School Violence, The Media, And Criminal Justice Responses (Studies in Crime & Punishment)

SCHOOL VIOLENCE, THE MEDIA,AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSES David A. Schultz and Christina DeJong General Editors Vol...

Author: Kimberly A. Mccabe | Gregory M. Martin

45 downloads 613 Views 653KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SCHOOL VIOLENCE, THE MEDIA,AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSES

David A. Schultz and Christina DeJong

General Editors Vol. 16

PETER LANG New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt am Main y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Kimberly A. McCabe + Gregory M. Martin

SCHOOL VIOLENCE, THE MEDIA,AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSES

PETER LANG New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt am Main y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data McCabe, Kimberly A. School violence, the media, and criminal justice responses / Kimberly A. McCabe and Gregory M. Martin. p. cm. — (Studies in crime and punishment; v. 16) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. School violence—United States—Prevention. 2. Students—Crimes against—United States—Prevention. 3. Mass media and criminal justice— United States. I. Martin, Gregory M. II. Title. III. Series. LB3013.32.M33 371.7'82—dc22 2004019505 ISBN 0-8204-6756-1 ISSN 1529-2444

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek. Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de/.

Cover design by Lisa Barfield The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2005 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 275 Seventh Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10001 www.peterlangusa.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in the United States of America

McCabe's v-x-102-122 8/31/04 12:36 PM Page v

For Shirley, my mother, who spent over 30 years as a teacher or counselor in the public school system and loved it. KM

For Allison (Alli-Marg’e), my daughter, whose curiosity, light, and love sustain me in all my endeavors. GM

McCabe's v-x-102-122 8/31/04 12:36 PM Page vii

Contents

Chapter 1: School Violence: Definition and History Functions and Effects of Media Purpose of This Book 9 Statistics 9 Definition 10 History 11

6

Colonial Period (1600–1775) 12 National Period (1776–1830) 15 Common School Era (1830–1860) 16 Progressive School Era (1860–1960) 18 Kaleidoscopic Era (1960–Present) 20

Conclusion Questions

21 22

Questions for Thought

one line short

22

1

McCabe's v-x-102-122 8/31/04 12:36 PM Page viii

viii

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Chapter 2: Bullying

23

Elements of Bullying 26 Characteristics of Bullies 27 Theories to Explain Bullying 31 Physical Traits 31 Sociopathy 32 Social Learning 32

Characteristics of Victims and Bystanders Consequences of Bullying 34 Failure to React 37 Effect of Media 38 Criminal Justice Responses 39 Conclusion 40 Questions 41 Questions for Thought

33

41

Chapter 3: School Shootings: 1974–2000 Time and Place

42

43

Region of the Country 43 Year 44 Month 46 Time Preceding Shooting 47

Victims and Offenders

49

Murder Victims 50 Injured Victims 51 Number of Shooters 51 Gender of Shooters 52 Age of Shooters 52

Shootings Plus

52

Suicide 53 Family Killed 54 Bullying 54

Columbine Revisited Conclusion 55 Questions 56 Questions for Thought

54

56

Chapter 4: Gangs, Cliques, the Goths, Anime, and Legal Responses 57 Gangs

58

Why Join? 61 Strain Theory 61

one line short

McCabe's v-x-102-122 8/31/04 12:36 PM Page ix

ix

CONTENTS

Differential Association 62 Evolution and Development 63 Hate and Melancholy 64 History and Risk 65 Risk Factors to Membership 67 Female Gang Members 68 Franchising 69 Leaving the Gang 70

Gangs and School Crime 70 Cliques 71 The Gothic Culture 75 Anime 76 Anti-Gang Responses 78 Conclusion 79 Questions 80 Questions for Thought

80

Chapter 5: Warning Signs, Pre-Incident Indicators of Columbine, and Teachers’ Perceptions Warning Signs

81

82

Poor Academic Achievement 82 Disciplinary Problems 83 Difficulties with Peers 83 History of Peer Violence 83 Aggression Is Normal 83 Involvement with Alcohol and/or Drugs Access to Firearms 84 History of Family Problems 84

Columbine’s Pre-Incident Indicators Teachers’ Perceptions 87 Conclusion 88 Questions 89 Questions for Thought

84

85

89

Chapter 6: Controlling the School Environment: Criminal Justice Responses 90 Criminal Justice Responses

93

Legislation 93 Zero Tolerance 94 Police Presence, Security, and Training 95 Proactive Approaches to Reduce Violence 97

one line short

McCabe's v-x-102-122 8/31/04 12:36 PM Page x

x

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

School Safety Policies 97 Counselor Involvement 97 Prevention Programs 98

Evaluations of Responses

99

Legislation 99 Zero Tolerance 99 Police Presence, Security, and Training Counselor Involvement 100 Prevention Programs 100

Conclusion Questions

100

101 102

Questions for Thought

102

References

103

Index

121

McCabe's v-x-102-122 8/31/04 12:36 PM Page 1

CHAPTER

1

School Violence: Definition and History At approximately 5:00 A.M. on April 20, 1999, two students, Eric Harris (age 18) and Dylan Klebold (age 17), began to implement their plan of what was soon known as the worst school massacre in U.S. history. Prior to arriving at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, they placed two backpacks full of explosive devices and timers in a vacant lot just three miles away from the school. They confirmed that the trunks of their cars were filled with explosive devices and their gas tanks were full, and they then continued to school. In addition, they left their suicide goodbyes, in the form of recorded videos, at their homes for their parents to find after their mission was accomplished. To an unprecedented degree, we know the details of this crime because of extensive and immediate


2

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

coverage, and because of the amount of information provided from within the school, such as video camera, eye witness accounts, and recorded calls. What follows is a reconstruction of the day’s events as the students arrived at Columbine High School and implemented their plan. 11:10 A.M. At approximately 11:10 Harris and Klebold arrived at Columbine High School. Instead of parking their vehicles in their assigned adjacent spaces in the senior parking lot, however, they parked their cars in two different locations in the junior parking lot, located closer to the school. 11:14 A.M. As documented by the video camera within the school cafeteria, Harris and Klebold entered the cafeteria with two large duffel bags filled with propane bombs. It is assumed that the bags were placed in two separate, strategic locations within the cafeteria. This assumption is based upon the fact that the video within the cafeteria captured the two young men entering the area with the duffel bags and then showed that Harris and Klebold were gone, yet the duffel bags remained. (The person in charge of changing the video had in fact placed a new tape in the camera’s recorder while the young men were in the cafeteria.) Harris and Klebold returned to their cars and waited for the cafeteria bombs (timed for 11:17) to detonate. 11:17 A.M. Harris and Klebold began dressing in their military “armor” (camouflage pants, T-shirts, and trench coats) and waited for the explosions in the cafeteria. Harris had earlier determined that at 11:17 there would be several hundred students in the cafeteria eating lunch. By that time, the bombs in their vehicles had also been placed on timers and were to be detonated a few minutes later, once the young men returned inside the school. The bombs in the cafeteria did not go off, but the bomb in the vacant lot, planted earlier in the morning, did. (Unbeknownst to authorities at the time, the explosion in the lot was intended as a diversion, to draw law enforcement’s attention away from the school.)


SCHOOL VIOLENCE: DEFINITION AND HISTORY

3

11:19 A.M. A 911 call was recorded, which alerted the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office of an explosion and fire in the lot. The explosion was, of course, the backpacks placed in the lot earlier that morning by Harris and Klebold. 11:20 A.M. At approximately 11:20, Harris and Klebold realized that their bombs in the cafeteria were not exploding. They entered the school from the sidewalk leading to the cafeteria with shotguns in hand and 9mm firearms hidden beneath their coats. Their first shots, fired toward a couple sitting on the grass outside the cafeteria eating lunch, killed the female and injured the male. Their second shots were fired toward three young men as they exited the cafeteria. All three young men fell to the ground. Their third shots were fired toward a group of students who, after witnessing the other shooting, began to run. One of those students was injured. Klebold approached the three young men, who were lying down after exiting the cafeteria, and shot them again. One died and the other two survived. Klebold entered the cafeteria and stood in the doorway, and then went back outside to report to Harris that the bombs had not detonated. Harris shot another student, a female, as she attempted to run inside the cafeteria for safety. 11:22 A.M. At approximately 11:22, the cafeteria custodian, who was observing the videotape, noted that students were being recorded crowding toward the windows in an attempt to watch the events taking place outside the cafeteria. The custodian called the school’s resource officer (SRO), who was eating lunch in his car, and requested that he return to the back lot, outside the cafeteria. It is unfortunate that on that day the SRO, who normally would have been eating in the cafeteria, went for a sandwich away from the school grounds with another school official. 11:23 A.M. A 911 call came into the sheriff’s office, reporting an injured female in the south parking lot of Columbine High


4

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

School. The deputy, dispatched to the scene of the lot explosion a few miles away, was advised of a female injured at Columbine. The SRO also heard the dispatcher and headed to the south parking lot. In addition, another police officer, on patrol within the area, heard the dispatcher and responded to the call at Columbine High School. 11:24 A.M. Teacher Patti Nielson, on hall patrol, observed Harris and Klebold with guns outside the school. When one of the gunmen fired into the west entrance, Nielson and a male student fled to the library. Once in the library, Nielson called 911. The sheriff’s 911 tape recorded the teacher yelling to the students to get down on the floor. Harris, who had by then seen the yellow shirt of the SRO, fired at him. The SRO returned fire, but failed to hit Harris and called for backup. Students, who were still watching this scene through the windows of the cafeteria, escaped the area through a staircase from the cafeteria to the second level. Dave Sanders, a teacher, directed the students from the cafeteria to the second level of the school, then back down another staircase to safety. 11:25 A.M. The Littleton Fire Department was dispatched to the explosion and grass fire in the vacant lot. The teacher’s 911 call from inside the library reported smoke inside the school. (It was later determined that as they entered and went though the school, Harris and Klebold were throwing homemade bombs.) Two Jefferson County Deputies arrived on the scene. Harris and Klebold, who were by then inside the school, exchanged gunfire with the deputies. The young men, although seen by some observers as alone for brief spans of time, essentially canvassed the school together. As students and teachers attempted to exit the school, teacher Dave Sanders was shot. Sanders died later while his students and a fellow teacher attempted to provide assistance to him. 11:27 A.M. The SRO called the sheriff’s office for emergency assistance. It was by then publicized that students were shooting others within the school. It was unclear, however, exactly



5

how many shooters were involved. Harris and Klebold paced the outside library hallway, randomly shooting but not injuring anyone. They also threw pipe bombs into the library hallway, one of which landed in the cafeteria. A second bomb was also recorded as landing in the cafeteria, which caused more smoke. 11:29 A.M. At approximately 11:20, Harris and Klebold left the hallway and entered the school library. Teacher Patti Nielson’s 911 call, which had remained active, recorded a male voice yelling, “Get up!” 11:30–11:36 A.M. Harris and Klebold shot one student while walking toward the west window of the library. They shot out the windows, and law enforcement returned fire. The shooters then shot the display cabinet near the front door before injuring five students and killing three more. They reloaded their weapons. More students were killed and injured before Harris and Klebold left the library. In one account, an African American student was pulled out from under a library table by one of the gunmen, who shouted, “Hey, we got ourselves a nigger!” The student’s white friend, who attempted to pull him back under the table for safety, was also shot and killed. The two bodies were found lying together. Multiple law enforcement jurisdictions and emergency workers were by then outside Columbine. Media sources, including CNN’s play-by-play accounts of students, with their hands above their heads, fleeing Columbine through streams of water, were broadcast across the nation. The Jefferson County SWAT team was dispatched to the scene. The random shootings and fire alarms continued. In addition, 911 calls continued, with reports of shooters all over the campus, including the football field. Around this time, Harris and Klebold killed their last victim at Columbine High School. 11:36–11:45 A.M. Harris and Klebold left the library and returned to the hallway toward the science area. The two then began to exhibit erratic behavior, as if they were at a loss for what to do


6

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

next. They threw several more pipe bombs into the cafeteria from the hallway and another explosion is recorded within the cafeteria. Other 911 calls reported shooters throughout the school, including the cafeteria, and reported that these multiple shooters were dressed in black, wearing body armor, and throwing bombs. Harris and Klebold once again entered the cafeteria. As recorded by the video camera, Klebold shot one of the duffel bags; the propane tank within the bag still did not explode. 11:47 A.M–12:10 P.M. Harris and Klebold returned to the library. Police from multiple jurisdictions were on hand, as well as multiple emergency workers to treat and transport the injured. The 911 call by Patti Nielsen was terminated due to inactivity. The sprinklers in the cafeteria were activated. A final shot was fired from the library window. Eric Harris then placed the barrel of his 12-gauge shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Dylan Klebold died from a 9mm bullet to his left temple. 4:38 P.M. At 4:38, all of the students present at Columbine High School that day were accounted for and the last of the thirteen victims and the two shooters were pronounced dead. How did America first become aware of these incidents? How did details such as clothing of the shooters and the targets of their shootings become public information within hours of, or even during, the events? One has only to look to CNN and other media sources for these answers.

Functions and Effects of Media In today’s society, the majority of our information, beyond personal experience, is obtained through the media. People gain information on the weather, world events, and even their horoscopes through radios, newspapers, television, or the Internet. Information on the subject of school violence is no different.

one line short



7

Lasswell (1969) suggests that the media serves four purposes: (1) surveillance of world events; (2) interpretation; (3) socialization; and (4) manipulation. In effect, the media largely determines what is surveyed and the extent of coverage (Graber, 1997). The media interprets the meaning behind such covered events and then places these events in context for their audiences, with speculation provided on the consequences of such recorded actions (Graber). In effect, the media is an agent of socialization. Especially for those individuals without strong social connections, the media is the agent through which individuals learn their basic values for acclimation into the culture. In Kraus and Davis’s (1976) study, the authors suggest that individuals receive their political socialization or political identities through the media. Finally, in a role perhaps not widely recognized, the media serves to deliberately manipulate politics (Graber). Within the media, political manipulation will often take place through what is called investigative journalism (Graber, 1997). This type of journalism—sometimes referred to as “muckraking”—is an attempt to present sensationalized coverage on some event that attracts a large media audience; hence, profits are large (Protess et al., 1991). The coverage of the Columbine massacre on April 20,1999, is an excellent example of extensive media coverage; thousands of people remained motionless in front of televisions as CNN’s continuous coverage of the events unfolded in front of all America. Columbine was an unfortunate and atypical case of a school shooting, yet it has become widely familiar. Up until the last few years, the media’s influence on American behaviors has been largely discounted due to the strict criterion of statistical importance and levels of statistical significance, and the relative impossibility of quantifying the complexities of social stimuli and action. There has been no direct link, empirically supported, that suggests that viewing violence will cause an individual to behave violently. Recent research has suggested, however, that the

one line short


8

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

media may, in fact, play a part in affecting the perceptions and behaviors of individuals. In fact, Cook (1998), in his discussions on the link between media and politics, suggests that the media is anything but objective in covering highly political events. Livingston and Eachus (1995) have suggested in their research that the media has a great impact on people’s perceptions of unfamiliar issues. Feldman and Sigelman (1985) suggest that, indirectly, media coverage, and particularly media sensationalism of a particular event, may affect individual behaviors. Finally, White (1973) has asserted that powerful elites are extremely sensitive to media coverage and that as these individuals are more often themselves in the public eye, media coverage has a much greater effect on them than on the non-elites. Iyengar (1994) supports these assertions by further suggesting that a strong relationship exists between the powerful elites and media story coverage. On the subject of school violence, which for many individuals is equated to Columbine, the effect of media coverage to this one particular event cannot be ignored. The school shooting at Columbine in 1999 gave politicians and the media the event that they had sought to spotlight the cruel and evil world of teens (Males, 2000). Reporters, who did little to explore other incidents in the country related to child abuse, domestic violence, or gang warfare, quickly flocked to Littleton, Colorado, to discuss the youth culture of bullying, violent video games, and dressing in black. Never in recent history has there been such an attempt by the media to link childhood abuse, tragedy, and music to teen violence. Why is the public so willing to accept the assertion that teens are evil? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the American public already views teens with anxiety, and even fear (Males; McCabe & Gregory, 2000). In 1997 Public Agenda’s June poll found that while approximately 75% of teens view adults positively, only 33% of adults view teens positively. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that when incidents such as the shooting at Columbine occur, adults desire information on the topic to show



9

support for their perceptions. The media, with its goal of gaining the attention of the public, supports that desire.

Purpose of This Book This text, School Violence, the Media, and Criminal Justice Responses, is dedicated to not only the subject of school violence, Columbine, and discussions of the conditions and explanations of school violence, but also to discussions on the media’s coverage and perhaps saturated coverage of such events. The purpose of this text is to provide readers with a basic foundation on the topic of school violence. In particular, through this text, readers will be able to: (1) discuss various acts to be included in discussions of school violence; (2) discuss specific statistics on school violence; (3) discuss Columbine as an unusual case of school violence; and (4) discuss the media’s role in influencing the general perceptions of school violence. In addition, criminal justice responses to school violence are identified and evaluated as means by which one might reduce the incidents of violence within the school environment. This text is organized to provide information on each of the following topics: Chapter 1—Definitions and History; Chapter 2—Bullying; Chapter 3—School Shootings; Chapter 4—Gangs; Chapter 5—Warning Signs; and Chapter 6— Criminal Justice Responses. At the end of each chapter, there are questions formulated from the materials presented within the chapter as well as questions designed to stimulate discussion beyond text materials on the subject of school violence.

Statistics Is violence within the school environment really new? It should be acknowledged that, in Colonial times, Connecticut and Massachusetts allowed parents to impose sanctions for the disobedient child, which included capital punishment (Hyman & Wise, 1979). Today, we suggest that a child


10

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

attending school should be concerned with learning, not with avoiding victimization. The school environment should be a safe and secure location for both students and teachers. Without a safe environment, teachers may experience difficulties in teaching and students may fail to learn (DeVoe, Peters, Kaufman, Ruddy, Miller, Planty, Snyder, Duhart & Rand, 2002). In addition, and most central to this text, without a safe school environment, students and teachers may be assaulted, injured, or even killed. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 1 out of every 100 students from age 12 to 18 (for a total of over 250,000 students) are victims of serious violence from other students either at school or while traveling to or from school. During the 1996–1997 academic year, U.S. school officials reported approximately 4,000 rapes or other types of sexual assaults, 11,000 physical assaults involving the use of a weapon, and 7,000 robberies (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996). Despite these numbers, current research has shown a decline in the rates of school violence over the past three years. In fact, as stated in the September 25, 2003, edition of The Wall Street Journal, only 52 of the nation’s 91,000 schools are labeled as persistently dangerous (Associated Press, 2003). Specifically, more children die from the flu or pneumonia each year than are killed at school (National Vital Statistics Report, 1998). However, the few highprofile cases such as Columbine broadcast over and over again in the media lead the public to other conclusions.

Definition Information on incidents of school violence varies with the source. Included under the label of violence are the crimes of murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Whereas some reports may reduce school violence to school shootings, and others may include incidents of violence on campuses of higher learning, this text does not. In fact, for clarity of definitions, a school is defined as an educational setting consisting of one or more classes of kindergarten through grade



11

12, and violence includes not only the crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and assault, but also the action of bullying—a behavior that involves coercion by one student to force another student into an action that he/she did not choose for themselves. A concern for many Americans is the safety of their children while attending school. Incidents of extreme violence, such as the one that occurred at Columbine High School, have prompted most schools and criminal justice agencies to implement specific types of safety and security practices (Walsh, 2001). The media’s sensationalism of these incidents of school violence has, in effect, brainwashed the public to perceive an increasing number of such incidents. In 2002, it was reported that incidents of school violence actually were down and that students were more likely to be victims of violence away from school than at school (DeVoe, Peters, Kaufman, Ruddy, Miller, Planty, Snyder, Duhart & Rand, 2002). Still, parents today worry more about their children being victims of violence at school than at any other time in American history (Elliott, Hamburg & Williams, 1998). In fact, as published in The American Enterprise (2001), parents have suggested that preventing school violence should be the highest priority for schools and that teens committing acts of violence, especially those actions of school shootings, should result in conviction in the adult criminal justice system. With that conclusion, one has to infer that, although the rates of school violence are down, there must be some sort of medium supporting, or perhaps driving, the public’s fear of victimization for their children while attending school. This text suggests that, in this case, the medium is the U.S. mass media.

History The history of school violence follows the pattern of what most would consider the history of education. Hence, as revealed, violence within schools is not a new phenomenon. Violence has existed since the beginning of formal education


12

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

in this country and it is suggested, by these researchers, that school violence will continue long after these authors are gone. Colonial Period (1600–1775)

In American history, there exist few details on educational approaches and students achievement during the Colonial period. What is revealed, however, is the fact that education, during that time, was unregulated, disorganized, and irregular. Children were educated on a random basis throughout various times of the year, on selected topics that were of interest to their teachers or the communities at that time, and they often were selected to be educated based upon their demographic characteristics of gender and socioeconomic status. Males were more likely to be educated than females, and if females did learn, they did it secretly or by eavesdropping outside the schoolhouse doors (Kendall, 1973). During the Colonial period, there were three basic sources of education: the family, the church, and the public schools. All of these sources had their own strengths and weaknesses. Not all of these sources of education were equally available to all children, however. The first source of education during the Colonial period was the family and, as Massachusetts’ Compulsory Education Law of 1642 held, parents were legally responsible for the education of their children. In many cases, children were educated in their homes, as the parents who were themselves educated were able to teach their children the basics of reading, writing, and sometimes even literature. For those parents who, because of their own ignorance in reading and writing or because of financial constraints, were unable to teach their children, an apprenticeship program was a viable alternative (Crews & Counts, 1997). In these circumstances, children were apprenticed out to professionals, were taught reading and writing by those professionals, and, in exchange, worked for the professional for what was usually seven years (Spring, 1994). Apprentice-



13

ships were a form of what we today call on-the-job training, with roots that can be traced back to the Middle Ages for boys as young as seven years old (Cohen 1974). Of course, as there were many masters, problems arose from the inconsistencies of teaching. Also, and unfortunately for many of these children, these apprenticeships were often the foundation of support for child abuse—physical, sexual, and emotional (McCabe, 2003). Children who served as apprentices often simply became slaves to their masters. While many apprentices performed the duties of housekeeping and hard physical labor in exchange for an education, many more received little in terms of a formal education and suffered the consequences of hard labor without any rewards. The public soon began to assert that a more formal approach to education was necessary. A second source of education during the Colonial period, not unlike the educational sources of Europe, was the church. As the use of religion was a European practice in educating its leaders, many of the early colonists, especially those from the upper class, also turned to the church for the education—and discipline—of their children. The church and its leaders, with their strict fundamentalist curriculum,

MASSACHUSETTS COMPULSORY EDUCATION LAW The idea of a universal compulsory education originated in the Massachusetts colony in 1642. As the Puritans felt that education could strengthen the power of the church, the law required that each town monitor parents and the craftsmen who taught the children to ensure that they learn the basics of reading and writing. If children were found to be illiterate or unable to understand the principles of the church, the parents or craftsmen could face a fine or lose custody. Although this law did not require the establishment of schools per se, it did send a clear message to the citizens of the area that the education of children was a community responsibility (Rippa, 1997). Later, the Massachusetts Act of 1647 mandated that towns be required to provide an education for the children by establishing and supporting schools (Rippa).


14

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

focused upon not only teaching children to read and write, but also on developing the moral character of the individual child. This “moral” character was developed by whatever means (e.g., physical punishment or emotional abuse) the church leaders felt were necessary. Finally, a third source for educating children during the Colonial period was the public school system. In many localities it was mandated by law that areas with 50 or more households were required to provide lessons in reading and writing to their children, and that areas with 100 or more households were required to provide reading, writing, and literature to their children (Spring, 1994). These town or public schools educated the children for approximately seven years with the aid of teachers, called schoolmasters. These schoolmasters were brought into the area, paid by the citizens of the area to educate their children, and given a free hand in the education and discipline of their students (Perkinson, 1995). In addressing violence in the school setting during the Colonial period, efforts were minimal and limited for two main reasons. First, the education of children was viewed by many as a privilege, and that privilege, historically, had been bestowed only upon the wealthy. Therefore, parents who made arrangements for or supported their children in attending school expected that their children be respectful of education, the educational setting, their fellow students, and their educators. Second, the school systems of the Colonial period had support for, and used, almost exclusively, what we today call “corporal punishment.” In the Colonial period, students who were disrespectful to their teachers or other adults, who did not memorize their lessons, or who mixed with students of the opposite sex were punished with lashes across their backs, legs, or hands. A student who misbehaved, according to the rules, was corrected swiftly and severely and was not likely to repeat the inappropriate behavior. Teachers used a variety of approaches and weapons for punishment. Those included beating bare feet with sticks, hitting heads, boxing ears, pulling hair, and twisting ears (Hyman & Wise, 1979).



15

Today, there are many schools that still allow corporal punishment. These schools, predominately located in the Southern and Western regions of the country, are also the areas most likely to experience a school shooting, as discussed in Chapter 3. In the past, if severe violence occurred, Common Law held that children of the age of eight or older would be held accountable for their actions, just as any adult would (Rothman, 1971). Incidents of school violence or, for that matter, school disturbances were few. When they did occur, however, they were met with severe action. In most cases, that action was either prison or death. National Period (1776–1830)

After the Colonial period, the United States, as a new country, began growing and changing. There were few changes in the education of children, however. Children attended schools during this period from age five to their teens (Butts & Cremin, 1953). The Bible was still the major text of learning, and teachers controlled their students with threats and physical punishment. After the American Revolution, public officials were concerned about social fragmentation and undisciplined citizens (Crews & Counts, 1997). In the New England states, some town fathers allowed girls inside the schools from 5:00 to 7:00 A.M. and from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. (Kendall, 1973). Therefore, efforts were made to provide free common schooling for all children. In fact, Protestant associations, such as the New York Free School Society of 1805, established charity schools in a number of cities (Carper, 1995). By 1918, education was free in nearly every state (Bartollas, 2000). Also by this time, the lines distinguishing public and private schools had begun to fade and most children, especially white children, had the opportunity to attend either public or private schools (Crews & Counts, 1992). In most cases, teachers handled the disobedience of their students themselves. As socioeconomic status became less of a determining factor for access to education, and as children from different ethnic groups were now more likely to attend school, the number of children participating in educational


16

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

programs increased. Thus the likelihood of conflict within the school environment increased. During the National period, it was first believed, as is often the case today, that disobedient children were the result of a breakdown in the family unit (Rothman, 1971). Children who had not been exposed to a “normal” home life would be less likely to accept the norms of the classroom. A child who could not be controlled could not be taught. Therefore, power was given to the states to intervene for the “sake of the child” (Pope, 1995; Bohm & Haley, 1997). As more and more immigrants arrived, conflicts grew, and the schools became not only the institutions of learning, but also the institutions for the transmission of culture and of social control. The public feared that without tight control over immigrant students these students would reject the norms of American society. School officials were given free hands in the control and discipline of children by the states (Newman & Newman, 1980). In 1793, in Massachusetts, one school reportedly included a whipping post located in the center of the classroom for the convenience of the teacher and the control of unruly students (Hyman & Wise, 1979). Common School Era (1830–1860)

As the nation began to change and industrialization became a large part of America’s economy, there were movements of reform within the educational system. The first of these reforms was called the Common School era. During this period, the stereotypical “Little House on the Prairie” one-room schoolhouse appeared. At this time, it was believed by education officials that one location was needed for all of the students—especially if they were white, as the South was still very repressed in terms of non-white participants in the educational setting (Spring, 1994). Schools were used not only to enforce social control, but also to facilitate support for governmental policy. It was also during this time that the issue of segregation first appeared in U.S.

one line short



17

Court. Specifically, in the case of Roberts v. Boston (1850), the action of separating students by race was supported. Another change during the Common School era was in the control of the educaIn 1848, five-year-old Sarah tional systems. During this period, the Roberts was forbidden from emphasis was on centralized leadership , attending a local primary by which the control of schools was school in Boston because she placed in the hands of state-level agenwas black. A city ordinance cies. Today, we have continued that cenpassed in 1845 allowed any tralized leadership, with each state child who was excluded from charged with addressing the educational a school to recover damages. needs of their students. The goal of the Roberts famDuring the Common School era, Hor- ily was to have “colored” ace Mann became well known as a schools declared unconstituschool reformer. In Mann’s opinion, eq- tional. In April of 1850, the uity in the schools could be attained Supreme Judicial Court ruled through measures such as uniform text- that there was no constitubooks or readers (Perkinson, 1995). tional reason for schools to Mann, who became Massachusetts’ first be desegregated. Superintendent of Schools, not only attempted to ensure that each child was educated, but he also was one of the first people to collect information on conflicts within the school setting. Although Mann had not used the term “school violence,” he did provide evidence of violence within the schools. Specifically, Mann reported in the late 1830s that one school with 250 students had, on average, recorded over 300 floggings for disciplinary problems in a five-day (one week) period (Mann & Smith, 1847). In addition, according to Mann, approximately 400 schools were closed on an annual basis because of discipline problems (Mann & Smith). Thus, the suggestion that “today’s” juveniles are more violent in schools was also probably heard in the early 1800s in this country. In another report, in Boston in 1850, the belief was that 65 beatings per day were required to sustain a school of 400 students (Hopkiewics, 1975).

ROBERTS V. BOSTON

one line short


18

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Progressive School Era (1860–1960)

The second major reform to the educational system occurred during what was called the Progressive School era. During this period, Americanization and patriotism were the foci of society. These foci were reflected in the schools as students were taught the meaning of a “good citizen,” studied past and present war heroes, and recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. For most of the baby boomers in our country today, and those generations before them, singing “America the Beautiful” and “The StarSpangled Banner” at school and during athletic events was common. During this time, John Dewey became a prominent figure in terms of reform. Dewey questioned the previous methods of memorization and recital and pushed for what is termed today “active learning” (Dewey, 1897). It was Dewey’s philosophy that students learn by doing, and that through conducting experiments and farming, they gain not only the knowledge of a subject, but also the abilities to reason through a process (Dewey). Many of today’s educational practitioners still rely on Dewey’s theories of learning. It was also during the Progressive School era that America saw, along with the changes of society, changes in the behaviors of students. Education had become a norm for many children. In 1890 it was estimated that 90% of all elementary and secondary age children were enrolled in school (Carper, 1995). Across the nation, after the Civil War, black Americans began being recognized by whites as “worthy” of education. During the 1920s, as the economy was booming and adults were celebrating, young people also were celebrants. It is during this period that the presence of alcohol in schools first surfaced and the “immoral” behaviors of teens began to be recognized. For teens, smoking, drinking alcohol, and dating in cars began to flourish— activities that are still common today. As cities became more and more industrialized, problems related to the increasing number of children moving into cit-



19

ies were evident. Culture clashes were documented and teachers recognized the need for occasional help in controlling students. Although rural schools could have had as many as 800 students, the cities were the focus of recorded student and staff conflicts (Butler, 1910). In fact, as tardiness became an issue in the urban schools and truancy a problem during the Depression, reports during that period indicated that among the problems in schools were the dishonesty of the students, the immorality of the females, the violation of attendance rules, the lack of orderliness by students, and students not completing their homework (Douglass, 1940). Many of the problems that exist in America’s schools today also were problems a century ago. To address the problems of student behavior in schools, many institutions in the 1930s began the use of disciplinary classrooms that were very much like the “inschool suspension” rooms of today (Cub- Bath, Michigan (May 18, 1927): berley, 1934). Also used to control those Thirty-nine students and students who failed to conform to the teachers as well as four byrules of the educational setting were Cen- standers were killed when a tral Parental Schools. These Central Paren- disgruntled school board tal Schools were very much like the Alter- member, Andrew Kehoe, native Schools of today. During the early planted and ignited dynamite 1930s, it was estimated that one out of in the school’s basement. Reevery 350 schoolchildren was assigned to sentful of the higher taxes ima Central Parental School (Cubberley). posed upon his farm for the Today, the ratio of American students as- school’s construction, he took signed to Alternative Schools is lower than revenge on the students. the ratio of students that were assigned to the Central Parental schools. During the 1950s, as the baby boomers began entering school, the size of enrollments increased dramatically, along with the cost of the educational system. Furthermore, student involvement in “gangs” grew, and initiation stunts for group membership were recognized as gang activities. In 1954, after Brown v. Board of Education, segregation was ruled unconstitutional. Thus, the Progressive

1927 BOMBING


20

BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (347 U.S. 483)

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

School era ended with a decision that is still a topic of discussion in today’s educational system. Kaleidoscopic Era (1960-Present)

The third major reform to the educational setting has occurred during the Kaleidoscopic era, which has called for evaluations and standards of learning. It is also the era in which the term “school This decision by the Supreme violence” has been introduced. During Court outlawed the racial this era, more high schools and college segregation of schools. Ten preparatory institutions have been estabyears after this landmark lished and students have been taught in case, over 90% of the south- various types of settings with the desire ern states were still segre- that they become the most academically gated by black and white productive possible. Some have sug(Sadker & Sadker, 2003). gested that today the emphasis by the educational systems is placed on test scores and not on the well-roundedness of the students. However, one must acknowledge that today schools are used for more than simply the transmission of knowledge. Schools today serve the community in helping to decrease juvenile delinquency by requiring attendance and operating summer school. Schools today help to eliminate traffic problems by offering driver education, help improve family life by offering courses such as home economics and psychology, and help reduce the prevalence of drug use and venereal disease through health education (Lazerson, 1987; Spring, 1989). Therefore, many of the schools of today serve as teacher, parent, and social worker for many children. In the schools today, delinquency is viewed in three aspects: (1) serious misconduct in or around school grounds; (2) truancy; and (3) the daylong idleness of students (Cavan & Ferdinand, 1975). In regard to school violence, the reporting of such incidents has never been more abundant or

one line short



21

more requested. Although it is acknowledged that incidents of violence in schools have occurred since schools first began, collecting information on school violence has now become a priority. In most American high schools, law enforcement officers, called School Resource Officers (SROs), are present on a daily basis to monitor and control the behaviors of students. In 1970, approximately 1% of all students were attacked by other students each month, with 42% of those attacks resulting in injury (Buckner & Chesney-Lind, 1983). According to the U.S. Department of Health (1977), school crime in the 1970s cost society approximately $200 million each year. In the 1980s, school violence became widely recognized as one of the most critical problems of American society (Bartollas, 2000). Also suggested is the fact that during the 1980s, approximately 3 million attempted or completed rapes, robberies, assaults or thefts took place within the school environment on an annual basis (Wetzel, 1989). In the 1990s, follow-up surveys indicated that crime and safety were still concerns in America’s schools. The phenomenon of school violence, which began when schools began, continues to exist today.

Conclusion Violence within the school setting has been documented to exist since the beginning of education in this country, although historically, we see that teachers were most often the perpetrators. During the Colonial period and through today, incidents of violence, by both teachers and students, have resulted in pain and even death. While not widely emphasized by the media, incidents of school violence actually have decreased over the last few years, as more proactive approaches to reducing violence have been implemented in schools. The following chapters in this text will discuss the concepts of bullying, gangs, and teachers’ perceptions in regard to school violence.

one line short


22

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Questions 1. What actions constitute violence within the school setting? 2. When did education first become recognized as important in American society? 3. What were the sources for education during the Colonial period? 4. What is the significance of cases such as Roberts v. Boston and Brown v. Board of Education? 5. What constitutes delinquency in school today? Questions for Thought

1. Why is the term “school violence” so difficult to define? 2. How did desegregation influence the incidents of violence within schools? 3. Is school violence new or do we just do a better job of identifying it? 4. What is a justification for corporal punishment within the school? 5. Should all students, regardless of discipline problems, be entitled to an education?


CHAPTER

2

Bullying

Until recently, the action of being bullied within the school environment was considered simply a rite of passage. Bullying had been experienced or witnessed by the parents and grandparents of today’s students and those individuals had survived the ordeal. When it was revealed that the shooters at Columbine also had been victims of bullying, educators, criminal justice practitioners, parents, and students across the nation began to identify bullying as a major problem in American schools. Historically, bullying has been viewed as a normal part of childhood (Lawrence, 1998; Arnette & Walsleben, 1998). For many students, however, being a victim of bullying has had a significant effect upon their lives (Stephens, 1997). From low self-esteem to “bullycide” (suicide by a victim of bullying),


24

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

the effects of bullying vary with the victim. Many victims of bullying report having difficulty making friends and maintaining friendships, and even fear going to school (Ericson, 2001). Other victims report feelings of physical and emotional vulnerabilities, which include doubts about their own self-worth and their ability to succeed in the world. The term “bullying” has been used to cover a wide range of behaviors toward others, including hazing, teasing, vandalism, robbery, physical attacks, and sexual assaults. For the purpose of this chapter, bullying is defined in general terms as actions that involve the key elements of physical, verbal, or psychological attacks or intimidation, intended to cause fear or harm to the victim (Farrington, 1993). Much of the victimization that occurs in schools today involves minor indignities or what this chapter refers to as bullying (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; Cornell & Looper, 1998). Sometimes, however, those “minor indignities” may be perceived as major ones, especially to the target of the bully. Although this chapter focuses upon bullying within the United States, it is not the only country experiencing bullying in its schools. In fact, studies in Europe and School officials have susJapan estimate that as many as 50% of pended 31 students (the matheir students are victims of bullying on an jority female) over a flag foot- annual basis (Murakami, 1985; LeTendre, ball game in Illinois as 1992; White, 1993). students were beaten, splatIn this country, 25% of 4th, 5th, and tered with paint, and hit with 6th graders report being victims of bullyfeces. Law enforcement has ing during a given semester (Arnette and charged 15 of those students Walsleben, 1998). The 1999 School Crime with misdemeanor battery. Supplement, produced by the U.S. DeThe hazing was videotaped partment of Education, found that apand widely shown on televiproximately 5% of all students age 12 to sion (CNN.com, 2003). 18 had been bullied within the previous six months and that the behavior of bullying was more common within the middle-school environments than in the high-school environments. As illustrated in Table 1,

SCHOOL HAZING


25

BULLYING

TA B LE 1. U.S. Students Reporting Being Victims of

Bullying by Grade (1999). Grade

Percent

6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

10.5 9.0 5.5 5.0 3.2 2.6 1.2

Source: 1999 School Crime Supplement. U.S. Department of Education

bullying is more likely to be reported within the middleschool environment as students in the 6th grade were much more likely to report being bullied than students in the 10th, 11th, or 12th grades. Although bullying tends to peak during the middleschool years, there are reports of a growing number of incidents that suggest that bullying occurs earlier, at the levels of preschool and kindergarten (Crick, Casas & Ku, 1999). Children as young as 4 may begin teasing and targeting their peers; Authorities have stated that a kindergartners may begin physically planned massacre in Massaabusing their classmates. Unfortunately, chusetts could have been anthis phenomenon may be so common other Columbine if a janitor that it has reached the point of accep- had not found a note detailtance; in much of the literature on school ing the ideas of five students. violence, however, bullying is labeled a The five teens, [who] had form of “hidden violence” that exists planned the attack and a within the school environment. Despite group suicide ending, comthe prevalence of bullying, it is not always plained of being bullied (ABCNews.com, 2001). a priority when discussing crimes within the school environment. Yet many parents and educators agree in conversations about schools and the conditions of their school’s environment that the subject of bullying is a common topic (Casella, 2001).

PLANNED MASSACRE


26

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Elements of Bullying Coloroso (2003) has identified that, in all cases of bullying, four initial elements and one outcome (i.e. bullying) element exist. Those initial elements are: (1) an imbalance of power; (2) an intent to harm; (3) a threat of further aggression; and (4) terror. In considering the element of an imbalance of power, the bully may be older, physically larger, smarter, or from a higher socioeconomic stratum than the victim (Coloroso, 2003). This imbalance or condition provides the bully with power over the victim. The action of bullying is not one of equally matched rivals, as most bullies do not seek victims of equal abilities. Bullying is a result of one player initiating the action with some sort of perceived advantage over the other; thus, the victim or the target is vulnerable for attack at the initial stage of confrontation. Without this perceived imbalance of power, bullying would not occur. With the element of intent to harm, there is no accidental terror or abuse. The key term in this element is “intent.” The bully intends to inflict pain and receives pleasure from the victim’s resulting pain or fear of pain (Coloroso, 2003). In the action of bullying, there exists a form of premeditation. Hence, the bully, upon seeing or thinking about his victim, decides prior to acting what behavior will be displayed and perhaps even what effect the behavior will have upon the victim. Without intent to harm, bullying would not occur. Once the initial confrontation between bully and victim has taken place or has been suggested, the element of threat of further aggression exists. Both the bully and the victim know that the bullying will continue and that it is unrealistic to expect that a bullying encounter is merely a single event. Both the victim and the bully know that the much popularized media story of a victim standing up to and defeating his victim is essentially a myth. The victim

one line short


BULLYING

27

now realizes his vulnerabilities and, unfortunately, so does the bully. With the threat of further aggression, the bullying continues. Finally, the element that exists after an incident of bullying is terror. Bullying is a systematic action that is intended to intimidate and maintain dominance over a victim or victims (Coloroso, 2003). Once terror has been established, the bully can act without fear of retaliation and, in many cases, the action will escalate to more severe forms of abuse, both in terms of emotional abuse and physical abuse. In some cases, this escalation of bullying may also be in the form of sexual abuse (McCabe, 2003). The victim, always awaiting another attack, remains in a state of emotional terror. This state of terror facilitates the continuation of bullying.

Characteristics of Bullies Several researchers in both criminal justice and education have devoted their research to the explanation and characteristics of bullies. Most agree, however, that bullies are not as unique as one might think. Specifically, schoolyard bullies tend to have a need for power and control. These needs are often satisfied at the expense of others; this expense occurs through the infliction of intentional injury or emotional abuse on their victims. In this context, emotional abuse is defined as a pattern of psychologically destructive behavior by a student targeted toward another student (McCabe, 2003). In addition, bullies tend to come from families where physical punishment is the norm and bonding among parents and children is limited (Olweus, 2003). There are those who suggest that big bullies (parents) create little bullies (their children). Coloroso (2003) in the text The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander outlined several of the common traits of bullies. Those common traits include: (1) the desire of domination; (2) the manipulation of others to obtain a goal; (3) the egocentrism

one line short


28

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

of the bully; (4) the view that the weaker are the prey; (5) the failure to accept responsibility for actions; and (6) the seeking of attention. Bullies select their victims consciously, choosing those individuals smaller in size or inferior in intellectual abilities. Through threats or actions, bullies force their victims to act as the bullies desire. The consequences of the victims’ actions are of no concern to bullies, who are interested only in their own satisfaction. Any person perceived by a bully to be weaker is a possible target. Bullies often will blame the victimization that they have perpetrated on the weaker status of the victim. In addition to their self-fulfilling desires, bullies gain notoriety through bullying. Others have attempted to characterize bullies in terms of not their individual traits but, rather, their family structure. In examining the family structure, many researchers have suggested that the parenting skills of a bully’s parents or major caretakers is a major influence on a child’s potential to bully or to commit crimes of violence (Derzon, 2001; Henry, Tolan, & Gorman-Smith, 2001; Cunningham & Henggler, 2001; Sullivan, 1953). Parents, who are most often the models for their children, greatly influence the behaviors of their children. In addition, coaches, who may shame their players by referring to their athletic abilities as less than manly (“hitting like a girl,” for example), also may support the notion that physical violence or threats of violence are normal. Children who are exposed to violence and intimidation in the home will perceive violence and intimidation as the most appropriate method by which to obtain their desires. Although parental behaviors are not always directly linked to bullying and other forms of violence in the school setting, they cannot be discounted (Mulvey & Cauffman, 2001). Coloroso (2003) has characterized three kinds of families and their relationship to bullying. The three types of family structures are the “brick wall,” the “jellyfish,” and the “backbone.” The brick-wall family is concerned with order, control, obedience, and a hierarchy of power. The jellyfish


BULLYING

29

family lacks a core family structure and exists within a laissez-faire atmosphere. The backbone family provides consistent control with an opportunity for discovery. The brick-wall family instills in the children that power is obtained through intimidation. To win in this world, according to the brick-wall family, one must obtain and maintain power over subordinates. Power results from the actions of physical violence and threats. It is asserted by Coloroso (2003) that bullies are most likely the products of brick-wall families. In the jellyfish family, two different types of families exist. The first type of family is one in which the parents, in an attempt to please their children, fail to provide strict rules of conduct (Coloroso, 2003). In this family, the child becomes his own master. A child who has never been led to believe he must work for his desires expects his desires to be fulfilled simply upon his request and may bully a smaller or weaker child into submission. In the second type of jellyfish family, the parents, again in an attempt to please their children, assume all of the responsibilities for their children. A child raised in this environment may be perceived as an easy target to bullies as he is labeled the “mama’s boy” of the classroom and thus vulnerable to the intimidations of other students. In one type of jellyfish family, the child becomes the bully. In the other type of jellyfish family, the child becomes the victim. In the backbone family, the child learns through caring but consistent rules and punishment, which parents use in order to empower their children. These children will most often feel respect for themselves and respect for others. In these families, the lines of communication are open, family members care for each other, and family members respect each other. The child from the backbone family is least likely to be involved in bullying, either as the bully or as the victim (Coloroso, 2003). As if face-to-face bullying were not enough of a concern for students, teachers, and parents within the school environment, technological advances have aided the practice


30

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

of bullying. The computer and the Internet have become two of the newest tools for bullying. It is important to know that children may be bullied without intimate contact with the bullies themselves. Those who may not have the confidence to bully in active face-to-face confrontations may do so anonymously. Today, many bullies are skilled in computer technology and use the Internet to harass and shame their victims. Through the Internet, slanderous remarks can be posted about a victim without the identity of the bully ever being revealed. Thus, bullying, which once involved face-to-face contact, now can be Ricky is a small 12-year-old remote. boy who has very few For many bullies, bullying is only the friends in school. His family beginning of their violence. Studies on is poor and the home in bullying suggest that bullies are six times which they live does not more likely to commit violent crimes than have running water. Often non-bullies (Smith & Brain, 2000; Olweus Ricky goes to school un& Limber, 1999; Nolin, Davies & Chandler, bathed. Several students 1996). In addition, child bullies who are tease him about his body odor. But it was not until sev- not stopped may mature into adult bullies who provoke fear in their families and coeral students were allowed workers. It is not unusual for someone to access the Internet on the who bullies others as a child to continue class computer that Ricky realized that his nickname that behavior and become even more ag“Stinky Rinky” was known gressive in terms of domestic violence to anyone besides his classand child abuse (McCabe, 2003). mates. On that afternoon, Studies also have suggested that those Ricky was called to the back who engage in antisocial behaviors as of the classroom to view his children also may continue those behavclass picture on a computeriors as adults. In fact, for many criminologenerated website dedigists and criminal-justice practitioners, cated to “smelly kids.” The the early onset of violent behavior is one children, who were gathof the best predictors of the frequency, ered around Ricky, laughed. seriousness, and duration of offending Ricky cried. behavior (Agnew, 2001). In general and specifically as related to this chapter, a

A BOY NAMED RICKY


BULLYING

31

child who begins aggressive bullying at the age of 7 is more likely to continue with acts of violence than one who begins at the age of 15.

Theories to Explain Bullying To explain bullying, three perspectives are used—biological, social-psychological, and social. From the biological perspective, the theory of physical traits is offered; from the social-psychological perspective, the theory of sociopathy is offered; and from the social perspective, the theory of social learning is offered. Physical Traits

Since before the publication of Lombroso’s The Criminal Man (1876) and up through today, individuals have attempted to categorize people by their physical appearance and their asserted propensity to act strangely or violently. William Sheldon (1949), in his book Varieties of Delinquent Youth, applies that philosophy to young people. Sheldon maintains that there exist three categories of body types and that each type has its own unique associated temperament. Specifically, the types of body builds are: (1) endomorph; (2) mesomorph; and (3) ectomorph. The endomorph body type is soft and round, with a tendency to put on body fat (Sheldon, 1949). The associated temperament is one of a relaxed nature that is slow to react and is tolerant of others. The mesomorph body type is one of massive strength and defined muscular development (Sheldon, 1949). The associated temperament is assertive, with a desire for power and dominance. These individuals are often ruthless and indifferent to pain (theirs and others). The ectomorph body type is thin and frail (Sheldon, 1949). The associated temperament is one of inhibition and social isolation. In applying Sheldon’s body types to the behavior of bullying, one asserts that the bully is the mesomorph. The


32

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

mesomorph is an individual with not only the physical build and strength to intimidate and provoke fear in others, but also the personality or temperament to desire dominance over others. The target or victim of a bully is most likely the ectomorph. The victim is perceived to be physically vulnerable and lacks the social integration or ability to form and sustain the social bond to peers that may reduce the likelihood of becoming a target. Sociopathy

One social-psychological explanation applied to criminal and delinquent behavior is that of sociopathy. The terms “psychopathy” and “antisocial personality” are considered synonymous with sociopathy (Curran & Renzetti, 2001). Sociopaths are characterized as selfish, impulsive, and emotionally unattached (Hare, 1996; Toch & Adams, 1989). As these individuals do not feel sympathy or empathy toward others, they often are the perpetrators of many crimes of violence over the course of their lives (Hart & Dempster, 1997). The cause of sociopathy is uncertain. Some researchers look toward the concept of a neurological defect as the cause, some seek explanation from the experience of an emotional trauma during childhood, and some look to the family (Curran & Renzetti, 2001). It is suggested, however, that in some cases youths who begin bullying will continue to do so throughout their lives. These youths may be classified as sociopaths. Social Learning

Developed in the 1970s as a revision of Sutherland’s Differential Association, the social learning theory is an attempt to explain behaviors as a result of reinforcement and punishment (Akers, 1973). Like Sutherland, Akers’s social learning theory maintains that deviant behavior is learned and that it is a direct outcome of instrumental conditioning and imitation. Instrumental conditioning, which relies upon reinforcement and punishment, allows a behavior to continue once it has been reorganized and imitated from observing the original source.


BULLYING

33

In discussing the action of bullying, a potential bully observes another bully and then initiates his or her own action of bullying with instrumental conditioning supporting the behavior. Specifically, in Akers’s social learning perspective (1985), behavior increases if either a reward is received or a punishment is removed. A bully who obtains power and control over his target and does not receive any sort of punishment will continue to bully. As the target or bystanders do not intervene, the bullying continues. The original action of bullying, as discussed, is usually viewed within the family.

Characteristics of Victims and Bystanders Although bullies may have a positive view of themselves, victims do not. Victims of bullies tend to suffer from low self-esteem, are insecure, and often are unwilling to defend themselves (Olweus, 1993; McDermott, 1980). Whereas the parents of the bullies often allow their children to become independent at an early age, often to provide the parents more time to focus on themselves, the victims of bullies may come from homes with very overprotective parents, and are allowed few friends outside the family (Olweus). From a victimology perspective, bullying is explained under the foundation of victim precipitation, which asserts that victims (either passively or actively) provoke their attacks (Barkan, 2001). In cases of bullying, victims passively precipitate the action merely through their physical appearance or behaviors. In support, many bullies blame their victims for their attacks (Oliver, Hoover & Hazler, 1994). Bullies perceive their victims as physically weak, as “nerds,” or as “afraid to fight back” (Charach, Pepler & Ziegler, 1995). Usually, the victims do not report the bullying; therefore, bullies are given permission (through omission) to continue. It has been suggested that in the area of bullying there are no innocent bystanders. These individuals either support the bullying or are neutral to it. Coloroso (2003) has


34

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

suggested that there are six different types of bystanders, all with a different dynamic. Those types of bystanders are: (1) the bully/bullies; (2) followers; (3) supporters; (4) disengaged onlookers; (5) possible defenders; and (6) defenders. The bully, as discussed previously in this chapter, rules through threats of violence and intimidation. The followers, or henchmen, are those who take part in the bullying but do not the initiate the action (Coloroso, 2003). The supporters are those who like the bullying but do not take part. The disengaged onlookers are those who assert that the bullying of someone else is not their concern (Coloroso). The possible defenders are those who believe the target of the bullying should be defended; they are not, however, the ones to help the person. The defender is that unique individual who actually attempts to help the victim of the bully (Coloroso). Although popular media may contradict reality, in cases of bullying, there exist few defenders.

Consequences of Bullying The consequences of being victimized by a bully vary with the individual and the severity and duration of the bullying. It is suggested, however, that bullying affects not only the victim, but also the entire school environment. Bullying disrupts classes and redirects the attention of teachers from teaching. A teacher who must constantly monitor the activities of one student is not focused upon teaching. It must also be acknowledged that although the overwhelming majority of victims of bullying are students, there are some victims of bullies who are teachers, nurses, and/or school administrators. Bullying may have both short- and long-term consequences for the victim. Short-term consequences can include psychological distress, physical illness, a lack of concentration on schoolwork, and a fear of attending school (Farrington, 1993). Long-term consequences can include low self-esteem, depression, and a reduced capacity for learning (Elliot, Hamburg & Williams, 1998).


BULLYING

35

A TEACHER NAMED SARAH Sarah has taught high-school math for nearly ten years, but she has never had a student like Jacob. Jacob is a large young man compared to his classmates. Sarah has heard through the other teachers that Jacob has a reputation for using alcohol and drugs with friends after school and he has been involved in several physical fights off the school grounds. Jacob watches Sarah very closely at school and lately his stares at her while she teaches are almost threatening. He has failed her math class before and has let her know how important it is that he passes this year. During the last two weeks of school, Jacob has been waiting for Sarah outside her classroom every morning as she enters. He mentions how terrible it will be if she has to teach him again next year. Although his grades are below satisfactory, Sarah, who is afraid of Jacob, passes him. She would rather have him complete her class without a competency in math than be in her class again next year. Jacob has successfully bullied himself through the educational system. Often, in many cases of bullying, victims display behaviors of anxiousness, nervousness, and worry. In other cases, victims themselves become aggressive toward other nonbullying students (Lawrence, 1998). Students who are victims of bullying spend much of the time during their school day planning how not to be a victim. For example, a student who is concerned about being victimized in the bathroom may choose not to eat or drink during the day for fear of having to use the bathroom or may request permission to go to the bathroom during class time while the other students remain in the classroom. A student worried about victimization on the playground may act out in class to avoid being allowed to go outside and therefore stay inside under the supervision and protection of the teacher. For these students, learning is limited. For victims who cannot plan for their protection on school grounds, absenteeism becomes an issue (Stephens, 1997). As concluded by Farrington (1993), 15% of the students in American schools today with persistent absences report bullying as their main reason for missing school. Students


36

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

who are not attending school are not learning. As a result, schools, which receive funding based upon the number of students in attendance, suffer financially when students are afraid to come to school. In a nutshell, bullying, directly and indirectly, can pose one set of problems for the victim and another set for the educational system (McDermott, 1980; Cornell & Looper, 1998). As publicized in the media over the last decade, bullying can lead to severe consequences, such as a school shooting as horrific as Columbine. Holmes and Brandenburg-Ayers (1998) have suggested that many of the youths who are bullies in their schools will later be members of a street gang. This is especially true for females. Reportedly, female gang members are even more likely than males to be former victims of bullying and who then bully someone else while in school (Holmes & Brandenburg-Ayers). Killias & Rabasa (1997) suggest that involvement in school bullying is related to later juvenile involvement in violence and with weapons. In some rare cases, students initially are victims of verbal bullying, which escalates into physical abuse. Therefore, the victims are forced to fight to defend themselves and often are injured during these confrontations. Bullying is often the root of other forms of violence as well (Smith & Sharpe, 1994). In other rare cases of bullying, the victim decides that the only way to end the victimization is to kill the perpetrator. As is seen in cases of domestic violence, the victim, after a history of abuse at the hands of the perpetrator, sometimes kills the abuser either during a conflict or before a future conflict can occur. In addition, adolescents who have been bullied are isolated and often very angry. Their natural inclination is to gravitate toward others with similar experiences. This gravitation may result in friendships with victims of bullies, which can develop into anti-social attitudes that may manifest into destruction, such as a school shooting. As discussed in the case of Columbine, bullying can lead to suicide. Although most people perceive Columbine as a mass shooting by two students, it was, in fact, a planned suicide. Before Eric Harris


BULLYING

37

and Dylan Klebold arrived at the high school and began shooting, they had videotaped suicide messages for their families. In each boy’s account, he acknowledged that together they would commit suicide. Therefore, before entering Columbine High School, before attempting to ignite the first explosive, before shooting the first student, the end result of Columbine was intended to be a suicide. A suicide that many people, including the shooters and the media, attributed to bullying by classmates.

Failure to React As illustrated by Columbine, bullying behavior, left unchecked, may lead to tragic consequences (Barone, 2000). Despite this fact, bullying often continues without reaction from school officials and/or parents. Most students do in fact want adults to intervene and end the bullying behavior (Garbarino & deLara, 2003). Reasons for this failure to act vary, and include: (1) the overwhelming philosophy that bullying is a rite of passage and that it is expected that most all children are bullied sometime within their educational years, and that only by victims defending themselves do they overcome the problem; (2) many educators have seen bullying over and over again within their careers, with only exceptional cases escalating; therefore, these educators have become desensitized to the problem and, as a result, fail to react; and (3) there are perceived to be other “more important” issues in the schools, such as theft, physical assaults, and drugs and alcohol which must be dealt with to ensure a safe and secure school environment (Barone). Generally, students fail to report bullying because most believe that administrators will do nothing (MacDonald, 1997). This failure to react is unfortunate in that it has been suggested that education and intervention programs may significantly reduce the incidents of bullying (Cooper & Snell, 2003). In some studies, it is estimated that these types of focused intervention may reduce bullying by as much as 50% (Olweus, 1993).


38

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Effect of Media Bullying, as well as other forms of violence that occur on school grounds, is often a prime-time story for the media. There are those who suggest that crime fuels the media and those who suggest that the media fuels crime. Regardless of one’s conviction, it is suggested that the media does, in some ways, influence violence. Specifically, Derksen and Strasburger (1996) have suggested that the media uses violence to displace healthy activities, to model inappropriate behavior, and to desensitize the public to crime. As bullying is thought to exist mainly within the preteen or teen environment, one must consider teens when discussing the effects of media on the phenomenon of bullying. In Kaas’s (2000) article on Columbine in the Denver Rocky Mountain News, the first statement, “Bullying at Columbine High was rampant,” draws attention to bullying. It has been suggested that there is a strong correlation between newspaper coverage of an event and similar events in the future; it has been further suggested that adding television coverage increases the strength of that correlation (Phillips, 1980). In the case of Columbine, the school massacre was revealed as the final outcome of the bullying received by Harris and Klebold. If students view the perpetrators of school violence as “stars” then perhaps, to someone who has spent his life in the shadows, a few minutes of fame is worth the risk of violence. Research indicates that teens are more likely to be affected by news coverage than adults (Phillips & Carstensen, 1986). If a student who is the constant victim of bullying does not have the option of transferring to another school, he or she may look for another solution. Furthermore, if the student is unable to talk to school officials or parents about something that the adults perceive as insignificant, the student may seek a solution to the problem as suggested by the media. If added to the fact that teens are more influenced by a media portrayal if the action character is in their age group (another teen in a movie, for example), then


BULLYING

39

fighting and winning is appealing (Williams, Lawton, Ellis, Walsh & Reed, 1987). In this light, the Columbine incident, which was not the first school shooting in history, is less surprising. In an alternative view, if aggressive and violent lead characters in a movie or in a similar school setting are recognized as heroes and their actions rewarded, young people may feel that such behaviors are not only acceptable but necessary to obtain control over their peers and gain respect.

Criminal Justice Responses In regard to the efforts of law enforcement to reduce bullying, actions have been very limited, as most schools have decided to simply apply “zero tolerance” (as discussed Chapter 6) to all possible victimization that may occur on school property. Yet, as victims often do not report these incidents to law enforcement or school resource officers, bullying continues until either the bully or the victim puts an end to the action. In fact, the 1999 School Crime Supplement suggested that student reports of bullying do not differ between schools with visible security and schools without security: a finding to further support the notion that students do not report being victims of bullying. It has been acknowledged by many in law enforcement that bullying is often a warning sign for violence and that bullying affects students’ sense of security more than any other school safety concern (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; Barone, 2000). Recently, police have begun to offer more assistance to education officials in the area of student safety. The courts, on the other hand, have begun to recognize the problem, and, in some cases, have supported efforts to provide protection to students while attending school. Specifically, in the historical case of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) it was upheld that students have the right of expression within public schools as long as their actions do not interfere with schoolwork or the rights of other students in the classroom. In Bethel v. Fraser (1986), however, the Supreme


40

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

TINKER V. DES MOINES John (age 13) and Mary Beth (age 16) Tinker attended a public school in Des Moines, Iowa in 1965 during the period of the Vietnam War. After attending (with their parents) a meeting to discuss ways of protesting the war, the children decided to wear black armbands to school as a symbol of their protest. The principal suspended them until they removed their armbands. Their parents took the case to court and it eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the Tinkers and against the school. The Court concluded that the armbands did not interfere with schoolwork or the rights of others in the classroom. Court held that schools may regulate speech and may punish students for speech considered to be offensive or disruptive. In the words of the Supreme Court, “The schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech.” In addition, in the case of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), it was ruled that school districts may be held liable for damages under federal law for failing to stop a student from subjecting another student to severe and pervasive sexual harassment.

Conclusion Bullying is a problem within America’s schools that produces consequences not only for the bully and his/her victim, but also for the educational system. Bullying causes emotional insecurity in its victims and costs the schools money through the absences of the bullies’ targets. It has been suggested that bullies possess common individual characteristics and, often, common family backgrounds. It also has been suggested that a person who bullies as a student may go on to commit other acts of violence (such as domestic violence) as an adult. As many students report being the targets of bullies, one must ask, Is this simply a normal part of childhood? Or is it something more severe,


41

BULLYING

BETHEL V. FRASER In 1986, Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, delivered a speech to approximately 600 of his fellow students to nominate another classmate for an elective office. Fraser referred to his candidate through an explicit sexual metaphor, which was felt to be unacceptable conduct by school officials. He was suspended. The case, which eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, supported the suspension. which should fall under the label of “school violence”? Through education, and perhaps intervention, the incidents of bullying may be reduced. As bullying is one of the most common forms of school violence, reducing bullying reduces school violence.

Questions 1. 2. 3. 4.

Why is bullying considered a form of “hidden violence”? What are the four elements of bullying? What are some common traits of bullying? What is the difference between a “brick-wall” family structure and a “backbone” family structure? 5. How do you explain bullying through the “physical trait theory”? Questions for Thought

1. If incidents of bullying are more likely to be reported in middle schools, why is high-school bullying more often reported in the media? 2. How does an imbalance of power facilitate bullying? What would you have done if you were Sarah (the teacher discussed in the sidebar)? 3. How does family structure influence bullying and does it explain most of the incidents of bullying? 4. Are all bullies physically larger than their targets? Why or why not? 5. How do bystanders facilitate bullying?


CHAPTER

3

School Shootings: 1974—2000

A school shooting anywhere in this country will receive national media attention. A school shooting in a suburban or rural area, however, will receive immediate national media attention. Aside from the severity of the violence, recently publicized school shootings have involved offenders with little or no history of violence, schools that have been perceived as safe and secure, and schools that were located in low-crime areas (Sullivan, 2002). These shootings, therefore, are sensationalized by the media. In a 26-year-period, between December 1974 and May 2000, there were 37 separate incidents of school shootings in this country. For the purpose of this chapter, a school shooting is one that results in, at minimum, an injury or death of a student or teacher at the hands of another student


SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: 1974—2000

43

within the physical location of the school setting. The following is an empirical assessment of those shootings, which includes discussions of their characteristics and comparisons with Columbine, which also occurred within the same time period. In regard to previous research on rare events such as workplace shootings, researchers attempting to identify common characteristics or trends often have been unsuccessful. Researchers who have been successful in characterizing those events, however, have done so through the elimination of some perceived necessary conditions that existed prior to those shootings (Harding, Fox, & Mehta, 2002). It is in operating under the same assumptions of those researchers in exploring workplace shootings that this assessment of school shootings is conducted.

Time and Place When discussing the time and place of a school shooting, one considers not only the location of the event, but also the time of year and the time of the shooting relative to previous school shootings. Region of the Country

As illustrated in Table 2, in considering the regions of the country, the West (41%) and the Southeast (36%) were the two most common locations for a school shooting. Just as the Southeast and the West historically have been documented as the most violent regions of the country (Barkan, 2001), they also are the leaders in incidents of school shootings over the 25 years examined. One explanation for this finding is related to (Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967) the Theory of the Subculture of Violence, which asserts that some regions of the country are inherently more violent than others, due in part to the nearnormalization of violence in everyday events and the perception that violence is a reasonable solution to conflict. In studying adult perpetrators of homicide, Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) suggest that, excluding crimes of passion, the


44

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

TA B LE 2 . Frequency of School Shootings (1974–

2000) Displayed by Region of the Country (n = 37). Region

Number

Percent*

6 3 13 15

16.2 8.1 35.2 40.5

Central Northeast Southeast West *Note: Percentages Rounded

offenders were a fairly homogeneous group of young, lowerclass males. Today, criminologists have applied the Theory of the Subculture of Violence to regions of the country. The Subculture of Violence asserts that living within some subcultures or regions of the country instills a set of attitudes or social expectations that favor the use of violence in ending conflict (Curran & Renzetti, 2001). As stated above, the two most violent regions in our country are the West and the Southeast. Just as the rates of overall violence are higher in those areas, so are the incidents of school shootings. Arcus (2002) further supports this assertion of violence as a solution to conflict in that there are significantly more school shooting deaths found in states allowing corporal punishment than in those that do not allow corporal punishment. The majority of those states are located in the western or southern regions of the U.S. Columbine is located in Colorado, which, for this assessment, is classified as the West. As education administrators resort to the violence of spanking or paddling students to control their behaviors, students may perceive violence as a reasonable response to conflict. Year

As displayed in Table 3, school shootings have occurred throughout the 25 years of study; these incidents were more common in the 1990s, however. Specifically, over 65% of the incidents occurred between 1992 and 1999. The Columbine incident also occurred during this period. Explanations for these findings include the possibility that students are more violent now than ever before and that proactive


45



2000) Displayed by Year of Shooting (n = 37). Year

Number

Percent*

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 1

2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 8.1 5.4 8.1 8.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 13.5 2.7

*Note: Percentages Rounded

measures such as metal detectors and law enforcement officers in schools were not fully used at that time. There is also the possibility (to be discussed later in this chapter) that many of these incidents have been categorized as what many criminologists and criminal justice practitioners call “copycats.” In other words, a particular school shooting may be a re-creation of a previous media-publicized school shooting in a different school.


46

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Month

As displayed in Table 4, school shootings have occurred during all of the months of the school year. The most common months, however, are May (22%) and December (22%). Since many of America’s schools break for summer and Christmas, one may explain these incidents within the context that, in May and December, students have attended classes for weeks without a break. If the school environment is the source of a student’s stress or anger, then it stands to reason that being subjected to those stresses for long periods of time may increase the student’s likelihood of violence. The same conditions may exist and help to explain the increased number of shootings in the month of October. At this point in the school year, students have been attending classes for several weeks without a break; if there were a fall break, it generally would come in mid- or late October. Along the same line of thinking, September, which is the first full month of the school year, experiences the lowest number of school shootings. Again, this lack of violence may be related to the newness of the school year. In attempting to explain the commonalities among the months of school shootings, General Strain Theory may provide some insight. Originally, the concept of Strain Theory asserted that strain results when individuals fail to obtain their material goals through legitimate means; thus, they resort to illegitimate means (Merton, 1938). Yet Agnew’s (1992) version of General Strain Theory or Strain Theory suggests that strain is produced from other actions in addition to those that are economically based. Agnew (1992) categorizes these strains into three major types. The first type is a result of failing to achieve positively valued goals. In the Columbine case, it has been suggested that one of the shooters, Eric Harris, had failed to obtain his military entrance, as he had desired. The second type of strain results from the denial or removal of a previously attained achievement (Agnew, 1992).


47



2000) Displayed by Month of Shooting (n = 37). Month January February March April May September October November December

Number

Percent*

3 3 3 3 8 1 5 3 8

8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 21.6 2.7 13.5 8.1 21.6


In the high-school or middle-school environment, the removal of a previously attained achievement could include the breakup with a girlfriend (Curran & Renzetti, 2001). In the Columbine incident, Eric Harris’s girlfriend had broken up with him just months prior to the shooting. The third type of strain results from an exposure to negative stimuli (Agnew). In the school environment, the negative stimuli may include being teased or bullied by a classmate. Again, it has been asserted that Harris and Klebold both had been the targets of bullying at Columbine High School. Although the Columbine incident may be explained through Agnew’s General Strain Theory, it did not occur during one of the more common months for a school shooting. Time Preceding Shooting

In comparing the 37 cases of school shootings, the concept of “copycat” behavior was considered. For clarity, a copycat crime is defined as a crime that is an imitation of a previous crime in terms of either method, physical setting, victim characteristics, or a combination of these (Barkan, 2001). As displayed in Table 5, 22 of the 37 cases (61%) occurred within six months of a previous school shooting and seven (19%) occurred within two months of a previous shooting. Specifically, the Columbine incident occurred within less


48

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

TA B LE 5 . Frequency of School Shootings (1974– 2000) Displayed by Time Preceding Other Shootings in Months (n = 37).

Months

Number

Percent*

0 1–2 3–6 7–12 13+ 5 Missing**

2 5 15 9 13.9 1

5.6 13.9 41.6 25.0

*Note: Percentages Rounded ** Note: The incident recorded as missing was the first incident of the period examined.

than a month of a previous shooting in Indiana and within a year of four other shootings (Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Oregon, and Iowa). One cannot begin to discuss the impact of copycat crimes on the criminal justice system without first discussing the link between media attention and copycats. Graber (1997) in Mass Media and American Politics provides support for this link between media and copycats through the specific examples of the Los Angeles riots, which spurred riots in Atlanta, Long Beach, and other cities across the U.S. and in the media attention given to the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, which preceded multiple bomb threats at other federal buildings across the country. Phillips and Carstensen (1986) suggest that just as adults often participate in copycat violence, teens are even more likely to imitate actions of violence portrayed through the media. Continuous coverage or multi-programmed stories of a violent action are even more likely to elicit repeat behaviors (Schmidtke & Hafner, 1988). Add the fact that violence on television is not often immediately punished, that the perpetrators of violence remain relatively unharmed, and that they also are often portrayed as heroic, and it is understandable that copycat violence is appealing. With the continuous coverage of Columbine after the fact, it stands



49

to reason that other incidents should follow. In fact, one incident occurred within a month of Columbine and four within a year of Columbine. On the subject of school shootings, whether student shooters believe that the media provides them with the ideas and details to carry out such events or whether they perceive that the media has made a celebrity of previous shooters, it certainly is likely that copycat crimes are a very strong possibility. Most of the research on mass media and violence has focused on the effect of newspapers and television; some research does exist, however, to suggest that certain types of music and video games also influence violent behaviors (Griffiths, 1999). After the Columbine incident, when it was suggested that the shooters had been fans of violentthemed video games and music, other forms of mass media were newly considered in discussing the topic of school violence. In fact, some have suggested that young people prefer the media portrayals of violence to nonviolent themes (Garrett, 1999). It has been suggested that, as the adult world opens itself in every conceivable way to children, children will inevitably emulate adult criminal activity (Postman, 1982). A child, perceiving that violence in an adult setting is the appropriate way to express one’s opinion and resolve conflict, may choose violence as his/her response to a conflict in a school setting.

Victims and Offenders In examining the outcome of a school shooting in terms of the number of victims and the characteristics of offenders, one must acknowledge that in most cases of school shootings, victims are often random and not necessarily the driving force behind the incident. In the case of Columbine, 12 students and one teacher were killed. Many media accounts have suggested that “jocks” were Harris and Klebold’s targets yet, as many non-jocks were killed or


50

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

injured, including a teacher, this suggestion is essentially not supported. Specifically, in considering Columbine, there is insufficient documentation to suggest that the victims were specifically targeted; it is more likely that the students and teacher happened to be in the deadliest locations (e.g., the library, the hallway) during the incident. In terms of the characteristics of the offenders, this assessment examines not only the gender and age of the offenders, but also the number of victims and cases where there existed multiple offenders. Murder Victims

It is acknowledged that the majority (59%) of school shootings in the assessment did not result in murder. However, as displayed in Table 6, of the 37 incidents examined, 15 (40.5%) did result in the murder of at least one person. Columbine was an extreme case of a school shooting, which resulted in 13 murders. In considering multiple or mass murders, a mass murder is defined as a murder that involves four or more victims in the same location. It is interesting to note that the spree murders (four cases) had no common characteristics. They did not occur within the same region, they did not occur within the same year or month, and they did not have the common number of one lone shooter. TA B LE 6 . Frequency of School Shootings (1974– 2000) Displayed by Number of Murder Victims (n = 37).

Victims

Number

Percent*

15 9 6 3 2 1 1

40.5 24.3 16.2 8.1 5.4 2.7 2.7

0 1 2 3 4 5 13 *Note: Percentages Rounded

AU/ED: Not always possible to place table before next head


51


TA B LE 7. Frequency of School Shootings (1974–

2000) Displayed by Number of Injured Victims (n = 37). Victims

Number

0 1 2 3 4 5+ 6

13 11 3 2 2 16.3

Percent 35.1 29.7 8.1 5.4 5.4


Injured Victims

As in the case of murder victims, injuries also were not as common as the media may have allowed the public to perceive. As displayed in Table 7, 35% of the incidents resulted in no injuries and 30% resulted in only one injured victim. Again, Columbine was an extreme case. Thus, despite the fact that many school shootings result in no injuries, Americans widely perceive school shootings as resulting in murders and injuries. Number of Shooters

After Columbine, the image of students entering a school and shooting other students may be a common one for the American public; multiple shooters are rare, however. Just as most murders are one-on-one murders (Barkan, 2001), school and workplace shootings most often involve one shooter only. As displayed in Table 8, only three (one of which was Columbine) of the incidents studied in this research involved more than one shooter. TA B LE 8 . Frequency of School Shootings (1974–

2000) Displayed by Number of Shooters (n =37). Shooters

Number

Percent*

34 2 1

91.9 5.4 2.7

1 2 3 *Note: Percentages Rounded


52

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Gender of Shooters

In all of the incidents of school shootings examined in this research, the shooters were male. Of course, both Harris and Klebold were male. The same holds true for the overwhelming majority of shootings in the workplace. Violence often has been categorized as a “male” action in that the overwhelming majority of violent offenders are male (Barkan, 2001). Thus, it is suggested that violence has been “masculinized” to the extent that boys perpetrate acts of violence to demonstrate their perceptions of valued characteristics of masculinity (Mills, 2001). In addition, youth violence is usually boys’ attempts to obtain justice as they perceive it (Garbarino, 1999). Therefore, the perpetrators of school shootings are usually expected to be male. Age of Shooters

School shooters ranged in age from 11 to 21. As displayed in Table 9, most (22%) were 16 and many more were under the age of 16 (in the case of Columbine, both shooters were over 16). Violence is more likely to occur at the hands of an older child (Garrett, 2001). Whether it involves the maturity necessary to plan a school shooting or whether it involves a reduced amount of student supervision by teachers, those older perpetrators of a school shooting are more likely to injure or kill another.

Shootings Plus In examining the 37 incidents of school shootings, one must acknowledge that other actions sometimes occur in addition to the shooting itself. Specifically, some cases of school shootings involve suicide, the killing of family members outside the school setting, and the pre-existing condition of bullying.

page short before new design element


53



2000) Displayed by Age of Shooter (n = 41). Age

Number

Percent*

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1 2 5 8 5 9 4 5 0 1 1

2.4 4.9 12.2 19.5 12.2 22.0 9.8 12.2 0.0 2.4 2.4

* Note: Percentages Rounded

Suicide

Although Columbine is viewed every time the media includes a story on school violence, one must acknowledge that Columbine also was a suicide. In fact, as the videotapes of Harris and Klebold indicate, their intention was from the beginning to commit suicide. It is not unheard of for a school shooting to result in suicide. As illustrated in Table 10, even though most (84%) of the 37 school shootings examined did not end in the suicide of the shooter(s), 16% did. There were, however, no common characteristics of those school shooting incidents that resulted in suicide. TA B LE 10 . Frequency of School Shootings (1974–

2000) Displayed by Number of Suicide Victims (n = 37). Suicides

Number

Percent*

31 5 1

83.8 13.5 2.7

0 1 2 *Note: Percentages Rounded

page short before new design element


54

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Family Killed

Just as in the case of many workplace murders, in some cases domestic violence also occurs in concurrence with school shootings. In three (8%) of the incidents of school shootings, a family member was killed in a spree murder prior to the school shooting. For clarity of definition, a spree murder is defined as a murder that involves victims in two or more locations with relatively no breaks in time (Barkan, 2001). In three of the cases, the young shooters killed a family member prior to the killing or injuring of their classmates. In the case of Columbine, no family members were targeted or killed. As these cases were rare, there were no commonalities identified. Bullying

Finally, in assessing the relationship between bullying and school shootings, there was an inferential association. Specifically, in eight (22%) of the incidents, it was discovered that the perpetrators had been victims of teasing or bullying by other students in the school. As not all victims of bullying resort to school shootings, one cannot conclude that bullying (regardless of the media attention) directly influences the incidents of school shootings. Although it is asserted by the media that the Columbine incident was largely the result of bullying, in the majority of the cases, shooters have not been identified as victims of bullies.

Columbine Revisited In considering the association between school experiences and delinquency, several characteristics are considered. Specifically, academic performance, school involvement, and attachment to school are considered to be influential factors in delinquency. Delinquents tend to have lower grades and score lower on standardized tests than their non-delinquent peers (Maguin & Loeber, 1996). In the case of Columbine, however, both Harris and Klebold had good grades and high test scores.



55

Delinquents are less likely to participate in school activities and extracurricular activities (Agnew & Petersen, 1989). Neither Harris nor Klebold participated in extracurricular activities. In fact, they were teased by many of their fellow students because they were considered outcasts for not participating in sports and related activities. Delinquents are more likely to dislike school and feel that attending school is simply an imposition (Agnew, 2001). Both Harris and Klebold viewed school as a waste of time and, as recorded in A&E’s (1996) Columbine: Understanding Why videotape, joked about their eventual graduation from Columbine High School as a “release” from their prison sentence. In attempting to equate school shootings or even school violence with Columbine, the task is difficult. Yet the media often does present Columbine as its illustration of school violence. The Columbine incident did occur in one of the more common regions of the country for a school shooting and it did occur within the most documented time period. Even so, other than the fact that both shooters were male, it is very atypical of a school shooting in America. The Columbine incident did not occur within a common month, its murders were extreme, and its perpetrators were older than most of the other perpetrators of a school shooting.

Conclusion In attempting to eliminate some of the necessary conditions that exist prior to a school shooting, this evaluation of 37 school shootings provides some insight. Specifically, although it is often with shock and dismay that school shootings are discussed, the regions of the country in which they take place should not come as a complete surprise. We find it hard to believe that a school shooting would take place in a small southern town of Arkansas or South Carolina, or that a shooting would take place in a mountainous suburb such as Littleton, Colorado, where Columbine High School is located. Yet these locations are in the Southeast and the


56

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

West, two regions that have consistently been identified as the most violent regions of the country. In regard to an increased number of school shootings in the mid- to late 1990s, again it should not be a surprise that juvenile involvement in violence also increased outside school during that time (Bynum & Thompson, 2002). As in most cases, one would think of juveniles as being in school, it would seem natural that their involvement in violence at school would increase as those not attending school would not be able to participate in violent activities. In addition, as with any “adult” crime, when media attention in increased, more of the same crimes occur; school shootings that receive much media coverage also fuel the flame for more school shootings. Finally, Columbine was not a “typical” school shooting.

Questions 1. In which regions of the country are school shootings (as defined in this chapter) most likely to occur? Why? 2. Within which months of the year are school shootings most likely to occur? Why? 3. How does the General Strain Theory provide some explanation for school shootings? 4. How does the term “copycat” apply to school shootings? 5. How is Columbine different from most school shootings? Questions for Thought

1. Are there measures that can be taken today to reduce the incidents of school shootings? 2. What can we learn from Columbine? 3. Does the media influence the public’s perception of school shootings? 4. Are there other ways to explain school shootings? 5. Why are females not involved in school shootings? Do you expect that to change?

one line short


CHAPTER

4

Gangs, Cliques, the Goths, Anime, and Legal Responses In the school environment, there is nothing more important to teens than fitting in and being accepted by their peers. As juveniles enter adolescence and young adulthood, the center of their socialization process is their peer group. Juveniles begin spending more time with their peers and less time with their families; therefore, it is understandable that attachment to and acceptance from their peer group is of the utmost importance (Warr, 1993). In fact, for many students, efforts to obtain and maintain acceptance by their peers constitutes a greater proportion of their day than efforts to advance academically. Plainly stated, for many, it is more important to be popular than to be smart. Research indicates that when teens compare their peer groups with a group in which they are not members, they consistently


58

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

favor the group in which they do not belong (Tarrant, 2002). The expression “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” appears to ring true in discussions of student groups and associations. Thus, the importance of not fitting in socially within the school setting cannot be disregarded. Students who are perceived as not a member of a favored group are much more likely to be labeled a rejected student and to be friendless (Lease & Axelrod, 2001). Students who do not fit in often are referred to as “losers,” “weird,” or “strange.” In these cases, the other students in the school environment do not want to be associated with a loser. Again and again in discussions of school violence, the subject of peer groups, specifically gangs and cliques in the school environment, has emerged. In addition, since the Columbine incident, one particular group, the Gothic culture or “Goths,” has become a topic of concern in the area of school violence. The Goths, although discussed in the literature on school violence, are simply a certain type of subgroup or gang; therefore, this chapter begins with a general discussion of gangs and the characteristics of gangs in the school environment. It must be acknowledged, however, that group associations and group interactions are all normal elements of the teen years and it is through these socializations that many teens gain the confidence and self-respect they need to live a happy and productive adult life.

Gangs The 1999 School Crime Supplement (hereafter SCS) reported that 17% of America’s students report the presence of street gangs at school. Although this number has been reduced from 28% of the students in 1995, the presence of street gangs at school is still a concern for parents, teachers, and students themselves. If gangs are present at school, and these gang members are perceived as threatening to other students and teachers, then a climate of fear and intimida-


GANGS AND LEGAL RESPONSES

59

tion is certainly possible (Kodluboy, 1997). Students cannot be expected to concentrate on their studies when they fear for their safety or even their lives. For clarity of definition, a gang is defined as a group of persons (three or more) assembled and acting or working together (Bynum & Thompson, 2002). For the purpose of this book, gangs are discussed in terms of violence as it is applied to the school environment and/or the threat of violence within the school setting. Much of the data suggests that gangs and gang memberships are more common today than they were in the last three decades (Curry & Decker, 1998). It has been suggested that this growth is a result of several factors, including intentional dispersion by gang members, social conditions, characteristics of families and communities, and the media. Howell (1998) has suggested that gang members move to new cities for the purpose of spreading gang activity. Blazak (1999) has suggested that even in middle-class families, as parents often spend many hours working to meet their monthly financial demands, that the accessibility to family and finances has been reduced. Thus, even students that appear to be at low risk for gang membership may join a gang for financial rewards or for simple attention. Finally, Klein (1995) has suggested that the media has contributed to the spread of gangs by glorifying the culture and introducing young people to the basics of gang behaviors. It should be acknowledged, however, that the propensity for gang membership has existed for years prior to the collection of information on the subject. Specifically, in Salinger’s (1951) book Catcher in the Rye, the main character, Holden Caulfield, displays feelings of indifference toward others, has a mocking perception of the adult world, and fails to achieve academic success. Finally, he is not accepted by the majority of his peers and, because of his desire to fit in, associates with peers with whom he does not share common interests; as a result, he may even become active in deviant actions. Today, one might perceive Holden as “at risk” for gang membership.


60

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Gangs pose a threat to the safety of our children (Stephens, 1997). Gang members endanger our children through violent activities, drug dealing, theft, and member recruitment. It should be acknowledged, however, that most violent gang activity occurs not on, but near, school property, and that most of the gang activities in the school setting are not only non-violent, but also non-criminal. Yet, unfortunately, as the media shows us, this is not always the case. Findings from the 1999 SCS report suggest that student characteristics are associated with not only membership in gangs, but also the reporting of gang activities. In particular, students’ awareness of gangs Approximately 200 people increases with age; the race or ethnicity of were in the school gymnastudents is also associated with gang sium Friday in Louisiana awareness (Cadwallader & Cairns, 2002). when four young men burst Specifically, older students and non-white in and began shooting. One (black and Hispanic) students are more male student was killed and likely to report gang presence in their three female students were schools. In Regulus’s (1994) study of gangs wounded. The student and the effect on student performance, it killed was also carrying a is suggested that gang activity is also rehandgun that apparently lated to the student characteristic of family had not been identified by the school’s metal detectors income. The 1999 SCS report supports the notion of increased gang activity among as he entered the building lower-income students in that schools that morning. Police are opwith students from lower socioeconomic erating under the opinion strata report the most gang-related incithat this shooting was probdents. Some researchers have suggested ably in retaliation to another shooting the previous that gang membership is more appealing to youths of lower socioeconomic status, week, which resulted in the while others have suggested that law enkilling of another young forcement efforts are more concentrated male (Foster, 2003). in the lower socioeconomic areas; thus, more gang activity is reported and recorded. Despite the reasons suggesting that gang activity is income-related, there are consistently more gangs identified within the lower socioeconomic schools.

GYM SHOOTING



61

In regard to school structure and gang activities, the relationship is significant. In addition, one cannot discount the association between guns and gangs. Specifically, students who know or see other students carrying a gun at school are more likely to report gang activity at school. This link supports the previous works of violence and gangs by Cornell and Looper (1998) and Huff and Trump (1996). In particular, where there are gangs, there is the potential for guns. Where there are guns, there is the potential for violence. If guns are present in schools, then violence is likely. Why Join?

Students join gangs for a variety of reasons. Some researchers suggest that gang membership is a way in which students who cannot achieve success in the legitimate world obtain success (Merton, 1938; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960). Other researchers have suggested that peer pressure (Sutherland, 1934) or the search for a male role model influence gang membership (Miller, 1958). Strain Theory

In Rober Merton’s (1938) examination of the societal structure of America, he suggests that material success is everyone’s major goal and that not obtaining that goal places strain upon the individual. Consequently, and simply stated, Merton’s Strain Theory asserts that individuals who are unable to obtain their material goals by legitimate means will seek illegitimate means to do so and thus avoid the strain of failure. In the school environment, where peer status is critical and often based upon obtaining the finest clothes, jewelry, and cars, those students within the lower socioeconomic strata, who fail to have the “necessary” accessories, will find themselves the targets of jokes, teasing, and isolation. For those students, the school year is an “unsuccessful” year. For those economically limited students, the possible gain of material goods through gang membership is an appealing option, as illegal gang activities may produce revenue


62

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

for its members. Young people who join gangs and participate in their illegal activities may acquire the money necessary to purchase their desired items or they may simply steal them as part of their gang activities (Zastrow, 1992). Unfortunately, in many cases the harm outweighs the benefits, as often in their attempts at economic prosperity, young people engaged in illegal activities end up in either the criminal justice system or the mortuary. Therefore, as suggested by Merton (1938), students who are unable to obtain material goods legitimately may utilize gangs and gang memberships to obtain those material goods illegitimately. Differential Association

One of the most popular interpersonal theories is Sutherland’s (1934) Differential Association (Matsueda, 1988). Under the theory of Differential Association, a person becomes delinquent when social conditions are more favorable to delinquency than to non-delinquency. Specifically, Differential Association is based upon nine propositions: (1) criminal behavior is learned; (2) criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication; (3) the principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups; (4) when criminal behavior is learned, it includes techniques of committing the crime; (5) the specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of legal codes that are favorable and unfavorable; (6) a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violations of the law; (7) differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity; (8) the process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns incorporates all the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning; and (9) although criminal behavior is an expression of needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values (Sutherland, 1934). As peer groups are a consistent presence in the school environment, Differential Association is often used to explain group behaviors in schools (Matsueda).



63

In the school environment, and especially in the gang environment, where there exists multiple opportunities for social interactions and social learning among students, criminal behavior and violence is easily learned. The expression “Birds of a feather flock together” describes the peer environment and its propensity to influence actions. Students who associate with groups or gangs engaging in deviant or criminal activities are more likely to participate in those activities (Yablonsky & Haskell, 1988). Historically, researchers have concentrated the application of Differential Association to male gang members; recently, as females have begun participating in violent activities, the application has been applied to female gang members as well (Decker, 2003). Evolution and Development

In Charles Darwin’s (1871) The Descent of Man and Sigmund Freud’s (1930) work on mental disorders, it is suggested that a person’s action might result from a lack of emotional development and the difference between societal needs and instinctive needs. Specifically, as all individuals have the instinctive need for food, shelter, and safety, those individuals without the development of rational thought may seek to satisfy these needs without any consciousness toward others. In light of this topic, gang membership may be more of a possibility for those individuals who are less emotionally developed. To further the discussion of gang membership and emotional development, Maslow (1987) has suggested that gang membership satisfies the five basic needs: (1) physiology (hunger, thirst, shelter); (2) safety; (3) social interaction; (4) esteem; and (5) self-actualization. Specifically, for many young people, gang membership provides them food, a place to stay, security, protection, an acceptance that they may not have received from their family, and the perceived ability to participate in something and do a good job. Many teens feel unsafe and fear being alone or singled out in an already hostile locality. By joining a gang, they


64

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

seek self-preservation (William Gladden Foundation, 1992). The notion of “safety in numbers” is supported with gang membership as groups of individuals rarely are targeted; individuals, however, often are targeted. Gangs provide their members an identity. With the exception of gang-on-gang violence, most violence is one-on-one and the individual is most often the victim of violence. The recognition by outsiders of an individual’s identification with a gang reduces his risk of victimization. In addition, gang membership may provide its members a feeling of elitism, something that they may have never experienced before. Of course, much of the sense of importance may come from the perceived sense of power that gang membership implies. As gangs tend to strike fear in people, membership may enhance the members’ feelings of self-respect and importance. Those feelings of importance or power may be manifested through different types of power. In addition to the political power or status that comes from gang membership, there is also an element of economic power that many gang members find appealing. As discussed, individuals may be able to acquire material possessions and even monetary rewards through gang membership that otherwise might not be available to them or others in their social strata (Bing, 1991). Thus, the immediate gratification and satisfaction of basic needs that often accompanies gang membership is appealing to certain individuals. Hate and Melancholy

Yet another (and often not acknowledged) reason for joining a gang is hate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 31% of the violent offenders of hate crimes are under the age of 18 (Strom, 2001). Thus, nearly one-third of those individuals targeting others because of a hatred toward a certain group or lifestyle spend most of their day in the school setting. Of those reported hate crimes, 12% occurred at school. Many individuals will participate in haterelated victimization in a group rather than alone; therefore, gang memberships facilitate these victimizations. Over 60% of hate crimes are motivated by racial bias and



65

13% by sexual-orientation bias. The school environment, which is filled with many types of students and diverse ideas, is a natural setting for a hate crime. Finally, there is the issue of school and gang violence in rural America. This may come as a surprise to many people, since rural areas are typically thought to be free of such problems. In fact, many of the same problems that exist in today’s urban schools also exist in rural and suburban schools. Among those problems are substance abuse, juvenile crime, promiscuity, suicide, and gangs (Helge, 1993). Compelling evidence has suggested that gang memberships and their associated problems are increasing at even greater rates in the non-urban setting (DeYoung, 1995; Swanson & Butler, 1988). Students feeling the sting of social and physical isolation in rural or small-town settings may in fact seek memberships in gangs as an acceptable avenue to social interactions (Waller, 1932). For young people attempting to escape the routine of day-to-day rural life, gang membership is thrilling. Similar to the allure of the young guns of the early West, gang membership, although perceived as dangerous, is also perceived as exciting and sexy. History and Risk

Gangs have existed in this world as long as people have existed. In Biblical accounts, gang members were often called robbers. During the 13th century, they were referred to as thugz (hence our modern word “thug”). In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries they were called pirates or outlaws. During the settling of the “Wild West,” the public and the American media were fascinated with accounts of Billy the Kid, Frank and Jesse James’s gang, and Ma Barker and her boys. During the 1900s, in the large cities of Chicago and New York, the phenomena of gangs and gangsters such as Al Capone or Scarface attracted widespread attention. In gangster accounts of the 1920s, these poor and simple young men became rich and powerful crime lords. In our country, the early gang members were the children of recently arrived poor, white immigrants.


66

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

With civil and racial issues exposed during the 1960s, minorities—in particular, African American males—became more involved in violent gang activities. In discussions of gangs today, two groups have popularized the phrase “street gang.” Those groups are the CRIPS and the BLOODS. The CRIPS, or Criminals Running in Packs, originated in Los Angeles in the late 1960s, supposedly at Fremont High School (Jackson & Knepper, 2003). The members of the CRIPS wore blue and their motto was “beat a person down before they beat you” (Jackson & Knepper). It is asserted that the CRIPS were started by a Los Angeles youth in 1969 who organized a gang called the Baby Avenues, a group that attempted to imitate an older member group in the area (GRIPE, 2003). Later, the Baby Avenues began using the name of Avenues Cribs. The Cribs wore blue scarves around their necks or heads; thus, blue became the representative color (GRIPE). In the early 1970s, CRIP became the name for the gang. The CRIPS are still an active street gang today and are found across the nation. There is 1990s documentation of the gang’s existence not only in California, but also in New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, Florida, and Pennsylvania (GRIPE). The BLOODS, or Black Lords of Our Destiny, also originated in Los Angeles in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but this group began on Piru Street (Jackson & Knepper, 2003). The members of the BLOODS wore red and believed in teaching their young recruits through the experience of battle (Jackson & Knepper). The formation of the BLOODS was essentially in reaction to the CRIPS. As the CRIPS were emerging, other gangs (many of them franchises of the CRIPS) began rivaling for territory or turf. Because of these rivals, several of the franchises joined forces as a gang collectively and termed the name BLOODS (GRIPE, 2003). The BLOODS, thought to be the more violent of the two gangs, are often the gang most targeted by law enforcement. The BLOODS are still an active street gang and also are found across the nation

one line short



67

in California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut (GRIPE). Risk Factors to Membership

Today, it is acknowledged that gang members tend to be poor and live in lower-income, urban communities (Agnew, 2001). Today, gang members are predominantly male, young, and members of a minority group. In fact, according to the 2001 National Youth Gang Survey, 49% of all gang members are Hispanic/Latino, 34% are African American, 10% are Caucasian, and 7% are Asian or some other ethnicity. Of course, the ethnicity of gang members varies with the locality. These gangs are commonly thought of as peer associations between youths of age 12 to 24, operating under a common identity or name, with the use of symbols in the styles of clothing, language, graffiti, and hand signals (Howell, 2003). In addition, today’s females, although not stereotypically considered gang members, also join gangs. Specifically, some estimates suggest that anywhere from 10% to 33% of all gang members are female (Thornberry, Krohm, Lizotte, Smith & Tobin, 2003; Esbensen & Deschenes, 1998; Bodinger-deUriarte, 1993). Although female gang members are less common, they still are a concern. Many female gang members engage in a range of delinquent acts, including theft, violence, and unprotected sexual intercourse (sometimes with HIV-positive partners) as part of their gang initiation. In general, risk factors for gang membership encompass all social backgrounds. Howell (2003) suggests that adolescent problems, such as exposure to serious violence, places a youth at risk for gang membership. Other factors include individual characteristics, family characteristics, and school experiences. In addition, drug use, peer associations, and disorganized neighborhoods in which large numbers of young people are in trouble also tend to increase a young person’s risk for gang membership (Hill, Lui & Hawkins, 2001).

one line short


68

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Female Gang Members

Female gang membership is a phenomenon that appears to be escalating significantly in the United States (Moore & Hagedorn 2001). Although in general female gang members commit crimes of violence less often than their male counterparts, they do engage in acts of violence more often than non-gang males or females (Moore & Hagedorn). Females join gangs for many of the same reasons that males join. Some researchers have suggested, however, that female gang membership also may be influenced by the female’s desire to escape abuse within the home (McCabe, 2003; Campbell, 1991). Through gang membership, the female, who has suffered victimization and forced submission in the home, gains the role of abuser or controller instead of victim. Two nationwide surveys of law enforcement agencies, conducted in 1996 and 1998, estimated that between 8 and 11% of all gang members were female (National Youth Gang Center, 2000). In some American cities, the percentage of crimes committed by female gang members has reached an estimated 38% (National Youth Gang Center). In small-town and rural communities, the recognition of female gangs continues to increase as female gang members are more likely to be identified in smaller cities and rural areas than in large metropolitan areas (National Youth Gang Center). For a female to become a gang member, there is an initiation process, as there is for males. In participating in this process of tests or rituals, females obtain membership. Some of these tests include carrying a weapon, committing property crimes, shooting people, and physically assaulting people. Another initiation, being “sexed in,” may be used by the gang (Walker, 2003). This may be voluntary or it may be rape. A new trend in being “sexed in” is called “rolling the dice,” in which the number on the dice determine the number of males with whom the new female member must have sex (Bynum & Thompson, 2002). The dangerousness of these activities and the engagement of the female in these activities support her “worthiness” to become a gang member.



69

Franchising

Another area of concern regarding the proliferation of gang activities in the United States involves the subject of franchising (Fagin, 1989). Franchising involves the purposive spread of gangs from large urban areas of the country to smaller and even rural areas. In many cases this process involves the exportation of drug-trafficking gang members to areas outside of the large urban areas to establish a foothold on the local drug market (Howell, 1998). For example, although the BLOODS and the CRIPS were gangs established in California, many other states report the presence of these gang members. One may suggest that just as the fast-food restaurant McDonald’s uses franchising to obtain a larger part of the market, so do gangs. Franchising provides new venue for potential profit for various criminal enterprises. Current gang members, relocated to new areas, attempt to recruit new members in those localities. As new gang members often are young teens, they are in the school setting. Not all franchises are planned, however. In fact, most research has suggested that franchising is quite accidental (Decker, 2003). Some gang franchises result through the simple migration of gang members from one area to another. A young teen who may have been in trouble within a city may be relocated to a grandmother’s or an other family member’s home in another region of the country. The migrating teen then becomes a resource in the new locality for gang membership. This seasoned young gang member, placed in a new location, recruits others in the new area for gang membership (Allendar, 2001). As the new area residents begin recognizing the colors and graffiti often associated with gang presence, they begin to become concerned about their perceived gang problem. Again, gangs are usually perceived as violent. Therefore, the concept of gang franchising provides one explanation to the perceived increase in incidents of violence within the school environment.


70

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Leaving the Gang

Although it is suggested in most of the literature on gangs that getting into a gang is easier than getting out, members can leave or disassociate themselves. Therefore, the media’s message that “the only way to leave a gang is by dying” is not always accurate, although some individuals have been killed as they attempted to leave a gang. Many individuals leave gang membership after a period of incarceration, and many leave simply because of a desire for a life change (such as marriage or children). Most gang members who leave the gang are able to lead productive lives. Many ex-members have their tattoos removed, obtain lawful employment, and become role models to their children in the prevention of violence. In some cases, however, leaving is difficult. Specifically, many gang members, when attempting to leave their gang, are forced to leave their schools, their communities, and their friends in order to begin a “new life” outside gang activities.

Gangs and School Crime It is impossible to accurately portray the amount of school crime by gang members. This is due in part because the incidents of school crime often are not tracked by perpetrator, but by offense. In other words, law enforcement will record an incident as a robbery, but will not record the incident as a gang-related robbery. In addition, without responsibility taken by the gang member to cite gang-related reasons for the incident, law enforcement officials are left trying to determine if the crime was a student-versus-student crime or a gang-member–versus-gang-member crime. In addition, not all gangs are alike and neither are their activities. Fagin (1989) describes four different types of gangs: (1) social; (2) party; (3) serious delinquent; and (4) organization. The social gang is one whose members engage in high rates of drug use and drug sales but little else (Fagin). The party gang member is one whose members engage in high



71

rates of drug use, but not drug sales (Fagin). The serious delinquent gang member engages in a wide range of serious and minor acts of delinquency, but rarely drugs (Fagin). The organization gang member is heavily involved in delinquency and drug sales (Fagin). Therefore, the most common types of gangs found in the setting of the school are the social gangs, the party gangs, and the serious delinquent gangs. Yet when identified and discussed through the media, the word “gang” implies violence. Whether the subject surfaces in the newspaper or in other forms of media, the association between guns and gang violence cannot be ignored. Specifically, the use of a firearm is a major variable in gang violence and gang members are much more likely to carry a gun than non-gang members. Despite the high profile of gangs in the media, relatively few young people join gangs (Bodinger-deUriarte, 1993). Those who do join, however, may contribute to violence and/or the threat of violence and victimization on school grounds. In fact, Gaustad (1991) has suggested that gang presence plays a significant role in the widespread increase of extreme violence in schools. In fact, it is suggested that 3–7% of gang members have carried a gun to school (Hoffman & Summers, 1996). Because gangs are organized groups, and because many do incorporate the use of drugs in their activities, their presence increases the likelihood of drugs on school properties (Trump, 1993). The presence of drugs, as is the case in adult criminal activity, increases the likelihood of violence and school violence. Finally, as gang members are involved in rule infractions and transferred from school to school, their gang memberships are acknowledged. Also, their recognition grows as non-gangaffected school officials begin to identify those newly arrived students who are gang members.

Cliques Despite efforts made over the last two decades by teachers and school administrators to not label or classify students


72

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

by common characteristics or perceptions of those common characteristics, grouping does occur. As social beings, students, like adults, will often group themselves in an effort to establish some sort of familiarity and common connection. This grouping is what is referred to in this section as a clique. Unfortunately, for many, clique memberships are often based upon inequality, racism, and sexism. As long as there are schools, there will be cliques. Cliques can be made up of “rich kids,” football players, cheerleaders, “nerds,” and so on. Therefore, despite efforts by school officials not to group students, the school environment is in fact one in which separatist grouping occurs (Crews & Counts, 1997). Cliques develop most often in the middle-school and high-school environments. Until the Columbine incident and the acknowledgement of the “Trench Coat Mafia,” of which Harris and Klebold were peripheral members, cliques were perceived as harmless to the school environment. It has always been known that cliques may be involved in bullying, hazing, or even physical attacks; those attacks usually target specific individuals, however. Since Columbine, which resulted in the mass murders of a variety of students (females, minorities, football stars, etc.), cliques have gained the attention of the media and the public alike. Today, we know more about cliques. In our society, clique members may be not only the perpetrators of a school shooting, but the targets as well. Cliques are the primary vehicles through which adolescents socialize (Brown, 1990). Cliques may also be the structures through which teens taunt and tease other non-clique members. For many students, membership is valued more for those outside a clique than for those within it (Brown). Teens want to be recognized as important and they want to be acknowledged as group members; thus, for those outside a clique, their perceived insignificance in the school environment is enforced. According to Wooden (1995), popular clique structures exist in every school. Those cliques include, but are not limited to:



1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

73

Jocks—males who participate in sports Cheerleaders—females with school spirit Drama Freaks—students who are engrossed in acting Sluts—females who wear provocative clothing Loners—students without peer groups

As in the adult world, the school environment supports a hierarchy. Often jocks and cheerleaders occupy the top positions. Drama freaks and those in other clubs occupy peripheral positions. Sluts are placed in the lower social positions. Loners (because of their perceived inability to exist within any clique) occupy the bottom. It is reasonable to expect that loners (such as Columbine’s Harris and Klebold) are often the targets of victimization by other clique members. Cliques can have an enormous emotional impact on young people, especially when they become a target of abuse by those cliques. Children can be subjected to ostracism by members of a clique or can be humiliated in front of their peers. For males, the experience often includes physical attacks or the threat of physical attacks. Females, on the other hand, are more likely the targets of verbal abuse. Some popular movies tend to portray cliques in their most negative form; Wishcraft, Heathers, The Breakfast Club, Carrie, and Lord of the Flies are all excellent examples. As with any organization, within most cliques there exists a hierarchy or a pecking order. The role of the leader is to exercise control over the other members. In many instances, as rivals compete for the leadership position, undermining other members of the clique becomes a vital component of the power play. Once the leadership position is attained, maintaining that position and maintaining status within the clique require measures that, in their extremes, are often violent (Adler, 1995). For males and females, attaining the leadership position is often achieved differently. Males often will gain status as a result of athletic prowess (Eder, 1985). Females often will gain status


74

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

CLIQUE MOVIES Wishcraft (2002) As a student in an American high school, Brett attempts to break down some social barriers as he is granted three wishes. One of the wishes includes aligning himself with one of his school’s most popular cliques, with the intent to capture the attention and affection of one of the cheerleaders. Within this popular clique, however, is a killer. Heathers (1989) Three of the four girls in one of the most popular high-school cliques are named Heather; the fourth is named Veronica. When Veronica suggests to a new male admirer that things would be better if Heather #1 were dead, she is killed. The Breakfast Club (1985) A diverse group of high school students spends a Saturday in detention, where the memberships in various cliques collide into both humor and hardship. Each member becomes aware of the others’ strengths and weaknesses. Each also attempts to outmaneuver the others in order to establish dominance and avoid confrontation with the clueless yet callous teacher. Carrie (1976) A social outcast in high school, Carrie becomes the butt of jokes and pranks from the more popular cliques. The final prank, on prom night, ignites her rage; she uses her telekinetic powers to seek revenge on her joking classmates. The proverbial bloodbath ensues. Lord of the Flies (1959) This is a classic tale of a group of young boys stranded on an island without adult supervision. In this story, the hierarchy of cliques emerges, as some become the abusers and others the abused. The story ultimately ends in tragedy and death. as a result of social success (Eder). Unfortunately, as females tend to rely on public opinion to maintain their hierarchy, the self-esteem of those females tends to be lower than the self-esteem of those females not involved in cliques (Eder). For males, as long as their physical strength is maintained, and as long as another male does



75

not challenge that strength, the leadership position is secure. For females, a breakup with a popular boyfriend also may end the leadership position. After Columbine, it was those individuals who were bullied into becoming loners who became the concern of officials wishing to address school violence. It must be acknowledged, however, that as is the case with most of the media’s focus on initiators of school violence, most cliques throughout America’s schools are non-violent.

The Gothic Culture With the mass shooting at Columbine and the labeling of Harris and Klebold as “Goth” kids, the Gothic culture has been brought to the forefront of American con- Everyone is dressed in versations on school violence. Yet little or black—velvet gowns, capes no empirical evidence exists that directly . . . skirts too short to measure. They dance next to a coflinks the Goths to school shootings. Historically, the Gothic culture or the fin. . . . Welcome to the lusty term “Goth” was used to refer mainly to underground of Goth[,] the uncivilized and uneducated during where vampires are in and the Middle Ages in Northwestern Europe. all things dark and dead are Today, we use the term “Goth” to refer to chic. . . . Goth has always been dark in mood . . . so those non-conforming youths who may dark, so morbid, that it seems or may not celebrate pagan religions. to derive pleasure from . . . itWith books such as Frankenstein, magaself (Friend, 1994). zines such as Ghostly, and movies such as The Matrix, Gothic culture has become a game of roleplaying, with infatuation growing among gangs of students. Although the Gothic culture is essentially nonviolent, the media quickly turns its attention to stories about the Gothic culture, especially when those stories involve violence. When asked to clarify the distinctions of the Gothic culture, many are left with only superficial accounts of the physical characteristics of the members. The Goths often wear heavy white facial makeup with black eyeliner and

THE GOTHS


76

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

lipstick. The members dress all in black, dye their hair black, blue, or pink, and wear silver jewelry and chains or restraints around their neck, waist, arms, and legs. Recently, some have begun to When Julia started dressing smoke clove cigarettes, engage in body in black at age 14, she had piercing and tattoos, and frequent coffee no idea [that] she’d end up shops. Some suggest that members of sacrificing a cat to the godthe Gothic culture demonstrate attachdess Bast in a cemetery at ments to cats. There are also those who night. . . . One of the boys suggest that the Goth look is simply a had a knife. . . . They pushed way of making themselves unique and the cat’s head down onto that most Goth members have, at one the blade . . . [and] particitime in their lives, been perceived as an pants filled vials with the outsider or teased about their appearcat’s blood and drank it ance or behaviors. Others also suggest (Richards, 1997). that Goth members at some time have been labeled by teachers and fellow students as strange or different (Trasler, 1978). Thus, the Goth look allows students to take control of their actions and their feelings of being excluded from other groups in the school environment. For most students, the Goth association is simply a means of identifying oneself as different and, for most Goths, their tendencies are toward non-violent, pacifistic, passive, and tolerant lifestyles.

JULIA AND GOTH

Anime Another popular trend in today’s schools is anime. This version of Asian culture takes its original form from a type of Japanese art that dates back as far as 900AD. Originally, it was viewed as Buddhist art that depicted scenes of life after death. Later, in the 16th century, silk-bound books were a popular form of entertainment among the rich, as these books depicted situations from daily life (Gaouette, 1999). Anime is short for the technique of creating animated cartoons using pencils and a springboard. Unlike western comics that target young teens and children, anime ac-



77

quires many audiences. The subjects of anime include comical daily life, perversions involving sex, images of violence, the fantasy world, paranormal phenomena, and death (Izawa, 2002). Imagine the Two juvenile boys were attention these comics receive when introruled not guilty of negligent duced to young people through their peers homicide . . . in the death of in a school setting. Imagine the fear these [their 14-year old friend] . . . comics instill in a parent who discovers who went into diabetic that the 13-year-old boy who sits by her shock and died during a daughter in math is reading stories about four-day Goth party. The violent sexual encounters. Students who party involved six to eight are testing boundaries and seeking the teens from [ages] 13 to 18 outrageous and unconventional will often who spent four days drinkseek out anime. ing alcohol, smoking mariIn the school environment, there are juana, and taking LSD. . . . numerous cliques that revolve specifically [The] two boys placed their around anime. One needs only to search friend [who was in a coma] the Internet to find thousands in exis- in a car in the garage . . . tence. As these comics include violence, where he apparently died demons, and the supernatural, they are (Rosebrock, 1997). naturally appealing to young people, and especially appealing to those young people who may not be members of a popular group at school. In many stories, the diminishing of good is a common theme. It is not unusual in these stories for the sources of good to be seen as arrogant; in fact, these sources often will resort to the use of violence to right the wrongs committed against them (Izawa, 2001). In many of these story lines, a quiet and unassertive anime character who has been the target of victimization by his peers will finally retaliate and dominate his abusers through violence to regain his power and self-respect. Although anime is most often viewed simply as a form of entertainment, there does exist the potential for it to become very influential to impressionable, vulnerable, and disengaged youth. Just as it is suggested that viewing violence on television increases one’s propensity toward violence, either by displaying violence as normal or by desensitizing the

DRUGS AND GOTH


78

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

audience to violence, one may make the association between anime and violence. Individuals exposed to the violence, especially young people who are most likely to be drawn to anime, may be more likely to accept violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution. Even so, as with other forms of media, there has yet to be a clear case made regarding anime and its direct effect on school violence.

Anti-Gang Responses In regard to the legal responses to school violence and group behaviors, the overwhelming majority is targeted toward gang violence. Specifically, most states have adopted “antigang” legislation that increases the penalty of criminal activity if it is linked to gang activity. Specifically, in California, carjacking is defined as “the felonious taking of a motor vehicle in the possession of another (California 215); however, if the person convicted of the act is thought to have . . . committed for the benefit of, or in association with, any criminal street gang, [they are then sentenced] to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment” (California 186.22(b)(4)). Also in California and other states, “participation in a criminal street gang . . . on or near school grounds” (California 186.22) is forbidden, with punishments of up to three years in the state prison. Schools also have adopted rules of conduct to include dress codes, attendance, and policies of early dismissal during the school day (Gaustad, 1991; Kodluboy & Evenrud, 1993). Specifically, many schools in America now forbid the wearing of gang clothing or jewelry and have strict policies regarding attendance, truancy, and late arrivals and early departures from school (Meeks & Heit, 1995). Also, gang graffiti and gang hand symbols are forbidden on most school properties. Finally, it is acknowledged by many in the area of gang and school violence prevention that unless the community is involved, schools can do little to reduce violence (Boyle, 1992; Harper, 1989). In fact, without the community, vio-

one line short



79

lence prevention is simply left up to the students, who may not be in the best position to do much about school violence. Nationally, three such efforts, which require participation from various local communities, are outreach programs, the National Youth Gang Center, and school-based programs. Specifically, through the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, gang prevention through outreach programs has been implemented in local communities (Burch & Chemers, 1997). In these programs, at-risk youths are offered educational and recreational activities aimed not only at increasing their academic and athletic abilities, but also their selfconfidence and self-esteem so that they will be able to resist the temptation of gang membership. In another effort, the National Youth Gang Center was established in 1995 by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to collect statistical data across the nation on gangs and criminal gang activities. Finally, multicultural student programs are now being offered in many schools across the nation that use culturallysensitive teaching styles in attempts to reach and educate bicultural students (Banks, 1994). It is widely believed that success in school reduces a student’s likelihood of joining a gang. By providing at-risk students with extra help, they may be less likely to join a gang or become involved in violence at school.

Conclusion In the school environment, students group themselves by individual characteristics such as athletic ability, academic performance, and socioeconomic status. These groupings, however, may not be beneficial to the learning environment. It is acknowledged that the majority of the groups that exist within the school setting today are non-violent, but it is not always the case. Some groups physically victimize students who are not members of their groups and some groups emotionally victimize other students.

one line short


80

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

In many areas of prevention, the first step is to identify the source of the problem. As groups (gangs, cliques, subgroups, etc.) may be the perpetrators of violence or the targets of violence, the identification of these groups is a necessary component to reducing school violence.

Questions 1. What are three theoretical explanations for gang membership? 2. What does the term “franchising” mean and how is it applied to gangs within the school environment? Are all franchises planned? 3. What is a clique and have cliques always existed in the school environment? 4. What is the Gothic culture and why, since Columbine, do many people fear Goths in the school environment? 5. What is anime and is it dangerous or violent? Questions for Thought

1. Can we rename the majority of the incidents of school violence as gang-related violence? Why or why not? 2. Why may gang membership be more important to females than males? Are all gang memberships harmful? 3. How have movies influenced our perceptions of cliques and gangs and their association with violence? 4. Why would someone seek membership in the Gothic culture? 5. Is the use of anime fueling violence in the schools or does violence in the school fuel anime?


CHAPTER

5

Warning Signs, Pre-Incident Indicators of Columbine, and Teachers’ Perceptions In nearly every case of a school shooting, the public, students, and school officials are surprised and shocked that the incident occurred. Afterward, there are many individuals who proclaim that there were no warning signs before the incident; therefore, the shooting must have been some sort of random phenomenon or the shooter must have simply ‘snapped’ and had a mental breakdown. After time has passed, however, and people are later asked about the shooting, many observers will acknowledge that there were warning signs and/or pre-incident indicators and that the individual’s behavior actually was no surprise (Gullotta & McElhaney, 1999).

one line short


82

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

For clarity in this chapter, warning signs are defined as general characteristics that suggest that the school environment is at risk for violence. Pre-incident indicators are defined as specific events that occur prior to a particular incident of violence in the school setting. This chapter will provide information on school violence in terms of warning signs, a discussion of the pre-incident indicators that existed with Columbine, and teachers’ perceptions of school violence.

Warning Signs In attempting to review the literature on the causes of school violence, eight individual variables or warning signs are consistently identified (Welsh, 2000; Kingery, Coggeshall & Alford, 1999; Thomas, 2000). Those eight warning signs are: (1) a history of poor academic achievement; (2) disciplinary problems at school; (3) difficulties with social skills and peers; (4) a history of violence toward peers; (5) a view of aggressive behavior as normal and acceptable; (6) involvement with alcohol and/or drugs; (7) access to firearms; and (8) a history of family problems such as rejection, violence, and/or a lack of supervision. Poor Academic Achievement

Most often, one of the first identified warning signs of school violence and even juvenile delinquency is poor academic achievement (Bartollas, 2000). Students involved in delinquency and incidents of school violence tend to have lower grades, tend to score lower on standardized tests, and are more likely to be placed in non-college tracks (Agnew, 2001). These students, who may perceive themselves as failures in the school environment, may seek some notoriety or recognition through non-academic avenues. If the students are not participants in sports or other non-academic activities, they sometimes perpetrate an incident of school violence in order to be noticed.


WARNING SIGNS AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS

83

Disciplinary Problems

Students involved in incidents of school violence are most often involved in school disciplinary actions (Welsh, 2000). These students are more likely to cut classes, skip school altogether, and violate school policies (Barkan, 2001). In any relationship, time spent with a particular environment increases one’s integration into that culture. Students who have distanced themselves from the school environment do not feel close to it; therefore, they are more likely to react either neutrally or negatively to the environment (Hirschi, 1979). Difficulties with Peers

In any human environment, there exists the potential for conflict (Gullotta & McElhaney, 1999). Students who are more likely to be perpetrators of incidents of severe school violence are also more likely to have difficulties in their peer relationships. These students are often the loners of the school, the students with few, if any, friends. It has even been asserted that because of the lack of friends, many perpetrators commit acts of violence for attention (Shaver, 1985). In addition, it is asserted that without feelings of attachment toward a person, it is easier to victimize that person (McCabe, 2003). History of Peer Violence

Perrone (1999) has suggested that adults often have trouble controlling their emotions; therefore, it appears reasonable that young people would also have trouble controlling their emotions. Specifically, in the school setting, students display rage and actions of violence in terms of physical assaults (Garrett, 2001). A school shooting may be perceived as evidence of an extreme form of rage. Aggression Is Normal

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (1990) has suggested that there are major


84

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

concerns regarding the effect of television violence on young children. Specifically, they suggest that children who view violence become less sensitive to the pain of others and are more likely to view violence as normal (NAEYC). The FBI supports these suggestions that children at risk for committing acts of school violence are usually fascinated with aggression and violence (Thomas, 2000). In addition, for many of the students at risk for acts of school violence, the media portrays firearms use as an acceptable and reasonable means through which to resolve conflict (Derksen & Strasburger, 1996). Therefore, if aggressive behavior is portrayed as reasonable by television and movies, students may perceive it as acceptable and reasonable in school. Involvement with Alcohol and/or Drugs

A young person’s involvement with alcohol and/or drugs is a significant factor in incidents of school violence as these vices drastically affect the youth’s behavior (Garrett, 1999). Alcohol and drugs affect the nervous system and the brain, so it is reasonable to assume that students partaking in alcohol and/or drugs may exhibit uncharacteristic behavior. Through alcohol and/or drugs, shy introverts may become bold perpetrators of violent acts. Access to Firearms

Access to firearms influences patterns of violence across all socioeconomic strata as the availability of firearms increases the risk of severe violence (Cohen & Felson, 1979). In both the Columbine case and the school shooting case of Kip Kinkel (May 21, 1998), the shooters had access to firearms. Just as the regions of the country with a high proportion of gun owners report higher rates of firearms violence (Barkan, 2001), access to firearms by young people increases their likelihood of committing violence with a firearm. History of Family Problems

As suggested by the cycle of violence, family violence breeds violence (Bartollas, 2000; Isaac, 1997). Perpetrators



85

KIP KINKEL (AGE 15) On May 20, 1998, Kip Kinkel (Oregon) killed both of his parents with a firearm. The next day (May 21), he continued his killing spree at his high school; two students were killed and 25 others injured. Pre-incident indicators of this case included violent writings, a fascination with weapons and explosives, cruelty to animals, difficulties with academics, a history of mental-health treatment, and the ownership of a gun (which his father purchased for him). (PBS, 2000) of violence also may be the victims of abuse in the home (Duncan, 1999). It also has been suggested that without adult supervision and clear directives of right versus wrong, young people will drift into trouble (Garrett, 1999). At the extreme end of “trouble” is school violence. It has been acknowledged that both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had the potential for much parent-child interaction, as both of their mothers were “stay-at-home moms.” In later examinations of Dylan Klebold’s home, however, it was determined that Klebold had his own suite/apartment in the house with a separate outside entrance, television, and refrigerator. Thus, it has been suggested that little in terms of parental supervision occurred.

Columbine’s Pre-Incident Indicators After the school shooting at Columbine High School, there were many pre-incident indicators recognized as clear signs of potential violence. Specifically, Eric Harris’s girlfriend had, a few months prior to the shootings, ended their relationship. Harris had a history of being teased and bullied by his peers, had developed a disliking for school, and had few friends. In addition, Harris, who fancied himself a videographer, desired attention. Harris had limited family interaction and had, within the previous year, been arrested and convicted of breaking into an electrician’s van. Harris was fascinated with guns, bombs, and media violence. Prior to


86

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

the Columbine attack, he had submitted a story about violence to his English teacher and had discussed a recent “dream” with his psychology classmates that entailed him shooting and killing his fellow students. Finally, days before the Columbine massacre, Harris, who had planned a career in the military, was rejected by the Marines. Dylan Klebold, also who had been the target of bullies, began to dislike school, and had few friends. Klebold experienced limited family time, had been convicted (with Harris) of breaking and entering, and was fascinated with guns, bombs, and media violence. In the school environment, as in most environments where people interact, threats occur. There are different categories of threats, all of which exist in schools. Specifically, threats may be: (1) direct; (2) conditional; (3) inferred; or (4) third-party. Direct threats require an explicit one-to-one relationship between the student being threatened and the student doing the threatening. Direct threats may be in the form of bullying or, as seen in the school environment, often between two students over a soured relationship. Conditional threats, also often found in conjunction with dating relationships, may be illustrated in the comment “If you call her again, I’ll kick your ----.” In a conditional threat, the target of the threat is given the option of choosing more severe violence based upon future actions. Inferred threats are founded within the context of a group or gang rival in that as one of the members of a group feels threatened by a rival group member the other members assume the threat also to be against them. Inferred threats also can manifest themselves in the form of violent writings. Although not recognized at the time, Eric Harris had made at least two inferential threats within the context of his English and psychology classes. Finally, and also common in the school setting, are thirdparty threats. With cliques and gossip rampant in the school setting, the “he said if you ever—” conversations are certain to take place as teens interact on a daily basis. In the school environment, where peer respect is covenanted, one can-



87

not discount the effect of third-party threats as often the perpetrators of violence will follow through on another’s threat in order to remain in good standing with their peers.

Teachers’ Perceptions To discover how children behave outside the view of their parents, one must simply ask their teachers. Teachers, who are the authoritarian role models for children for nine months a year, can add much to the information of school violence if asked. Teachers occupy the most likely position to identify school violence, potentially violent students, and students most at risk for victimization. In a nutshell, every teacher can tell which students are likely to cause trouble and often when violence occurs on the schoolground, the teachers are not surprised to learn who the perpetrators are (La Fee, 2000). According to the 2002 School Crime and Safety (SCS) report, 10% of all U.S. public schools have reported at least one serious violent crime committed by a student to law enforcement officials within the last year. From 1996 to 2000, teachers were the victims of over 1.5 million non-fatal crimes, which included approximately 600,000 violent crimes (SCS, 2002). Therefore, when asked to discuss their perceptions on school violence, the majority of U.S. teachers are not neutral on the subject. In today’s classroom, teachers assume the roles of police officer, therapist, and baby sitter (Marcus, 1994). However, for teachers to attempt to establish some sort of checklist of warning signs for a student at risk for committing acts of violence, is not only short-sighted, but also dangerous in that students who are not dangerous may be falsely labeled as dangerous to those in the school environment (O’Toole, 2000). Although teachers and principals are in the unique position to speak out against violence (Aleem & Moles, 1993), many will not for fear of their own safety. Students who become involved in delinquent activities are more likely to report that they dislike their teachers


88

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

TOM, AN ADMINISTRATOR As an administrator in an urban public school in Virginia, Tom had a number of disturbing incidents over the course of a few years. In one situation, an emotionally disturbed student had compiled a “hit list” of students in much the same way that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had compiled at Columbine High School. According to the student’s documented plan, which was reported to Tom by another student, the student would pull the fire alarm (like the case in Jonesboro, Arkansas) and shoot her victims as they exited the school. Also described in the student’s notes was a plan to “smuggle” in a kitchen butcher knife to be used during the incident. In another incident at the same school, a student who was in the physical education class and practicing wrestling maneuvers had a 9mm. semi-automatic handgun drop from his gym shorts. Both situations were handled quickly and quietly, as the school system did not want parents or the media notified. (Agnew, 1985). Yet the damage from dangerous students is not measured simply in the battering of teachers or other students, but in the under-education of the remaining students as well (Marcus, 1994). Teachers have acknowledged that students who engage in violent writings or drawings that threaten violence to others, who have experienced a recent relationship break, and who have begun to isolate themselves socially from others are at risk for actions of violence (Dwyer, Osher & Warger, 1998). Teachers often are encouraged to ignore these signs, however, and to keep violent incidents quiet (Marcus, 1994). Today, many teachers are forced to accommodate too many students in an environment that they believe to be unsafe without training in violence prevention. Before expecting to help students feel safe, teachers must feel safe themselves.

Conclusion In the school environment, just as in any other type of environment, there are warning signs of violence. Fortunately, for many parents and students, the rates of school violence have decreased over the years. Incidents that do occur can-



89

not be ignored, however. In most cases, the people in some of the best positions to recognize signs of potential violence are the people within the environment or the teachers. Teachers, for the most part, know their students and know their students’ propensity toward violence. In the case of Columbine, as with any incidents of school shootings, there were many pre-incident indicators. There are many sources of violence within the school environment and many characteristics of the potentially violent. By educating and training teachers and students on the warning factors of violence, one may reduce incidents of school violence. By relying less on media portrayals of school violence and relying more on official information on the subject, one may really begin to address the issue of school violence.

Questions 1. What are the potential sources of violence in the school environment? 2. How does one differentiate between a warning sign and a pre-incident indicator? 3. What are some characteristics of potentially violent students? 4. Was Columbine really a surprise? Why or why not? 5. How has the teacher’s role changed over the last few decades? Questions for Thought

1. Are most of the incidents of school violence predictable or are they simply random events? 2. Are teachers the best source for information on students? Who else might be? 3. Does the family structure facilitate school violence? 4. Who would you consider to be the leader in the Columbine school shooting, Harris or Klebold? Why? 5. How can teachers reduce the incidents of school violence?


CHAPTER

6

Controlling the School Environment: Criminal Justice Responses Just as September 11, 2001, will always be remembered in U.S. history as the day that our nation’s vulnerabilities to terrorism were exposed, Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, had the effect of exposing the American people to our vulnerabilities to school violence. Most Americans will never forget the tragedies of 9/11 or of Columbine and the fears that they produced. Common to both events was the reactive outpouring of emotion and strategies to ensure that these events are never repeated. Based upon the U.S. Department of Education’s 1998 Annual Report on School Safety, and despite media accounts, there has been a decline in school crime and a reduction in the number of guns brought to school over the last several


CONTROLLING THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

91

years. In fact, there is still less than a one in a million chance of a school-related death. Regardless of the statistics and whether the incidents are increasing or decreasing, school violence is a concern of the American population and it is a concern that demands attention. The school, with its overwhelming population of women and children, multiple ways to enter from the outside, limited access to weapons for protection, and visitors expected on a daily basis, may be perceived by many as an easy target for violence. Of course, one of the first challenges in addressing any social action is defining the action. One of the first challenges in reducing the incidents of school violence has been defining the term “school violence.” To address that challenge, many of the Centers across the nation that have been established to combat violence within schools have suggested that school violence is any behavior that violates a school’s mission (NCDJJDP, 2002). Therefore, the definition is not limited to murders or rapes, but also includes verbal threats and intimidation. It has been recognized, by many of the individuals who have researched the after-effects of Columbine, that today the American public is more likely to look beyond the individuals who directly cause an event and also to assign blame to those who may indirectly cause an event (Lickel, Schmader & Hamilton, 2003). From a theoretical perspective, Hirschi’s Control Theory may aid in the explanations of school violence. Historically, criminologists have been interested in the issue of control as an explanation for criminal behavior and as early as the 1940s and again in the 1970s theories of social control were offered as explanations as to why more crime did not exist (Nye, 1958; Toby, 1957). Nye (1958) suggested that social control could be maintained by direct control with physical punishments imposed, by indirect control with the possible disappointments of others imposed, and by internal controls by a sense of guilt. However, in his book Causes of Delinquency (1969), Hirschi offered a version of Control Theory, which is most popular today,


92

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

which empirically tested explanations as to why more people did not commit crimes. Whereas most theories of crime attempt to explain criminal behavior, control theorists attempt to explain the absence of criminal behavior. As Hirschi inferred that by nature humans were evil and prone to criminal activity, he suggested that there must exist elements of social bond that prohibit an individual from committing acts of delinquency or crime. In effect, Hirschi (1969) specified four elements of social bond to be directly related to an individual’s propensity to commit crimes. Those four elements were: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief (Hirschi). Attachment refers to an individual’s sensitivity to the feelings of others (Hirschi, 1969). A student who does not enjoy the company of his peers or a student who develops a disliking to his peers will not have strong feelings of attachment; therefore, he may be more likely to commit acts of violence against those peers. Hirschi (1969) refers to the second element of social bond as commitment and suggests that individuals demonstrate commitment to a society by conforming to the rules of the society. A student who supports a violence-free school environment is less likely to behave violently within the school. Involvement suggests opportunity for social bond (Curran & Renzetti, 2001). Hirschi (1969) suggests that if people are involved in the daily activities of their society, they will not have the opportunity for delinquency. A student who is involved in studying, athletics, and socializing,will not have the time or opportunity for violence. Finally, belief is the fourth element of Hirschi’s (1969) social bond. Belief refers to the extent to which the individual believes that he should obey the rules of a society. A student who does not support the rules of the school may be more inclined to break those rules, especially if the rules prohibit violence. These elements of social bond and control are often the foundation for many of the reactive and proactive measures taken by today’s criminal justice agencies to re-



93

duce school violence. These elements of social bond were also found to be lacking in the relationships that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had with Columbine High School.

Criminal Justice Responses In our society, the effectiveness of most prevention initiatives is increased with the support of legal policies. In reducing incidents of school violence or youth violence, public policy supports the efforts of law enforcement and the criminal justice community. Today’s reactive measures are in terms of legislation, policies such as zero tolerance, and police presence and training. Legislation

In discussing federal and state laws focused on preventing school violence, it must be acknowledged that most of the legislation was not initiated until the mid-1980s and that by the mid-1990s, most of the major federal efforts were enacted. In 1985, New Jersey v. T.L.O., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school officials do not need a warrant to conduct a student search. In fact, based upon this case, all that is required to conduct a search of a student’s property or person on school grounds is reasonable cause. In 1990, the Gun Free School Zones Act prohibits the possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone and within 1,000 feet from the grounds of the school. Although invalidated in 1995 by the case U.S. v. Lopez, this act was the foundation for many of the state and federally sponsored efforts that followed. In 1994, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Community Act required that the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) collect data to determine the severity and frequency of incidents of violence in elementary and secondary schools across the country. It was thought that by defining and tracking these incidents, law enforcement and other public officials would be better able to combat the problem.


94

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Also in 1994, to address violence in the classroom, President Clinton signed the 1994 Gun-Free School Act, which mandated a one-year expulsion for students who bring weapons to school. In an effort to reduce the weapons policy of “zero tolerance,” this act specifically targeted injurious weapons such as knives and firearms. States further extended zero tolerance to drugs in cases such as Veronia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) where the Supreme Court held that a school’s policy of random drug testing for athletes was not unconstitutional and that there would be no tolerance for drug use in schools. Zero Tolerance

The term “zero tolerance” refers to a widely accepted and enforced policy imposed upon U.S. schools in which students are notified prior to entering the school that there will be no acceptance of violence in terms of behaviors, weapons, or drugs within the school environment. Initiated in the latter part of the 20th century in reaction to the documented sudden increase in incidents of violence within schools, the policy of zero tolerance has been the topic of numerous debates on its effectiveness in reducing or controlling violence within schools (Blair, 1999; Kingery, Coggeshall & Alford, 1999). For some, zero tolerance is perceived as an effective method for reducing incidents of school violence; for others it is a policy based upon fear, frustration, and the perception that the U.S. has been “soft” on crime (Noguera, 1995). Zero tolerance is a prevention strategy based upon theories of delinquency and the result of our country’s history to endure harsher punishments for juveniles in an effort to deter crime (Casella, 2001; Gluckman, 1996). From the Classical “Free Will” Perspective, which was reintroduced in the 1960s under the philosophy of Rational Choice Theory, crime will occur when the individual decides, after weighing the costs and benefits of the action, that the benefits of illegal activities outweigh the costs. Criminals, who are rational thinkers, use this process of rational thought to maximize



95

their benefits. Under this philosophy of a rational thought process for those who commit crimes, with strict punishments for violating policies of zero tolerance, students are less likely to commit those crimes of violence. With a policy such as zero tolerance, any infraction of a school’s policy warrants action (Schwartz, 1996). For most students, that action is either suspension or expulsion. Zero tolerance places the blame for infractions of the policy on the youth who choose to commit the prohibited action (Casella, 2001), and, in practice, the overwhelming violators of the policy are young minorities from lower socio-economic areas (Tonry, 1995). Police Presence, Security, and Training

As suggested in Chapter 5, there are several risk factors that have been identified in relation to incidents of school violence. For criminal justice agencies attempting to combat the incidents of violence within the school environment, one of those risk factors is a disciplinary infraction, which helps to identify those individuals most likely to perpetrate an incident of violence within a school. As law enforcement officials become aware of those individuals identified as discipline problems within the school environment, they are better able to monitor them. As law enforcement officers become aware of those individuals meeting the other risk factors, they may become aware of those individuals’ actions. Today, in reaction to incidents of school violence and the public’s fear of the victimization of children while attending school, it is rare to find a high school that does not have its own law enforcement officer or School Resource Officers (SROs) monitoring the student body. In fact, many parents regard police presence in the school as an appropriate means by which to reduce violence. Initiated in the 1980s through the DARE program or Drug Awareness and Resistance Education, the presence of law enforcement officers within the school environment has become common. These SROs, who are employed by local police agencies, serve not only their agencies but also the school system by


96

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

promoting the visibility of law enforcement and suggesting that law enforcement officers deter incidents of violence. Also present in schools today, and in direct response to incidents of violence, are school security measures beyond police presence. Metal detectors, random searches, drug screeners, and the presence of non-law enforcement criminal justice officials such as probation officers are visible in schools today. Just as security has increased in U.S. airports following 9/11 and the majority of U.S. travelers have accepted the measures as means by which to reduce terrorist attacks, parents, students, and school personnel have accepted these measures as means by which to reduce the incidents of severe school violence. Finally, another avenue of response by criminal justice agencies in response to school violence is in the area of police training or crisis training. Since the inception of the various federal and state agencies targeting violence in the schools, there have been consistent efforts made to train law enforcement in the area of combating violence. Whether it be adjustments made in training procedures such as entering a building or policies of radio communications, there are nationally accrediting agencies that mandate that all accredited law enforcement agencies have in effect a policy to address standards of crisis training (McCabe & Fajardo, 2001). Law enforcement learned from Columbine that emergency services need to be centralized, that current blueprints for schools must be available, and that multi-jurisdictional police efforts require compatible radio communications. Most accredited law enforcement agencies now have policies that reflect those limitations (McCabe & Fajardo). Unfortunately, those measures were not present at Columbine, and when one of the responding law enforcement officers was dispatched to the location of the cafeteria, the officer, unaware of the fact that the cafeteria had recently been relocated to the other end of the school, drove to the location of the old cafeteria and then was relocated to the site of the current cafeteria.



97

Proactive Approaches to Reduce Violence

Included in the proactive approaches to reduce incidents of school violence are some of the reactive approaches to reduce violence. Specifically, in attempting to deter violence within the school environment, schools and criminal justice agencies have supported school safety policies, counselor involvement, and prevention programs such as anti-gang prevention programs. School Safety Policies

The recognized institutionalization of policies regarding school safety demonstrates a dedication to the subject. Although zero tolerance was originally designed to prohibit weapons, it is now being adopted to address a wide range of behaviors, including violence toward teachers and dress regulation (Schwartz, 1996). Zero tolerance in the area of violence toward teachers not only helps to support the missions of most schools to maintain a safe learning environment, but it also provides teachers the opportunities (as discussed in Chapter 5) to focus their efforts on teaching without the fear of victimization. In regard to dress codes, zero tolerance in the area of dress codes forbids clothing that may be too revealing or associated with gang memberships; in that case it may also contribute to the reduced likelihood of gang violence within the school setting (Schwartz, 1996). Counselor Involvement

Criminal justice practitioners will acknowledge that when it comes to reducing any sort of victimization or acts of delinquency that involve young people, there must be more proponents than simply law enforcement and court personnel (McCabe, 2003). Academics also will recognize that in reducing youth violence, there is a need for a systematic approach with collaborative actions involving schools, families, and communities (Haynes, 1996). By involving


98

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

teachers, and school counselors in particular, criminal justice efforts are more likely to succeed. As discussed in Chapter 5, teachers occupy unique positions that enable them to recognize the risk factors for violence and victimization within their students. However, the role and power of the school counselor should not be minimized. Counselors, because of their positions within the school and the community, are wonderful sources of outreach for criminal justice personnel. A counselor may gauge the student’s potential for violence as well as help to implement various programs of anti-violence (Smaby & Daugherty, 1995). Counselors, with the help of criminal justice practitioners may be trained in identifying and diffusing situations of violence as well as conflict resolution (Morley & Rossman, 1996). Finally, counselors may not only offer students help with the academic side of their lives, but also lend a sympathetic ear to the student discussing the stresses or problems of his/her life, and provide a source and referral for additional counseling outside of the school (Ascher, 1994). Prevention Programs

Finally, prevention programs are another way to proactively reduce the incidents of school violence. There are prevention programs that exist and are implemented in the elementary school environment to educate young people in the areas of drugs (the DARE program), impulse control, and anger management (Schwartz, 1996). Even more than violence prevention, there also are antigang programs such as GREAT (Gang Resistance Education and Training) that involve criminal justice and school officials in educating students on the dangers of gangs, the recognition of gangs, and the penalties associated with gang membership and activities. For many of the GREAT programs, one focus is on attempting to engage gang members into school-related activities such as clubs or sports (Linquanti & Berliner, 1994); thus, by providing students an opportunity to succeed at something other than gang activi-



99

ties, they provide them another avenue for success (Lal, Lal & Achilles, 1993).

Evaluations of Responses Legislation

Although formal laws and social policies prohibiting school violence are necessary, they are merely the means through which law enforcement officials may enforce the conduct of non-violence within a school environment. Legislation is certainly not the solution to violence. Under the assumption of general deterrence, it is suggested that rational-thinking offenders will weigh the costs and benefits of an action and, if the cost of the action is too great, they will choose not to act (Barkan, 2001). Even so, with the exception of a few school shooters such as those at Columbine, often there is little planning or rational thought prior to an action. Hence, the effect of legislation, although necessary, is limited in the prevention of school violence. Zero Tolerance

As the evidence of zero tolerance evaluations conflicts in support of the effectiveness of zero tolerance policies, one suggests that they continue to be enforced due to their winwin outcomes for adults. Law enforcement, by making arrests, are commended, and school administrators, by not allowing such behaviors, are admired (Schwartz,1996). Simply stated, if the rates of school violence decrease after the implementation of a zero tolerance policy, then it works; if the incidents increase, then the students are simply more violent. Thus, zero tolerance is an appealing policy in the eyes of public officials for reducing school violence. Yet there is little, in terms of empirical evidence, to suggest that zero tolerance reduces school violence. In fact, it is suggested that schools with policies of zero tolerance also have high dropout rates and, as there exists a strong relationship between school failure and delinquency, it is suggested that


100

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

zero tolerance (although it may help to remove “troubled” teens from the school) is related to increases in juvenile delinquency (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack & Rock, 1986). Police Presence, Security, and Training

In regard to School Resource Officers (SROs), there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that a SRO in the school will reduce violence (Mayer & Leone, 1999). It certainly was not the fact that the school officer at Columbine deterred that incident. It is acknowledged, however, that few people (including teens) will commit crimes within the visibility of a law enforcement officer (Agnew, 2001). In regard to metal detectors, research has suggested that they do reduce the likelihood of guns in schools (CDC, 1993). It is also suggested, though, that schools that use metal detectors also report higher rates of fear in their students (Juvonen, 2001; Skiba & Peterson, 2000). There also is little information to suggest that random searches, drug screens, and the presence of non-law enforcement criminal justice officials in the schools reduce the incidents of school violence. Finally, police are now being trained for crises such as school shootings (McCabe & Fajardo, 2001). But as these training sessions are utilized to end crises, there is little to suggest that the training prevents incidents of school violence. Counselor Involvement

It is suggested that formal school-wide programs can reduce school victimization by 50% (Stroker & Bonds, 2000). Most schools, however, with pressures to score high on standardized tests and to reduce class size, will choose to be understaffed with school counselors in lieu of hiring more teachers (Cornell, 2001). Therefore, without counselor involvement or counselor presence, these programs are severely limited. Prevention Programs

Short-term outcomes of prevention programs reveal positive results in the area of school violence prevention (Farrell

one line short



101

& Meyer, 1997). Even so, as prevention programs are relatively new, there is a lack of long-term program evaluations. On the surface, it appears as though programs that address self-esteem and anti-violent solutions to conflict may be the best solution to school violence (Agnew, 2001).

Conclusion September 11 and the mass murders of Columbine are probably two of the most significant traumatic events for young people today. Both events will be remembered forever. Yet when asked about their current concerns, many young people will state that the fear of school violence is much more real and an issue of concern for them as a whole. Over the last two decades, criminal justice officials and education personnel have maintained constant efforts to reduce the incidents of violence in schools, and, in part, their efforts have been successful. Today, criminal justice practitioners address school violence with not only the reactive efforts most often present in police work, but also the proactive efforts of education and observation. In today’s society, most of the information on subjects that people learn (beyond experience) is through some form of mass media. The subject of school violence is no different. The media has suggested that school violence is a very real and very common occurrence; however, there are those in the school and criminal justice environment who disagree. By and large, the media equates school violence with Columbine. Again, there are those who disagree. There are those who argue that as school sizes grow, incidents of violence will increase. There are those who suggest that police presence reduces violence. Regardless of the opinions on the causes of school violence and media portrayals of school violence, it will continue to be a topic of concern for the American population. Through information and education, not the sensationalism of the mass media, we may begin to address and prevent school violence.

one line short


102

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Questions 1. How is Hirschi’s Control Theory different from other criminological theories? What are the elements of social bond? 2. What is the significance of the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act? 3. What is the significance of zero tolerance? 4. In what ways is law enforcement reacting to school violence? 5. What are some of the proactive approaches to reduce school violence? Questions for Thought

1. Are zero tolerance policies effective in reducing school violence? 2. Are there limitations to policies of zero tolerance? 3. Does law enforcement play a significant role in reducing school violence? 4. Who is really responsible for school violence? Why? 5. Do prevention efforts reduce the incidents of school violence or are they merely a good idea?


References

Chapter 1 American Enterprise. (2001). Parents, Juveniles, and Justice, Vol. 12, June Edition. Associated Press. (2003). Few Schools Termed “Dangerous.” Wall Street Journal, September 25, 2003, p. D4. Bartollas, C. (2000). Juvenile Delinquency (5th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bohm, R. M. & Haley, K. N. (1997). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954), 347 US 483. Buckner, J. & Chesney-Lind, M. (1983). Dramatic Cures for Juvenile Crime: An Evaluation of a Prison-Run Delinquency Program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10(1), 227–247.

one line short


104

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Butler, N. (1910). Education in the US: A Series of Monographs. New York, NY: American Books. Butts, R. F. & Cremin, L. A. (1953). History of Education in America. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Carper, J. (1995). School and the Social Order. (Unpublished manuscript). Cavan, R. & Ferdinand, T. (1975). Juvenile Delinquency. New York, NY: J. B. Lippincott. Cohen, S. (1974). A History of Colonial Education, 1607–1776. New York, NY: Wiley. Cook, T. (1998). Governing with the News: the News Media as a Political Institution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Crews, G. A. & Counts, M. R. (1997). The Evolution of School Disturbances in America: Colonial Times to Modern Day. Westport, CN: Praeger. Cubberley, E. P. (1934). Public Education in the United States. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Devoe, J. F., Peters, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Planty, M., Snyder, T. D., Duhart, D. T., & Rand, M. R. (2002). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2002. Washington, DC: US Department of Education and Justice (NCES 2003–009/NCJ 196753). Dewey, J. (1987). My Pedagogic Creed. Reprinted in Teaching in American Culture, edited by K. Gezi and J. Meyers. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Douglass, A. A. (1940). The American School System: A Survey of Principles and Practices of Education. New York, NY: Farrar and Rinehart. Elliott, D. S., Hamburg, B., & Williams, K. R. (1998). Violence in American Schools. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, S. & Sigelman, L. (1985). The Political Impact of Prime-Time Television; The Day After. Journal of Politics, 47, 556–578. Graber, D. (1997). Mass Media and American Politics (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Hapkiewics, W. (1975). Research on Corporal Punishment Effectiveness: Contributions and Limitations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC (April 2, 1975). Hyman, T. A. & Wise, J. H. (1979). Corporal Punishment in American Education. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Iyengar, S. (1994). Is Anyone Responsible? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kendall, E. (1973). Beyond Mother’s Knee. American Heritage, 24(4), 73–78. Kraus, S. & Davis, D. (1976). The Effects of Mass Communication on Political Behavior. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

one line short


REFERENCES

105

Lasswell, H. (1969). The Structure and Function of Communications in Society. In W. Schramm’s (ed.) Mass Communications. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Lazerson, M. (Ed.). (1987). American Education in the 20th Century: A Documentary History. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Livingston, S. & Eachus, T. (1995). Humanitarian Crisis and US Foreign Policy: Somalia and the CNN Effect Reconsidered. Political Communication, 12(4), 413–429. Males, M. (2000). School Violence is Exaggerated by the Media. In B. J. Grapes’s (ed.) School Violence. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, pp. 22–25. Mann, H. & Smith, M. H. (1847). Sequel to the So-Called Correspondence between the Reverend M. H. Smith and Horace Mann. Boston, MA: W. B. Fowle. McCabe, K. A. (2003). Child Abuse and the Criminal Justice System. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. McCabe, K. A. & Gregory, S. S. (2000). Elder Victimization: An Examination Beyond the FBI’s Index Crimes. Research on Aging, 20(3), 363–372. National Vital Statistics Report. (1998). Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 1998, 47(21), Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics (PHS 99–1120). Newman, J. & Newman, G. (1980). Crime and Punishment in the Schooling Process: A Historical Analysis. In K. Baker and R. Rubels’s (eds.) Violence and Crime in the Schools. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, pp. 10–28. Perkinson, H. J. (1995). The Imperfect Panacea (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill. Pope, C. (1995). Juvenile Justice in the Next Millennium. In J. Klosas and S. Stojkovics’s (eds.) Crime and Justice in the Year 2120. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 100–120. Protess, D. (1991). The Journalism of Outrage: Investigative Reporting and Agenda Building in America. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Rippa, S. A. (1997). Education in a Free Society: An American History (8th ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Rothman, D. J. (1971). The Discovery of the Asylum. Boston, MA: Little & Brown. Sadker, M. P. & Sadker, D. M. (2003). Teachers, Schools, and Society (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Spring, J. (1994). The American School: 1642–1993 (3rd ed). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill. Walsh, M. (2001). School Gets the Sales Pitch. Better Safe than Sorry. Education Week, 20, 8.

one line short


106

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Wetzel, J. R. (1989). School Crime: Annual Statistical Snapshot. School Safety 8. National Crime Survey. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. White, T. (1973). The Making of the President. New York, NY: Bantam.

Chapter 2 ABCNews.com (2001). Serious Bullying. (November 29, 2001). Available at http://abcnews.go.com. Accessed April 17, 2003. Addington, L. A., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., DeVoe, J. F., & Chandler, K. A. (2002). Are America’s Schools Safe? Students Speak Out. 1999 School Crime Supplement. Washington, DC: US Department of Education (NCES-2002–331). Agnew, R. (2001). Juvenile Delinquency. Causes and Control. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Arnette, J. L. and Walsleben, M. C. (1998). Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in Schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barkan, S. E. (2001). Criminology. A Sociological Understanding (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barone, F. J. (2000). Bullying Can Be Prevented. In J. L. Bender, B. Leone, B. Szumski, D. M Haugen, & B. Stalcups’s (eds.) School Violence. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, 119–123. Batsche, G. M. & Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and Their Victims: Understanding a Pervasive Problem in the Schools. School Psychology Review, 23(2), 165–174. Bethel v. Fraser (1986). 478 U.S. 675. Casella, R. (2001). What Is Violence about “School Violence”? The Nature of Violence in a City High School. In J. N. Burstyn, G. Bender, R. Casella, H. W. Gordon, D. P. Guerra, K. V. Luschen, R. Stevens, & K. M Williams’s (eds.) Preventing Violence in Schools. A Challenge to American Democracy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Charach, A., Pepler, D., & Ziegler, S. (1995). Bullying at School: A Canadian Perspective. A Survey of Problems and Suggestions for Intervention. Education Canada, 35(1), 12–18. CNN.com. (2003). School Offers Deal to Accused Students. May 21, 2003. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2003/education/05/20/ high school.hazing.ap/index.html. Accessed May 21, 2003.

one line short


REFERENCES

107

Coloroso, B. (2003). The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Cooper, D. & Snell, J. L. (2003). Bullying—Not Just a Kid Thing. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 22–25. Cornell, D. G. & Looper, A. B. (1998). Assessment of Violence and Other High-Risk Behaviors with a School Survey. School Psychological Review, 27, 317–330. Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. C. (1999). Relational and Physical Forms of Peer Victimization in Preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35, 376–385. Cunningham, P.B. & Henggler, S. W. (2001). Implementation of an Empirically Based Drug and Violence Prevention and Intervention Program in Public School Settings. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(2), 221–232. Curran, D. J. & Renzetti, C. M. (2001). Theories of Crime (2nd ed.) Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Education Company. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). 525 U.S. 1065. Derksen, D. J. & Strasburger, V. C. (1996). Media and Television Violence: Effects on Violence, Aggression & Antisocial Behaviors in Children. In A. M Hoffman’s School Violence and Society. Westport, CT: Praeger, 61–78. Dertzon, J. H. (2001). Antisocial Behavior and the Prediction of Violence: A Meta-analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 38(1), 93– 106. Elliot, D., Hamburg, B., & Williams, K. (1998). Violence in American Schools: An Overview. In D. Elliot, B. Hamburg, & K. Williams’s (eds.) Violence in American Schools. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ericson, N. (2001). Addressing the Problems of Juvenile Bullying. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (FS-200127). Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Bullying. In M. Tonry’s (ed.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Volume 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 381–458. Garbarino, J. & deLara, E. (2003). Words Can Hurt Forever. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 18–21. Gottfredson, G. D. & Gottfredson, D. C. (1985). Victimization in Schools. New York, NY: Plenum. Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A Clinical Construct Whose Time Has Come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 25–54. Hart, S. D. & Dempster, R. J. (1997). Impulsivity and Psychopathy. In C. D. Webster & M. A. Jacksons’s (eds.) Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. New York, NY: Guilford, pp. 212–232.

one line short


108

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Haugaard, J. J. & Feerick, M. M. (1996). The Influence of Child Abuse and Family Violence on Violence in the Schools. In A. M Hoffman’s (ed.) School Violence and Society. Westport, CT: Praeger, 79–99. Henry, D. B., Tolan, P.H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (2001). Longitudinal Family and Peer Group Effects on Violence and Nonviolent Delinquency, Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 30(1), 172–186. Holmes, S. R. & Brandenburg-Ayers, S. J. (1998). Bullying Behavior in Schools: A Predictor of Later Gang Involvement. Journal of Gang Research, 5(2), 1–6. Kaas, J. (2000). Report Confirms. Columbine Bullying Investigations Says It’s No Worse than Elsewhere. Denver Rocky Mountain News, December 2, 2000. Killias, M. & Rabasa, J. (1997). Weapons and Athletic Constitutions as Factors Linked to Violence Among Male Juveniles: Findings from the Swiss Self-Reported Delinquency Project. British Journal of Criminology, 37(3), 446–457. LaTendre, G. K. (1992). Disruptions and Reconnections: Counseling Young Adolescence in Japanese Schools. In W. K. Cummings & P. G. Altbachs’s (eds.) The Challenge of Eastern Asian Education. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Lawrence, R. (1998). School Crime and Juvenile Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lombroso, C. (1876). The Criminal Man. Milan: Hoepli. MacDonald, I. M. (1997). Violence in Schools: Multiple Realities. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 43, 142–156. McCabe, K. A. (2003). Child Abuse and the Criminal Justice System. New York, NY; Peter Lang. McDermott, J. (1980). High Anxiety: Fear of Crime in Secondary Schools. Contemporary Education, 52, 18–23. Mulvey, E. & Cauffman, E. (2001). The Inherent Limits of Predicting School Violence. American Psychologist, 56(10), 797–802. Murakami, Y. (1991). Bullies in the Classroom. In B. Finkelstein, A. Imamura, & J. Tobins’s (eds.) Transcending Stereotypes: Discovering Japanese Culture and Education. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Nolin, M., Davies, E., & Chandler, K. (1996). Student Victimization at School. Journal of School Health, 66, 216–226. Oliver, R., Hoover, J. H., & Hazler, R. (1994). The Perceived Roles of Bullying in Small-Town Midwestern Schools. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72(4), 416–419. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (2003). Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. (Volume 6) Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

one line short


REFERENCES

109

Olweus, D. & Limber, S. (1999). Bullying Prevention Program. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Sciences. University of Colorado. Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School Bullies, Victims, and Aggressive Victims: Factors Relating to Group Affiliation and Victimization in Early Adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216–224. Phillips, D. (1980). Airplane Accident, Murder, and the Mass Media: Toward a Theory of Imitation and Suggestion. Social Forces, 58(3), 1001–1024. Phillips, D. & Carstensen, L. (1986). Clustering of Teenage Suicides After Television News Stories About Suicide. New England Journal of Medicine, 315, 685–689. Rutger, C., Engels, M. E., Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. (2002). Parenting Practices, Social Skills and Peer Relationships in Adolescence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 3–18. Sheldon, W. (1949). Varieties of Delinquent Youth. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers. Smith, P. & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in School. Lessons from Two Decades of Research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1–9. Smith, P. & Sharpe, S. (1994). The Problem of School Bullying. In P. Smith and S. Sharpes’s (eds.). School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Stephens, R. D. (1997). National Trends in School Violence: Statistics and Prevention Strategies. In A. P. Goldstein & J. C. Conoleys’s (eds.) School Violence Intervention: A Practical Handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 72–90. Sullivan, H. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York, NY: Horton and Company. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). 393 U.S. 503. Toch, H. & Adams, K. (1989). The Disturbed Violent Offender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. White, M. (1993). The Material Child: Coming of Age in Japan and America. New York, NY: Free Press. Williams, J., Lawton, C., Ellis, S., Walsh, S., & Reed, J. (1987). Copycat Suicide Attempts. Lancet, 2(8550), 102–103.

Chapter 3 A & E. (1996 Video). Columbine: Understanding Why. New York, NY: A & E Television. Agnew, R. (2001). Juvenile Delinquency. Causes and Control. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

one line short


110

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Agnew, R. & Petersen, D. M. (1989). An Empirical Test of General Strain Theory. Criminology, 30(2), 475–499. Arcus, D. (2002). School Shooting Fatalities and School Corporal Punishment: A Look at the States. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 173–183. Barkan, S. (2001). Criminology. A Sociological Understanding (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bynum, J. & Thompson, W. (2002). Juvenile Delinquency. A Sociological Approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Curran, D. J. & Renzetti, C. M. (2001). Theories of Crime (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gabarino, J. (1999). Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How Can We Save Them. New York, NY: Free Press. Garrett, A. G. (1999). What Do American Schools Need? Commack, NY: Kroshka Books. Garrett, A. G. (2001). Keeping American School Safe. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company. Graber, D. (1997). Mass Media and American Politics (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Griffiths, M. (1999). Violent Video Games and Aggression: A Review of Literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 203. Harding, D. J., Fox, C., & Mehta, J. D. (2002). Studying Rare Events Through Qualitative Case Studies: Lessons from a Study of Rampage School Shootings. Sociological Methods and Research, 31(2), 174–217. Maguin, E. & Loeber, R. (1996). Academic Performance and Delinquency. In M. Tonry’s (ed.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 145–264. Mills, M. (2001). Challenging Violence in Schools: An Issues of Masculinities. London, England: Open University Press. National Television Violence Study (Volume 1). (1997). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Phillips, D. & Carstensen, L. (1986). Clustering of Teenage Suicides after Television News Stories About Suicide. New England Journal of Medicine, 315, 685–689. Postman, N. (1982). The Disappearance of Childhood. New York, NY: Delacorte Press. Schmidtke, A. & Hafner, H. (1988). The Werther Effect After Television Film: New Evidence for an Old Hypothesis. Psychological Medicine, 18, 665–676. Sullivan, M. L. (2002). Exploring Layers: Extended Case Method as a Tool for Multilevel Analysis of School Violence. Sociological Methods and Research, 31(2), 255–285. Wolfgang, M .E. & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.


REFERENCES

111

Chapter 4 Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1998). Peer Power: Preadolescent Culture and Identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Aleem, D. & Moles, O. (1993). Review of Research on Ways to Attain Goal Six. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 357–446). Allendar, D. (2001). Gangs in Middle America: Are They a Threat? FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 70(12), 1–2. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Banks, J. (1994). An Introduction to Multicultural Education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bing, L. (1991). Do or Die. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Blazak, R. (1999). Hate in the Suburbs: The Rise of the Skinhead Culture. In L. McIntrye’s (ed.) The Practical Skeptic: Readings in Sociology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Bodinger-deUriarte, C. (1993). Membership in Violent Gangs Fed by Suspicion, Deterred through Respect. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (ED 358–399). Boyle, G. (1992). Society Must Address Social Issues to Reduce Gang Violence. In M. Biskup and C. Cozics’s (eds.) Youth Violence. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven. Brown, B. (1990). Cliques and Crowds. In L. Steinberg’s (ed.) Adolescence. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 163–164. Burch, J. & Chemers, B. (1997). Comprehensive Response to Gang Problems. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. March 1997. Bynum, J. E. & Thompson, W. E. (2002). Juvenile Delinquency. A Sociological Approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Cadwallader, T. W. & Cairns, R. B. (2002). Developmental Influences and Gang Awareness Among African American Inner City Youth. Social Development, 11(2), 245–265. Campbell, A. (1991). The Girls in the Gang (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Cloward, R. & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. New York, NY: Free Press. Cornell, D. & Looper, A. (1998). Assessment of Violence and Other High-Risk Behaviors with a School Survey. School Psychology Review, 27, 317–330. Crews, G. A. & Counts, M. R. (1997). The Evolution of School Disturbances in America. Westport, CT: Praeger. Curry, G. & Decker, S. (1998). Confronting Gangs. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.


112

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man. New York, NY: Free Press. Decker, S. (2003). Policing Gangs and Youth Violence. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Derksen, D. & Strasburger, V. (1996). Media and Television Violence: Effects on Violence, Aggression & Antisocial Behaviors in Children. In A. Hoffman’s (ed.) School Violence and Society. Westport, CT: Praeger, 61–78. DeYoung, A. J. (1995). The Life and Death of a Rural American High School. Farewell Little Kanawha. New York, NY: Garland. Dwyer, K., Osher, D., & Warger, C. (1998). Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safety in Schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Eder, D. (1985). The Cycle of Popularity: Interpersonal Relations Among Female Adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58 (July), 154–165. Egley, A. & Arjunan, M. (2002). Highlights of the 2000 National Youth Gang Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Esbensesn E. & Deschenes, E. P. (1998). A Multisite Examination of Youth Gang Membership. Does Gender Matter? Criminology, 36, 799–828. Fagin, J. (1989). The Second Organization of Drug Use and Drug Dealing Among Urban Gangs. Criminology, 27, 633–669. Foster, M. (2003). Security Eyed After Louisiana School Shooting. Miami Herald, B1 (April 16, 2003). Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its Discontents. Translated by J. Riviere. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. Friend, T. (1994). Hip Children in the Dark. USA Today, November 10, 1994, A1. Gang Reduction through Intervention, Prevention & Education [GRIPE]. (2003). Available at www.gripe4rkids.org by the East Coast Gang Investigators Association. Accessed October 15, 2003. Gaouette, N. (1999). Get Your Mange Here. Christian Science Monitor, February 8, 1999. Gaustad, J. (1991). School Respond to Gangs and Violence. Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council. (ED 337–909). Harper, S. (1989). LA’s Gang Busters. Lessons Learned. School Safety, 12–15. Helge, D. (1993). Implementing Education Reform Prospects in Rural Areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 11(2). Hill, K., Liu, C., & Hawkins, J. (2001). Early Precursors of Gang Membership: A Study of Seattle Youth. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.


REFERENCES

113

Howell, J. (2003). Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howell, J. (1998). Promising Programs for Youth Gang Violence Prevention and Intervention. In R. Loeber and D. Farringtons’s (eds.) Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howell, J. (1998). Youth Gangs: An Overview. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Huff, C. & Trump, K. (1996). Youth Violence and Gangs: School Safety Initiatives in Urban and Suburban School Districts. Education and Urban Society, 28(4), 492–503. Izawa, E. (2001). What are Mange and Anime? Available at http:// www.mit.edu/people/rei/expl.html. Accessed on June 8, 2003. Hoffman, A. M. & Summers, R. W. (1996). Anatomy of Gangs. In A. M. Hoffman’s School Violence and Society (ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 33–44. Jackson, M. S. & Knepper, P. (2003). Delinquency and Justice: A Cultural Perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang Reader. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Kodluboy, D. & Evenrud, L. (1993). School-Based Interventions: Best Practices and Critical Issues. In A. Goldstein and R. Huffs’s (eds.) The Gang Intervention Handbook. Champaign, IL: Research Press. LaFee, S. (2000). Profiling Bad Apples. The School Administrator, 57(2), 6–11. Lease, A. M. & Axelrod, J. L. (2001). Position in the Peer Groups’ Perceived Organizational Structure: Relation to Social Status and Friendship. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(4), 377–404. Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and Personality (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row. Matsueda, R. (1988). The Dynamics of Moral Belief and Minor Deviance. Social Forces, 68(2), 428–457. McCabe, K. (2003). Child Abuse and the Criminal Justice System. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Meeks, L. & Heit, P. (1995). Resisting Gang Membership. In M. Baker’s (ed.) Violence Prevention: Totally Awesome Teaching Strategies for Safe and Drug Free Schools. Columbus, OH: Meeks. Merton, R. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682. Miller, W. (1958). Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 12. Moore, J. & Hagedorn, J. (2001). Female Gangs. A Focus on Research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.


114

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (2000). Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on a Safe and Secure Workplace. New York, NY. National Youth Gang Center. (2001). Female Gangs: A Focus on Research. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ-186159). O’Toole, M. (2000). The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Regulus, T. A. (1994). The Effects of Gangs on Student Performance and Delinquency in Public Schools. Journal of Gang Research, 2(1), 1–13. Richards, J. (1997). Gothic Teen Engaged in Satanic Rituals to Fit In. Today Newspaper (Davis County UT), May 21, 1997, p. A1. Rosebrock, D. (1997). Two Teen Boys Not Guilty in Death of Diabetic Youth at Goth Party. Deseret News, October 18, 1997, p. B4. Salinger, J. (1951). The Catcher in the Rye. New York, NY: Bantam Books. School Crime Statistics. (2002). Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. Accessed April 3, 2003. Strom, K. J. (2001). Hate Crimes Reported in NIBRS, 1997–99. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. US Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. (NCJ 186765). Sutherland, E. (1934). Principles of Criminology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott. Swanson, L. & Butler, M. (1988). Human Resources Base of Rural Economics. Rural Economic Development in the 1980s: Prospects for the Future. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Tarrant, M. (2002). Adolescent Peer Groups and Social Identify. Social Development, 11(1), 110–123. Thornberry, T., Krohm, M., Lizotte, A., Smith, C., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Trasler, G. (1978). School, Delinquency, and the Youth Culture in Britain and North America. Theoretical Perspectives on School Crime. Hackensack, NJ: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp. 1440–1491. Trump, K. S. (1993). Youth Gangs and Schools: The Need for Intervention and Prevention Strategies. Cleveland, OH: Urban Child Research Center. Walker, R. (2003). Gangs or Us: Gangsta Girls. Available at http:// www.gangorus.com/gangstagirls.html. Accessed May 7, 2003. Waller, W. (1932). The Sociology of Teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.

one line short


REFERENCES

115

Warr, M. (1993). Age, Peers, and Delinquency. Criminology, 31(1), 17–40. William Gladden Foundation (1992). Juvenile Gangs. York, PA: Author. Wooden, W. S. (1995). Renegade Kids, Suburban Outlaws. New York, NY: Wadsworth. Yablonsky, L. & Haskell, M. (1988). Juvenile Delinquency (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row. Zastrow, C. (1992). Social Problems: Issues and Solutions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Chapter 5 Agnew, R. (2001). Juvenile Delinquency. Causes and Control. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Agnew, R. (1985). A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency. Social Forces, 4(1), 151–167. Anderson, D. C. (1998). Curriculum, Culture, and Community: The Challenge of School Violence. Crime and Justice, 24(2), 317–363. Barkan, S. E. (2001) Criminology. A Sociological Understanding (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baron, S. A. (1993). Violence in the Workplace: A Prevention and Management Guide for Business. Ventura, CA: Pathfinding Publishing of California. Bartollas, C. (2000). Juvenile Delinquency (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Braverman, M. (1999). Preventing Workplace Violence: A Guide for Employers and Practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cohen, L. & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588– 607. Duncan, D. F. (1996). Growing up Under the Gun: Children and Adolescents Coping with Violent Neighborhoods. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 16(4), 343–356. Furlong, M. J., Chung, A., Bates, M., & Morrison, R. L. (1995). Who are the Victims of School Violence? A Comparison of Student NonVictims and Multi-Victims. Education and Treatment of Children, 18(3), 282–298. Garrett, A. G. (1999). What do American Schools Need? Commack, NY: Kroshka Books. Garrett, A. G. (2001). Keeping American Schools Safe. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Gullotta, T. P., & McElhaney, S. J. (eds.). Violence in the Homes and Communities: Prevention, Intervention and Treatment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

one line short


116

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Hanke, P. J. (1996). Putting School Crime into Perspective: Selfreported School Victimizations of High School Seniors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(3), 207–219. Hirschi, T. (1979). Separate and Unequal is Better. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16(1), 34–37. Isaac, N. E. (1997). Corporate Sector Response to Domestic Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Injury Control Center. Harvard School of Public Health. Kandakai, T. L. & King, K. A. (2002). Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Confidence in Teaching School Violence Prevention. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26(5), 342–253. Kingery, P., Coggeshall, M., & Alford, A. (1999). Weapon Carrying by Youth: Risk Factors and Prevention. Education and Urban Society, 31(2), 309–333. Marcus, A. (1994). How Liberals Put Teachers in the Line of Fire. Washington Monthly, 26(6). McCabe, K. (2003). Child Abuse and the Criminal Justice System. New York, NY: Peter Lang. McClure, L. F. (1996). Risky Business: Managing Employee Violence in the Workplace. New York, NY: Haworth. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (1990). NAECY Site News. Washington, DC: NAECY. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (2000). Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on a Safe and Secure Workplace. New York, NY. Peek, A. C., Runyan, C. W., & Zwerling, C. (2001). The Role of Surveillance and Evaluation Research in the Reduction of Violence Against Workers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(2), 141–148. Perrone, S. (1999). Violence in the Workplace. Canberra, AUS: Australian Institute of Criminology. Pickett, R. A. (2003). Board Set to Revisit Corporal Punishment. Mobile Register, May 28, 2003, p. C3. Public Broadcast System (PBS) (2000). The Killer at Thurston High: 111 Years Without Parole. Available at http://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front line/shows/kinkel/trial/. Accessed on November 3, 2003. Rosen, J. (2001). A Labor Perspective of Workplace Violence Prevention: Identifying Research Needs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(2), 161–168. Shaver, K. G. (1985). The Attribution of Blame: Causality, Responsibility and Blameworthiness. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Southerland, M. D., Collins, P.A., & Scarborough, K.E. (1997). Workplace Violence: A Continuum from Threat to Death. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.


REFERENCES

117

Stuart, H. (2000). What is School Violence? An Integrated Definition. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567(1), 16–29. Thomas, P. (2000). FBI Report to Detail Warning Signs that Could Lead to School Shootings. CNN.Com. (September 6, 2000). Available at http://www.cnn.com. Accessed June 10, 2003. Venturelli, P. J. (2000). Drugs in Schools: Myths and Realities. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567(1), 72–87. Ward, C. M. (1998). Student Discipline and Alleviating Criminal Behavior in the Inner City. The Urban Review, 30(1), 29–48. Welsh, W. N. (2000). The Effect of School Climate on School Disorder. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567(1), 88–107.

Chapter 6 Agnew, R. (2001). Juvenile Delinquency. Causes and Control. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Ascher, C. (1994). Gang Control of Violence in the Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College, ERIC Clearinghouse of Urban Education and Washington, DC: National Education Association (ED-377–256). Barkan, S. (2001). Criminology: A Sociological Understanding (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Blair, F. (1999). Does Zero Tolerance Work? Principal, 79, 36–37. Casella, R. (2001). At Zero Tolerance. Punishment, Prevention, and School Violence. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Centers for Disease Control [CDC]. (1993). Violence-Related Attitudes and Behaviors of High School Students—New York City 1992. Available at http://www.cdc.gov. Accessed on June 10, 2003. Cornell. D. (2001). School Violence Fears Versus Facts. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Curry School of Education. Curran, D. J. & Renzetti, C. M. (2001). Theories of Crime (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ekstrom, R., Goertz, M., Pollack, J., & Rock, D. (1986). Who Drops Out of High School and Why. Findings from a National Study. Teachers College Record, 87, 356–373. Farrell, A. & Meyer, A. (1997). The Effectiveness of School-Based Curriculum of Reducing Violence Among Urban Sixth Grade Students. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 979–988. Feldman, S. (1998). We’re All Responsible. The New Republic, 219(3), 19. Gluckman, I. B. (1996). Legal and Policy Issues of School Violence. In A. M. Hoffman’s (ed.) School Violence and Society, Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 123–131.


118

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Haynes, N. M. (1998). Creating Safe and Caring School Communities: Comes School Development Program Schools. Journal of Negro Education, 65(3), 308–314. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Juvonen, J. (2001). School Violence. Prevalence, Fears, & Prevention. Sacramento, CA: Rand. Kingery, P., Coggeshall, M., & Alford, A. (1999). Weapon Carrying by Youth: Risk Factors and Prevention. Education and Urban Society, 31(2), 309–333. Lal, S. R., Lal, D., & Archillas, C. R. (1993). Handbook on Gangs in Schools: Strategies to Reduce Gang-Related Activities. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press (ED 363–012). Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A Case of Collective Responsibility: Who Else was to Blame for the Columbine High School Shooting. PSBS, 29(2), 194–204. Linquanti, R. & Berliner, B. A. (1994). Rebuilding Schools as Safe Havens: A Typology for Selecting and Integrating Violence Preventive Strategies. Portland, OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities (ED 376–600). Mayer, M. & Leone, P. (1999). A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption. Implications for Creating Safe Schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 333–356. McCabe, K. & Fajardo, R. (2001). Law Enforcement Accreditation: A National Comparison of Accredited vs. Non-Accredited Agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(2), 127–132. Morkey, E. & Rossman, S. B. (1996). Safe Schools: Policies and practices. Education and Urban Society, 28(4), 1–18. Noguera, P.A. (1995). Preventing and Producing Violence: A Critical Analysis of Responses to School Violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 190–196. North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [NCDJJDP]. (2002). Just What is School Violence? News Brief, May 2002, p.1. Nye, F. I. (1958). Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley. Reporting School Violence. (2002). Legal Series #2. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office for Victims of Crime (NCJ 189191). Schwartz, W. (1996). An Overview of Strategies to Reduce School Violence. New York, NY: Teachers College, ERIC Clearinghouse of Urban Education and Washington, DC: National Education Association (ED UD 964).

one line short


REFERENCES

119

Skiba, R. & Peterson, R. (2000). School Discipline: From Zero Tolerance to Early Response. Exceptional Children, 66, 335–347. Smaby, M. H. & Daugherty, R. (1995). The School Counselor as a Leader of Efforts to Have Schools Free of Drugs and Violence. Education, 115(4), 612–623. Stroker, S. & Bonds, M. (2000). Bullyproofing Your School: The Middle School Years. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Toby, J. (1957). Social Disorganization and Stake in Conformity: Complementary Factors in the Predatory Behavior of Hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 48(1), 12–17. Tonry, M. (1995). Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


Index

Anime, 76 Anti-Gang Responses, 78 Bath, Michigan, 19 Bethel v. Fraser (1986), 11 BLOODS, 66, 69 Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 19, 20 Bullying, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 34 Central Parental School, 19 Cliques, 71, 74 Colonial Period, 2 Columbine High School, 1, 38, 54, 85 Common School Era, 16 Control Theory, 91 Criminal Justice Responses, 39, 90


122 CRIPS, 66, 69 Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), 40 Differential Association, 62 Female Gang Members, 68 Franchising, 69 Gangs, 57, 58, 70 Gothic Culture, 75, 76 Goths, 58, 75, 76, 77 Gun Free School Zones Act, 93 Harris, Eric, 1, 36, 46, 49, 53, 54, 75, 85 Hate, 64 Hazing, 24 Kaleidoscopic Era, 20 Kinkel, Kip, 85 Klebold, Dylan, 1, 37, 49, 53, 54, 75, 85 Littleton, Colorado, 1

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Nielson, Patti, 4 Physical Traits, 31 Prevention, 98, 100 Progressive School Era, 18 Roberts v. Boston, 17 Safe and Drug-Free School and Community Act, 93 Sanders, Dave, 4 School Resource Officer(s), 95, 100 School Shooting, 42, 44 Shooters, 51, 52 Social Learning, 32 Sociopathy, 32 Strain Theory, 46, 61 Subculture of Violence, 43 Suicide, 53 Teachers’ Perceptions, 87 Tinker v. DesMoines (1969), 39, 40 Trench Coat Mafia, 72

Mann, Horace, 17 Massachusetts’ Compulsory Education Law (1642), 12, 13 Massacre, 25 Media Effect(s), 6, 38

US Department of Education, 90 US Department of Justice, 10 US v. Lopez, 93

National Period, 15 New Jersey v. TLO, 93 New York Free School Society, 15

Wall Street Journal, 10 Warning Signs, 81, 82

Veronia School District, 94

Zero Tolerance, 94, 95

Studies in Crime and Punishment is a multidisciplinary series that publishes scholarly and teaching materials from a wide range of methodological perspectives and explores sentencing and criminology issues from a single nation or comparative perspective. Subject areas to be addressed in this series include, but will not be limited to: criminology, sentencing and incarceration, policing, law and the courts, juvenile crime, alternative sentencing methods, and criminological research methods. For additional information about this series or for the submission of manuscripts, please contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department 275 Seventh Avenue, 28th floor New York, New York 10001 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX Or browse online by series: www.peterlangusa.com

School Violence, The Media, And Criminal Justice Responses (Studies in Crime & Punishment)

Crime, Justice and the Media

Crime and Criminals (Criminal Justice)

Beyond Punishment in International Criminal Justice

Understanding Risk in Criminal Justice (Crime and Justice)

Criminal Lessons: Case Studies and Commentary on Crime and Justice

Race, Crime and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives

Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence

Crime and Punishment

After Crime and Punishment

After Crime and Punishment

Criminal Law & Criminal Justice: An Introduction

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Getting Justice Wrong: Myths, Media and Crime

Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice (Crime and Justice)

Crime and Punishment (Barnes & Noble Classics)

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Violence and the Media

Criminal Justice in America

Statistics in Criminal Justice

Politics, Punishment, and Populism (Studies in Crime and Public Policy)

School Violence, The Media, And Criminal Justice Responses (Studies in Crime & Punishment)

Crime, Justice and the Media

Crime and Criminals (Criminal Justice)

Beyond Punishment in International Criminal Justice

Understanding Risk in Criminal Justice (Crime and Justice)

Criminal Lessons: Case Studies and Commentary on Crime and Justice

Race, Crime and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives

Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence

Crime and Punishment

After Crime and Punishment

After Crime and Punishment

Criminal Law & Criminal Justice: An Introduction

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Getting Justice Wrong: Myths, Media and Crime

Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice (Crime and Justice)

Crime and Punishment (Barnes & Noble Classics)

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment

Violence and the Media

Criminal Justice in America

Statistics in Criminal Justice

Politics, Punishment, and Populism (Studies in Crime and Public Policy)

Recommend Documents