffective because in practice it has lead to undiscerning suspensions and expulsions for both
mild and serious violations, and is mostly disproportionately targeted towards minority students
(Skiba, & Knesting, 2001; Skiba, Simmons, Peterson, & Forde, 2006). The specific policies vary
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

30
widely regarding the behaviors triggering zero tolerance policies, and the consequences students
face when they violate the policies (Olweus & Limber, 2010). Several schools and districts
require suspension or expulsion as fitting consequences for violations of policies. Elickson and
McGuigan (2000), contend that such policies can lead to repeated school transfers that
subsequently increase the risk for violence because it takes the student out of a supportive
network and relocates them in new locations with the old context of violent behavior. The APA
task force on Zero Tolerance (2008) cautiously reviewed the research literature on such
programs and indicated that such polices may harm, rather than improve, the school
environment. The task force also noted that school suspension predicts higher future rates of
deviance and suspension for students who have already been suspended, which means that it
counters the very purpose its set to solve. Severe punishments for such behaviors, such as
expulsion, can possibly have a negative impact on students’ disposition to share their concerns
regarding the behaviors of their peers (Mulvey & Caufman, 2001). Students may be reluctant to
share the information they know regarding their peers’ involvement in violence because once the
punishment is served, their peers may seek revenge. This unwritten rule may lead to a school
culture where students know what is taking place on-campus, but do not talk about their
experiences in fear of retaliation from students they may report on. In addition, by removing
students from their environment that contains pro-social role models, the action may be
detrimental since children are in need of positive role models (Olweus & Limber, 2010). Such
broad-based policies not only lack effectiveness and may actually be detrimental to positive
intervention efforts. Further research is required to understand the nuances and impact of these
practices.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

31
In response to school violence, it is important to create safer learning environments that
revolve around administrators and teachers who can develop a sense of community, and maintain
orderly and effective classrooms (Frey et al., 2009). Frey, Ruchkin, Martin and Schwab-Stone
(2009) posit that school attachment, teacher support, parental control and violence exposure must
all be incorporated into school reform efforts intended to break the cycle of violence. In addition,
they argue that when students felt more attached to the school, there were lower levels of violent
delinquency and aggression.
Selected Programs
Schools have also responded to violence with the following selected programs, where
students who indicated signs of potential violence, were those selected for intervention due to
their previously exhibited violent behaviors; thus, targeting only the “at-risk” groups in school
(Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003; Park-Higgerson et al., 2008):
1. Instructional programs.
2. Profiling violent youth.
3. Counseling and mediation.
Instructional programs: “at-risk” youth.
The most promising prevention programs for the secondary school level are targeted to
at-risk youth for short-term outcomes; however, long-term follow-ups indicate that repeated
interventions that include only at-risk youth might be counter-effective (Dishion, McCord, &
Poulin, 1999). The law defines an at-risk youth as in individual under the age of 18 who is
beyond the control of his/her parent, such that the child’s behavior substantially endangers the
health, safety, or welfare of the child or any other person. These programs include: Positive
Adolescent Choices Training (PACT), Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP), and
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

32
Adolescent Transitions Program (ATP) (Goldstein & Conoley, 1997). These sessions, led by
adults (teachers or other school personnel), focus on anger management and conflict resolution
and utilize interactive teaching methods such as role-playing (Goldstein & Conoley, 1997).
These are curriculum-based interventions that function as group counseling sessions. They are
not usually a part of the school wide prevention approach, but are based on the individual or
group experiencing the problem.
Profiling violent youth.
Following the media centered school shootings, early identification or profiling of violent
students, was a new approach adopted for violence intervention. This approach assumes that
people can predict who can become violent by observing early warning signs of violent behavior
as a way to prevent violence. The problem with this intervention is that students who never
commit violence are labeled as potentially violent, and that leads to segregation and limits the
opportunities of these students identified as potentially violent. Mulvey and Cauffman (2001)
argue that very few students who fit the identification markers or profiles, will ever commit a
violent act. Their research supports the contention that promoting healthy relationships and
environments is more effective towards the reduction of school violence and crime, than
instituting punitive penalties. The implications of this research make a case against investing the
energies of school personnel in prediction. The researchers found that the low base rate of school
violence would make any predictive strategy prone to the problem of identifying false positives,
that violent acts are embedded in a social and transactional succession of events, predictions
based only on the characteristics of the individual student lacks the environmental influences,
and limitations of traditional diagnostic systems for assessing adolescents add to the challenges
of prediction. Essentially the program assessment process can become biased by using a process
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

33
that evaluates the evolving character of adolescents with norms that are used for adolescents.
This is biased because it uses the available knowledge base of adults, to assess they youth.
Further research is necessary to understand the long-term affects of punitive measures.
Counseling and mediation.
Some of the major reactive (versus proactive) approaches include counseling and
mediation. Counseling is for students who have disciplinary problems whereas mediation is for
specific incidents of conflict on a need-based level. The major critique of counseling is the
underlying assumption, that students who repeatedly get into trouble are the ones who need this
service and special attention (Riley & McDaniel, 2000; McAdams, Shillingford, & Trice-Black,
2011). Lambert, Bergin and Garfield (2013) discuss the gap that exists between counseling
research and practice. They bring into question the utility of the school violence research, if the
findings from the research are not effectively provided to school counselors and integrated into
their work. McAdams, Shillingford and Trice-Black (2011) had similar findings indicating that
school violence was occurring regularly, and school counselors and other school personnel were
not prepared to address it. Further, the counselors mismatched the prevention and intervention
efforts to meet the needs of the child that can accelerate the violent crisis. This research suggests
that the counseling effort is not uniform and needs to be further explored to understand student
violence and intervention. Mediation is not person based, rather it is meant to resolve conflicts in
a constructive matter when they take place by providing the opportunity for negotiation and
resolution. However, just as with counseling, there are no uniform educational requirements for
school violence prevention coordinators (Juvonen, 2001).

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

34
Targeted/Intensive Programs: “high-risk youth”
Targeted/Intensive programs are not only ineffective, but may also be possibly harmful
(Swahn & Bossarte, 2009). The term high-risk is used to describe adolescents who face
disadvantage or adversity, as determined through their socio-economic status and crime in their
community (Swahn & Bossarte, 2009). For example, youth who live in a community that has
crime, unemployment and poverty are considered high-risk youth and are also identified because
they have been involved, or may be at risk of involvement, in the juvenile justice system and
participate in programs and services to prevent dropout (Swahn & Bossarte, 2009). Swahn and
Bossarte (2009) recommend using this term with caution due to its possible impact for research
and practice. Many of these high-risk youths are profiled and grouped together as medium for
intervention. A study by Dishion, McCord, and Poulin (1999) examined two controlled
intervention studies involving peer aggregation that produced negative short-term and long-term
effects on young adolescents. This intervention research indicates that repeated interventions that
include only deviant youth can be counter-effective, because, by grouping high-risk students
together, it reinforces negative behavioral patterns and increases the risk of anti-social behavior.
The Boston Violence Prevention program is an example of how a program is targeted toward a
part of the population, in this case “high-risk” youth within the community. This program had a
public health approach to address adolescent violence and grew from the Violence Prevention
Project (VPP) of the Boston Youth Program. The major purpose was to focus on homicide, and
identify the risk factors for homicide. It was a community-based education program, counseling
and referral service for youth targeted as “high-risk”. They used media to spread anti-violent
messages. VPP was created out of the concern that intervention in schools was insufficient. The
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

35
strategy was to teach anger management and conflict resolution skills. Essentially it was a pilot
project and required more funding.
To really understand the impact of intervention with adolescents, researchers will have to
address expected interventions outcomes by assessing a variety of short and long-term outcomes.
There is no single approach that can prevent violence, since there is no single cause of violence
(Prothrow-Stith, 1991).
Meta-Analyses: Evaluation Of Current Interventions
There is a disconnect between the empirical support for ecological models of school
violence, and current prevention and/or intervention efforts which points to the lack of efficacy
data within the literature (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Furlong et al., 2005; Hong & Espelage,
2012). Recent meta analyses (discussed below in detail) of school-based violence/bullying
prevention and intervention programs highlight the challenges the hundreds of programs face due
to its confined nature. All meta analyses took place within the last decade and they show that the
programs are focused on shifting the school climate. The evaluated programs focus on not
tolerating bullying, providing information regarding violence, providing punishments for
whoever engages in the behaviors, and focuses on a bystander effect. The meta-analysis
highlights that the programs have had very little impact in reducing violence in schools. Smith,
Schneider, Smith, and Ananiadou, (2004) reviewed 14 whole-school anti-bullying programs and
the results showed these programs to be mostly ineffective. These programs were based on the
OBPP, which is effective abroad, but has shown limited efficacy in U.S. schools. The results
yielded some moderate improvement, when based on self-reported methods. Similarly, Merrell,
Gueldner, Ross, and Isava, (2008) did not find much changes in the behaviors after analyzing 16
studies published from 1980 to 2005, including data from 15,000 students in Canada, Europe and
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

36
the U.S. During the 2004—2006 school years, the Task Force on Community Preventive
Services conducted a systematic review of existing universal school-based programs and found
that such programs could help reduce violent behavior (Hahn, Fuqua-Whitley, Wethington,
Lowy, Liberman, Crosby & Dahlberg, 2007). Park‐Higgerson, Perumean‐Chaney, Bartolucci,
Grimley, and Singh, (2008) conducted twenty-six randomized controlled trials (RCT) on school-
based studies that were attempting to reduce violenct behavior between 1
st
and 11
th
grades and
found that insufficient implementation, lack of cooperation, lack of parental attendance, and
participation resulted in the program’s failure. This study, added to the existing literature by
highlighting that the previous research, which had suggested that school-based violence
prevention programs using a theory-based approach and starting the program at a young age
were effective in reducing violent behavior, is false. Another meta-analyses conducted by Ttofi,
Farrington, and Baldry (2008) yielded mixed results after evaluating 44 intervention studies
which were mostly based on OBPP. However, they discovered that the more elements included
in a program, the more likely the program was to reduce the behaviors. What these studies
indicate is that programs that are based on an ecological system are more likely to show positive
results.
Conceptual Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System Model
This study will incorporate Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory to
explain how a student’s environment affects how they grow and develop and subsequently
engage in deviant behaviors. Within this system Bronfenbrenner highlights four levels of the
environment that associates with children’s development comprising of the microsystem, the
mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

37
The four levels represent the various facets of life each student is exposed to. Their
microsystem includes their immediate family and caregivers. The way in which these individuals
or organizations interact with the child will affect how the child grows. If they are encouraging
and nurturing the better the child will be able to grow. In addition, the way in which the child
reacts to the people in the microsystem will affect how they in turn treat the child. The next level,
the mesosystem illustrates how the different parts of a child’s microsystem work together for the
sake of the child. If the child’s caregivers take an active role in a child’s school, this will help
ensure the child’s overall growth. The third level is the exosystem, which includes the other
people and places of interaction such as their neighborhood. The final level is the macrosystem,
which is the largest and most remote set of people and things, such as the national government
and culture.

Figure 2. Depiction of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Hong
& Espelage, 2012)

Chronosystem
Time
Macrosystem
Values, Beliefs, Customs
Exosystem
Community, Neighborhood.

Mesosystem
Interconnections.

Microsystem
Home, School, Peers.

The
Individual
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

38

This framework indicates that students may engage in violence not only because of their
individual characteristics, but also due to external circumstances. According to Bronfenbrenner,
the actions of peers, teachers, staff, the physical characteristics of the school environment, and
the student’s perceptions of these contextual factors play a major role in what actions they will
engage in. The victim or victimizer might be viewed as being within his or her own circle, in the
center of other concentric circles, which represents their families, schools and larger community.
This framework illustrates how the individual shapes, and is shaped by, social entities such as the
school or community at large. Each component of the ring must be called upon to identify and
implement effective school responses to school violence. For the purposes of this study, the
concentric circles will represent the individual, family, peer group, school, community and
societal factors.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory is an effective framework that helps
understand violence in society. This theory takes into consideration that the student is not just
acted upon by the environment; rather the student is active and reactive. Based on the student’s
perceptions of the school climate, the student may act aggressively, which in turn affects the
school climate, as other students may perceive the behavior as threatening and engage in similar
behaviors. Not only does Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory include the environment, rather
students’ perceptions of their environment as well, and that is significant because it explains why
students within the same environment may engage in different behaviors based on their
interpretation. In addition, this theory enables analysis through the lens of the microsystem that
creates a deeper understanding of the student’s ability to creating meaning of their individual
experiences.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

39
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System Model and Perceptions of Interventions
In this study, students’ perceptions of their school environment and the interpersonal
interaction of people in the school microsystem as responses to violence will in turn highlight
students’ perceptions of school climate and the effectiveness of interventions. Only a few
researchers have examined the various levels that can be factors to school violence, and they are
used mostly in bullying literature not school violence as a whole (Barboza, Schiamberg,
Oehmke, Korzeniewski, Post, & Heraux, 2009; Hong & Espelage, 2012). However, the existing
literature regarding bullying within the ecological context will help frame the conceptual
framework for this research study on school violence (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
This study will utilize Bronfenbrenner’s most recent ecological framework
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994) because effective school violence intervention and prevention
approaches entail incorporating multiple contexts and gaining an understanding of the ecological
system levels that could affect school violence. The ecological system theory allows a careful
examination of the complex inter-relationship between the individual and the environment and
contends that the victims and perpetrators are a part of a vast network that has various levels.
This system places the individual in the center and examines the various degrees of association
that shape an individual. This model provides an understanding of the factors that may associate
with whether a student perceives their school as safe or unsafe. This assertion is based on the
existing literature, which illustrates that youth who are involved in school violence experience
problems in other facets of their lives as well (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Swearer & Espelage,
2004).
In the context of this research, the ecological model postulates that students’ perceptions
of school interventions to reduce violence result from a intricate interplay between characteristics
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

40
of the individual and school within and among the systems: micro-, meso-, exo-, macro- and
chronosystems. The following subsections examine the various levels.
Individual. The socio-demographic characteristics of the youth and family can affect
interactions in both immediate and distant environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These
environments and interaction may have an association with students’ perceptions of school
interventions to reduce violence. The various components to examine include age, gender,
race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, health status, learning/developmental disabilities, intelligence,
and poverty status (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
Microsystem. The most direct influences on the youth are at this level and it includes
individuals or groups of individuals within immediate settings such as school and home
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). At this level, parent-child interactions in the home and school, and the
environment within the school may associate with students’ perceptions of school interventions
to reduce violence. Some scholars point out that youth who have strong attachments with their
parents feel protected. Wallace and May (2005) discovered that adolescents who had low levels
of attachments with their parents were more fearful of criminal victimization at school. The way
in which students interact with their school environment also has a major effect on their feelings
of safety. Akiba (2010) posits that students who attend schools where there are disorderly
classrooms and school environments are more likely to fear becoming victims of school
violence. However, teachers who practice student-centered instruction allow students to have
less fear of becoming victims of school violence because students feel more protected within
their environment, whereas students who feel more isolated fear victimization while at school
(Akiba, 2010). Students’ perceptions thus may be impacted by parent-youth relationships, inter-
parental violence, peer relationships, school connectedness and school environment (Hong &
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

41
Espelage, 2012). Essentially, students’ perceptions are formed and influenced by their home and
school environment and they feel safer when these relationships are stronger (Bronfenbrenner,
1979).
Mesosystem. This level requires an understanding of the interrelationship among two or
more microsystems and each contain the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For example, the
interrelationships between the home and the school. The extent to which the parent is involved
with the school can impact students’ perceptions of interventions. Teachers’ involvement is a
relevant factor in the school experience as well. Due to the frequency of interaction between
students and teachers, it is important to consider what they contribute to the school environment
and cultures. School officials may mediate students’ relationship with their peers, which in turn
may impact students’ perceptions of the school environment (Olweus, 1993).
Exosystem. This level takes into consideration aspects of the environment that are
beyond the immediate system that contains the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This level
contends that the students’ perceptions may be impacted by events that take place in settings
where the student may not be present. The media and the neighborhood environments are the two
major contributing factors. Some findings indicate that identification with aggressive characters
on television and perceived realism of television violence are significant risk factors for
aggressive behavior (Hong & Espelage, 2012). This is apparent on the Internet as well with the
growth of cyber-bullying, which is related to students’ beliefs in terms of approving violent
behavior, negative school climate, and negative peer support (Williams & Guerra, 2007). The
other major factor is the neighborhood, considering that schools are located within a larger
community and the neighborhood environment can be associated with violent behavior as a
result of negative peer associations or lack of adult supervision.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

42
Macrosystem. This level is seen as the cultural realm that can establish the social
structures and activities that take place at the system level and this includes cultural beliefs and
opportunities, which in turn may affect the processes in the microsystem (Bronfenbrenner,
1994). Within the context of school violence, the two major factors include cultural norms and
beliefs and religion. Both culture and religion have a major impact on how individuals see the
world and act within it. Some scholars contend that school violence is a means to attaining
dominance and power among students (Swearer & Espelage, 2003).
Chronosystem. The last level of the ecological framework includes change and
consistency during the lifetime of the individual and their environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Because parent-child relationship are strongest during the adolescent years any changes within
the family structure, such as divorce, may adversely affect the individual but more research is
necessary to verify these claims (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
A careful review of the various levels of this model indicate that intervening at the
family, school, and neighborhood levels can help reduce school violence and increase students’
perceptions of effective school interventions to reduce school violence. Enhancing these
perceptions might promote students’ overall well being. This model also points out that it is
important to engage in an ecological assessment to decide the most effective intervention or
programs that can improve school safety. The on-going struggle with school violence is best
explained through the social-ecological model given the various levels of complexity of how
individuals are socialized as social contextual environments are associated with students as they
are exposed to them.
Current school and/or community interventions do not reflect the complexity of school
violence and victimization. There is a disconnect between the empirical support regarding the
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

43
social-ecological model of victimization and current prevention and intervention efforts (Hong &
Espelage, 2012). A social-ecological approach decrees that responses to violence should step
away from the traditional punitive processes and move on to include an understanding of larger
patterns and pay careful attention to school climate and other significant environmental
components such as community, family and the larger society. Benbenishty and Astor (2005)
promote an assessment that will not only evaluate the multiple systems, but also involve parents,
the school, and the community members in determining and creating a school safety program.
Hence, it is significant to engage in an ecological assessment, by considering the family,
community, and society, to understand the need for interventions, prevention, and school safety
programs that will increase school safety and in turn positively associate with students’
perceptions of school interventions to reduce violence.
Summary
The review of literature indicates a need for a qualitative case study to determine
students’ perceptions of school violence and interventions programs. Students’ stories can
provide context for the problem and have the potential to shape the types of interventions high
schools might use. Current interventions include universal, selected and targeted approaches.
This study will incorporate Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory to explain
how a student’s environment effects how they grow and develop and subsequently engage in
deviant behaviors. The following chapter explores the methods of this study.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

44
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Any situation in which some men prevent others from engaging in the process of
inquiry is one of violence; … to alienate humans from their own decision-making
is to change them into objects
— Freire (1970)

The main focus of this case study was students’ experiences with school violence as it
related to their perceptions of the school’s responses to violence on-campus. This chapter
provides a review of the problem and purpose, the research questions and assumptions, explains
the student selection process for the study and describes the method of analysis. The selected
students, from one high school in California, depended on sample selection process, represented
students who have experienced school violence from various grade levels, backgrounds and
genders. A background explanation of the selection of these students was provided in addition to
the components of qualitative interview research that guided this research. The collection of data
included anonymous online student interviews, one administrator interview, school disciplinary
action guidelines and School Accountability Report Card (SARC) reports. This qualitative
interview study provided the platform that gave voice to secondary high school students’
perceptions of school violence interventions. Schools have taken a variety of measures to
implement interventions for school violence. Despite their efforts, students’ persistently
experienced violence on school campuses, which brought into question the effectiveness of
school violence intervention programs.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

45
Problem and Purposes Overview
This research sought to understand how students’ interpreted their experiences with
school violence interventions, how they constructed their worlds and what meaning they
attributed to their experiences. In addition, this research provided a lens to see what violence
means for students within the school setting (Merriam, 2009). The purpose of this study was to
examine students’ anecdotal experiences with violence in school. This research explored how
students experience school violence intervention programs, what students learned from them,
and why the interventions had not reduced the perpetration of school violence (Park-Higgerson
et al., 2008).
The most applicable form of systematic inquiry to use, which corresponded with my
research questions, was qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). This method was best for this
research, due to my desire to examine students’ perceptions of school violence (both their
involvement with violence and violence-prevention) as the phenomenon of interest. As a case
study, the single phenomenon of students’ perceptions of school violence was identified within
the bounded context of a single school site (Miles & Huberman, 1994, as cited in Merriam,
2009). This study sought to depict students’ experiences and gave them a voice to “uncover the
interaction of significant factors” (Merriam, 2009, p.43) of their experiences with both violence
and interventions. Qualitative methods assisted in understanding how students interpret their
experiences, how they constructed their worlds and what meaning they attributed to their
experiences (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). Creswell (2009) posited that qualitative research
is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups attribute to a
social or human problem, whereas a quantitative research tests objective theories by examining
the relationship among variables. Yin (2009) further explains that in a qualitative case study
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

46
research, the questions seeks to explain a present circumstance, such as how students’ perceive
school violence and interventions, then the case study method is more relevant based on the
nature of the question. The qualitative method was the most suitable approach to answer the
research questions of this study in order to gather rich data from multiple sources while giving
voice to students’ individual perceptions of school violence (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009;
Yin, 2009). This study searched for meaning and understanding regarding the depth of students’
experiences with school violence interventions. In order to gather rich data, I opted to use online
interviews. According to Evans and Mathur (2005) online correspondences may allow
respondents to reveal information regarding sensitive topics because it is perceived as less
intrusive than personal methods.
Researcher Stance
Even though I had first hand experience with violence in school from an emic
perspective, as a researcher I gained a new point of view, from an etic perspective (Merriam,
2009). My primary and secondary school exposure to violence had given me insider knowledge
and perception, but as I entered this space as the outsider, I had to develop a way in which I
could get access to the insider point of view. I was not approaching the project from a completely
etic point of view because I was a former student who was a victim, and at times a perpetrator of
violence. At the same time I was a teacher and had a good idea of life on school sites (Merriam,
2009).
I faced some challenges on the path to and during the data collection process. First,
finding a site that was ready to open their doors for this study were relatively few despite the
exhaustive list I had developed of prospects. My challenge was gaining participants’ trust
through the anonymous interviews. After sending emails and calling sites, a few replied and
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

47
revealed that they are not interested in the study and questioned the purpose of the study. A few
revealed they were concerned about how it would make their school look, and even after I shared
the confidentiality agreement they still did not want to take part in the study. Eventually, through
the use of my professional network, a principal signed the paperwork and we began the
interviews. Given the administrator had influence at this school, they were more trusting of the
process. The second major challenge was students’ reluctance to participate. My assumption was
that schools would open their doors and students would run to the opportunity to get their voices
heard, however that was not the case. The first five participants were very dedicated, but after
them, I was not receiving emails even though the teachers were reading the scripts. It was also
difficult to do the interviews in one sitting, as the participants would stop replying, and then
would email me saying they lost connection or had to do it during school hours because they had
no internet access at home. In order to gain more participants I emailed the first five and they
recruited their friends to email me. Prior to beginning the interview, as I received consent, three
participants revealed their concerns that they felt as though they were “snitching” and thought
this would harm their school. It was challenging to gain participants’ trust through the
anonymous interviews (see below for details). I explained that my intention was not to target the
school, but rather to find strategies that work to rid school campuses of school violence and
explained why their experiences mattered.
The intention of this study was to understand participants’ experiences with school
violence and school intervention programs in order to address the problem of the lack of
effective intervention programs with sustainable outcomes, despite the literature and knowledge
regarding school violence and school violence intervention.
To address this problem, the following research question guided this study.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

48
Research Question
How do students who experienced violence in high school, as a victim or perpetrator,
perceive the effectiveness of that school’s responses to violence?
Assumptions
Based on a review of the literature on interventions to prevent school violence, the
historical context of violence in schools, and national statistics on violence, the main assumption
of this study was that students who experience or participate in violence believe that the school’s
responses to violence are ineffective (Maxwell, 2013). In addition, students revealed that
intervention programs were unsuccessful. I worked to collect and analyze data to avoid only
looking for evidence in support of this assumption (Erickson, 1984).
I found that the secondary school site where the students attended experienced relatively
few occasions of school violence, despite the fact that the middle school that shared the high
school campus experienced high volumes of school violence. The high school students revealed
that their programs to control school violence were successful, however when they were in
middle school and as they view it now, the middle school did not have effective programs. Both
schools were in the same environment and many of the high school students had attended the
middle school and then went on to the high school.
Site and Sample Selection
Considering that the likely participants, students involved in school violence, were
minors and could not be identified by school personnel, the selection process involved student
self-selection to maintain anonymity throughout the study. In addition, the site was given the
pseudonym Charter High school (CHS) to assure its privacy, henceforth the site will be referred
to as CHS.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

49
Site Selection
In order to select a site, I made preliminary contact with an assistant principal I knew and
was referred to through my professional networks. I identified a principal from a high school that
had, or continued to have problems with violence through these contacts. Upon making contact
with a principal at a high school with incidences of violence, I asked permission to contact the
faculty. I contacted the English faculty because they had access to all students, as all students
were required to enroll in English classes.
The principal was reluctant to allow such a study, but agreed to the study once I sent the
details outlining the study. School officials had their own concerns of what consequences could
follow and what my intent is. In order to gain access and deal with some of these constraints, I
used various techniques. After IRB clearance, I contacted principals identified through email;
when I did not receive a response I called to speak in person (Merriam, 2009). I clarified the
process of the research, what I planed to do (see below for details) and what will happen to the
data I collect, explained why they were chosen and what they have to gain from participating in
this study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). To ensure this I took the following steps, (1) I explained
that the findings would be used to understand the relative effectiveness of intervention programs
in order to help produce effective practices to counter school violence, (2) I explained that I will
not be disruptive, (3) I shared what I planned to do with my findings, (4) I clarified why I picked
their site, (5) I explained that the school may help produce possible findings regarding effective
intervention programs that may be applied to other schools facing school violence issues by
participating in this study. When principals did not allow me access, I continued to identify more
until I located one who did allow me to proceed. The criteria for site selection included a high
school that had implemented strategies or an official intervention program as a response to
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

50
school violence. CHS implemented the following interventions since its initial opening in 2006
and continued to adopt new programs through the course of the eight years to address issues of
violence on-campus that were rampant in its initial three years, which was subsequently reduced
due to the consistent application of the adopted interventions (Austin, personal communication,
February 20, 2014). (See Table 1, below, pages 51-53).

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

51
Table 1
CHS Interventions to Reduce Violence: 2006 – Present
Year Interventions Description of Intervention Implementation
2014-
2015
Link Crew Mentor
Program (new).
Link Crew Mentor Program: Structured mentor program
for freshman to receive support and guidance from juniors
and seniors who have experienced high school transition
and faced challenges. The purpose is to welcome freshman
and connect them with positive role models who could
guide incoming students. It aims to reduce incidence of
school violence by allowing students to make real
connections with each other to help increase school safety.
Austin: Will keep
the existing
programs and add
new ones.
Guidelines for
Success.
Guidelines for Success: A new initiative they were
working on this year was Guidelines for Success, which
was not yet finalized but was a work in progress. This was
going to help support a positive school culture. Students
were charge of building these guidelines, however they
will complete it in the future.

Safe and Civil
Program
(Introduced 2008-
2009; revised every
year).

2012-
2014
Safe and Civil
Program
(Introduced 2008-
2009; revised every
year).
No new interventions introduced, however the Safe and
Civil Handbook was revised.
Class of 2013 was
the second
graduating class to
experience the
handbook all four
years
2011-
2012
All Stars All Stars: The All Stars campaign established three years
ago that created a paradigm shift on campus. School
officials looked for positive behavior on campus and in
return every time students eared 10 stars they could have a
free dress day. This was used as a positive reward system
to shift the culture because the older system punished
based on the principle of three strikes you are out and
school officials felt the focus was on the bad instead of the
good. Instead of looking for when students where engaging
in bad behaviors they started to look for the good and
moved toward the positive.
Class of 2012 was
the first
graduating class to
experience the
handbook all four
years

Safe and Civil
Program
(Introduced 2008-
2009; revised every
year).

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

52
Table 1, continued
Year Interventions Description of Intervention Implementation
2010-
2011
Summer Bridge
Program.
Summer Bridge Program: the Associate Student Body
provided explanation of campus expectations, set the
school tone, conducted team building and made a clear
effort of train the incoming class.
All the students
that came in after
had four years of
safe and civil.

Safe and Civil
Program
(Introduced 2008-
2009; revised every
year).

2009-
2010
Campaign Respect
(intended to be
reintroduced as
needed).
Campaign Respect: embedded a respectful school culture.
A committee met initially and planned lessons to teach in
the advisories each week, then they developed monthly
lessons where they taught lessons concerning individual
values, identity, respect for the community and one’s self.
First graduating
class.
Safe and Civil
Program
(Introduced 2008-
2009; revised every
year).

2008-
2009
Safe and Civil
Program (Year of
adoption,
henceforth revised
every year based on
student and school
needs).
Safe and Civil Program: This program incorporated
designing a positive and proactive schoolwide discipline
plan as a means of providing groundwork for using data to
inform decisions on developing and implementing
effective behavior management and positive behavior
support for all students. It created procedures for policies
and programs regarding:
• hallway movement
• attendance
• tardies
• levels of infractions protocols
• office referral procedures
• cafeteria
• uniform dress code, casual dress code
• All Star tickets
• restorative justice (including Fairness Committee):
This approach recognized the three parties who
played an important role and stake in the justice
process; offenders, victims, and communities. The
entailed strategies that provided opportunity for
wrongdoers to take accountability for their actions
and repair the harm done to restore the community.
By doing it increased the pro-social skills of those
involved and addressed the underlying factors that
lead youth to engage in violent behaviors.
School grew to all
grade levels
except twelfth
grade.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

53
Table 1, continued
Year Interventions Description of Intervention Implementation
3-1 Interactions 3-1 Interactions: School officials were able to build rapport
with the students by setting a tone that for every negative
interaction they had with someone they had to have three
other positives in the bank; a 3-1 ratio. They do not keep a
formal record of this information, however each individual,
whether adult or student, followed this principle as an
effort to make things right on campus and have a positive
school environment.

School Mottos Mottos:
1. If you stick with us, we will stick with you.
2. Principles of courage, valor, bravery, and strength.
3. A life is not important except in the impact it has on
other lives.
4. Choose to participate/be an upstander.

2007-
2008
School grew to
include ninth and
tenth graders.
2006-
2007
Facing History
School (starts and
continues till
present).
Facing History School: Network of schools that embraced
Facing History’s core themes as foundational to their
schools’ mission. The program encouraged students to
look at events in history as a basis for making choices in
their own live by engaging students with rigorous
interdisciplinary content and methodology that promoted
ethical awareness, empathy and academic skills. It placed
an emphasis on moral values. The program was
implemented throughout the school in humanities classes,
advisory groups, faculty meetings and activities. Student
could choose to participate and make a difference by
determining what role they play: perpetrator, victim,
bystander or upstander.
School opens as a
charter school,
sharing the
campus with the
district middle
school.
School opens with
only 150 ninth
graders.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

54
I will refer to the aforementioned programs in the following chapters with the reports of
the findings and the discussion of the implications of this study.
Site Description
CHS was a charter school organization located in South Central Los Angeles. The
campus had a student population of 580 high school students during the 2013-2014 school year
and 27 teachers. The socio-economic status indicated an area of high poverty and CHS was
considered a Title I school. According to SARC reports, student demographics for CHS were not
diverse. The majority of the students were of Hispanic or Latino decent (96.5%), a few of Black
or African American decent (2.4%) and a slight percentage reflected Asian/American
Indian/Pacific Islander decent (0.2%). Almost all students were identified, as socioeconomically
disadvantaged (96.2%) and many of them were English Learners (87.4%).
CHS shared its campus with a middle school where they co-located on the same grounds.
The campus had no physical barriers separating the two campuses, allowing for movement
between the two campuses. The middle school belonged to the big district in the area and the
high school was a part of a charter school organization, however they shared the facilities, all the
areas except the classrooms; including the restrooms, quad, cafeteria, locker area during all break
times. Thus, it was a six through twelve complex that included two distinct schools that were a
part of two different districts. In comparison to the high school of 580 students, the middle
school held a larger population of students ranging from 700-800 students. From the total of ten
student participants, nine of them attended the middle school then transferred over to the high
school, one came from another school in the area and they all had been exposed to violence in
their neighborhood and on school campuses; however they had experienced changes toward the
better on the high school campus.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

55
Sample Selection
Upon Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (UP-IRB#: UP-13-00435), the purpose
of which was to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects, using the targeted sites of
principal, I contacted each for official selection in the following order:
1. I asked the principal to give permission to have all English teachers read the script in
Appendix A to their classes.
2. I setup a blind Google account with the alias studentvoices2014@gmail.com, where
students who had interest to take part in the research could contact the researcher. No
one knew who the possible participants were, including myself.
3. I provided the English teachers with the script and asked them to put my contact
information on the board for self-selected, anonymous participation from the study
body. This script emphasized the importance of maintaining anonymity of the
participants.
4. Once I received email(s) from the participants I set up a day and time that when we
can have an uninterrupted interview via Google Instant Messenger, by signing up for
an email at www.google.com. The interview took place for about one hour. Prior to
the interview date I sent a confirmation email, then follow-up with a reminder email
the day before. The target size of the participants was 10.
5. I began each interview with informed consent for each self-selected respondent, and
then I used a tag name and asked the participant to choose one as well. I asked the
participant what names they wanted to me use as their name and double-checked to
ensure it is not their real name by having each respondent confirm that the tag name is
not their real name. The students were given tag names of their choice.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

56
6. During the interview I discussed my research proposition and what it entailed. I
explained the value of my research and how these interviews would help capture
students’ voices. When the respondents understood why I as conducting the research
they were more willing to take part (Merriam, 2009).
7. At the end of each interview, which began with informed consent, I asked each
participant to pass the information to anyone they might know who had been involved
in violence on-campus, and encourage them to participate.
I put the participants at ease during the interviews by being clear with my motives and
intentions, clarifying that their identity was concealed by the use of pseudonyms and that the
information I gathered was saved with only their tag name in a password protected file (Merriam,
2009). All participants’ comments were copied and reported as they wrote them including
grammar, spelling, and some usage of errors were kept intact in order to keep their voice. In the
midst of determining how to find this balance, I was also neutral with regard to each participant’s
knowledge and experience by avoiding arguing, debating, judging, or letting my personal views
be known. Even though I cared very much about how much the participants were willing to share
with me and was empathic to their experiences, at the same time I retained neutrality with the
content they provided (Merriam, 2009). In order to get rich data I had to gain the trust of these
students. Based on my firsthand experience, students may have feared that something bad will
happen to them if they tell an outsider what is really taking place, whether it be with
administration or parents who could have punished them or their friends who might have
considered them a traitor or a snitch. In order to mitigate, I did not share the information in the
interview.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

57
I held the assumption that students believed that intervention methods that may be in
place to rid the campus of violence are ineffective. Given my assumption, I maintained
subjectivity by being aware of my bias and looked for contrary evidence and remained open to
all the information the participants had to offer, whether or not they fit with my own personal
experiences in order to give validity and reliability to the study (Erickson, 1984).
Methods for Data Collection
Based on my research questions, I determined my data needs (Merriam, 2009). This study
required 10 student participants at one high school site to volunteer to take part in anonymous
interviews using Google Instant Messenger; students can sign up for an email at google.com. I
saved the conversations with the students’ selected tag names in a password-protected file so that
no one but me could have access to them. I collected information regarding the school through
their SARC report.
In order to triangulate the students’ perceptions of violence on-campus I interviewed an
assistant principal. I reviewed the school disciplinary procedures and asked follow-up questions
from the student interviews. I asked to attend faculty meetings regarding interventions or the
issue of violence, however there were none.
The data was collected in the following order:
1. I requested the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) from the assistant
principal report for information on school violence and possible interventions to
school violence.
2. I conducted 10 self-selected anonymous online interviews with students’ grades 9-12.
3. I conducted interviews with school personnel and asked to attend faculty meetings if
possible as they were scheduled and reviewed their disciplinary procedures.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

58
Interviews
There were many issues that I, the interviewer, kept in mind during this process ranging
from providing a safe environment, being conscious of personal biases, being able to probe
interviewees, not allowing the questions to limit the interview and stayed focused on the research
topic. The interview questions sought to answer the research questions by illuminating students’
perceptions of school violence and their thoughts regarding the school’s leaderships attempts, if
any, to combat school violence.
While constructing the interview protocol (Appendix B) it was most useful to align the
interview questions with the research questions and refer back to them frequently to ensure that
the interview questions did not stray away from the purpose of the research itself. It was crucial
to consider the order in which the questions would appear, going from broad questions to set the
ambiance, to more detailed questions that would probe interviewees to provide more depth
(Merriam, 2009; Clandinin & Connelly, 1994). The purposes of the interviews were to find out
how students described their behavior, feelings, and understanding of the world around them
(Glesne, 2011; Kvale, 1996). Using a self-selected anonymous online interview that also
contained open-ended questions allowed for flexibility and may have yielded more detailed and
descriptive data (Merriam, 2009). By using open-ended questions, I hoped to bring students’
voices to life. Students’ voices were important because experiences that go untold tend not to
enter collective memory, and by giving students an opportunity to share their stories it gave a
way to put their experiences together to better understand school violence from their perspective
(Sleeter, 2000).
According to Merriam (2009), the words used in the interview should reflect the
respondent’s worldview because that helped collect more quality data. The protocol that was
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

59
located in Appendix B accomplished this by asking questions that were relevant to the students’
experience. In addition, the questions were not a checklist that the researcher went through,
rather it was a discussion and the questions helped promote this type of interaction. Within the
topic of violence and school, students might have feared telling the details of stories so that they
did not have to face disciplinary issues with the school or law, and that is where it was important
for me to assure them that the interview was confidential and the information they shared would
remain between us. The identity of the student cannot be revealed, because it is not known, even
to me.
During the interview I allowed room for spontaneity by asking questions based on their
responses and was able to probe the interviewee and ask them to elaborate by providing more
details, clarification and examples (Merriam, 2009). In order to gather rich data regarding
students’ perceptions of school violence and intervention programs, I trusted that the
respondents, who self-selected, had prior experiences with violence. Anthropologists and
sociologists identified a good respondent as an informant and someone who understood the
culture, but was also able to reflect on it and be able to articulate on it for the interviewer and I
sought to interview respondents who had had experience with violence on-campus (Merriam,
2009). The respondents were be able to express their thoughts, feelings, and opinions on school
violence and prevention thereof (Weiss, 1994). The questions in Appendix B began with general
questions, followed up by open-ended questions that gave the respondents the opportunity to
express the very nature of their involvement and their perceptions of how violence affected their
school life and revealed the effectiveness of the school’s response to violence.
I saved the online conversation using tag names and password protection and wrote post-
interview notes (Merriam, 2009). I created a reflective memo (Merriam, 2009) to record my post
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

60
interview and observation thoughts within twenty-four hours to capture my initial thoughts and
feelings in response to the interview for later analysis.
Data Analysis
The qualitative component of this study consisted of self-selected anonymous online
interviews of students who had experienced violence on-campus in the Charter High School.
Strategies that I used to promote validity and reliability included triangulation of the three data
sources included, member checks, and self-reflection in analytic memos (Merriam, 2009). In
order to maintain anonymity, initial email information that may contain partial names were
converted into pdfs and any identities were deleted. In relation to the research questions being
answered regarding students’ perceptions concerning their exposure to school violence, their
thoughts regarding the school’s response to violence, the data being analyzed for this case study
were brought together in a holistic approach in terms of the data analysis and coding. Data was
organized during and after collection per categories. I reviewed transcripts from the interviews,
observation notes, and personal memos to identify trends in responses or behavior, by reading
and re-reading and using an open coding approach (Merriam, 2009).
My approach was to bring all the information together and organize it as such that it was
easily retrievable. I made password protected files on a cloud network and organized them by
date and tag names. Data collection and analysis took place simultaneously both in and outside
of the field in an ongoing process, and continued in-depth after data collection (Merriam, 2009).
By assigning codes to pieces of data I began to construct categories. The process of analyzing
was mostly inductive and entailed constant comparison. After careful examination of the data
patterns emerged as coding took place, and using the codes, patterns were assigned to more
major categories. The driving force behind data analysis was to make sense out of the data and
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

61
ensure that the research questions align with the consolidation of data (Merriam, 2009). The
emerging patterns led to the codes: such as school policies, communication, supervision,
restorative justice, conflict resolution, mottos, relationships, community, school wide, security,
school spirit, role models and respect. The codes were then compressed into thematic categories
leading to the three major findings of this study: community, fostering relationships, and
attitudes. A constant comparative method was used to analyze the data, by forming categories,
establishing boundaries of the categories, finding comparisons leading to coding (Glaser, 1964;
Boeije, 2002). I took one piece of data, one theme, and compared it with all others to see if there
were similarities or differences in order to develop a conceptualization of possible relations for
each theme. Since the purpose was to generate knowledge about students’ perceptions of
violence and interventions, I compared patterns and themes within each student’s experience.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) most recent ecological framework provided the framework for analysis
of participants’ perceptions of their experiences with violence and school interventions.
Timeline
Given the parameters of this study and the proposal and IRB clearance during the
summer, the study took place from September through January of the 2013-2014 school year on
the campus of Charter High School. Immediately after IRB approval, I made contact with several
of the school principals identified through my professional network. It was very challenging to
find a principal who opened the doors for this study, however by December one campus was
secured through my professional network. From November through January, as soon as students
self-selected and contacted me, I conducted the interviews and scheduled visits with the site
administrator(s). I utilized member checking as a way to ensure quality control, to improve
accuracy, credibility and validity of what had been recorded during data collection. During the
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

62
research I restated or summarized the information and then questioned the participant to
determine accuracy. Near the end of the research when the data were analyzed I gave reports to
the participants to review for authenticity of the work. In January, I began analyzing the data and
writing about the findings.
Limitations
It was important to be clear through the findings of this study that only one school in
California was examined. In confining the site, it was intended that the results and conclusions
be used to serve as stories to be heard by professionals and the community. Students’ perceptions
may offer new understandings of issues of identity, experience, and knowledge of school
violence and testify to the existence of experience or possibilities that have otherwise been
ignored or denied in the literature (Sleeter, 2000).
Although the literature that was examined used many themes of program improvement,
the actual study focused on one school in California. While the demographics of the sampling of
students and school personnel may have been emblematic of other area high schools, each school
and community had its own characteristics, which may have affected the impact of the findings.
By providing findings from one local context, I was able to share some stories students discussed
about school violence and its possible resolution through intervention(s).
Given the nature of the study and the time to conduct the research there were some
limitations. The major limitation of this study was the time constraint, which did not allow for a
wider sample size. The sample size was small (10 students) and it was very challenging to get
more participants.
Within the content of the study, there was one major concern regarding how willing
schools were to allow an outsider to come in and evaluate their school safety. As far as the study
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

63
itself, upon its completion, the concern was that the study might not have had an accurate
reflection of what was really taking place on-campus due to the controversial nature of the topic.
Triangulation assisted in establishing credibility by drawing from multiple viewpoints. By
utilizing a variety of sources of information and processes of data collection, this research moved
toward accuracy and reliability.
Summary
The methodology, as outlined here, described the important components of this study
such as its purpose, research questions, and theoretical framework. This chapter introduced the
research design, which was a qualitative interview study that gave voice to students’ perceptions
of school violence (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The context of the study described the
population and the research site that was selected to participate in the study. Protection of human
subjects and ethical issues were discussed in the IRB process section. This chapter specifically
outlined the process of the development of the data collection instruments, which included
collection of school SARC reports, 10 self-selected anonymous online student interviews, and
one administrator interview. This chapter also included various stages of the data collection
process and described the components applied in data analysis as well as methods to ensure the
reliability and validity of the study. The results will be discussed in the following chapter.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

64
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
When we have inner peace, we can be at peace with those around us. When our
community is in a state of peace, it can share that peace with neighboring
communities.
— The Dalai Lama (1989)

This qualitative study explored how high school students in one local context experienced
school violence interventions, what students learned from them, and believed to be the
intervention’s impact. Even though school violence has significantly decreased since the 1990’s
national data show that it is still evident, as a result numerous interventions were developed and
applied across the country to address school violence, but there were very few studies that
indicate the effectiveness of these programs (Park-Higgerson, Perumean-Chaney, Bartolucci,
Grimley, & Singh, 2008; Juvonen, 2001). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems
theory was utilized to explain how a student’s environment effects how they grew and developed
and how in turn that affected their behavior and point of view. The collection of data included
anonymous online student interviews, one administrator interview, school disciplinary action
guidelines and School Accountability Report Card (SARC) reports, in order to triangulate data.
This study gave voice to students as participants in both violence on-campus and of their
reactions of interventions (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001; 2008; 2010).
Students’ voices are important because experiences that go untold tend not to enter collective
memory (Sleeter, 2000, p.24-25) and by giving students an opportunity to share their stories, it
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

65
gave a way to put their experiences together to gain a deeper understanding of school violence
and intervention programs.
The findings of this study indicated that students who took part in school violence did so
as a reactive acts of violence, and that school responses reduced incidences of violence. These
findings will be supported by data organized around three main themes: Community’s effect on
participants’ perceptions of violence, fostering relationships with peers and adults, and
participants’ attitudes regarding their school.
This chapter presents the major data findings of this case study to answer the following
research question: How do students who experienced violence in school, as a victim or
perpetrator, perceive the effectiveness of school responses to violence?
Introduction of Participants
In order to directly address the purpose of this study, which is to give students a voice in
regards to their experiences with school violence and their perceptions of the school’s responses
to violence, a brief overview of the participants provides the context of the findings. Participants’
perceived interactions with violence led to the major findings of the study that revolved around
the participants’ understanding of their community, relationships and personal attitudes within
their school. In total, there were ten student participants (self-selected volunteer online
interviews) ranging from all high school grade levels and one administrator participant (the only
interview conducted in person).
Participants’ attributes were identified through their interviews and reflected the
following information regarding their experiences with violence and their perceptions of school
responses based on their grade level and interventions (See Table 2, pages 66-67):

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

66
Table 2
Summary of Participants Experiences’ Per Academic Year, Grade Level, and Interventions
Year
Interventions Set In
Place Response Patterns
2014-
2015
Safe and Civil
Program (revised).
Link Crew Mentor
Program (new).
Guidelines for
Success.
Austin: Will keep the existing programs and add new ones.
2012-
2014
Safe and Civil
Program (Revised).
Apollo14, DryTearz, Oath83, and Eveve3 (4 senior participants, who
were freshman in the 2010-2011 school year): these sets of participants
were the only ones who experienced violence on the Charter High
School campus. However, since their sophomore year they reported that
incidences of violence disappeared from campus. They all transferred
from the middle school, which shared the campus. However, as middle
school students they were involved in school violence. They agreed that
the school responses to address the violence on campus were able to
reduce incidences of violence on campus.
Poet90 (1 junior participant): this participant only took part in school
violence, the act of causing harm to someone, as a middle school
student as a method of self-defense and never experienced violence on
the Charter High School campus; they were happy that they did not
have to deal with the conflicts they had been exposed to before as
middle school students. Poet90 believed that the school’s ability to
provide clear expectations, to create a family atmosphere and ability to
teach students how to solve their problems contributed to the fact that
there was no violence on campus in contrast to what the participants a
year older experienced. Poet90 explained that this change took place
because the school established clear consequences, values, school spirit,
opened lines of communication and improved supervision. Key factors
that stood out were the restoring justice if there was an issue, their
belief in the school mottos and trust between students and adults on
campus.
Halo23 (1 sophomore participant): this participant was the only one
who did not attend the co-located middle school and defined school
violence as physical conflicts, shootings, drug fights and gang presence.
Although Halo23 had not taken part in any school violence as a Charter
High School student, during both sophomore and freshman years,
Halo23 observed school violence in the shared facilities on campus; in
the bathrooms. As a middle school student two years prior, Halo23 was
involved in a few minor issues as a reaction to some students attacking
the friends. Halo23 expressed the schools interventions provided a safe
environment.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

67
Table 2, continued
Year
Interventions Set In
Place Response Patterns
Eternity, DPoisonInk, Venom8, and Braveheart (4 freshmen
participants): these participants had never seen or taken part in violence
on the Charter High School campus however they were involved in
school violence to defend themselves as middle school students sharing
the same campus. They reported that the fights on the middle school
campus were decreasing and there were some changes in the
administration. They agreed that the sense of community, the clear
policies, the way they were with the adults on campus, and the way they
felt about their school made Charter High School a safe place.
2011-
2012
Safe and Civil
Program (Revised).
All Stars
First graduating class to experience the handbook all four years
2010-
2011
Safe and Civil
Program (Revised).
Summer Bridge
Program.
Austin: 2010-2011 was a major transitions school year that eliminated
violence from campus because that was the year when the second
graduating class that did not have the full four years of Save and Civil
Handbook graduated, and their behaviors graduated with them. All the
students that came in after had four years of safe and civil.
2009-
2010
Safe and Civil
Program (Revised).
Campaign Respect
(intended to be
reintroduced as
needed).
First graduating class.
2008-
2009
Safe and Civil
Program (Year of
adoption).
3-1 Interactions.
School Mottos
School grew to all grade levels except twelfth grade.
2007-
2008
School grew to include ninth and tenth graders.
2006-
2007
Facing History
School (starts and
continues till
present).
School opens as a charter school, sharing the campus with the district
middle school.
School opens with only 150 ninth graders.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

68
The participants’ voices revealed the major findings of this study.
1. The community, which includes the school and the neighborhood, played a key role
in how the participants’ experienced school violence and interpreted the success of
interventions and preventions set by the schools revealing that students took part in
school violence to fend for themselves.
2. Participants’ perceptions of teacher’s, administrator’s, and staff’s abilities to foster
positive relationships with the student body impacted the participants’ involvement in
school violence by opening the lines of communication.
3. The participants’ attitudes regarding their school determined what role they would
allow school violence to play on their campus.
The following sections will provide a thorough understanding of these findings as
articulated by the participants. All participants comments were copied and reported as they
wrote them—grammar, spelling, and some usage of errors were kept intact in order to keep the
authenticity of their voice.
Finding One: Community’s Role in Students’ Perceptions of Violence
Participants’ perceptions of their experiences with violence were associated with their
interactions with their environment, both on and off-campus, that lead to their understanding of
safety in relation to the area in which the school was located. Bronfenbrenner’s most recent
ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) provided the framework for analysis of
participants’ perceptions of their experiences with violence. In the context of this research, the
ecological model (see Figure 2) postulated that students’ perceptions of school interventions to
reduce violence resulted from an intricate interplay between characteristics of the individual and
school with and among the systems: micro-,meso-, exo-, macro- and chronosystems.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

69
Participants’ responses indicated that the exosystem, which included the neighborhood
and community, impacted their perceptions regarding their overall understanding of safety.
Participants’ perceived the exosystem as an unsafe place, which led them to involvement with
violence off-campus.
Even though Charter High School (CHS) improved conditions through the eight years of
its development, showing transitions over time within the chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1994),
the outskirts of the community did not transition, which threated the participants’ perceptions of
safety within the larger community. The discussions of this topic led up to the participants’
perceptions. This understanding clarified that the students’ perceived experiences with violence
both on the school campus and their wider community, by considering not only the impact that
the context may have on the individual, but also the ability of the individual to directly change
the context they were in and seek out contexts with other characteristics. Moreover, not only did
the environment become associated with the participants, but they also had the ability to impact
their direct environment within the school and the wider community in which the school was
located. This exosystem, the third level of the formal structure, which is the school system
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994), and the informal structure of the surrounding neighborhood varied in
the degree to which they facilitated positive and negative interactions with school violence.
According to the participants a communitywide effort was necessary to address school violence,
instead of treating issues of school violence as isolated incidents. Participants’ responses
identified issues of safety, gangs, and their feelings regarding their engagement with violence as
central components to reduce school violence and have long-term change. Data analysis from all
but one participant, suggested that there was an overwhelming consensus that participants were
not seeking violence for the sake of violence; they were either engaged with or witnessing school
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

70
violence because they felt as though they had no choice. The following are salient exemplars of
the data.
Safety
Participants felt safe on their school campus, however they expressed that their
neighborhood was dangerous and had high occurrences of violence that associated with their
feelings of safety. The nine participants who shared their stories, experienced violence off-
campus, on-campus and attributed it primarily to the presence of gangs. Due to the level of
comfort within their own school, participants’ feelings of safety within their neighborhood were
relative to their experiences on campus.
Off-campus victimization. Several incidents of victimization had been reported off-
campus as the participants walked on their way from or to school. One participant, Halo23,
recalled a few incidents where the participants and their friends, at different times, were followed
home:
Usually when we go home, we try not to walk alone cuz a few of us got some tailgaters
walking after us looking for beef (to start a grudge or conflict with another person) and
we heard some kid actually got jacked (robbed) before getting home so we try to go home
at least with one more person.
According to the assistant principal, Austin, upon the report of this incident, the administration
brought the Los Angeles Police Department officers from the local division in the area to speak
at the school rally to the entire student body and the parents during a parent meeting. The officers
discussed safety concerns on the way home and precautionary measures to take when walking to
and from school such as not wearing hoodies that cover their vision, not travel when it is dark,
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

71
take headphones off, and to walk in groups. When asked if victimization takes place alone or as a
part of a group activity Austin responded:
Within the past three or four years there has not been any incidents of violence on
campus, we did a lot of things to fine tune the school culture. So now up until last week,
we had no incidents of a physical fight, but last week some girls almost fought, but the
supervisors and students stopped it before it started. The kids are really good about telling
us what is going on. However, I cannot say the same when the students leave campus. A
few months back a student was walking home and someone followed her for the phone.
Once the students let us know we put together a rally hosted by the Los Angeles Police
Department where the police advised students to not have headphones on when they are
on their way home or to school, to be alert and walk in groups, and not go home at dark.
They emphasized using common sense of not being alone when going home in this
neighborhood.
The Assistant principal seemed to confirm the participants’ experiences and this led to the
understanding that these participants really did not want to be violent, rather they wanted to be
students. Participants’ explained where CHS fit within the larger community by providing clarity
on the paradox within their mesosystem (interaction of their microsystem with the exosystem).
Reflecting on this rally, DryTearz recalled students’ reactions:
It’s like the stuff they were saying made sense, because that is how our neighborhood is,
so we need to be careful. I been here for four years and seen our school make awesome
changes, cuz of these changes we felt so comfortable here that we forgot what its like
outside, we got to put our life outside of here aside because we got used to feeling safe,
but outside we are not.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

72
Participants’ feelings regarding safety off-campus also associated with school attendance as
described by Halo23:
My feelings concerning school violence in my area is that I think it those affect student
lives because sometimes they don't wanna go to school because they are scare to get bully
by other people so sometimes they stop going or sometimes like the parents don't let them
stay in home only because they don't wanna go so what they do is that they ditch school
so they can't go and if they get in trouble with parents because they ditch school they
would kill them selfs.
Halo23’s feelings regarding the outside community show the relationship between feelings of
safety and students’ academic life. If students avoid going to school then how will that impact
their academic life? The way in which participants experienced violence off-campus was
different from their campus life. Their perceptions of the school interventions centered around
their belief that they no longer had to witness or be afraid of violence, or in extreme cases take
part in violence.!They spoke about the interventions including open communication as being a
key factor.
Safety on-campus. Despite this fear off campus, students felt very safe on-campus.
Apollo14 stated that they “felt safe on campus” however they would not go “walking outside.”
Participants’ responses indicated that the geographic area was not safe for traveling, even though
the Charter High School provided safety on-campus. When asked to describe their school and
discuss if they felt safe on-campus, participants’ distinguished the two parts of the exosystem,
neighborhood/community and the school. Halo23 explained that:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

73
I would describe Charter High School safe because they have security guards and there’s
not a lot of fights like in other schools eventho it is in a area that is dangerous, I haven’t
seen no on get shot or nothing.
Participants’ believed that the security guard played a central role in ensuring that the violence in
the neighborhood did not enter CHS, which kept CHS safe from the rest of the community.
Oath83 also commented regarding the security guard:
The overall environment, the scenery of the streets and strangers who appear act strange.
What keeps our environment safe is communication with our school security guard and
the fact that he is always alert of whats going on with students around campus. Its sad to
know many campuses in my area do not have complete control of the violence in their
campuses. Also, students should be aware that school campuses are made education, not
violence.
Reinforcing the perception that the security guard was essential in providing safety from the
larger community. Apollo14 described the school as safe and mentioned that:
CHS is the safest school I have ever been to, there are no fights, no drugs or alcohol
consumed on campus, random people who are not even students don’t just show up to
school to start problems, the security makes sure no one that’s not a students comes in.
Apollo14, Braveheart, and DryTearz agreed that CHS was the safest school they had ever
attended in the area, they felt protected and they were sure that the outside community could not
harm them. DryTearz provided an understanding of their larger concerns in the area:
My only concern is about school violence in our area is that because of it we don’t feel
safe. We (as a community) really don’t address the seriousness behind school violence in
the community. And, eventually see consequences like shootings or violent fights. We
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

74
need to learn skills to help us prevent violence in any situation. If not possible, at least to
know how to resolve any situation.
Participants’ perceptions of safety on-campus did not align with their perceptions of safety off-
campus, and all the participants’ explicitly brought up the topic without being asked about their
feelings of safety of campus; rather they were asked if they felt safe on-campus, but they made a
point to discuss their neighborhood/community and compare it to their school campus. These
responses indicated that if there is potential harm within the neighborhood, that perception did
not mean that the same threat has to exist on-campus. The participants in this study revealed that
CHS was able to reduce violence on-campus despite their neighborhood’s characteristics.
Presence of gangs. The neighborhood of the school was a center for gang-related
activities, which effected life on and off-campus. Charter High School did not have reports of
gangs on-campus, however students noted their presence within the middle school that shares
their campus and the neighborhood. Halo23 made this distinction by noting that:
CHS is really safe, not like the middle school that shares our campus, where there just be
gangs and stuff…I think my middle school want (was not) safe because there was gangs
and there was a lot of fights and because if u would mess around with someone who was
in a gang or had friends in gangs they would snitch or bring ppl (people) to talk to who
ever is bothering them and in my high school there’s no fights and gangs.
Venom8 also identified a shift from the two school levels:
Now nothing, but when I was growing up and in middle school there was a large amount
of drug dealing at my old school and there were gang members and guns in school.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

75
When asked what factors attributed to the decrease of drugs and gangs in the Charter High
School versus the middle school, that share the facilities, the assistant principal, Austin,
responded:
As we lay down the law, it goes away because students realize that administration will
reply with disciplinary action and that it was not okay. Essentially students are testing
their boundaries, to see if we are like the middle school. There are kids that could be
affiliated, but they do not talk about it much, they keep that behavior off campus. We had
a few students who were in a tagging crew or a clique and a few former students who
were affiliated did not make it to graduation because the streets got a hold of them.
Austin’s response identified the central role of administration in establishing the tone of the
school and their expectation of students, which led to students decreasing such behaviors on
campus. In addition, the area was gang affiliated and that impacted the policies at the Charter
High School campus as well, indicated by Austin:
The neighborhood is historically a Crips (a gang founded in Los Angeles) area that means
it’s the royal blue family, as a preventative method police enforcement suggested that
both adults and students should not wear the color and we created that policy to make
sure we do not have problems with the rival gang in the neighborhood. The area is full of
warehouses and a lot of factories, the homes are a street over, and Bloods (Crips rival
gang) come from the upper areas and pose a threat to Crips. Its meant to be a preventative
measure and the kids fight administrators so they can wear red, and the adults agree,
however we take this measure so that there are no outside threats.
The Charter High School adopted both interventions and preventative measures to counter the
existence of drugs and gangs on-campus, which might explain why the middle school continued
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

76
to face this challenge, whereas Charter High School did not, despite being in the same
neighborhood and sharing the campus. This finding was supported in the literature, that
identified the presence of gangs in the community significantly predicted fear of crime in the
community or at school (Akiba, 2010). This finding shed a light on the existing literature, which
suggested that, at an exosystem level, students who perceived their neighborhoods as unsafe
were at risk of perceiving their schools as more unsafe (Hong & Eamon, 2012). The presence of
gangs in the neighborhood, according to all the participants, was a contributing factor as to why
participants perceived the neighborhood as unsafe. According to the literature CHS should have
been unsafe as well, but participants perceived it more as a safe haven than an extension of the
neighboring community.
Engagement with Violence
Participants’ responses denoted that they did not want to engage in violence during their
middle school years, rather it was more of a reaction in order to defend themselves and their
friends, and they were relieved that they did not have to take part in school violence within
Charter High School. As individuals, the participants’ did not seem to want to be violent,
however due to their microsystem, the people surrounding them created violent circumstances
that they felt they had to be a part of. Hong and Eamon’s (2012) speculations that peer
association is associated with perceptions of school safety, supports this finding (p. 430).
Students who attended schools where there were disorderly classrooms and school environments
were more likely to become victims and perpetrators of school violence (Akiba, 2010).
Those who did not share their stories. Just as it was a challenge to find a site for
participants for this study, during the interviews it was a challenge to get the participants to share
their stories as to why they engaged in violence. Most participants shared their stories once we
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

77
established trust (according to the methods described in chapter 3), some participants required
me to ask them a few times to share, until they provided a glimpse of their experiences. One
participant did not reply at all to the questions regarding personal experiences with violence.
When asked whether this person ever experienced violence, been a victim or perpetrator, seen
violence on-campus, had friends who took part in violence, or even seen violence on-campus
through all levels of schooling, Eveve3 did not reply at all. Even when the researcher attempted
again toward the end of the interview, hoping that with more trust the participant might reply, but
even then Eveve3 refused to answer. This absence of data perhaps represents some students’
reluctance to share information possibly because of fear, reputation of being a snitch, concern of
what will happen to them, concern of how the information will be used, or lack of trust. Those
who did share had the following stories.
Those who shared stories. Participants who shared their stories described the conditions
under which school violence took place, the nature of why they participated, how they felt
regarding the lack of violence, the various measures taken by leaders on-campus and reflected on
the various interventions ability to reduce violence on-campus.
Conditions. DryTearz and Halo portrayed the conditions under which violence took place
and agreed that the lack of supervision within the facilities led to the school violence on their
campus. Nine of the participants agreed that supervision is a key factor in creating safe
environments. DryTearz provided an understanding of the conditions under which the fighting
took place:
I don’t want to say the middle school teachers are responsible, they know what happens
in class. But, the supervisors that take care of the middle school during their breaks on
campus or passing periods never really do anything when there are fights. If there were a
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

78
fight at our school, it really wouldn’t last long. We have supervisors almost everywhere
during our breaks. And when there are fights, they are taken straight to the office and
meet with parents. Usually both or how many were involved are called out and receive a
consequence for their actions. They don’t ever get away with it.
Halo23 explained what methods some students used to avoid being caught and told a story of one
instance of violence on-campus as a freshman three years ago:
Well in some fights I was there seen because they would mostly do them in the restrooms
and one time I got in it kuz they were beating my friend nasty style. Always when they
would make a fight the ones who were gonna fight could only take less than 2 person to
go with them to not make them obvious.
Austin also confirmed that one of the major reasons why CHS administration is aware of what
takes place on-campus is because they have a “minimum of seven and at times about ten
supervisors on active duty during all breaks,” which could explain why the high school is able to
keep the campus safe. Nine students noted the significant role supervisors played in maintaining
a safe environment.
Even though the two schools opened the same year, 2006, the middle school faced more
administrative instability whereas the high school retained a stable environment in comparison
(Austin, personal communication, February 20, 2014). There continued to be a significant
amount of fights and bullying on the middle school level that was visible to all students.
DryTearz exclaimed:
The supervisors that take care of the middle school during their breaks on campus or
passing periods never really do anything when there are fights.
Austin confirmed that:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

79
Prior to three years ago there was uncontrollable turmoil on campus on behalf of the
middle school. The supervisors did not get there as soon as they should have and the hires
were fast hires, not the best out there. The kids were heavily involved in violence in
eighth grade, but once they would get to our school they would change immediately
because they saw different treatment in high school.
The two campuses were separate conceptually, if not by actual, physical boundaries. He
continued to discuss the slight changes:
Three years ago the middle school was reconstituted and since then was relatively more
stable compared to its previous condition. In recent years there had been more
collaboration back and forth between the two schools on behalf of the two administrators.
Even though the CHS administration addressed the issues of violence on their campus by
adopting and implementing policies, a continuing challenge to campus safety was linked to the
middle school that shared its campus. All nine students who indicated that they took part in
school violence noted the differences of the two campuses and discussed that they did so to
protect himself or herself or a friend in need.
Self-defense. The major reason why nine out of the ten participants took part in school
violence during their school was to protect themselves or their friends as a reaction of self-
defense. Venom 8, Poet90, Braveheart, and DPoisonInk provided some insight. Venom 8
discussed the patterns that emerged in their peer groups:
I started taking part in violence at school starting middle school when people were
beating up on me. I tried to stay out of all the trouble, as much as I could, I would only do
it when I was attacked or my friends.
Poet90 had similar experiences:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

80
I never take part in violence in school unless a fight has occurred, but in that case it will
be self-defense because I will not start any. I have only been a part of a couple of fights,
none were in high school, but all to protect myself or my friends.
Braveheart shared the following reason regarding why:
During 7th grade, I began picking on others in order to feel strong. I used to be picked on
when I was younger which in turn caused me to start doing it to others.
DPoisonInk, who described the feelings regarding the school environment revealed that:
There were crazy amounts of violence mostly insane fistfights, brawls, stabbings, and
gun pullouts in extreme cases on and off campus but not in the high school. I stared to get
involved in fistfights only in middle school, only when people mess with me, owe me
money and piss off (upset) my friends.
These responses illustrated how participants did not want to participate in school violence, but
did not know how else to respond to the school violence they experienced.
Grateful for absence of violence on-campus. One participant did not address the details
of their involvement, however nine discussed how grateful they were that they were no longer a
part of it. Apollo 14 and Eternity expressed how relieved they were that their high school did not
have school violence issues. Apollo 14 revealed never taking part in violence and voiced:
Personally, I have never been part of violence and I am grateful for that, but because of
close friends living in somewhat ghetto areas, I have seen violence take place. I didn’t
like it, I felt helpless just being a bystander, especially cuz here at CHS we learned how
important it is to be an upstander.
Eternity shared similar experiences with violence:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

81
I never took part in the violence, but I saw so many people in it, in and out of school.
There is no violence at my current school, but my old school there was violence in
groups, and I never wanted to see it, it made me really sad what people did to each other
and I was scared to get involved cuz of what they would do me on at school or on the
way home. None of my friends wanted to do it, it was like they had to protect themselves.
When given the opportunity to discuss violence on campus, what the students discussed instead
was the absence of violence on the CHS campus; instead they focused on the middle school
campus and the neighborhood. This shows that students did not want to be a part of the violence
and valued their school being able to reduce violence on the school campus, despite the presence
of violence on their campus on behalf of middle school students and violence in the larger
community.
Issues of reputation. Engaging in school violence gave participants a bad reputation and
they did not want that, however CHS offered them a new start. DryTearz discussed why students
at CHS did not engage in violent behaviors:
We learned to be very respectful and always be the bigger person, if we ever have
problems we know what to do and who to go to so that it doesn’t get too serious.
According to Austin, the school’s guidelines set the schools expectations for all students:
The incoming students know to change their behaviors from the second they begin as
high school students taking part in the summer bridge program. The socialization process
and the unspoken norms on the campus lead to an overnight change in students who
previously engaged in school violence and middle school students who shared this
campus.
Apollo14 also offered insight regarding reputations:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

82
we like family now, like brothers and sisters, so if we see something starting we get
involved, we wont let bad stuff happen on our watch, its our school and we value our
school and what all these people do for us. So for us its not cool to be the one who hurt
someone else, we all get on their case. None of use wanna be the bystander, that’s like
being a collaborator, and we don’t wanna be that kind of person.
Based on these responses, eight out of the ten participants chose to take a role in intervening
when possible cases of violence might have taken place on campus, because they were socialized
to wanting to be seen as individuals with character and who were connected to their school.
Students who feel connected to their school, within the microsystem, are more likely to not take
part in victimization (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Hong & Espelage, 2012).
Open communication vs. punitive measures. Participants had developed their
communication and problem solving skills. Participants discussed how the adults on campus
were able to build close relationships and open the doors for communication that allowed
students to find alternative ways of addressing their issues. School officials and teachers, the
mesosystem level (inter-relations among two or more microsystems), could associate with
students’ relationships with their peers and their perception of the school safety (Hong &
Espelage, 2012). Oath83 provided a lens to understand the overall interactions on campus:
Teachers, our security guard, principals, even councilors are always around campus
checking and communicating with students. They are always aware of everything
happening in campus. Our principal even stays at the door every morning, welcoming
students to a new day of school, overseeing our campus. All staff are always attentive
with students asking us how we are and regulating visitors on campus to make our
campus safe.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

83
Older participants disclosed that as CHS took proactive measures to address school
violence issues, so that students no longer needed to engage in violence. When students who
took part in violence were treated punitively or the school did not address the issues, such as the
middle school, school violence continued. Schools that relied on punitive measures exacerbated
the danger of school violence by provoking at-risk youth (Garbarino, 1995; Garbarino &
Kostelny, 1997). Halo 23 affirmed that:
Principals, teachers and councilors should help us realize stuff before we do them. Just a
lot of programs that would help students realize that what they are doing is wrong,
instead of just punishing kids and kickin them out of school, cuz they don’t get why what
they did was wrong and they don’t change. No one changes that way and they get mad
that their friends are gone and keep doing what they had done before.
When asked how schools can reduce violence DryTearz explained why other schools could not
achieve what CHS did:
My previous schools were never like this [safe]. In my other schools and my friends
school conflict never ends cuz there is no control just extreme stuff like expelling and
that didn’t help cuz no one really intervened and showed us how to resolve our problem.
This finding was supported in the literature, as when Mulvey and Cauffman (2001) argued that
very few students who fit the identification markers or profiles would ever commit a violent act.
This meant that promoting healthy relationships and environments was more effective to the
reduction of school violence and crime than instituting punitive penalties.
Interventions. Participants believed that taking up interventions would create safer
campuses. When asked what interventions schools could put in place to reduce school violence
on campus and control gang activity, Halo23 answered that the administration should:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

84
Put activities so that students could be more interning in sports and stuff instead of them
doing all those stuff they should have had more security guards and also programs that
would talk about violence and stuff like in my high school. They could have meetings
and talk it out so the people who try to do violence see the other side. They could show
videos of how people feel when you hurt them and what they could do if we don’t stop
bothering them, before people even think about fighting.
Austin confirmed that the interventions the school adopted during the third year of operation of
the school with the Safe and Civil Handbook, that was revised to meet the needs of the students
and the school annually, significantly reduced school violence. He stated that:
The first few years of the school the school officials were not sure of what they were
doing because they were so focused on structuring the basics of the school they did not
teach good culture, so I think there were more fights the first couple of years, we did a lot
to fine tune the school culture. We adopted the Safe and Civil Program out of Oregon and
were trained for five years in the various modules to ensure a school for success. Since
instituting this program it has been like day and night. It started as an intervention and is
now a preventative piece. Suspension rates have decreased dramatically, they only
happen for tagging, and we have had no incidences of expulsion. Now the kids feel safe
on campus and always say how they feel safe on campus, but do not want to go walking
outside.
The SARC reports confirm that in the past few years there have very few suspension and not
expulsions (2012-2013, 2013-2014). DryTearz, as a senior who had experienced violence on
CHS campus as a freshman noted how the school was able to reduce violence levels since 2011:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

85
Our school makes it very clear what we should behave like, we know there will be
consequences from our actions, they are always aware of what we are up to, and we have
been taught to try and be a role model for these kids…Usually both or how many were
involved are called our and receive a consequence for their actions. They don’t ever get
away with it.
Participants’ discussions regarding the safety of their school versus the danger in their
community pointed toward a community-wide effort to intervene with, and prevent school
violence. Even though the school site had evolved into a safe environment the surrounding
environment continued to pose a threat to the overall safety of the community. CHS officials had
built a safe and civil school and transformed the school from a site with violence to a school of
social justice and prevention of school violence, the community surrounding the school
continued to pose a threat to the safety of the community as whole. Hong and Espelage (2012),
indicated that there is currently a disconnect between the empirical support regarding the social-
ecological model of victimization and current prevention and intervention efforts. This research
study affirms that disconnect. The major finding of this study was that the effort to reduce
violence on campus. must go beyond the campus to a community wide effort. This social-
ecological approach strongly suggests that school and community responses to violence should
step away from the traditional punitive processes and move on to include an understanding of
larger patterns, and pay careful attention to school climate and other significant environmental
components such as community, family and the larger society (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This
consensus of how to intervene with, and prevent school violence, on behalf of all the participants
is best reflected through Oath83’s conclusion that:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

86
In my opinion, schools can only create a safer school environment by setting an example
for us. Teens can't do it alone because there needs to be a community-wide effort
addressing the issue. We need help from others. But teens can also take the lead. Creating
a safe place where you can learn and grow depends on a partnership between students,
parents, and teachers to prevent any school violence.
The literature supported the importance of understanding the social ecology and taking it into
consideration when determining the need for interventions or school safety programs (Hong &
Eamon, 2012). Participants’ voices have confirmed that it is important to consider the
community, the ecology, when developing school violence interventions and prevention
programs by taking into account the dangers in the neighborhood which could affects
participants’ perceptions of safety. Essentially, participants did not want to take part in violent
behaviors, they only did so as reactions to what was taking place within the larger community
which was mirrored on the school campus, and posed a threat to schools that were able to
counter violence on school campus despite the community; the question is how long would they
be able to do so, and that will be discussed in the implications. In addition, they revealed how
crucial it was to take into account the relationships among students and adults on campus in
establishing a safe school.
Finding Two: Building Meaningful Relationships
Participants emphasized the role of school officials in maintaining a safe environment
within CHS because they invested the time to foster strong relationships with students, opening
the lines of communication and caring for them. According to Bronfenbrenner (1994) the
mesosystem, inter-relations among two or more microsystems that contain the individual, which
includes youth-school (students to teacher/administrator/staff) official relationships, can be
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

87
associated with the interactions on the other, such as youth-peer (student to student). Participants
were able to express their feelings regarding the school interventions and their ability to reduce
incidences of school violence. Participants’ described some of the approaches adults used as
interventions including restorative justice, grade level advisories, and open communication.
Restorative Justice
As a form of conflict resolution, the school established a philosophy of restoring the
justice within the campus when conflicts arose in order to restore their community. DPoisonInk
liked how the school structured the intervention program to include levels of infractions and a
rehabilitative approach and explained:
I like my high school kuz they have us do meetings where we talk how we made people
feel, and sometimes we watch videos that show the other side, and we stop bothering
each other and understand what we did, then we make it right.
A major component of the CHS Safe and Civil Handbook was the Restorative Justice program
which illustrated that violence was not isolated and that students had to address their issues and
fix the relationships they fractured and restore their community; a rehabilitative effort instead of
a punitive approach. Austin explained how this concept worked when put into action:
When there is an incident you need to restore justice to the perpetrator, victim and the
community. We assign consequences that the person must be disciplined and teach them
a new behavior. The perpetrator must apologize; a mediation meeting will take place to
make the participants realize the effects of their behavior. For example, if they tag they
must clean it and make it better. The two girls who created a Facebook account and
cyber-bullied a student had to prepare a presentation regarding that topic and teach the
lower grades about the ethics and technology. Often times, by completing so many
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

88
service hours around the school that they get hooked to school cultures because they
build a relationship with us, they accept that we made them better.
Eternity mentioned how the students felt about learning problem-solving skills:
Doing the justice thing, made it feel like there was fairness and we got to understand
what we did wrong and learn from it, kids hate detentions so at least this way we get to
see or learn to solve our problems. It makes us feel like the older people actually care
about us and not dictators.
The exemplar of the data from Eternity about restorative justice really emphasized how releasing
responsibility for violence and making clear consequences had an impact on the participants. The
aspect of restoring the peace in their community and learning from their mistakes was significant
when choosing to partake in violence or not. These responses indicated that teaching the youth
how to solve their problems might have empowered them with skills to build a safe community
and have buy-in into the school policies and spirit.
Reinforcing through Grade Level Advisories
Other participants addressed the role of grade level advisories that reinforced the tone and
programs of CHS. School wide advisories also were important, because they opened the doors of
communication on a school wide level; this showed that adults cared about their students by
asking how they were, and wanting to speak to their students. Instead of focusing on or profiling
one student who was seen as violent, this program was offered to everyone so that students may
learn how to address their problems if or when it arises. Oath 83 provided an idea of what they
did in advisory sections:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

89
In our advisories we promote not violence. We get readings, went to go watch a movie
about it, & continuously speak of and get reminded of always being an up stander in
violent situations, & get advised on what to do, or how to handle the situation.
Austin discussed the purpose of the advisories:
Advisories allow teachers to connect with their classes and have an open forum. Teachers
get training, then they teach their students. Professional development seminars provide
teachers with strategies. Last year we conducted a school wide lesson based on issues of
violence and advisories conducted a pre-lesson and a post debrief regarding what the
students saw. Now every time something happens students say “not on our watch” and
they are quick to report if there is any injustice.
It is crucial to consider the role of the teacher and teacher preparation in how to address problem
solving as a school wide policy that was implemented through advisories. Students also gave
value to how their teacher reinforced the lessons and skills in smaller sections. Braveheart
affirmed:
We have communication about violence, but mostly target the issues, what most
commonly starts violence. Have teachers speak to students, & have a school wide
discussion/action, like after we went to see a movie “Bully”, we had discussions with our
advisory after.
This structure provided a safe space for students to deconstruct the concept of violence,
understand their roles and be able to build trust with their teachers by opening the lines of
communication.
Building Relationships with Students through Communication and Conflict Resolution
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

90
Research shows that students were more willing to look for help from teachers or school
officials in cases where teachers got involved in students’ peer conflicts (Hong & Espelage,
2012). For example, DryTearz and Venom8 felt cared about by the teachers on campus and
valued their efforts to communicate with the youth as stated by Venom8:
I believe that by keeping constant communication, & demonstrating that they care for
these students, getting to know them individually, & offer help, approach a noticed issue
when they (adults) see a student in need will help create safer campuses. Its best to
address and become aware of the problem, communicate with those involved, and find a
solution where those involved understand other options to resolving their issues.
These relationships in which adults offered help and were interested in student life and problems,
the use of open communication helped students understand their options of how to resolve their
problems. When the participants felt they were heard by the adults on campus, that perception
may have opened the doors to establish positive relationships built on trust and care, that may
have also contributed to their sense of protection and community.
Another vital aspect of relationships within the mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) was
that of the home and school. This connection may have enhanced positive student outcomes and
reduced school problems (Hong & Eamon, 2011). DryTearz reemphasized the connection
between home and school:
I’ve always been taught by my parents and teachers that you can always solve a problem
without any violence. So when we find ourselves with a problem, we should be able to
talk it out. If I have a problem at school, either personal or with another student, I can
count most of the time on certain teachers. They will help me by talking to me first to see
what is the problem and how I am feeling. Also, when it is student-to-student conflict,
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

91
they will call in the other person to meet. This is really uncomfortable, but it helps most
of us realize where our issues have led to and we can reflect. At my other schools no one
help us solve our problems.
DryTearz, as a senior on campus, had participated in school violence in middle school and
during freshman year at CHS. DryTearz had taken part in school violence as a method of self-
defense and had witnessed several incidents of school violence on campus by the middle school
students who shared their facilities. During the course of high school, DryTearz learned how to
resolve problems and helped spread this sense of culture. Participants knew that they would face
consequences for their actions, coupled with the strong relationships they developed with adults
on campus, helped reduced their likelihood to take part in school violence because they did not
want to break the relationships they fostered that was built on respect. DryTearz continued to
explain:
The middle school has major conflicts because the kids in that school do not face any
consequences when they do something bad. They are very loud and constantly you will
see them fighting, yet their supervisors do not do anything about it. Our school makes it
very clear what we should behave like. We know there will be consequences from our
actions. They are always aware of what are up to. And, we have been taught to try and be
a role model for these kids. Lastly, our school does not tolerate rude behavior or violence.
This comment illustrated that CHS participants had close ties with the adults on campus and both
trusted and respected them. Oath83 agreed with DryTearz and stressed youth-school officials
relationships:
Teachers are always talking to students, asking how we are. Admin is always on campus
looking out for students starting conversations with them, and every time notice
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

92
something is wrong, or someone looks gloomy or anything different in a negative way
with a student, they always speak to them and ask if everything is okay. The adults on
campus take time to communicate and interact with us, care for us and get to know us one
on one. Offering their help and support at all times. I believe that because teachers at
CHS have better communication with students, and oversee their campus side better than
the middle school side, they have more authority, and CHS students listen to CHS
teachers better instead. The middle school staff have very little control over students, &
plenty of times I have heard of many disrespectful occasions with teachers and the
campus itself, whereas in the high school I have never seen anything disrespectful actions
like the ones by the students in the middle school.
Participants’ experiences with school officials, school policies and the implementation thereof
shaped participants’ understanding regarding their microsystem and their attitudes, which
manifested in their behavior. The last major finding of this study identified how participants felt
about their school and how those feelings developed along the timeline of CHS’s development
during the course of the passed eight years of its existence. The following section will explore
how CHS established their school culture.
Finding Three: Positive Attitudes About the School
The third major finding revealed that the participants’ decision making regarding whether
or not to engage in violence was influenced by how they felt about their school. Participants
revealed a high sense of school spirit that was present in the daily life of CHS students due to the
set interventions and most significantly the mottos, which set the tone of the campus.!This
aspect was uncovered through their discussion regarding the summer bridge program, which
helped set the tone of the school and the mottos that were used school wide on a yearly basis.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

93
Summer Bridge
The entering freshman class reflected on their Summer Bridge program that started off
their high school years. The purpose of this program was to set the tone of the following three
years for incoming freshman and establish the guidelines new students were expected to adhere
to. All participants had experienced this program because it was instituted during the 2010- 2011
school year, and agreed that it help them see what the school was all about. Poet90 recalled:
Before starting ninth grade we did this thing called summer bridge it lasted like a month
and that’s where we learned the rules and met the older kids. They organized games for
us and told us how we should be. They were so proud of the school.
Austin explained that the Summer Bridge programs sets the stage for the next four years of high
school and tests students’ limits, which leads them into the right direction of what are or are not
acceptable on school campus:
Seniors and Juniors are very proud of the school and will not put up with ninth and tenth
grade sabotaging the reputation of their school, based on the tone the older students set
the incoming classes see that they have to be good here, their old behavior is
unacceptable. Next year we are going to add a new mentor program, called link crew,
which sets up seniors and freshmen as mentors and mentees to further build school
culture and help incoming classes shape into high school expectations. Incoming students
try to test their boundaries and soon realize that their negative ways must be left behind.
Soon they begin to uphold the mottos of the school. It all starts at Summer Bridge.
Establishing such traditions on campus and incorporating the student body to lead the program,
may have set the stage for student buy-in into the existing school culture by seeing how the
upper classmen felt about their school and what was expected of them as the incoming class.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

94
Another important practice on campus that helped establish the school tone were the mottos that
everyone used and reminded each other of.
Mottos
There were four major mottos participants mentioned that everyone knew and followed
on campus:
1. If you stick with us, we will stick with you.
2. Principles of courage, valor, bravery, and strength.
3. A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.
4. Choose to participate/be an upstander.
All participants mentioned at least two of the aforementioned mottos when they were explaining
the culture of their school. Eveve3 clarified:
We are known as a “Facing History School.” We believe that we can change the lives of
future scholars in our society. Our mission is to keep a school where everyone is eligible
to participate and receive the same amount of knowledge from our teachers. In addition
the atmosphere in our school is like the atmosphere that a loving family would have. We
all know each other like brother and sister, we tend to help one another and shape the
lives of leader as CHS students.
Based on participants’ responses, the researcher wanted to understand how the school embedded
these values by confirming them with the assistant principal. Austin recollected how the mottos
got their start on campus:
The founding assistant principal, who is now the principal was big on restorative justice
and from the first year made the school a Facing History school. The motto of this
program has to do with being an upstander not a bystander. If students see something
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

95
they are encouraged to do the right thing and get adults involved. During the first three
years of the school (2006-2008), the policy was built on negative responses such as
“three strikes you are out.” We wanted to change that dynamic and make it positive. I
was involved with student council to establish school spirit, we organized rallies,
competitions, homecoming and more activities, which help build pride in school.
Perhaps the establishment and implementation of these mottos led to the participants’ ability to
own the values of their school and want to keep their campus safe. DryTearz was able to
summarize what all other participants expressed regarding how students felt about their school in
light of how adults intervened:
We value our school and what it is known for.
DryTearz really showed how all the participants talked about their understanding of their role
and connection to the school seemed to connect to their experiences with violence at school,
because it still remained a threat in the community.
Hence, students did not engage in school violence because the school programs and
philosophy set the guidelines of expectations, that coupled with the factor that students did not
want to participate in violence and only did so for self-defense helped transform CHS in its
history of eight years; with the pivotal turning point being the 2010-2011 school year.
Summary
The findings, as outlined here, described the important components of this study that
were revealed through 10 self-selected anonymous online student interviews, one administrator
interview, school disciplinary action guidelines and school SARC reports. This chapter
specifically outlines the three major findings of this study to answer the research question: How
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

96
do students who experienced violence in school, as a victim or perpetrator, perceive the
effectiveness of school responses to violence?
Finding one indicated the importance of a community wide effort as a response to school
violence. Finding two showed the importance of intrapersonal relationships among students,
teachers, administrators and councilors. Finding three exhibited the importance of participants’
attitudes in creating and maintaining safe schools. The implications of this study will be
discussed in the following chapter.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

97
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Without a sense of caring, there can be no sense of community.
— Anthony Burgess

This study sought to understand what makes an effective response to school violence
based on students’ perceptions in one local high school. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
systems theory was utilized to explain how a student’s environment effects how they grew and
developed and how in turn that affected their behavior and point of view. The collection of data
included anonymous self-selected online student interviews, one administrator interview, school
disciplinary action guidelines and School Accountability Report Card (SARC) reports; in order
to triangulate the data. This study gave voice to students as participants in both violence on
campus and their reactions to interventions (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001;
2008; 2010). The major findings answered the following research question:
How do students who experienced violence in school, as a victim or perpetrator, perceive
the effectiveness of school responses to violence?
Finding one indicated the importance of a community wide effort as a response to school
violence. Finding two showed how crucial it was to form intrapersonal relationships among
students, teachers, administrators and councilors. Finding three exhibited the importance of
participants’ attitudes in creating and maintaining safe schools. This chapter will reflect on and
discuss the implication of these findings.
Educational policy makers and school officials spend significant amounts of time and
money to address campus safety issues, however given the quantity of school violence
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

98
intervention and preventions programs available nationwide, researchers face the task of
determining the effectiveness of these programs; only a small selection have been reviewed. The
majority of the strategies utilized to respond to school violence include selected and targeted
programs toward problematic youth. This study revealed the importance of developing programs
that do not target specific youth, rather the adoption of universal school wide programs through
community wide efforts to reduce incidences of school violence for the long-term. No matter
what program schools adopt, this shows that in addition to developing an effective program,
what may make it effective is how it is carried out. Because this is a case study with a limited
number of participants, I am not trying to generalize, I am using the findings to talk about
implications based on this study that may be useful to others as others think about some of the
ways they might combat school violence.
Implications
Student Accountability and Buy-in
Based on what students shared about their involvement with school violence, when they
got to high school they had specific structures in communication, clear consequences, and
responsibility for their actions and this led to buy-in because the culture was one of safety and
acceptance. Student buy-in of the policy is major a component in creating safe schools, just as
students need to be held accountable for their actions and value their school policy. By training
students in conflict resolution and creating buy-in for the school policy, educators can help create
safe school environments. In turn this will allow a space for improved quality of instruction.
Students value school. Participants revealed high levels of school pride and valued what
their school stood for. Eveve3, like other participants said “here at our school, we want to keep
our mission, because we believe if we do so, we can change the lives of future scholars in our
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

99
society.” To help reduce school violence, leaders may consider how to gain student buy-in for
school policies by building relationships where students respect the mission and vision of the
school and how it is carried out. In this way students can take leadership roles on campus and be
role models for incoming students by setting the tone and expectations of the school. In addition,
students will not allow their peers to engage in school violence because they will get involved by
being upstanders instead of bystanders (according to the Facing History mission) in the face of
violence. Students must care about their school’s reputation and be engaged in protecting their
school image and peers by being ready to do the right thing.
Trust adults on campus. The adults on campus must work on creating positive
relationships with students by opening the lines of communication and allowing students to feel
cared for by them. Students who have close ties with their teachers are less likely to take part in
school violence and know who to go to when the have problems in order to get help instead of
resorting to violence.
Conflict resolution training. School should engage students in the conflict resolution
process through efforts such as restorative justice and step away from punitive punishments that
do not teach students how to solve their problems; rather it creates more animosity toward the
administrators and the school policy. As noted in chapter 4, when Halo 23 said:
Principals, teachers and councilors should help us realize stuff before we do them. Just a
lot of programs that would help students realize that what they are doing is wrong,
instead of just punishing kids and kickin them out of school, cuz they don’t get why what
they did was wrong and they don’t change. No one changes that way and they get mad
that their friends are gone and keep doing what they had done before.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

100
This comment shows that teens can make better decisions when they fully understand how it
affects others and in order to do so they have to be trained and given the skills to solve their
problems instead of resorting to violence means. Austin, the assistant principal, emphasized that:
2010-2011 was a major transitions school year that eliminated violence from campus
because that was the year when the second graduating class that did not have the full four
years of Save and Civil Handbook graduated, and their behaviors graduated with them.
Community-Wide Effort
Community-wide effort is an implication because participants shared that although the
school now had elements of safety and feelings of belonging for them, they still were concerned
about their community and their trips to and from school. The community still remained unstable
in terms of safety and this impacted the participants’ feelings of safety. The careful analysis of
students’ perceptions of the complex inter-relationship between the individual and the
environment led to the finding that this vast network of various levels associated with whether a
participant perceived their school as safe or unsafe in relation to the area in which the school was
located.
Safe haven. Even though individual schools may be able to successfully reduce school
violence on campus within a community that has high incidences of violence, there will still be a
threat perceived in the larger community. DryTearz best summarized this concern:
That [violent] is how our neighborhood is, so we need to be careful. I been here for four
years and seen our school make awesome changes, cuz of these changes we felt so
comfortable here that we forgot what its like outside, we got to put our life outside of
here aside because we got used to feeling safe, but outside we are not.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

101
Schools can loose their safe haven qualities based on changes in leadership and educators on
campus, which means that that safe haven is temporary in the face of the long-term goals of
reducing school violence. Participants revealed that following the established policies and
providing consequences could be considered to reduce school violence. DryTearz emphasized
“there are major conflicts when kids in the school do not face consequences when they do
something bad.” Thus, implementation of policy may be considered when building a safe school
and maintaining that environment because the outer community will continue to be a challenge
to school safety issues.
Community-wide efforts as long-term solutions. The efforts to combat school violence
should move from individual school efforts to community-wide efforts in order to have long-
term effectiveness. The ecology has to be considered in addressing issues of violence, because it
mirrors what may take place on campus, thus if we want to reduce violence on a larger scale than
the involvement has to be on a larger scale. When developing interventions and preventative
measure, policy makers must take into account the culture and the community. Halo23 best
described this connection by saying that:
My feelings concerning school violence in my area is that I think it those affect student
lives because sometimes they don't wanna go to school because they are scare to get bully
by other people so sometimes they stop going or sometimes like the parents don't let them
stay in home only because they don't wanna go so what they do is that they ditch school
so they can't go and if they get in trouble with parents because they ditch school they
would kill them selfs.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

102
Universal School wide Policies
The third implication is that it is important to consider universal school wide policies
even though the literature shows that many of the current and existing policies target at-risk or
high-risk students, but by providing a school wide intervention and proactive programs, it may
help students gain the skills they need to deal with their issues before it gets too extreme.
Participants revealed how central it was to learn about how people feel when they are targeted in
school violence and how conflict resolution allowed them to restore their community. To prevent
school violence, policy makers could consider building school morale by involving all students
in proactive measures instead of taking the approach of reactive measure to school violence. In
response to the question, what kinds of intervention strategies have worked in your school and
what would you suggest to counter violence in schools, Oath23 responded:
I would have communication about violence, but mostly target the issues, what most
commonly starts violence. Have teachers speak to students, & have a school wide
discussion/action.
Several of the school violence policies countrywide have a tendency to be selected and/or
targeted responses to school violence. The participants of this study revealed that learning
preventative measures are more likely to reduce school violence rather than profiling certain
students and giving them punitive measures, instead schools should teach students how to make
their wrongs right. DryTearz suggested that:
Strategies schools can use to counter violence is by strengthening young people’s abilities
to effectively solve difficulties/problems/issues that they encounter before they mess up,
not after, by teaching us all how to handle things before they get out of hands.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

103
The literature revealed that many of the current interventions are based on “at-risk” or “high-
risk” (Mulvey & Caufman, 2001; Skiba, 2000) students, however the participants in this study
showed that preventative measures might help reduce school violence by utilizing school wide
efforts to strengthen students skills instead of targeting or profiling students.
Amending Policies Based on Needs of the School and Student Body
Finally it is important to consider how these policies were implemented in the school
because it is not just about creating the policy, but following the policy to an extent where their
students understand it, engage with it and value it. The process of building an effective policy is
an ongoing process that seeks to find ways to improve by monitoring continually. School
officials can see what works and what does not work on a quarterly basis, and make appropriate
amendments to their policy for the following school year. This requires school officials to reflect
on the program they have in place and beware of new possibility that they may incorporate
within their existing framework. Moving from reactive to proactive measures.
Areas for Future Research
This study added to existing literature by providing an understanding of students’
perceptions of school violence interventions. Previous studies conducted to understand students’
perceptions of violence were primarily quantitative, with few contemporary qualitative studies
(Gumpel & Meadan, 2000; Johnson, Burke, & Gielen, 2012). Existing qualitative case studies
exploring students’ perceptions of school violence were focused on younger-age groups and did
not provide a lens into high school students’ perceptions of school interventions to reduce
violence (Astor & Meyer, 2001; Astor, Meyer & Pitner, 2001; Casella & Burstyn, 2002; Eliot,
Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010; Finley, 2004; Gumpel & Meadan, 2000; Johnson, Burke, &
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

104
Gielen, 2012; McAdams & Foster, 2008; Pietrzak, Pearson, 2010; Petersen, & Speaker, 1998;
Zeira, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2004).
The findings of this study confirm some of the national data and align with the findings
from other studies that stress the importance of a community wide approach. According to the
U.S. National Center for Education Statistics (2011) students reported missing school days to
avoid conflict, and the first finding confirmed that this fear still exists. Other researchers
emphasized the importance of developing a sense of community within the school where
students feel attached to the school and the teachers, will lead to lower levels of violent
behaviors and the second and third findings of this study show that students agree (Frey et al.,
2009). Even though CHS was able to create a safe environment within the school, which the
participants attributed to successful interventions, the outside community continued to be a
threat. Students’ perceptions revealed that policy makers might consider the community as a
whole when developing intervention programs. Further research on the community and
interventions to address social and economic issues would be helpful.
Even though this study offered new insight to reduce violence through school wide
programs that involve the wider community, it focused on students’ perceptions at a small
charter school. Future studies might investigate larger schools, other districts and over the course
of a longer time period. Future researchers might consider investigating violence at public
schools for students’ perceptions. Also, they might examine interventions in greater depth to
more closely align students’ sense of “safety” with the interventions that are in place. Even
though this study yielded rich data, by conducting a longitudinal study, a school with a higher
student population or different environment will add further depth to this study and yield a better
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

105
understanding of diversified perspectives of students’ perceptions of school violence and school
interventions.
In addition, this study relied on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model to understand student
participants’ responses to school violence and interventions and did not take into consideration
developmental models. A limitation and area where data was not collected was social-emotional
development because it was not the focus of this study. Future researchers may take a wider
scope and longer time period to understand students’ perceptions of school violence and
interventions through both a developmental and ecological model to add further depth to the
study.
Conclusions
The conclusions of this study, derived from the findings, took into account the sample for
this study that was limited to ten student participants and one assistant principal’s responses
during the 2013-2014 school year. When developing school violence intervention and prevention
programs, educators should consider the culture and community and what that means for the
needs of the school. All members should work together to develop effective long-term programs
by taking into account the community, the culture and student needs.
Unlike my other schools, where the conflict never ended, CHS intervened and
shows us how to resolve our problems. Now we want to be role models for these
kids. There needs to be a community-wide effort… to create a place where you
can learn and grow.
— DryTearz

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

106
REFERENCES
Aber, J. L., Brown, J. L., & Jones, S. M. (2003). Developmental trajectories toward violence in
middle childhood: Course, demographic differences, and response to school-based
intervention. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 324.
Akiba, M. (2010). What predicts fear of school violence among U.S. adolescents?, 112 (1), 68-
102.
Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., Baker, D. P., & Goesling, B. (2002). Student victimization:
National and school system effects on school violence in 37 nations. American
Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 829-853.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Meyer, H. A. (2006). The social context of
schools: Monitoring and mapping the victimization of students in schools. In S. R.
Jimmerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From
research to practice, (pp. 103-117), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., & Vinokur, A. (2002). School climate, observed risky
behaviors, and victimization as predictors of high school students' fear and judgments of
school violence as a problem. Health Education and Behavior, 29, 716-736.
Astor, R. A., & Meyer, H. A. (2001). The conceptualization of violence prone school sub-
contexts: Is the sum of the parts greater then the whole? Urban Education, 36, 374-399.
Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Pitner, R. O. (2001). Elementary and middle school students'
perceptions of safety: An examination of violence-prone school sub- contexts. The
Elementary School Journal, 101, 511-528.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

107
Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., & Heraux, C. G.
(2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An
ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 101-121.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighbor- hood,
family, school, and gender. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of
qualitative interviews. Quality and quantity, 36(4), 391-409.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen, & T.N.
Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1643-1647). (2
nd

ed.). New York: Elsevier Sciences.
Bsela, W. N. (2009). An investigation of student perceptions and fears of violence before and
after transitioning to middle school.(Order No. AAI3325068, Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, , 3400. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/622053064?accountid=14749. (622053064; 2009-
99050-129).
Center for Disease Control (1996). The Prevention of Youth Violence: A Framework for
Community Action. CDC Atlanta.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

108
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Temporal Variations in School-Associated
Student Homicide and Suicide Events—United States, 1992–1999. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 50(31): 657–660.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). School-Associated Student Homicides—
United States, 1992–2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008, 57 (02): 33–36.
Retrieved July 13, 2013, from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5702a1.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United
States, 2009. Surveillance Summaries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2010,
59 (No. SS-5).
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., & Wozniak, J. F. (1985). Explaining the get-tough movement: Can
the public be blamed. Fed. Probation, 49, 16.
DeVoe, J.F., and Bauer, L. (2011). Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results From the 2009
School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2012-314).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Denmark, F., Krauss, H., Wesner, R., Midlarsky, E. & Gielen, U. (2005). Violence in schools:
cross-national and cross-cultural perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.
Devine, J. (1996). Maximum security: The culture of violence in inner-city schools. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

109
Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., & Lin-Kelly, W. (2007). Indicators of school crime and safety : 2007
(NCES 2008-021/NCJ 219553). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and
problem behavior. American psychologist, 54(9), 755.
Ellickson, P. L., & McGuigan, K. A. (2000). Early predictors of adolescent violence. American
Journal of Public Health, 90(4), 566.
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student
willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School
Psychology, 48(6), 533-553.
Elliot, D., Hamburg, B. A., & Williams, K. R. (1998). Violence in American schools: A new
perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elliot, D., & Tolan., H.P., (1999). Chapter 1. In Flannery, D. J., & Huff, C. R. (Eds.).
(1999). Youth violence: Prevention, intervention, and social policy. American Psychiatric
Pub.
Emmanuel, R., Muula, A.S., Seter, S. (2008). Variables associated with physical fighting among
US high-school students (4). doi:10.1186/1745-0179-4-16.
Engel, L., Rutkowski, D., Rutkowski, L. (2009) The harsher side of globalization: violent
conflict and academic achievement. 7 (4), 433-456.
Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnography ‘ethnographic’? Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 15, 51-66.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

110
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-
ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. routledge.
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195-
219.
Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., & White, K. S. (2001). Evaluation of Responding in Peaceful and
Positive Ways (RIPP): A school-based prevention program for reducing violence among
urban adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(4), 451-463.
Finkelhor, D. (2009). Children's exposure to violence: A comprehensive national survey. DIANE
Publishing.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York:
Continuum.
Frey, A., ruchkin, V., Martin, A., Schwab-Stone, M. (2009) Adolescents in transition: School
and family characteristics in the development of violent behaviors entering high school
40 (1), 1-13. Doi: 10.1007/s10578-008-0105-x.
Furlong, M. J. (1996). Tools for assessing school violence. In S. Miller, J. Bordine, & T. Miller
(Eds.), Safe by design: Planning for peaceful school communities (pp. 71-84). Seattle,
WA: Committee for Children.
Furlong, M. J., Greif, J. L, Bates, M. P., Whipple, A. D., Jimenez, T. C, & Morrison, R. L.
(2005). Development of the California School Climate Survey-Short Form. Psychology
in the Schools, 42, 1-13.
Furlong, M., & Morrison, G. (2000). The school in school violence definitions and facts. Journal
of emotional and Behavioral disorders, 8(2), 71-82.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

111
Furlong, M., Morrison, G., & Pavelski, R. (2000). Trends in school psychology for the 21st
century: Influences of school violence on professional change. Psychology in the
Schools, 37(1), 81-90.
Furlong, M. J., Sharma, B., & Rhee, S. S. (2000). Defining school violence victim subtypes: A
step toward adapting prevention and intervention programs to match student needs.
Garbarino, J. (1995). The American war zone: What children can tell us about living with
violence. Journal of 'Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 431-435.
Garbarino, J., & Kostelny, K. (1997). Coping with the consequences of community violence. In
A. P. Goldstein, B. Harootunian, &J. C. Conoley (Eds.), School violence intervention: A
practical handbook (pp. 3-22). New York: Guilford.
Glaser, B. G. (1964). Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis, The. Soc.
Probs., 12, 436.
Goldstein, A. P., & Conoley, J. C. E. (1997). School violence intervention: A practical
handbook. Guilford Press.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S. B., & Hantman, I.
(2000). National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. Final Report.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C, Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, A. C. (2005). School
climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency
prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412-444.
Gumpel, T. P., & Meadan, H. (2000). Children's perceptions of school-based violence. British
Journal of Educational Psychology,70(3), 391-404.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

112
Hahn, R., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Wethington, H., Lowy, J., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., ... &
Dahlberg, L. (2007). The effectiveness of universal school-based programs for the
prevention of violent and aggressive behavior. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, 56, 1-11.
Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hong, J. S., & Eamon, M. K. (2012). Students’ perceptions of unsafe schools: An ecological
systems analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(3), 428-438.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in
school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311-322.
Hunt, M. H., Meyers, J., Davies, G., Meyers, B., Grogg, K. R., & Neel, J. (2002). A
comprehensive needs assessment to facilitate prevention of school drop out and
violence. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4), 399-416.
Hsieh, C.-C., & Pugh, M. D. (1993). Poverty, income inequality, and violent crime: A meta-
analysis of recent aggregate data studies. Criminal Justice Review, 18(2), 182-202.
Johnson, S. L. (2009). Improving the School Environment to Reduce School Violence: A
Review of the Literature*. Journal of school health, 79(10), 451-465.
Johnson, S. L., Burke, J. G., & Gielen, A. C. (2012). Urban students' perceptions of the school
environment's influence on school violence. Children & Schools, 34(2), 92-102.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cs/cds016
Joong, P., & Ridler, O. (2004). School violence: Perception and reality. EDUCATION CANADA-
TORONTO-, 45(4), 61.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

113
Juvonen, J. (2001). School violence: Prevalence, fears, and prevention. RAND CORP SANTA
MONICA CA.
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2008). Student victimization by school
staff in the context of an Israeli national school safety campaign. Aggressive Behavior,
34, 1-8.
Lambert, M. J. (2013). Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change.
John Wiley & Sons.
Lockwood, D. (1997). Violence among middle school and high school students: Analysis and
implications for prevention. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Lord, H., & Mahoney, J. L. (2007). Neighborhood crime and self-care: Risks for aggression and
lower academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1321-1333.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School Leadership that Works: From
Research to Results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703
North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.
Mathews, J. (2001). In the Classroom: Metal Detectors and a Search for Peace of Mind. Los
Angeles Times, B2.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Mayer, G.R. (2001). Antisocial behavior: its causes and prevention within our schools.
Education and treatment of children. 24:4, 414-429.
Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. (1999). A structural analysis of school violence and disruption:
Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 22(3).
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

114
McAdams III, C. R., & Foster, V. A. (2008). Voices from “The Front” How Student Violence Is
Changing the Experience of School Leaders. Journal of school violence, 7(2), 87-103.
McAdams, C., Shillingford, M., & Trice-Black, S. (2011). Putting Research Into Practice in
School Violence Prevention and Intervention: How Is School Counseling
Doing?. Journal of School Counseling, 9.
Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school
bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 26.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works-and what
doesn't. DIANE Publishing.
Meyer, J.M., Cornell, G. D. (2010). New perspectives on school safety and violence prevention:
Guest editors’ preface, 39 (1).
Meyer, H. A., Astor, R. A., & Behre, W. J. (2004). Teachers reasoning about school fights,
contexts, and gender: An expanded cognitive developmental domain approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 45-75.
Milam, A. J., Furr-Holden, C. D. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Perceived school and neighborhood
safety, neighborhood violence and academic achievement in urban school children. The
Urban Review, 42(5), 458-467.
Mulvey, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2001). The inherent limits of predicting school
violence. American psychologist, 56(10), 797.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

115
Neiman, S. (2011). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings
From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2009–10 (NCES 2011-320). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2003). A Profile of Bullying at School. Educational leadership, 60(6), 12-17.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 124-
134.
Osborne, W. J., (2007). Identification with academics and violence in school, 8 (3), 147-162.
Doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.3.147.
Park‐Higgerson, H. K., Perumean‐Chaney, S. E., Bartolucci, A. A., Grimley, D. M., & Singh, K.
P. (2008). The Evaluation of School‐Based Violence Prevention Programs: A Meta‐
Analysis*. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 465-479.
Patton, U.D., Woolley, E.M., Hong, S.J. (2011) Exposure to violence, student fear, and low
academic achievement: African American males in the critical transition to high school.
Doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.11.009.
Pearson, D. X. (2010). The Perceptions of Cross Cultural Student Violence in an Urban School
Setting. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI
48106.
Prothrow-Stith, D., & Weissman, M. (1991). Deadly consequences. New York: HarperCollins.
Riley, P.L., & McDaniel, J. (2000). School Violence Prevention, Intervention, and Crisis
Response. Professional School Counseling, 4, 2.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

116
Rose, L. & Gallup, A. (1999). The 31
st
annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s
attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 41-56.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027
Sleeter, C. E. (2000). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher preparation for
historically underserved children. Review of research in education, 25, 209-250.
Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school
disciplinary practice. New directions for mental health services,2001(92), 17-43.
Skiba, R. J., Ritter, S., Simmons, A., Peterson, R., & Miller, C. (2006). The Safe and Responsive
Schools Project: A school reform model for implementing best practices in violence
prevention. Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice,
631-650.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Peterson, R., & Forde, S. (2006). The SRS safe schools survey: A
broader perspective on school violence. In S. R. Jimerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.),
Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 157-170).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, P., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (1999). The nature of
school bullying: A cross-national perspective. New York: Routledge.
Smith, D.L., & Smith, B.J. (2006). Perceptions of Violence: The Views of Teachers Who Left
Urban Schools. The High School Journal, 89 (3): 34–42.
Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (Eds.) (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful can
interventions be? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

117
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole
school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology
Review, 33, 547–560.
Swahn, M. H., & Bossarte, R. M. (2009). Assessing and quantifying high risk: Comparing risky
behaviors by youth in an urban, disadvantaged community with nationally representative
youth. Public health reports, 124(2), 224.
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A Social-Ecological Framework of
Bullying Among Youth. In Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in
American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention.
routledge.
Thomas, R. M. (2006). Violence in America's schools: understanding, prevention, and
responses. Praeger Publishers.
Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2002). Best practices of
youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action (Rev.). Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce
bullying. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and
minority group members want from the law and legal institutions?. Behavioral Sciences
& the Law, 19(2), 215-235.
U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice. (2001). 2000 Annual Report on
School Safety. Washington, DC: Authors.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

118
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). NCES Statistical
Standards (NCES 2003-601). Washington, DC.
U.S. National Center for Education Statistics (2011). Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wallace, L. H., & May, D. C. (2005). The impact of parental attachment and feelings of isolation
on adolescent fear of crime at school. Adolescence.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S14-S21.
Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention
programs on aggressive behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of consulting and clinical
psychology, 71(1), 136.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage
Zhang, J., Truman, J., Snyder, T. D., Robers, S., American Institutes for Research, & United
States of America. (2012). Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2011.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

119
APPENDIX A
PROMPT FOR ENGLISH TEACHER TO READ TO CLASS FOR SELF-SELECTED
STUDENT PARTICIPATION
Note to teacher:

Dear Teacher,

This prompt is meant to be read to your students with the intention of identifying participants for
a research study. I thank you for your time and support.

Please read the following to your students and write my contact information on the board:
studentvoices2014@gmail.com.

Dear students,

I am researching school violence because I had some experiences with it growing up. I want to
know more about what those of you who have experienced it so that we can make schools a
better place for learning.

This is your chance to have your voice heard.

The purpose of this research is to understand how students experience school violence and how
the school responds to violence. Do students learn from the school’s response? Is the response
reducing violence here?

If you agree to take part in this research study you will help to give your ideas to people who
want to understand if these responses are working or not in order to make schools safer. You will
be asked to participate in an online instant messenger interview. You will be asked about your
experiences with school violence and your thoughts on school violence interventions.

Participating in this study is completely voluntary and anonymous in order to protect you and
your identity. No one will know who you are. In addition, all the information you share will
remain confidential. Even if you decide to participate now, you may change your mind and stop
at any time. You may choose not to answer questions for any reason.

If you want to get your voices heard, email me.

Thank you for your attention,

Doctoral candidate in the field of Education.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

120
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL — STUDENTS
Prior to beginning interview:

1. Informed consent
2. Provide my tag name
3. Confirm their tag name to ensure its not their actual name to maintain anonymity

The following questions will be used a guide of possible questions to ask participants, in no
particular order.

1. Greetings
2. How may years have you been attending high school? What grade level are you in
now?
3. How would you describe the school environment? Outside of classroom or in, or
both?
4. Are there any conflicts on-campus? If so, what kind? If not, what values are in place
that keep the environment safe?
5. Would you describe your school as a “safe” school? Please explain and provide
examples.
6. How would you define violence?
7. What kind of violent activities take place in your school? (distribution of drugs, fights
on-campus, shootings/stabbings, vandalism, illicit sex, harassment, battery, student
threats against other students/faculty, carrying weapons on-campus, presence of
threatening gangs on-campus).
8. As a victim or perpetrator of violence how often do you or have you taken part in
violence at school?
9. At what age or grade level did you begin to take part in school violence? What
was/were the reasons you started?
10. What form of violence have you been a part of?
11. How often?
12. Has participating in school violence affected your attendance? If so, how and why?
13. Under what conditions does violence take place in school?
14. Does the violent activity take place alone or in groups?
15. Have any of your friends or relatives been victims or perpetrators of school violence?
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

121
16. What are the characteristics of perpetrators of violence (gender, race, ethnicity, socio-
economic status)?
17. What are the characteristics of victims of violence (gender, race, ethnicity, socio-
economic status)?
18. What parts of the day do students participate in violence?
19. What parts of the day have you taken part of violent activity?
20. What happens after you take part in school violence?
21. Have you ever been given detention or suspension? If so, why? What do you think
about these practices?
22. What other disciplinary actions have been taken regarding your incidences with
violence?
23. How well are administrators and teachers able to control violence in school?
24. What has the school done to reduce violence on-campus?
25. Does your school have special program regarding school violence? Does this
intervention work? Explain.
26. Do you ever avoid coming to school? If so, why?
27. What can be done to enhance positive relationship in school?
28. How does your experience with violence influence your academic performance?
(Grades, exam results, suspensions).
29. How do you perceive education? Does your exposure to violence influence your
perception?
30. What are your feelings concerning school violence in your area?
31. How do you think schools can create safer environment?
32. What kinds of prevention or intervention strategies would you suggest?
33. How does this school compare with your middle and or elementary school?

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

122
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – ADMINISTRATOR
Prior to beginning interview:

1. Informed consent
2. Provide my tag name (M)
3. Confirm their tag name to ensure its not their actual name to maintain anonymity
(admin1).

I really appreciate that you took time out of your day to participate in this research. Before we
get started, please read the consent document (give the consent document for Administrators to
the subject)

General

1. What is the prevalence and how widespread are bullying and victimization in your
school? Is it both on and off-campus?
2. What form (type) of victimization occurs in your school?
3. Where and under what condition does victimization take place in your school?
4. Are school staff members present in areas where victimization occurs?
5. How do teachers and administrators respond to such victimization incidents?
6. How effective are teachers and administrators in controlling victimization? What
evidence is there that such interventions work?
7. What is the form of the critical incident reporting and accompanying referral
systems?
8. Does the victimization occur alone or as part of a group activity?
9. Do gang-related activities occur on-campus?
10. What are the characteristics of children who victimize? Who are the victims?
11. What factors likely motivate the children who victimize (e.g., issue of exerting
power/control; obtain and maintain social status; self-protection and revenge; obtain
possessions; part of group activity; lack of social and self-regulation skills; other
reasons)?
12. What has the school done in the past to reduce the various forms of violence?
13. What specific intervention programs have been implemented to help children who
victimize and help children who are victims?
14. How do bystanders react? What can be done to engage bystanders to be part of the
solution?
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

123
15. What evidence-based interventions have been found to reduce violence? What
interventions have not been found to be effective in reducing violence? What lessons
have been learned?
16. What obstacles/barriers got in the way of prior efforts? How can these be anticipated
and addressed in the future?
17. What can be done to enhance positive relationships between students, school staff and
parents and community members, administrators (principal) and teachers?
18. How have parents been involved in the violence prevention program?

Based on students’ responses

1. How long have you been at the school?
2. How would you describe the school climate?
3. Has the climate changes over time?
4. What intervention techniques do you use? Do you find them Effective?
5. How do administrators deal with disciplinary issues?
6. Is there violence on-campus?
7. What kind of violence?
8. How frequent?
9. What are the consequences?
10. What are the main differences between the middle and high school?
11. Why don't kids wear the color red on-campus?
12. Why do you think the middle school had more violence versus the high school even
though they are on the same campus? What are the differences in the intervention
programs?
13. What evidence is there that such interventions work?
14. Do kids have access to computers at home?

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

124
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANTS EXPERIENCES WITH VIOLENCE AND RESPONSES TO
INTERVENTIONS
The following table represented participants’ responses and directly addressed the research
question that sought to understand how students who experienced violence in school, as a victim
or perpetrator, perceived the effectiveness of the school response to violence:

Summary of Participants’ Experiences with Violence and Responses to Interventions

Participant 1
Participant & Grade
level
Apollo14
Senior
Definition of violence Extreme physical damage done to one another by fists and/or
weapons.
Experience with
violence as a victim
and/or perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
Charter High School (CHS):
• Never took part in violence
• Witnessed in Freshman year
• Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students
who share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Witness to violence.
Feelings regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants perception
of school’s responses
to violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus for three years.
Practices that reduced
violence on campus
according to
participants
• School policies
• Security
• Supervision
• Restorative justice
• School spirit
• Conflict resolution skills
• Role models
• Mottos
• Relationships
• Schoolwide programs
• Communication
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

125
Participant 2
Participant &
Grade level
DryTearz
Senior
Definition of
violence
Conflicts that lead to disrespectful behavior
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
Charter High School (CHS):
• Took part in violence one time during freshman year as self-defense.
• Witnessed in Freshman year.
• -Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students who
share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Victim of violence
• Participated as a reaction to defend self or friend.
• Had no consequences
• Supervisors ignored
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus for three years.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• Conflict resolution skills
• Schoolwide programs
• Relationships
• School policies
• Role models
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Supervision
• Restorative justice
• Parent involvement
• Respect

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

126
Participant 3
Participant &
Grade level
Oath83
Senior
Definition of
violence
Fighting
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
Charter High School (CHS):
• Took part in violence one time during freshman year as self-defense
and to defend friends.
• Witnessed in Freshman year.
• Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students who
share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Victim of violence
• Participated as a reaction to defend self or friend.
• Had no consequences
• Supervisors ignored
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus for three years.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• Supervision
• Relationships
• Conflict resolution
• Mottos
• Parent involvement
• Role models
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Restorative justice
• Communication
• Schoolwide programs

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

127
Participant 4
Participant &
Grade level
Eveve3
Senior
Definition of
violence
Fights
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
Charter High School (CHS):
• Safe campus
Did not reply to experiences with violence
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
No incidences of violence on campus.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• Supervision
• Relationships
• Conflict resolution
• Mottos
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Restorative justice
• Communication
• Family environment
• Schoolwide programs

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

128
Participant 5
Participant &
Grade level
Poet90
Junior
Definition of
violence
The act of causing harm to someone.
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
Charter High School (CHS):
• Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students who
share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Victim of violence
• Participated as a reaction to defend self or friend.
• Had no consequences
• Supervisors ignored
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• School policies
• Supervision
• Relationships
• Conflict resolution
• Mottos
• Parent involvement
• Role models
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Restorative justice
• Communication
• Family environment
• Schoolwide programs

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

129
Participant 6
Participant &
Grade level
Halo23
Sophomore
Definition of
violence
Physical conflicts, shootings, drug fights and gangs.
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
• Experience acts of violence as victims off campus, not on.
• Avoided attending school due to fear of violence on the way to
campus.
Charter High School (CHS):
• Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students who
share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Victim of violence
• Participated as a reaction to defend self or friend.
• Had no consequences
• Supervisors ignored
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• School policies
• Supervision
• Relationships
• Conflict resolution
• Mottos
• Parent involvement
• Role models
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Restorative justice
• Communication
• Family environment
• Schoolwide programs

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

130
Participant 7
Participant &
Grade level
Eternity
Freshman
Definition of
violence
Violence is anything that causes trouble, like fighting.
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
• Experience acts of violence as victims off campus, not on.
Charter High School (CHS):
• Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students who
share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Bystander
• Had no consequences
• Supervisors ignored
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• School policies
• Supervision
• Relationships
• Conflict resolution
• Mottos
• Parent involvement
• Role models
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Restorative justice
• Communication
• Family environment
• Schoolwide programs

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

131
Participant 8
Participant &
Grade level
DPoisonInk
Freshmen
Definition of
violence
Any types of fights.
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
Charter High School (CHS):
• Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students who
share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Victim of violence
• Participated as a reaction to defend self or friend.
• Had no consequences
• Supervisors ignored
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• School policies
• Supervision
• Relationships
• Conflict resolution
• Mottos
• Parent involvement
• Role models
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Restorative justice
• Communication
• Family environment
• Schoolwide programs

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

132
Participant 9
Participant &
Grade level
Venom8
Freshmen
Definition of
violence
Fighting and beating up defenseless students.
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
Charter High School (CHS):
• Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students who
share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Victim of violence
• Participated as a reaction to defend self or friend.
• Had no consequences
• Supervisors ignored
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• School policies
• Supervision
• Relationships
• Conflict resolution
• Mottos
• Parent involvement
• Role models
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Restorative justice
• Communication
• Family environment
• Schoolwide programs
• Councilors

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

133
Participant 10
Participant &
Grade level
Braveheart
Freshman
Definition of
violence
Any type of harm, physical and/or emotional.
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood:
• High incidences of violence
Charter High School (CHS):
• Saw incidences of violence from the middle school students who
share their campus.
Middle School (MS):
• Victim of violence
• Participated as a reaction to defend self or friend.
• Had no consequences
• Supervisors ignored
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
Grateful to not have to take part in violence.
Did not want to be involved
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
School was able to reduce violence on campus.
No incidences of violence on campus.
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• School policies
• Supervision
• Relationships
• Conflict resolution
• Mottos
• Parent involvement
• Role models
• Attitudes
• School spirit
• Security
• Restorative justice
• Communication
• Family environment
• Schoolwide programs
• Councilors
• Assemblies

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

134
Participant 11 – Assistant Principal
Participant
(Administrative)
Austin
Assistant Principal
Austin, who is the current assistant principal, began as a Science teacher
and Associate Student Body (ASB) Advisor at CHS. CHS has been open
for total of eight years and he has been there for the past six years working
closely with the administrative team since the beginning of his entry into
the school in order to address issues of safety on campus to reduce school
violence.
Definition of
violence
Violence could be any physical, verbal act that is intended to cause harm to
someone else.
Experience with
violence as a
victim and/or
perpetrator
Neighborhood
• High crime, low income, high poverty, and violence prevalent.
2 schools co-located and share facilities:
• Charter High School (no incidences of violence in the last three years,
however many fights in his first year, 2009)
• District Middle School (has high volumes of school violence)
Feelings
regarding
involvement in
violence
2010-2011 was a major transitions school year that eliminated violence
from campus because that was the year when the second graduating class
that did not have the full four years of Save and Civil Handbook graduated,
and their behaviors graduated with them. All the students that came in after
had four years of safe and civil. Since the school year, the assistant
principal had not seen overt physical violence on campus, as for off
campus, if there was any kind violence, the administration did not know.
Participants
perception of
school’s
responses to
violence
Interventions from Chapter 3.
• Safe and Civil Handbook
• Hallway Policy Movement
• Level of Infractions
• Campaign Respect
• Positive Messages & Mottos
• All Stars
Practices that
reduced violence
on campus
according to
participants
• Yearly updates to handbook based on quarterly reports.
• Will institute new programs.
• Will bring in parents to consult on programs.
• Expand mentor program.
• Guidelines for success.
• Schoolwide training.
• Councilors
• Assemblies

Abstract (if available)

Abstract During the course of the last few decades, several intervention programs were developed across the country to reduce school violence. Although efforts have been made in schools countrywide, to prevent and intervene with school violence, it continues to be a pressing problem. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to use students' voices, from those students who had experience with school violence, and to get their perspectives on intervention programs in a local context in order to answer the research question: How do students who experienced violence in school, as a victim or perpetrator, perceive the effectiveness of school responses to violence? Bronfenbrenner's most recent ecological model was used as the conceptual framework. 10 self‐selected online interviews were conducted with 9-12 grade students. Lastly, an in‐person interview with the assistant principal, was also conducted. Key findings emerged from participants' perspectives that answered the research question: (a) importance of a community‐wide effort as a response to school violence, (b) fostering relationships on‐campus and (c) exhibited the importance of participants' attitudes in creating and maintaining safe schools. There was an overwhelming consensus that participants were not seeking violence for the sake of violence

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

PDF

Perceptions of accessing Part C early intervention services

PDF

Promising practices of anti-bullying: safe and supportive environments for all students

PDF

Math and science academy literacy instruction: student study strategies, self-perception as readers, and reading achievement

PDF

Practices for assigning academic accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities

PDF

A case study of promising practices of anti-cyberbullying efforts in a middle school

PDF

Policies and promising practices to combat bullying in secondary schools

PDF

Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

Beating the odds: applying the positive deviance framework to address the academic underachievement of foster youth

PDF

Bystander intervention training & the culture of sexual assault on college campuses

PDF

School culture and its impact on PBIS implementation

PDF

Physical activity interventions to reduce rates of sedentary behavior among university employees: a promising practice study

PDF

A case study of promising practices in the prevention of sexual assault in postsecondary institutions

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

Exploring the scholarly writing development of master’s nursing students

PDF

Sustaining quality leadership at prep academy charter schools: promising practices for leadership development in public schools

PDF

The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PDF

Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

Asset Metadata

Creator Movsisyan, Armine (author)

Core Title Students' perceptions of school interventions to reduce violence

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/08/2014

Defense Date 04/23/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,perception,Prevention,reduce,School,Violence

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Stowe, Kathy (committee member), Tynes, Brendesha (committee member)

Creator Email amovsisy@usc.edu,amovsisyan@agbumhs.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-433680

Unique identifier UC11287047

Identifier etd-MovsisyanA-2632.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-433680 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MovsisyanA-2632.pdf

Dmrecord 433680

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Movsisyan, Armine

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA