James Lakes Dissertation EdD Final

STUDENT FEARS ON SECONDARY SCHOOL CAMPUSES

AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES THAT INCREASE FEELINGS

OF SAFETY AND SECURITY

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty

of

California State University, Stanislaus

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

By

James A. Lake

May 2015

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

STUDENT FEARS ON SECONDARY SCHOOL CAMPUSES

AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES THAT INCREASE FEELINGS

OF SAFETY AND SECURITY

by

James A. Lake

Signed Certification of Approval page is

on file with the University Library

Dr. Chet Jensen Date

Professor of Education

Dr. John Borba Date

Professor of School Administration

Dr. Robert Price Date

Affiliated Faculty

© 2015

James A. Lake

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iv

DEDICATION

This dissertation and Doctorate in Educational Leadership is dedicated to my

five wonderful children, James Hunter Lake, Jessup Steven Lake, Emme Lee Lake,

Jedidiah (Jedi) Lake, and Josiah William Lake. Thank you for being so supportive of

your father and for the understanding you have shown me as I have worked to pursue

a better life for our family. I love you all more than words can express. Each one of

you is amazing in your own way, and I cannot wait to see you grow and achieve all of

your hopes and dreams. Thank you for always bringing happiness and love into my

life.

I also dedicate this to my father and mother for instilling in me the will to

keep going and never give up. To my dad, James R. Lake, without your example as a

high school administrator, and more importantly as a great man and father, I would

not have been inspired to follow in your footsteps in education or to pursue my

Doctorate in Educational Leadership. For my mom, Marilyn J. Lake, thank you for

being such an amazing example of perseverance and for your love, devotion, and

understanding through all of my successes and failures.

Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to Dr. Chet Jensen. Without your

consistent mentoring and unwavering belief in my abilities, my Ed.D. would have

never become a reality. I will never be able to thank you enough.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am is extremely grateful for the constant support, understanding, and

dedication of my committee chair, Dr. Chet Jensen, Professor of Education at

California State University, Stanislaus. I also acknowledge the valuable time and

guidance provided by Dr. John Borba, Professor of School Administration, and

Dr. Robert Price, retired Superintendent and affiliated faculty member of California

State University, Stanislaus. I am indebted to each of you for your time, dedication,

and valuable insight and counsel as members of my dissertation committee. I also

want to thank my friend and fellow educator, Hector Perez, for his assistance in

developing the Student Safety Survey. Sam and Shawn Daniel also deserve

recognition for all their hours of logistical help. Finally, I would like to acknowledge

Larry DeBora (retired teacher for Stanislaus County Office of Education) for his

many hours of discussion with me regarding student safety and, most of all, for his

constant encouragement and steadfast faith in me as a friend through the good times

and the bad.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Dedication ........................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... v

List of Tables ...................................................................................................... ix

Abstract ............................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER

I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Historical Background ................................................................ 3

Legal Ramifications .................................................................... 7

Rationale ..................................................................................... 9

Statement of the Problem ............................................................ 13

Research Rationale and Hypotheses ........................................... 14

Significance of the Study ............................................................ 18

Limitations .................................................................................. 19

Delimitations ............................................................................... 19

Role of the Researcher ................................................................ 20

Definition of Terms ..................................................................... 20

Summary ..................................................................................... 24

II. Review of the Literature ..................................................................... 26

Historical Framework ................................................................. 27

Legal Framework ........................................................................ 33

Identifying Security and Safety Issues ........................................ 35

Bullying and Violence ................................................................ 38

School Resource Officers ........................................................... 41

School Culture and Climate ........................................................ 43

Suspension, Zero Tolerance, and No-Contact Contracts ............ 44

Security of School Facilities ....................................................... 49

Students’ Perceptions of Security Measures ............................... 53

Student Safety vs. Academic Performance ................................. 55

Classroom Management and Student Safety .............................. 55

Positive Relationships with School Personnel ............................ 57

vii

CHAPTER PAGE

II. Review of the Literature, continued

The Democratic Ideal in Schools and Student Safety ................. 59

Summary ..................................................................................... 61

III. Methods and Procedures ................................................................... 63

Sample Population ...................................................................... 64

Instrumentation ........................................................................... 65

Methodology ............................................................................... 71

Student Incentive to Participate .................................................. 73

Data Analysis .............................................................................. 74

Statistical Analysis .......................................................... 74

Descriptive Analysis ....................................................... 74

Summary ..................................................................................... 74

IV. Results ............................................................................................... 75

Demographic Information ........................................................... 75

Data Organization ....................................................................... 77

Findings ....................................................................................... 79

Research Theme: Personal Security and Safety .............. 79

Research Theme: Academic, Social, and Physical

Well-being ................................................................. 122

Research Theme: Specific Safety Measures ................... 157

Summary ..................................................................................... 194

V. Summary, Conclusions, and Implications .......................................... 195

Summary of Findings .................................................................. 195

Research Theme 1: Personal Safety and Security ........... 196

Research Theme 2: Academic, Social, and Physical

Well-being ................................................................. 200

Research Theme 3: Specific Safety Measures ................ 202

Conclusions ................................................................................. 205

General Perceptions of Students Regarding School

Safety ........................................................................ 206

Drug Use ......................................................................... 207

Bullying and Physical Violence ...................................... 208

Prejudice and Racism ...................................................... 209

Social Impacts ................................................................. 210

Securing Facilities and Campus Locations ..................... 211

viii

CHAPTER PAGE

School- and Personal-Property Crimes ........................... 212

V. Summary, Conclusions, and Implications, continued

Conclusions, continued

School Personnel ............................................................. 213

Safety Procedures and Disciplinary Policies .................. 214

Recommendations for Practitioners ............................................ 216

Recommendations for Future Studies ......................................... 218

References ........................................................................................................... 220

Appendices

A. Informed Consent Letter to School District ....................................... 237

B. University IRB Approval to Conduct Study ...................................... 238

C. Informed-Consent Letter to Parent/Guardian (English Version) ....... 239

D. Informed-Consent Letter to Parent/Guardian (Spanish Version) ...... 240

E. Student Safety Survey (English Version) ........................................... 241

F. Student Safety Survey (Spanish Version) ........................................... 248

G. Information Statement to Students (English Version) ....................... 255

H. Information Statement to Students (Spanish Version) ....................... 256

I. Research Themes ................................................................................. 257

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Research Hypotheses ...................................................................................... 67

2. Alignment of Survey Statements with the Research Hypotheses ................... 69

3. Demographic Category: Ethnicity/Race ......................................................... 76

4. Demographic Category: Socioeconomic Status .............................................. 76

5. Demographic Category: Grade Level ............................................................. 76

6. Demographic Category: Gender ..................................................................... 77

7. Reorganized Demographic Data by Cohort .................................................... 78

8. Statistical Analysis for White and Hispanic Cohorts: Pearson

Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 79

9. Descriptive Analysis for White and Hispanic Cohorts: Frequencies,

Percentages, Notable Responses (>67%) ............................................................ 81

10. Statistical Analysis for Elegible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Pearson

Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 90

11. Descriptive Analysis for Eligible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Frequencies,


12. Statistical Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen Cohorts:

Pearson Chi Square (χ2) ...................................................................................... 101

13. Descriptive Analysis of Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen Cohorts:

Frequencies, Percentages, Notable Responses (>67%) ...................................... 102

14. Statistical Analysis for Male and Female Cohorts: Pearson

Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 111

15. Descriptive Analysis for Male and Female Cohorts: Frequencies,


x

TABLE PAGE


Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 123



18. Statistical Analysis for Eligible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Pearson

Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 132

19, Descriptive Analysis for Eligible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Frequencies,


20. Statistical Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen: Pearson

Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 141

21. Descriptive Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen:


22. Statistical Analysis for Male and Female Cohorts: Pearson

Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 149




Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 158



26. Statistical Analysis for Eligible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Pearson

Chi Square (χ2) .................................................................................................... 167

27. Descriptive Analysis for Eligible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Frequencies,


28. Statistical Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen Cohorts:

Pearson Chi Square (χ2) ...................................................................................... 176

xi

TABLE PAGE

29. Descriptive Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen Cohorts:


30. Statistical Analysis for Male and Female Cohorts: Pearson Chi Square (χ2) 185



xii

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to identify for educators what students feared in secondary

school, and what policies and procedures that students perceived to increase their

feelings of safety and security on campus. This study explored a distribution of

secondary student responses regarding their perceptions of safety and security on a

high school campus as it related to four demographic categories: ethnicity/race,

socioeconomic status, grade level, and gender. The resulting statistical analysis was

evaluated further by dividing each category into eight cohorts: White and Hispanic,

eligible and not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, lowerclassmen (LC) and

upperclassmen (UC), and male and female. From this research study, administrators,

superintendents, and school boards may determine how to utilize fiscal and social

resources in creating and implementing safety and security measures that reduce

student fears and positively impact their perception concerning safety and security.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat,

plausible, and wrong.

— H. L. Mencken (1920), Prejudices

Gang free, drug free, tobacco free, violence free, and bully free—across

America’s high school campuses, statements advertising compliance with these social

and legal mandates can be viewed on school fences, buildings, and offices. However,

quantitative studies and nationwide polls show that students do not feel safer at

school because of declarations, policies, or programs (Bosworth, Ford, & Hernandez,

2011; Shelton, Owens, & Song, 2009). Many students attend school in fear, while

parents apprehensively wonder when the next fight, shooting, or lockdown will occur

(Akiba, 2008; Johnson, 2009; Knox, Laske, & Tromanhauser, 1992; Jones, 2013;

Manning & Bucher, 2005; Mooij, 2005).

Throughout American history, schools have been perceived as safe havens—

sanctuaries of American society—microcosms of democratic utopia; learning centers

for the democratic ideal, creativity, and all of the best initiatives America had to offer

(Henry, 2000; Kesson & Ross, 2004; Rea & Stallworth-Clark, 2003; Trump, 1999).

Students were out of harm’s way, and parents sent their children to acquire academic

and social skills from trusted and respected teachers (Bushaw & Lopez, 2011;

Stanwood & Doolittle, 2004).

2

Unfortunately, today, American secondary schools are high-security

environments—gated, guarded, and under video surveillance by metal detectors and

police officers (Bracy, 2011). Schools have adopted “strict discipline policies to keep

students in line and maintain safe campuses” (Shelton et al., 2009, p. 25). School

districts have invested in human resources, facility upgrades, and technology to make

schools safer; however, an unintended consequence of these efforts is that many

schools resemble prisons more than they do institutions of progress and academic

learning (Kohn, 2004; Schneider, 2007). Although improvements in school security

and student safety have been made, and academic researchers have offered solutions,

student fear and school violence continue to befall America’s youth across the

country and other children throughout the world (Berkowitz & Benbenishty, 2012).

Interestingly, Flannery, Modzeleski, and Kretschmar (2013) discovered that

the odds of a school shooting occurring in one of the 125,000 elementary and

secondary schools in the U.S. were “about once every 6,000 years” (p. 3). According

to Flannery et al. (2013), the number of school shootings represented “less than 2% of

the annual homicides of youth ages 5–18 in the US” (p. 3). However, Fisher (2007)

maintained that even though school massacres are statistically extremely rare, they

are still tragically real events, and parent and student populations are profoundly

cognizant and frightened at the possibility.

In response to public outcry over school shootings and other security

concerns, policy makers and practitioners have rushed to implement safety measures

in schools without tapping into the most important resource on safety: the students

3

themselves (Shumow & Lomax, 2001). Kohn (2004) professed that educators and

stakeholders alike cling to a hope that schools will be safe havens if they were to

install enough surveillance cameras and other security measures such as metal

detectors. Sparks (2011a) found that implementing such technologies was not an

effective deterrent as administrators would hope. In fact, years of research produced

evidence to the contrary. There were no conclusive findings that metal detectors

decreased crime or violence, but there was proof that their existence made students

feel more apprehensive about their safety.

According to a 2013 Gallup Poll, the greatest variance in parental concern

over their child’s safety while at school was determined by household income of their

classmates (Jones, 2013). In fact, socioeconomic background affected parents’

perceptions regarding school safety by a margin of 2 to 1. Fear is a word that has

become commonplace in America’s schools (Jones, 2013; May & Dunaway, 2000).

Stakeholders must take back schools from the apprehension that surrounds them—

from the gangs, bullying, fights, violence, shootings, and drugs that are prevalent in

schools today (Adelman & Taylor, 2007; Henry, 2000).

Historical Background

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, families were the focal point in a

young adult’s life for socialization and education. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and

religion were essential educational goals that were usually taught in the home or

small church-sponsored schools (Foner & Garraty, 1991). Stevens, Wood, and

Sheehan (2002) maintained this form of education was to develop a spiritual and

4

ethical citizenry whose main concern and devotion was to each other and the safety

of the colony.

The 19th and 20th centuries created a new role for schools. The school was

not merely about basic education but focused on creating a community of educated

citizens who were prepared to live in and contribute to a democratic society (Stevens

et al., 2002). Educating the labor force had become a vital part of industrialization to

establish the United States in the world as a leader in manufacturing (Stevens et al.,

2002). In the Cardinal Principles report of 1918, the Commission on the

Reorganization of Secondary Education asserted that schools should be preparing

students not only intellectually but also for life (Stevens et al., 2002).

Discipline problems in schools have evolved over the decades. In the 1950s

and 1960s, discipline consisted of dealing with students who were “talking without

permission, being disruptive in class, running in the hallways, or smoking behind the

gymnasium” (Denmark, Krauss, Wesner, Midlarsky, & Gielen, 2005). By the 1970s,

student violations of the dress code were the heated topic, and the 1980s exposed

student fighting as one of the major concerns. At the end of the 1980s and into the

1990s, fighting had given way to violent gang activity, and “with it came the

problems of weapons, substance abuse, and violent assaults against other students and

school staff” (Denmark et al., 2005).

The 20th century also brought school safety issues to the forefront in

American education due to developments in technology and communications. In

Bath, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, a school board member, Andrew Kehoe, killed 45

5

people and injured 58 when he detonated a bomb at the Bath Consolidated School

and then set off a car bomb as rescuers and onlookers gathered at the school to help.

This act was the worst disaster to ever hit an America school up to that time (Lindle,

2008).

However, after the shooting deaths of 13 students and faculty members at

Columbine High School in 1999, the 32 students at Virginia Tech University in 2007,

and the 26 students, teachers and administrators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in

2012, school violence not only continued to terrify students and teachers, but the

nature of the attacks appeared to change drastically (Jones, 2013; Kennedy, 2010).

Greenhough (2008) maintained violent acts by students underwent a change over the

last 3 decades from small, isolated fights to well-designed, planned attacks on faculty,

staff, and students that could only be classified as terrorism.

In addition to the violence permeating schools across America, the terrorist

attacks of September 11, 2001, brought the fear for students’ safety to the forefront of

America’s attention. The attacks on America’s financial district begged the question,

“How safe were our schools from terrorist attacks?” Immediately, school

administrators across the United States began to implemented plans to protect

students by improving security measures. From installing metal detectors and video

surveillance, to hiring security staff, police officers, drug dogs, and educators are

trying to be vigilant about protecting students and staff on school campuses.

Research clearly substantiates these declarations. In 2011, 95% of the students

reported that their schools implemented a student code of conduct, while 89% of the

6

students reported that school staff or adult supervision was visible in the hallways.

Furthermore, 77% of the students, 12–18 years old, reported security cameras in their

schools, 70% reported campus security or School Resource Officers (SROs) at their

schools, and 11% stated their schools utilized metal detectors (Robers, Kemp,

Rathbun, & Morgan, 2014).

Nonetheless, violence and bullying continue to create anxiety among students

(Rea & Stallworth-Clark, 2003). According to the most recent Phi Delta

Kappa/Gallup Poll 2013, 51% of public school parents agreed or strongly agreed that

school districts should employ more armed security guards in schools. The same poll

showed that 35% of parents agreed or strongly agreed with arming teachers and

administrators to keep their students safe at school (Bushaw & Lopez, 2013).

Unfortunately, the most important resource available about how to address school

violence and eliminate student fears is consistently overlooked: the students

themselves (Winter, 2011).

Faced with intense public pressure to eliminate violence and a create safe

learning environment for students, schools continually practice lockdown drills and

prepare for emergencies to deal with a myriad of safety contingencies (Kennedy,

2011). The 21st-century generation of students has become accustomed to video

surveillance, the presence of police officers on campus, zero-tolerance policies, drug

dogs, random searches, conflict mediation, and instruction-based programs to reduce

bullying, gang activity, and violence (Juvonen, 2001). School buildings are painted

with numbers that identify them in a systematic way. Intercoms and electronic door

7

locks are designed to keep students in school rooms and intruders out. Signs also

help with the transportation of students on and off campus. Increased security is

simply the new norm (Kennedy, 2011).

Even though schools have invested in human resources, facility upgrades, and

technology to make students safer and to increase school security, the amount of

money spent on safety pales in comparison to other government categories

(Schneider, 2007). In 2013, $633 billion was spent by the Department of Defense,

whereas, in the same year, only $48 billion was allocated to the Department of

Education (Edwards, 2013). Consequently, violence and bullying have not

disappeared, and they continue to create anxiety and fear for secondary students until

more human and financial assets are utilized in proactive, research-based security and

safety measures (Juvonen, 2001).

Legal Ramifications

In an effort to combat these new discipline issues in schools, California voters

amended their Constitution in 1982 by adding the provision called the “Right to Safe

Schools,” which states, “All students and staff or [sic] primary, elementary, junior

high and senior high schools have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are

safe, secure, and peaceful” (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 28, sub. C). Furthermore, under

California Government Code § 820(a), 815.2(a), as cited by Glaeser and Calcagnie

(2005), public employees such, as school personnel and school districts, have to

provide reasonable safety and security measures to protect students from any internal

and external dangers to the best of their ability or they can be held legally liable.

8

Akiba (2008) asserted that creating a safe and secure environment conducive to

student learning is the responsibility of all educators worldwide and the foundation

for students’ academic achievement. Reynolds, Skiba, Sheras, Conoley, and Garcia-

Vazquez, (2008) stated that

There can be no doubt that schools have the duty to use all effective means

needed to maintain a safe and disciplined learning environment … teachers

cannot teach and students cannot learn in a climate marked by chaos and

disruption—about this there is no controversy. (p. 852)

The issue of violence in schools has been a clear concern for school

administrators, teachers, school boards, and parents since the beginning of the 1990s.

For 10 consecutive years, from 1992 to 2002, the annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll

showed that the public believed that school violence and a lack of discipline was the

most pressing issue facing public schools (Bushaw & Lopez, 2012). In reaction to the

public outcry and the growing number of violent acts that occurred at schools,

governors across the United States emphasized the necessity for safety and security in

the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which was signed into law March 31, 1994.

The legislation set a goal that, “By the year 2000, every school in the United States

will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol

and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning” (Paris, 1994,

pp. 22–25).

In addition to evaluating teachers, increasing the Academic Performance

Index (API) scores for each school, meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) targets,

and dealing with literally hundreds of other concerns a day, educators have an

9

additional challenge: educating students while, at the same time, providing them

with a safe and secure environment that is free from violence and fear. This issue has

prompted vast educational changes and reforms in American schools, beginning in

the latter part of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century (Hantman et

al., 2008). Although reforms have been made, and academic researchers have offered

solutions, fear and violence continue to engulf schools across the country and

throughout the world. As a result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, “the

consequences of a public accounting for school safety may have generated more

opportunities for public fear and panic as opposed to increasing conditions for school

safety and security” (Lindle, 2008, p. 28). Consequently, the question regarding how

to create safe schools remains an enigma to both educators and politicians (Akiba,

2008; Wood & Huffman, 1999).

Rationale

Over the last 2 decades, school violence and the issue of security has become

a significant concern throughout the United States (Berkowitz & Benbenishty, 2012;

Rose & Gallup, 1999; Warr, 2000). Around the country, the news media highly

publicizes violent events in secondary schools, constantly reminding the public of the

severe problems that the educational community faces with regard to student safety

(Rose & Gallup, 1999; Shelton et al., 2009). According to the Phi Delta

Kappa/Gallup Poll 2011, 68% of the Americans surveyed heard more negative news

reports about schools than positive ones (Bushaw & Lopez, 2011).

10

Some research has suggested that school violence has experienced a major

decline. Bosworth et al. (2011) claimed that students are safer at school than

anywhere else, as “violent crime in schools declined by 50% between 1993 and 2003”

(p. 194). However, other sources indicate that significant safety issues for students

continue to exist in schools (DeVoe, Peter, Noonan, Snyder, & Baum, 2005).

Although the United States does not have the highest levels of school violence among

all of the countries of the world, students are frequently exposed to school shootings,

physical and sexual assault, threats of violence, weapons and drugs on campus, and

bullying and intimidation that increase fear and trepidation on school campuses

(Akiba, LeTendre, Baker, & Goesling, 2002).

Based on the latest surveys conducted by the National Center for Educational

Statistics (NCES) in 2012, the total number of crimes perpetrated at school on

students ages 12–18 was 52 victimizations for every 1,000 students—much higher

than the 38 victimizations per 1,000 students reported off campus (Robers et al.,

2014). Robers et al., (2014) established that 1.364 million people were victims of

nonfatal crimes among students ages 12–18, “including 615,600 thefts and 749,200

violent crimes” (p. iv). The same report disclosed that 7% of students enrolled in

grades 9–12 had been “threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or

club or school property” (p. iv). The same study also indicated that those exposed to

threats, attacks, and injuries was higher for males than females—10% and 5%

respectively (Robers et al., 2014).

11

Furthermore, Robers et al. (2014) indicated that 4% of students’ ages 12–18

reported that they were more afraid of attack or physical harm while on school

campus, whereas only 2% of students were fearful of attack off campus.

Additionally, 6% of the students skipped at least one day of school or a school

activity out of fear of physical attack on their person. Based on the race and ethnicity

of the students surveyed, 4% of White students and 2% of Asian students reported

being afraid of attack or harm at school, while 9% of Black students and 7% of

Hispanic students claimed fear of violence at school (Robers et al., 2014).

Gangs, drugs, and bullying continue to be issues that create fear and security

issues for students within secondary schools (Volokh & Snell, 1998). Robers et al.

(2014) reported 18% of students within public schools asserted gang activities had

occurred on campus, and 19% reported the presence of gangs in their schools. When

the surveys were disaggregated by ethnicity/race, 21% of both White and Asian

students reported a gang problem at their schools compared to 59% by Black and

Hispanic students.

Furthermore, Robers et al. (2014) found that 26% of students in high school

reported that they had been offered sold or given drugs on campus, and 23% had used

marijuana; both percentages increased by 3 points from 2009. With regard to

ethnicity/race, the percentages of students offered or sold drugs were dramatically

higher. According to Robers et al. (2014), 40% of Native Americans and 39% of

Pacific Islanders were offered or purchased drugs compared to 33% of Hispanic

students and 23% of White, Black, and Asian students.

12

In addition to fears of physical violence, crime, gangs, and drugs, bullying

has impacted American schools significantly. According to Booth, Van Hasselt, and

Vecchi (2011), the number of students who are bullied has increased steadily since

1999. Robers et al. (2014) concluded that 28% of students ages 12–18 reported being

bullied at school, while 9% reported being bullied electronically through social-media

posts or text messaging. He also discovered that the prevalence of students being

bullied was higher among females (19%) than males (16%). In the same study, 26 %

of 9th graders reported being bullied compared to 28% of sophomores, 24% of

juniors, and 22% of seniors (Robers et al., 2014). According to Cowie and Oztug

(2008), “Young people mention relationships within their peer group as the major

factor that causes them to feel unsafe at school.… The most common suggestions for

making school a better place referred to action against bullying” (p. 59).

For decades, school safety and student well-being has been interrelated to

positive academic achievement and the overall success of the students and staff

(Shumow & Lomax, 2001). No amount of instruction and assessment will improve

students’ abilities to learn and to achieve personal and academic success unless they

have a sanctuary where they feel safe, secure, and free from, not only the outside

pressures of society, but also the violence and fear that students are exposed to in

schools (Freiberg, 1998; Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008; Marshall, 2004).

Research has shown that fear of violence at school includes more than merely feeling

unsafe; it also contributes to difficulty paying attention, not participating in class,

lowered grades, lack of attendance, and dropping out (Bowan & Bowan, 1999;

13

Cheng, 2003; Edmondson, Fetro, Drolet, & Ritzel, 2007; Hantman et al., 2008;

Henry, 2000; Shelton et al., 2009). Stephens (1994) suggested that, “Responding to

school violence required a systematic, collaborative approach that will incorporate

prevention, intervention and suppression strategies” (p. 32). Wood and Huffman

(1999) pragmatically observed that “Prevention is always better than reaction”

(p. 23).

Statement of the Problem

Research about schools has consistently identified males as being more prone

to violence at school and the majority of school shooters as White students (Hong,

Cho, Allen-Meares, & Espelage, 2011; Robers et al., 2014). Furthermore, Hong et al.

(2011) asserted that social structure plays a role in establishing a culture of

masculinity where students of lesser economic means are more likely to be bullied.

Even the way a student dresses has been identified as a potential terrorist threat to

students based on race, gender, ethnicity, and social class (Studak & Workman,

2007).

Researchers have profiled the causes and identified the characteristics of those

who commit acts of violence on school campuses; however, few researchers have

queried high school students to reflect on what fears they have and what security

measures increase their perceptions of safety on secondary school campuses (Winter,

2001). Furthermore, Mooij, Smeets, and de Wit (2011) affirmed that “School safety

and corresponding feelings of both pupils and school staff are beginning to receive

more and more attention” (p. 369). Accordingly, Bracy (2011) submitted that

14

students perceive most security stratagems utilized by administrators as

unnecessary and continue to express a desire to play a larger role in the creation of

rules and safety procedures.

According to Hong et al. (2011), researchers all over the world have

recognized that “psychiatric assessment and individual-based violence prevention

strategies are not enough” to stop school violence and ameliorate student fears

(p. 868). Hong et al. (2012) recommended that all other possible ecological factors

that might influence students’ feelings of well-being and the fears they have on

secondary school campuses, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age level and

gender, be studied.

Consequently, the purpose of this research study was to determine (1) what

personal safety and security fears high school students have on campus; (2) how those

specific fears impact high school students’ academic, social, and physical well-being;

and (3) what specific safety measures high school students perceive increase their

feelings of safety and well-being at school.

Research Rationale and Hypotheses

The present study was designed to add to the greater body of knowledge by

analyzing secondary school students’ perceived fears and by identifying specific

measures that students believe would ameliorate their fears and improve school-wide

safety. The literature suggests that safety fears may negatively affect certain

categories of students to a lesser or greater degree (Robers et al., 2014). Therefore,

15

this researcher analyzed the perceptions of four distinct categories of students,

utilizing 8 specific cohorts:

1. Ethnicity/race: This category is defined as a human group having racial,

religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common (William Collins Sons &

Co. Ltd, 2009). This researcher explored the perceptions of White and Hispanic

students concerning school safety.

2. Socioeconomic status (SES): SES is defined as an individual’s or group’s

position within a hierarchical social structure. Socioeconomic status depends on a

combination of variables, including occupation, education, income, wealth, and

place of residence. Sociologists often use socioeconomic status as a means of

predicting behavior (The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural

Literacy, 2014). This researcher analyzed the responses of two cohorts: those

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and those students not eligible for

free or reduced-price lunch.

3. Grade level: Secondary school or high school students traditionally represent

grade levels 9, 10, 11, and 12, or freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors,

respectively (Collins English Dictionary, 2014). This researcher collected and

evaluated data from 2 student cohorts to determine if their safety fears differ

significantly by age group: lowerclassmen (LC), made up of 9th and 10th grade

students, and upperclassmen (UC), comprised of 11th and 12th grade students.

16

4. Gender: In the present study, this researcher compared and contrasted the

safety fears of secondary school students in cohorts: male and female secondary

school students.

The research questions were as follows:

1. What personal safety and security fears do high school students have on campus?

2. How do those specific fears impact high school students’ academic, emotional,

and physical well-being?

3. What specific safety measures do high school students perceive increase their

feelings of safety and well-being at school?

The null hypotheses are as follows:

H1: There is no significant difference in the distribution of responses on a

survey of high school students’ perceived fears in terms of personal safety and

security on high school campuses, disaggregated by ethnicity/race.



security on high school campuses, disaggregated by socioeconomic status.



security on high school campuses, disaggregated by grade level.



security on high school campuses, disaggregated by gender.

17


survey of high school students’ perceptions in terms of how specific fears impact

their academic, social, and physical well-being disaggregated by ethnicity/race.



their academic, social, and physical well-being disaggregated by socioeconomic

status.



their academic, social, and physical well-being disaggregated by grade level.



their academic, social, and physical well-being disaggregated by gender.


survey of high school students’ perceptions in terms of specific safety measures that

are intended to improve their feelings of safety and well-being at school,

disaggregated by ethnicity/race.




disaggregated by socioeconomic status.

18




disaggregated by grade level.




disaggregated by gender.

Significance of the Study

Research is used in many ways to inform educators of important issues within

schools. Unfortunately, very few studies, if any, have been conducted that seek to

discover specific fears students have in secondary schools and how students believe

school administrators should address those fears. Parents expect school district

personnel and site administrators to ensure that schools are safe, viable learning

centers (Astor, Myer, Benenishty, Marachi, & Rosemond, 2005; Hantman et al.,

2008). However, many stakeholders believe that school boards and administrators

have fallen short of this obligation and continue to be reactionary to the violence and

fear that students feel rather than proactively engaging, treating, and eliminating the

underlying problems (Bullock & Fitzsimmons, 1996; Hantman et al., 2008; Wood &

Huffman, 1999).

The present study may provide useful information to secondary school

administrators regarding the types of fears students have on high school campuses

19

and what safety and security methods students perceive would address their fears

and increase their feelings of well-being. As a result, administrators and school

boards may be motivated to utilize student input in establishing school security and

safety measures. Additionally, the findings may encourage a broader conversation by

state and local policy makers regarding the value of student input in the development

and implementation of security measures on high school campuses.

Limitations

The following limitations provided the context in which the study was

conducted:

1. This researcher assumed that the respondents would be honest and candid

regarding their fears and feelings about safety at their school.

2. This researcher used only one secondary school in California to conduct the

study, and, therefore, the conclusions and findings may not generalize to other

secondary schools in California.

3. Cultural, philosophical, and religious differences may have limited parents’

willingness to allow their children to participate in the study.

Delimitations

The following delimitations provided the context in which the study was

conducted:

1. The present study was conducted at one comprehensive high school in a rural

community in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

2. The study did not include secondary students in the 7th and 8th grades.

20

3. The study did not consider primary languages other than English and Spanish.

4. The study did not consider student disciplinary or attendance history.

5. The study did not consider student grades or grade-point averages.

Role of the Researcher

This researcher has worked in education for 14 years, 8 years as a high school

administrator. He has been an assistant principal and principal of both large and

small high schools, ranging in approximate size from 110 students to 2,800 students,

in both California’s San Joaquin Valley and the State of Nebraska. As a teacher for 7

years, this researcher worked with at-risk youth who were prone to gang activity,

violence, drug and alcohol abuse, physical and psychological abuse by relatives and

foster parents, and bullying at school. These experiences directly impacted this

researcher’s desire to conduct a study about students’ perceptions of safety and

security on secondary school campuses. However, previous experiences will be self-

monitored to ensure an objective analysis of the data.

Definition of Terms

Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994. This act was signed into law on

March 31, 1994, under broad support from Congress. The legislation was enacted

with the hope that, by the year 2000, the United States would be leading the world in

math and science by establishing “national and state standards on almost every

important aspect of public schooling, including course content, standardized exams,

and the certification/licensure of teachers,” and every school in the United States

21

would be free of drugs, alcohol, and violence, and would be conducive to learning

(Stevens et al., 2000, p. 350).

Gun Free Schools Act of 1994. This act was signed into law by President

Clinton in response to an increase in gun violence on school campuses. It required all

states to enact legislation to expel students who brought firearms to school for a

minimum of 1 year. Many states chose to expand the scope of the law to include

dangerous weapons such as knives, tasers, firearm look-a-likes, explosives, chains,

severe acts of violence, and drug sales (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Thomas,

2009).

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This statute was enacted in 1990 by

Congress, making possession of a firearm a felony at a place that the individual

knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. In 1995, the Gun Free

School Zones Act of 1990 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, as it

was determined to violate interstate commerce laws outside of the scope of

Congressional control (Safra, 2000).

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1996. In 1996, the Gun-Free School Zones Act

of 1990 was amended, due to changes proposed by Attorney General Janet Reno, to

include language that circumvented the interstate commerce laws. Consequently, the

law was passed in September 1996 (Safra, 2000).

High school. A school attended after elementary school or junior high school,

usually consisting of grades 9 or 10 through 12 (The American Heritage® New

Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 2014).

22

In loco parentis. Parents send their children to school to spend the day in

the company of educators. This simple every-day act removes children from the

physical control of their parents. While parents do not relinquish their responsibility

for their children while the children attend school, parents share some of that

responsibility with teachers and administrators. Schools assume some of the

responsibilities and exercise some of the prerogatives typically reserved for parents

(DeMitchell, 2012).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB was part of a movement

toward standards-based education and assessment that began with the Improving

America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), a reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which was first enacted as part of

President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and designed to focus federal funding on

poor schools with low-achieving students. On January 8, 2002, President George W.

Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. This federal

legislation was intended to identify low-achieving schools as well as persistently

dangerous ones, allowing students to attend a different school if theirs had been so

classified and to hold educators accountable for student performance through

common educational standards and annual testing to track student achievement

(Jorgensen & Hoffman, 2003).

Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program (1986). The Safe and

Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) program was authorized by Congress

in 1986 as a response to alarmingly high rates of alcohol and other drug use among

23

children and youth. The purpose was to provide funds to states and local school

districts to implement anti-drug programs and increase safety on school campuses.

The law provided 20% of the available federal funds to governors to disperse in the

form of grants to school districts. The remaining 80% was allocated to each school

district on the basis of enrollment. In 1994, the Program was reauthorized under Title

IV of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, and in 2002, the Safe and Drug

Free Schools and Communities Act was reauthorized again under No Child Left

Behind, Title IV, Part A. The Program continues to be administered by the Office of

Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) (Sherman, Hoff Sommers, & Manno, 2000).

School Resource Officer. School Resource Officers (SROs) are certified,

sworn police officers who are employed by local police agencies but are permanently

assigned to work in local schools as armed security officers. The addition of SROs

has been a popular response in an effort to reduce or eliminate school violence across

America (Myrstol, 2011).

School violence. School violence occurs on school property, on the way to or

from school or school-sponsored events, or during a school-sponsored event. A young

person can be a victim, a perpetrator, or a witness of school violence. Youth violence

includes various behaviors. Some violent acts, such as bullying, slapping, or hitting,

can cause more emotional harm than physical. Other forms of violence, such as gang

violence and assault (with or without weapons), can lead to serious injury or even

death (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013).

24

Secondary school. A school for young people, usually between the ages of

12 and 18 (Robers et al., 2014).

Stakeholder. A stakeholder in education is an individual or a group of

individuals with an interest in the success of a school or district at fulfilling its

mission—delivering academic and social success of its students—through the every-

day operations, teaching, safety, and well-being of the students they serve (Paine &

McCann, 2009).

Zero-tolerance policy. Zero tolerance is a policy that school districts employ

to consistently impose suspension and expulsion in response to weapons, drugs, and

violence on school campuses. Zero tolerance usually mandates prearranged

consequences, such as suspension or expulsion, in order to remove violators from the

school environment and preserve the peaceful and academic integrity of the school

(Cornell & Mayer, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2008).

Summary

Chapter I discussed the historical and legal background related to school

safety. The rationale for this study suggested that, even with the extensive security

measures in secondary schools today, violence and bullying still exist and increase

the levels of fear and anxiety that students experience. The research questions,

hypotheses, limitations, and delimitations that guided the analysis of the data were

also identified. The significance of the study and definitions were also included in

this chapter to provide the context in which this study was conducted.

25

Chapter II will provide a review of the literature related to the safety

strategies that secondary schools use to temper student violence and eliminate student

fears. Chapter III will discuss the research methodology of the present study,

including the sample population, instrumentation, hypotheses, and alignment of the

survey instrument with the research question, data collection, and the statistical and

descriptive analyses. Chapter IV will present the findings and analyzes of the data,

and Chapter V will explain this researcher’s conclusions, will provide

recommendations for practitioners in the field and suggestions for further research.

26

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

After the tragic events at Columbine High School (1998), Virginia Tech

(2007), Sandy Hook Elementary (2012), and an estimated 12 other incidents as of

April 2014, student safety and school security continues to be a major concern for

students, parents, communities, and secondary school administrators (Ohlheiser,

2014). Consequently, the federal government and private research firms have

responded by conducting qualitative and quantitative studies designed to discover the

motives behind school violence and employ countermeasures to reduce the number of

incidences and eliminate student fears (Kennedy, 2010).

However, Manning and Bucher (2005) suggested, “The [greatest] challenge

lies with the educators who are [ultimately] responsible for making sure that students

do not fear attending school” (p. 5). Unfortunately, as Wood and Huffman (1999)

asserted, “Most of the work which has been done with violence in schools is

anecdotal rather than empirical, and has been done by experts in sociology, law

enforcement, and criminal justice [not] by school administrators” (p. 19). Winter

(2001) stated that very few, if any, of the qualitative and quantitative research studies

conducted today “have asked high school students to describe the atmosphere in their

school and whether they feel safe” (p. 21). Interestingly, state and local officials and

school district administrators have tried for years to calm students’ fears by

implementing stricter policies, installing expensive equipment, and utilizing

27

community resources such as law enforcement officers, social workers, and

counselors to deliver students from the anxiety and fear that surrounds them at school

without tapping into the most important resource available to them: the students

themselves (Bullock & Fitzsimmons, 1996; Stephens, 1994; Winter, 2011; Wood &

Huffman, 1999).

Producing a feeling of safety on campus for secondary students is much more

complex than simply employing metal detectors, surveillance cameras, SROs, and

drug dogs to eliminate violence. This approach ignores the complexities of student

relationships, their intimate knowledge of the school environment, and the

perceptions they have of their own safety. Bosworth et al. (2011) suggested that

perceptions of school security have a far greater impact on students than the programs

and policies designed to deal with the concrete problems facing secondary schools

today. Reynolds et al. (2008) maintained that high schools have the obligation to

utilize any and all means within their limited financial budgets to maintain a secure

environment that is free of violence for secondary students. Reynolds et al. (2008)

concluded, “Teachers cannot teach and students cannot learn in a climate marked by

chaos and disruption—about this there is no controversy” (p. 852).

Historical Framework

During the time of Plato and Aristotle, educators, politicians, parents, and

community members debated issues regarding content and pedagogy (Rorty, 1998).

Today, national Common Core standards, bilingual education, and high-stakes testing

are the hotly contested topics, but as important as each of these initiatives may be,

28

they are dwarfed by the most important issue facing schools today: student safety

(Ashford, Queen, Algozzine, & Mitchell, 2008; Volokh & Snell, 1998). In addition

to evaluating teachers, increasing API scores, meeting AYP targets, educators must

deal with student discipline and provide all pupils with a safe and secure environment

that is free from violence and fear (Reynolds, Skiba, Sheras, Conoley, & Garcia-

Vazquez, 2008; Sparks, 2011a; Stephens, 1994). As Ashford et al. (2008) suggested,

“Few concerns in the history of American Public Education have received as much

attention as this one” (p. 222).

School security and safety is not merely an issue that is current to the latter

half of the 20th century or the present day. As Cornell and Mayer (2010) stated,

“School violence is not so much a new problem as a recurrent one that has not been

adequately recognized for its persistence and pervasiveness throughout the history of

education” (p. 7). Evidence depicts student violence dating back over 2,000 years to

early Mesopotamia, the Middle Ages, and throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.

England, France, and the American colonies all experienced student discipline issues

ranging from mild misbehavior to assaults, rioting, and even violent altercations with

swords and firearms (Crews & Counts, 1997).

Throughout United States history, schoolchildren’s misdeeds have been well

documented. In Tennessee during the 1830s, a teacher was stabbed and dropped into

a well, and the school house was burned down (Wyatt-Brown, 1986). However,

technological advances in communications during the 20th century brought

knowledge of these safety and security lapses on school campuses to mainstream

29

America. In Bath, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, a school board member, Andrew

Kehoe, killed 45 people (38 of them elementary school children) and injured 58 when

he detonated a bomb at the Bath Consolidated School; he then set off a car bomb as

rescuers and onlookers gathered at the school to help. This act was the worst disaster

to occur in an American school up to that time (Fisher, 2007; Lindle, 2008; Shah,

2013).

As news of violence in schools began to spread throughout the decades of the

20th century, students began to direct extreme acts of violence toward other students

(Davis, 1971). In the 1920s, students fought with fists and occasionally rioted, but for

the most part, the time represented a period of affluence and opulence where schools

taught morality, character, and citizenship to students (Denmark et al., 2005).

According to Johnston (2012), prior to the 1950s there was little concern by school

administrators about school violence; however, more recent research created

conflicting reports (Warner et al., 1999). A 1949 survey of high school principals

suggested that they had no major issues with either student violence or destruction of

property, but by 1956, the National Education Association (NEA) found that violence

was becoming a serious issue on school campuses (Warner, Weist, & Krulak, 1999).

Johnston (2012) asserted that a quick inquiry of the New York Times produced 18

incidences of violence with firearms on school campuses between January 1, 1940,

and December 31, 1959.

By the 1960s and 1970s, knives took the place of fists, bats, and bricks, and

violent acts with firearms began to occur more frequently. On August 1, 1966,

30

Charles Whitman took the elevator to the observation deck of the clock tower at the

University of Texas in Austin, and began a shooting rampage, hitting 31 people—

killing 14. This was the deadliest shooting on a college campus until 2007 (Denmark

et al., 2005, Fisher, 2007; Knox et al., 1992). Denmark et al. (2005) maintained that

the number of homicides on elementary and secondary schools increased by nearly

20%. In the 1980s, violent acts on school property, specifically shootings, became

more prevalent, as the country experienced three major tragedies in the decade. The

first school shooting took place in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1983. The next occurred in

Winnetka, Illinois, and the last of the decade took place in Stockton, California, in

1989. In total, 8 students died and 34 were wounded in attacks on school campuses

(Fisher, 2007).

By the 1990s, assault (with and without weapons), sexual assault, rape,

bullying, intimidation, arson, extortion, robbery, theft, hazing, and drug and alcohol

abuse all increased on school campuses (Volokh & Snell, 1998). Fisher (2007) called

the 90s “the worst decade on record for school shootings” (p. 46). In April of 1999,

12 students and one teacher were killed, and 24 others were wounded at Columbine

High School in Colorado—the worst loss of life at a secondary school in American

history to date and the second most deadly in a public school setting in nearly 80

years (Fisher, 2007). School violence became a major issue facing American society

as a whole and was no longer considered a random issue that affected only a few

unfortunate schools and families (Crews & Counts, 1997).

31

The last decade of the 20th century and the early 21st century saw acts of

violence occur based on rebellion, anger, and protest by disgruntled students to

premeditated random acts of terrorism (Denmark et al., 2005). Research conducted

by Flannery et al. (2013) indicates that, from “1996 to 2006, 207 student homicides

occurred in US schools, an average of 21 deaths per year … with 65% attributed to

gunshot wounds—including the deaths of 13 students and a teacher at Columbine

High School in 1999” (p. 2). According to the most recent data gathered by the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) from July 1, 2010, through June 30,

2011, there were 31 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary

schools in the United States (Robers et al., 2014). The shooting deaths at Virginia

Tech University in 2007 and the 26 students, teachers, and administrators at Sandy

Hook Elementary School in 2012 continue to stimulate student fears and to shock the

educational community (Jones, 2013; Kennedy, 2010).

Consequently, school administrators across the United States have

implemented plans to protect students by improving security measures. From

installing metal detectors and video surveillance to hiring security staff and police

officers, educators are trying to be vigilant about protecting students and staff on

school campuses. Research clearly substantiates these efforts by school officials. In

2011, 95% of the students in one study reported that their schools implemented a

student code of conduct, while 89% of the students reported that school staff or adult

supervision was visible in the hallways. Furthermore, 77% of the students between

the ages of 12 and 18 reported seeing security cameras in their schools, 70% reported

32

the presence of campus security or SROs at their schools, and 11% maintained that

their schools used metal detectors on their campus (Robers et al., 2014, p. viii).

However, violence and bullying have not disappeared and continue to create

anxiety among students (Rea & Stallworth-Clark, 2003). According to the most

recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll 2013, 51% of the public school parents agreed or

strongly agreed that school districts should employ more armed security guards in

schools. The same poll showed that 35% of the parents agreed or strongly agreed

with arming teachers and administrators to keep their students safe at school (Bushaw

& Lopez, 2013). Unfortunately, the most important resource available about how to

address school violence and eliminate student fears is consistently overlooked: the

students themselves (Winter, 2011).

Although secondary school administrators have observed and dealt with many

forms of student violence throughout hundreds of years of education, and they

understand the necessity of having student safety and school security measures in

place, the attacks of September 11, 2001, “put the issue of [school] safety and

security on the front burner” (Kennedy, 2011, p. 19). The United States not only

responded by creating the U.S. Department of Homeland Security but also developed

the National Incident Management System (NIMS) for entities such as schools to

prepare for and respond to significant terrorist attacks and violent calamities across

the nation. Under NIMS, the Department of Education encourages school officials to

be familiar with and institute its six major components: command, preparedness,

33

resource management, communications and information management, supportive

technologies, and management maintenance.

Faced with intense public pressure to provide a safety for students from a

myriad of terrorist-type of attacks, schools engage in lockdown drills and other

emergency plans designed to deal with a myriad of contingencies (Kennedy, 2011).

Consequently, new generations of students have become accustomed to more

intensive security measures such as video surveillance, the presence of police officers

on campus, zero-tolerance policies, conflict mediation, and instruction-based

programs to reduce bullying, gang activity, and violence (Juvonen, 2001; Rand,

2001). School buildings are painted with numbers that identify them in a systematic

way. Intercoms and electronic door locks are designed to keep students in school

rooms and intruders out. Signs also help with the transportation of students on and

off campus. Increased security is simply the new normal for schools and students

(Kennedy, 2011).

Legal Framework

The issue of school safety has prompted vast educational changes and federal

and state legal reforms in American schools, beginning in the latter part of the 20th

century (Hantman et al., 2008). Over the last 40 years, the federal government has

conducted investigations and has passed legislation in an effort to eliminate school

violence and student fears that are perceived to spoil the American educational

system (Cornell & Mayer, 2010). In 1975, a Senate report concluded that homicide,

rape, and assault in schools were increasing dramatically (Bayh, 1975). Additionally,

34

the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program of 1986, the Gun Free

School Zones Act of 1990, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, and the Gun Free

School Zones Amended Act of 1996 all depict U.S. educational institutions as places

that no longer resembled a safe learning environment but an ever-increasing danger

for students (Cornell & Mayer, 2010; Gregory & Cornell, 2009).

In an effort to combat violence in California schools, voters amended the State

Constitution in 1982 by adding the “Right to Safe Schools” provision under Article I,

§28, subdivision (c), which states, “All students and staff or public primary,

elementary, junior high and senior high schools have the inalienable right to attend

campuses which are safe, secure, and peaceful” (as cited in Biegel, 1987, p. 789).

Furthermore, Glaeser and Calcagnie (2005) cited California Government Code

§ 820(a), 815.2(a), which states that school personnel, as well as school districts, can

be held liable for injuries to students and staff due to a lack of reasonable safety and

security measures. Schools are obligated to act in loco parentis to ensure that

students are safe in schools (Greene, Barrios, Blair, & Kolbe, 2004).

In reaction to public outcry and the growing number of violent acts that were

occurring at schools, governors across the United States emphasized the necessity for

safety and security in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which was signed into

law March 31, 1994. The legislation set a goal that, “By the year 2000, every school

in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of

firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning”

(Paris, 1994, pp. 22–25).

35

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 mandated that states identify

“persistently dangerous schools,” but they may do so in many different ways

(Christie, 2004, p. 5). Schools that are designated “persistently dangerous” must

allow students to move to a “safer school,” similar to the policy under the NCLB,

which allows students to switch schools if their school is designated as an

“underperforming school” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). However, the

“NCLB provides no remedies for persistently dangerous schools other than an escape

route for some students” (Lindle, 2004, p. 37). Under the NCLB, “the consequences

of a public accounting for school safety may have generated more opportunities for

public fear and panic as opposed to increasing conditions for school safety and

security” (Lindle, 2008, p. 28). Consequently, the question regarding how to create

safe schools appears to continue to be an enigma to educators and politicians (Akiba,

2008; Wood & Huffman, 1999).

Identifying Security and Safety Issues

According to Bullock and Fitzsimons (1996), “The problem of aggression and

violence in schools has reached such a serious level that the Center for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) refers to it as a national epidemic” (p. 34). Cruelty,

bullying, persecution, and harassment toward students must be combated at all levels

of education. Just as district and school administrators seek to eliminate illiteracy,

increase student achievement, and eradicate drop-out rates, definitive strategies must

be employed to remove violence, bullying, intimidation, and harassment on

campuses. Unfortunately, schools as well as communities react to these issues only if

36

episodes of violence make the headlines of the local, community, or national

media. Nationwide, educators need to make safety and security a goal that is as

important as rigorous academic standards (Hantman et al., 2008).

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) (2010), the goal for

schools should be to stop violence before it occurs. Prevention is a proactive method

for dealing with potential issues that could become violent. The CDC suggested a

four-stage approach to deal with school violence. First, the stakeholders must

understand the problem. Describing the issues means analyzing data, which, in turn,

identifies what type of violent behaviors are taking place, where they are happening,

and who is involved. Second, “prevention must focus on the variety of factors that

put people at risk for experiencing or perpetrating school violence … prevention

efforts must focus on these factors” (p. 4). Third, prevention strategies must be

designed from an assessment of the research. Once programs are developed, “they

must be evaluated rigorously to determine their effectiveness” (p. 4). Fourth, once

the programs and policies have been proven effective through research-based inquiry,

they must be implemented with fidelity in schools and communities. Trainings must

supply teachers and staff with the ability to execute the strategies in order to have the

greatest impact (CDC, 2010).

In 1994, educational professionals were invited to a conference called the

Eagle Summit in Irving, Texas, to specifically discuss the issues facing students in

schools. Drawing on their expertise in education, juvenile justice, mental health, and

counseling, the group arrived at a consensus about the most effective means to

37

improve school safety. The practices included establishing a School Safety Task

Force much like a School Safety Committee, determining the scope of the problem in

the school by identifying the types of incidents and the hot spots on campus where

students were most likely to be involved in violent acts, and creating and maintaining

a strict discipline policy that was fair and firm. Having adequate security and

supervision visible at all times was also imperative. Additionally, closely monitoring

visitor access onto the campus, implementing strict interventions by posting

emergency plans, and establishing behavior contracts that utilize Alternative

Education placement as a consequence for violence and abusive behaviors are actions

that cultivate safety at school (Bullock & Fitzsimons, 1996).

Wood and Huffman (1998) conducted research among six urban high schools

in Texas to identify detailed strategies that were cited by teachers, students,

administrators, and former gang members as being effective at preventing gang-

related behavior and violence at schools. The research showed that violence,

bullying, intimidation, and harassment were drastically reduced when the schools

followed a number of prevention policies. The first strategy was a well-defined

student code of conduct that was readily available to all students and parents. The

second was a stringent dress code that was strictly enforced by administrators,

teachers, and campus security. The third focused on administrators (both principals

and assistant principals) who were highly visible, available, and approachable.

Additionally, each campus employed a School Resource Officer and was frequently

visited by drug dogs (Wood & Huffman, 1999).

38

Bullying and Violence

Akiba (2008) detailed how school safety issues are not unique to the United

States but exist across the world. The author asserted that school violence and fear

affect student attendance, motivation, and, most importantly, academic achievement.

The study was conducted across 33 countries in an effort to answer three questions:

(a) How does the level of eighth graders’ fears of becoming victims of school

violence differ across 33 countries? (b) How do the individual characteristics of

eighth graders who fear becoming victims of school violence differ across 33

countries? And (c) What school and teacher characteristics are associated with the

level of eighth graders’ fears in the 33 countries? He discoverd that classroom

management was an intricate factor in students’ perceptions of safety. “School

disorganization” was the number one predictor of a fear of violence among eighth

graders in developed nations such as the USA, Chile, Israel, the Netherlands, and

Taiwan (p. 68). Akiba (2008) concluded, “Across the world, educators and policy

makers need to know that approximately 28.5% of 8th graders in school feel that it is

not a safe place to learn and fear becoming victims of violence” (p. 69).

In 2005, Mooij provided an analysis of a national campaign in the Netherlands

waged on bullying and violence. Beginning in 1991, the study began with bullying

involving 36 secondary schools and 1,055 students. The study concerning student

violence began in 1993, utilizing 71 secondary schools and 1,998 students. The final

study for both bullying and violence was completed in 2000. In 2000, the number of

39

schools that remained in the study were the same for both categories: 60 schools,

291 teachers, and 9,948 pupils ranging from 12 to 18 years of age.

The purpose of the analysis was to identify differences in the amount of

bullying and violence before and after the implementation of the campaign. The data

from pupils in identical school years were compared with respect to bullying between

1991 and 2000 and violence between 1993 and 2000. The statistical relations were

analyzed in a two-step multiple-regression analysis. According to the study, the years

of investigation (1991–2000 and 1993–2000) was the respective dependent variable.

The independent variables were pupils’ bullying or violence scores, sex, school year,

contextual lesson, school, and community variables. In order to conduct a test for

reliability and homogeneity, the responses were coded as (1) does not happen,

(2) sometimes happens, (3) regularly happens, and (4) frequently/always happens.

In both regression analyses, the contextual lesson and school variables

discriminated between the measurement years. In the first study, Mooij analyzed the

two groups: (a) the control group of students who took the survey in 1991

(N = 1,055), and (b) the experimental group that took the survey again in 2000

(N = 4,159). A t-test for independent groups was used to compare the groups’

exposure to bullying and the programs used to reduce bullying. The results showed

that there was a slight difference in the experimental group’s mean number of

students being bullied directly. Compared with 1991, the pupils in 2000 scored lower

for being a bully and higher for being bullied directly.

40

In the second study, Mooij analyzed the two groups: (a) the control group

of students who took the survey in 1993 (N = 1,998), and (b) the experimental group

that took the survey again in 2000 (N = 4,615). A t-test for independent groups was

used to compare the groups’ exposure to violence in schools and the programs used to

reduce violent behavior. The results showed that, compared with the students in

1993, the students in 2000 scored lower for being perpetrators of disruptive behavior

in school and higher for being perpetrators of intentional damage to property (Mooij,

2005).

According to Mooij (2005), the programs initiated in the Netherlands reflected

results in reducing violent behavior and improving student awareness of the issue of

proper social behavior. The nationwide effort consisted of a contest for videos,

photographs, texts, comic strips, posters, and music that promoted combating

violence and bullying. Student hotlines were installed; health and safety plans were

created and made available to students, staff, and parents; and welfare and counseling

organizations teamed up in order to provide counseling and other social services such

as anger management and conflict resolution. The number one factor that appeared to

have the greatest impact on lowering the amount of bullying and violence was

generating social awareness and educating students and adults in the communities and

school systems on the extent of the problems (Mooij, 2005).

From 2003 to 2006, the Alabama Department of Education took part in a

survey of its middle and high school students to determine the level of substance

abuse and dangerous behaviors among their students. According to the data collected

41

through a questionnaire called the Pride Questionnaire, 228 questions were asked

to get students to self-report about behaviors they considered dangerous and whether

or not they were engaged in them. According to Alabama’s Department of

Education, 263,944 students participated between 2003 and 2005. The data were

compared, and trends emerged. Initially, from 2003 to 2005, fewer students reported

being afraid at school, from 23.7% down to 21.7%. Students experiencing

threatening behaviors and being hurt at school were down from 41% to 37.9% and

22.7 to 20.8%, respectively (Pride Surveys, 2006).

The dichotomy with regard to this study is that, while more students felt safe

at school and non-threatened, the number of students participating in gangs and gang-

related activity went up. The Alabama Department of Education reported in 2005

that 36.4% of the students surveyed were gang members and sold drugs at school,

38.7% of the gang members said that they had threatened a teacher, and 23.5% of the

gang members claimed that they had been physically violent with other students on

campus, “using a gun, knife, or club” (Pride Surveys, 2006, p. 5).

School Resource Officers

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, local law enforcement agencies

have been asked to play an increasingly prominent role in ensuring school safety. The

federal office for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) initiated the School

Resource Officer (SRO) Program in an effort to reduce violence in local school

districts (Ramey, 2004). State and local law enforcement agencies are bringing

42

community policing to schools by hiring SROs who utilize a community-oriented

policing philosophy (Ramey, 2004).

SROs provide another proactive measure against violence on school

campuses. At Kettering City Schools in Ohio, the SRO program has established itself

as a beneficial addition to other security measures instituted by the school. Ramey

(2004) asserted that a study completed by Community Oriented Policing Programs

(COPS) showed that the presence of SROs “satisfied the needs of students, staff, and

parents to feel safe” (p. 71). SRO programs serve as an integral part of overall

school-safety programs. Having an SRO on campus during times of crisis reduces

response time from emergency services and increases perceptions of safety on

campus by students and staff (Booth et al., 2011). Booth et al. (2011) suggested that

“a positive and collaborative relationship between law enforcement personnel and

students can increase information flow and enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of

threat assessments” (p. 8).

Kettering Fairmont High School also used data to determine what kind of

impact the SRO program had on the student body. According to the school, the data

showed “a highly significant difference in student behavior within the school and

community before and after the implementation of the SRO program” (Ramey, 2004,

p. 70). Kettering Fairmont High School revealed two conclusions from its research.

The first was that “students’ behavior changed when law enforcement officers were

present, [and second] the behavior of students in the community also changed with

the increased presence of law enforcement officers in the school” (Ramey, 2004,

43

pp. 71–72). According to school discipline records, suspensions decreased by

19%, expulsions by 26%, and office referrals by 7% (Ramey, 2004, p. 72).

However, in another study, the assignment of police officers on campus

“offers increased risk of resistance and antisocial behaviors as well as erodes the

personal relationships between teachers and students” (Lindle, 2004, p. 36). Watts

and Erevelle (2004) suggested that the visibility of school personnel, especially

teachers rather than SROs, provide the ultimate deterrent to any uncivil or criminal

behavior on school premises. Teachers can be a powerful influence on lowering the

potential for violence if they are perceived as being personally connected to and care

about students (Astor, Meyer, & Beyer, 1999).

School Culture and Climate

School culture is the “quality and frequency of interactions between staff

members in the school and students, among the students, among the staff members

themselves, and between the staff at the school and parents and the community”

(Gorton, Alston, & Snowden, 2007, p. 163). The vision of every high school

administrator should be to provide a peaceful place where a diverse group of people is

able to learn together in cooperation and unity (a place of meaningful instruction),

where academic success flourishes because students know they are safe.

Johnson (2009) provided an insightful look into predictable factors that

contribute to improving school culture and climate in a cross analysis of 25 different

research studies that identified similarities in the reduction of school violence by

improving school culture and environment. His examination produced five specific,

44

overlapping points about reducing school violence. He found that (a) students and

teachers must develop positive relationships of trust with each other, (b) students and

teachers must be well informed of the rules and believe they are just, (c) students

must have ownership in their school and want to be a part of the planning and

learning process, (d) classrooms should be well-organized and conducive to academic

learning, and (e) administrators must constantly work to improve students’

perceptions of safety and order on campus. In contrast, schools that were more

susceptible to violence were viewed by students and staff as employing

administrators who were uncooperative and unsupportive of the staff and lacked basic

security provisions (Johnson, 2009).

Three core beliefs form the underpinnings of a successful and safe

environment. These beliefs are (a) everyone deserves to be respected and to have his

or her opinion valued, no matter what ethnicity, age, gender, or ability; (b) students,

staff, parents, and community members have a stake in keeping the school safe and

each has a vital role to play; and (c) schools must be sanctuaries where all people feel

protected and welcome, whether they are students, parents, staff, administrators, or

community members.

Suspension, Zero Tolerance, and No-Contact Contracts

According to Dufresne and Dorn (2005), the idea that adult supervision makes

students safe is a fallacy. Lindle (2008) also asserted that school safety is a fantasy

that parents and communities want to believe, and when violence occurs, the

perception of safety turns into panic that results in “school policies and rules that,

45

perversely, may exacerbate community fears (p. 28). School officials cannot

guarantee every student’s safety at every moment even if it is a primary responsibility

of schools “to provide a safe and orderly environment that is conducive to learning”

(Ramey, 2004, p. 70). Bullying, violent behavior, and sexual harassment can occur

within 10 feet of a teacher. Just because a coach, teacher, or staff member is present

does not mean that students are being supervised.

In an effort to maintain safety, schools have implemented zero-tolerance

policies as a method of preventing school violence. According to Gregory and

Cornell (2009), “Zero tolerance is the most popular and widespread discipline reform

in American schools today” (p. 106). Gregory and Cornell (2009) suggest that

through zero tolerance, administrators can remove the dangerous students

immediately, therefore making the school safer and sending a stern message to

would-be offenders that the school will not tolerate violence and misbehavior.

Reynolds et al. (2008) suggested that zero tolerance is utilized because school

violence is at crisis levels, and prevention is needed. Zero tolerance increases the

consistency of school discipline and clarifies the message of no nonsense to students.

Removing students who violate school rules creates a climate that is conducive to

learning, and swift punishment has a deterring effect on students, “thus improving

overall student behavior and discipline” (Reynolds et al., 2008, pp. 853–854).

However, Lindle (2008) maintained that zero tolerance does not work because

“the tendency to clamp down on disruptive students merely establishes an escalating

spiral of mayhem that affords little protection to nonviolent students … and in fact,

46

ensures antisocial development among offenders” (p. 38). Kohn (2004) asserted

that “Fear often drives people into rash decisions and wrong-headed policies that may

exacerbate conditions and certainly offer unintended consequences” (p. 23).

Actions based on zero-tolerance policies “appear to be common sense,

pragmatic responses, but are predicated on the assumption that violence can be

stamped out one individual perpetrator at a time through a generic set of

punishments” (Lindle, 2008, p. 33). Lindle emphasized that schools need to

administer the remedy of suspension and expulsion in a very careful manner and,

when utilized, find ways to “reintegrate offenders into educational processes” through

school- and community-based youth programs for social development (p. 39).

Christle, Nelson and Jolivette (2004) found that increased worries over school

safety have led to higher rates of suspension in schools in an effort to make schools

more secure. This research has shown that suspension is not a disciplinary strategy

that eliminates risk. In fact, the data showed that “exclusionary policies such as

suspension may contribute to the risks for youth delinquency” (Christle et al., 2004,

pp. 524–525). The researchers discovered that in 20 Kentucky schools with the

highest suspension rates, compared to 20 schools with the lowest suspensions,

suspension was not an effective method for reducing bad behavior and youth

violence. Christle et al. (2004) maintained that serious violations of school safety

threaten the security of students and require suspension under current policies, but

suspending these students has shown to increase their risk of continuing to engage in

violence and crime.

47

The Josephson Institute of Ethics (2001) discovered in a survey of 15,000

boys and girls of secondary school age “that 75% of the boys and more that 60% of

the girls had hit someone in the past 12 months out of anger” (Thomas & Smith,

2004, p. 135). Therefore, in 2002, Thomas and Smith (2004) conducted a study

comparing violent and nonviolent youth, using categorical variables and a chi-square

analysis of 123 boys and 158 girls with a mean age of 15.3 years. What they

discovered was that 49% of boys and 41% of girls did not think of themselves as

well-liked by their peers and 70% of boys and 65% of girls reported being lonely

which directly correlated with whether they behaved violently or nonviolently in

school. Thomas and Smith (2004) also discovered, “Violent youth compared to

nonviolent youth, were also more likely to perceive school discipline as unfair

(χ2 = 19.95, p < .001)” (p. 140).

Comparisons of violent and nonviolent youths on three anger variables

showed considerable significance. The researchers found violent youth were less

likely to suppress their anger (t=3.55, p=.0005), violent youth were more likely to

vent their anger toward others (t=3.68, p=.0004); and violent youth were less likely to

discuss their anger in a healthy way (t=2.32, p=.02) (Thomas & Smith, 2004, p. 140).

There were only two differences in the anger variables: boys scored higher than girls

on showing and expressing their anger aloud and in the open, while girls scored

higher on internalizing anger and letting it fester within them.

Thomas and Smith (2004) suggested that interventions were needed to work

with alienated students and to find ways to connect them and make them feel a part of

48

the whole student body, school culture, and community. The students who

participated in the study, no matter if they were classified as violent or nonviolent,

suggested that school was like a prison, that it was too rigid with rules, that policing

was overbearing, that metal detectors were oppressive, that video cameras invaded

student privacy, and that zero-tolerance policies meted out disproportionate

punishments using suspensions and expulsions (Thomas & Smith, 2004).

No contact orders are a way for administrators to deal with students that have

exhibited bullying or violent tendencies toward other students. These are legal

contracts enabled to be enforced due to the mandate that school staff has to protect

students—even if it means from other students. No contact orders are being utilized

and enforced at schools around the nation in lieu of suspension. According to Henley

v. Iowa District Court (1995), a student who “violates a no contact order may face a

criminal charge or a civil contempt charge” (Mayes, 2008, pp. 39–40).

In order to assist students in creating optimal conditions for maintaining an

effective no contact order, it may be necessary for school officials to change the

offender’s schedule so that it does not coincide with the victim’s, change the

offender’s locker assignment, inform staff and have a policy in place should they see

the aggressor violate the order, and possibly alter dismissal times for the offender in

order to eliminate all contact with the victim (Mayes, 2008). Doing nothing is not an

option. When a no contact order has been violated and reported to the school, law

enforcement must be contacted and/or suspension must occur. Mayes (2008) asserted

that schools may not be selective in enforcing the order. In an effort to avoid possible

49

violence, students must know that the “school’s disciplinary practices [are]

immediate and certain.… If perpetrators know that school officials selectively or

arbitrarily report no contact order violations, they feel less risk when choosing to

violate an order” (p. 43).

Security of School Facilities

The National Association of Secondary School Principals (2004)

recommended that administrators conduct school security assessments to help reduce

the risk of violence on their campuses. According to Trump (1999), “pre-packaged

programs look good on paper, but the most effective safety measures are the ones

tailored to your school—and a comprehensive assessment will bear out your school’s

needs” (p. 18). Trump suggested that assessments should be piloted by “individuals

with experience in professional security, but in cooperation with administrators”

(p. 20). The components of an assessment should focus on security and police

staffing, security policies, safety procedures, crisis preparedness, education and

training, physical security of staff and students, and linkages to community and

school intervention programs. Trump provided tips for choosing a security

consultant, suggesting that assessors have school-security experience and that they

are independent, meaning that they have no products to sell. Real-world knowledge,

verifiable credentials, professional behavior, and good public relations round out the

final requirements for finding an assessment team.

However, Dufresne and Dorn (2005) maintained that school officials are not

fairly reciprocated for services provided by private-security consultant services. He

50

asserted that, with the assistance of government programs and materials, schools

and communities can do a better job of writing safety plans and establishing

emergency procedures than paid consultants can.

In 2003, at New York City High School, security measures became fully

electronic. Technologically advanced surveillance equipment became so widespread

that the school became known in the community and in the media as the “surveillance

spectacle” (Kress, 2011, p. 17). Students were literally monitored throughout the

school by security guards and police officers via live-feed video cameras. Students

were subject to bag searches with X-ray equipment; they were required to enter the

campus through metal detectors and had to scan an identification card as they entered

and left campus. Teachers “were required to place their hands on a biometric time

clock.… This clock scanned their fingerprints and documented when they entered and

exited the building” (Kress, 2011, p. 18). However, the Journal of School Health

published the results of a study that was an amalgam of seven studies that were

completed over 15 years; in this study, the researchers found that “there is insufficient

data to determine whether the presence of metal detectors in schools reduces the risk

of violent behavior among students, and some research suggests that the presence of

metal detectors may detrimentally impact student perceptions of safety” (Hankin,

Mertz, & Simon, 2011, p. 100).

As far back as 1997, a fatal stabbing at Bayonne High School in New York

prompted the school to initiate broad security measures. As cited by Peterson (1997),

the school’s 40 doors were locked at all times, except for three doors that were

51

supervised by school staff and remained open until 9 a.m. Visitors were allowed

through the front door only, which was monitored by a video camera. Students and

staff were required to wear identification badges, and the school driveways and

parking lots were closed to traffic; however, metal detectors were not installed on the

campus.

In April 2008, the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF)

authored a security pamphlet titled “Low-Cost Security Measures for School

Facilities.” The purpose of the pamphlet was to provide schools with low-cost ideas

about how to improve school-safety measures. The NCEF identified three areas of

importance that school administrators should address in order to increase safety: the

physical security inside and outside of schools and the general policies that schools

should have in place. First, it is important to identify troubled areas of schools where

security may be an issue and have students stay out of them, if possible. Next, the

NCEF suggested that crisis-response teams be set up at the schools to deal with major

catastrophes and to assist emergency responders. The pamphlet suggested that school

administrators do numerous things outside the buildings, ranging from delineating

school-property boundaries with vegetation, signs, or fencing and establishing clear

lines of sight throughout campus to eliminate hiding places. Schools should have

distinctive markings that identify buildings clearly, and they should have proper

lighting. Inside buildings, the number of entrances should be limited to as few as

possible. Rooms and doors should be numbered in a logical sequence so that first

responders can locate them quickly. Hallways should be kept free from clutter and

52

debris, and all classrooms should have medical supplies and effective

communication lines to the main office.

In Houston, Texas, 16,000 students in the Spring Independent School District

were required to swipe identification tags as they entered school buses. Monitoring

equipment tracked them from the bus, into the schools, and as they left for home.

More than 1,000 security cameras watched students all day long. Visitors had to

surrender their drivers’ licenses to secretaries and waited while their IDs were

reviewed against the national database of sex offenders. According to Toppo (2006),

1 in 3 schools temporarily isolates visitors inside secure entrances, just like the one in

Houston, Texas, until they are approved to enter. Using a security tracking system

designed by Raptor Technologies, if the visitor is a sex offender, Raptor emails a

photo of the subject to the police station, and the school restricts access to the would-

be visitor. Police officers suggested that ID checks are definite deterrents to criminal

activity, but one police chief also acknowledged that, “If somebody’s really

determined to get into a school and they have a high enough caliber weapon, they’re

going to get in” (Toppo, 2006, p. 1).

Due to a high level of street violence in Chicago, Illinois, the City Council

decided to use $30 million in federal stimulus monies to create a program at the

City’s 38 high schools, called “cultures of calm,” which focused on improving

attendance, behavior, and academic success (Kennedy, 2010, p. 17). According to

recent studies completed, in 6 of the 38 high schools, attendance has increased,

discipline issues had decreased, and the D and F list had been reduced. The “cultures

53

of calm” program also includes a program called Safe Passage, where students are

provided transportation to and from school to avoid high-crime neighborhoods.

Additionally, the school is working with the community to establish a School

Community Watch group to assist in keeping students safe and a mentor program for

3,000 students who were determined to have the highest risk for falling victim to

violence (Kennedy, 2010). The Board of Education suggested that the programs have

a two-fold purpose: “to reduce the likelihood that at-risk students will engage in, or

become victims of violence; and creating a safe and supportive environment for

students to improve attendance and excel academically” (Kennedy, 2010, p. 18).

Implementation of security measures on school facilities often follows dire

conflicts and events as schools continue to be reactive rather than proactive. In 2007,

a student shot and wounded two teachers and two students at a Cleveland, Ohio,

school before killing himself. Four days later, students returned to school through a

newly installed metal detector and an X-ray scanner machine to check their

backpacks. Additionally, the Cleveland Police Department assigned 10 additional

officers to the City’s schools (Flask, 2007).

Students’ Perceptions of Security Measures

Bracy (2011) asserted that public schools have changed considerably over the

last 40 years in response to school violence and student safety. Currently, public

schools are high-security environments in which police officers, security cameras,

metal detectors, and strict discipline policies are used to keep students in line and to

maintain safe campuses. These changes undoubtedly influence the social climate of

54

schools, yet very little is known about how students experience and perceive these

measures.

Through ethnographic research in two contemporary public high schools,

Bracy (2011) examined students’ perceptions of high-security school environments,

including perceptions of their SROs, their schools’ discipline policies and

punishments, and the schools’ fairness-in-rule application. The findings in this study

showed that students perceived their schools to be safe places and thought many of

the security strategies the schools used were unnecessary. Students further expressed

feelings of powerlessness as a result of the manner in which their schools enforced

rules and handed down punishments (Bracy, 2011).

Lindle (2008) suggested that students’ perceptions of the likelihood of

violence on school campus is increased with the visibility of security measures such

as SROs, surveillance cameras, fences, and security doors. According to Gastic

(2011), metal detectors may stigmatize the campus and cause students, parents, and

teachers to experience a higher level of fear. Metal detectors are “negatively

correlated with students’ sense of safety at school” (Gastic, 2011, p. 486). The

measures designed to make students feel secure actually have the opposite effect

(Reddy et al., 2001). Actions taken by schools to augment security measures and

student safety are the weakest methods of increasing students’ perceptions of safety

(Kitsantas, Ware, & Martinez, 2004).

55

Student Safety vs. Academic Performance

According to Hantman et al. (2008), a school’s discipline and safety practices

can significantly impact a students’ perceived safety at school, and significantly

impact their academic performance. According to the authors, 6% of students skip

school each day for fear of physical harm coming to them. However, Hantman et al.

reaffirmed that, “Just as safe and healthy school climates contribute to effective

teaching and learning, disruption, violence, and threats of violence greatly impede

learning” (p. 2). Hantman et al. maintained that schools must initiate effective

discipline policies and safety practices in a proactive manner to increase students’

perceptions of safety at school.

Additionally, Goldstein, Young, and Boyd (2008) maintained that student

achievement is dramatically reduced when students perceive their school as unsafe.

When students experience fear, intimidation, or bullying, they are less likely to focus

on academics. Additionally, Wolf (2009) suggested that students’ abilities to solve

cognitive problems are hampered, and they are more likely to fail in the classroom

environment when they are fearful. Freiberg (1998) asserted that an atmosphere of

safety and peace at school can have a positive impact on the academic and social

success of students and can greatly enhance their experience and attitude toward

school.

Classroom Management and Student Safety

In another study, Allen (2010) discovered that classroom management had a

high degree of correlation to bullying. Bullying is more likely to occur in classrooms

56

where burned-out or novice teachers allow student behavior to get out of control.

Research has shown that teasing, harassment, and bullying, which are factors in many

school shootings, begin in the classroom setting. Successful classroom management

establishes “rules and procedures, organizing groups, monitoring and pacing

classroom events, and reacting to misbehavior” (Allen, 2010, p. 2).

Classroom rules are an important part of maintaining control of the school

climate and culture. Rules should be “simple, clear, measurable, limited in number,

and should be created with student input (Allen, 2010, p. 8). However, classroom

rules are not the only line of defense against misbehavior. According to Allen (2010),

the best defense against student bullying and discipline issues is effective instruction.

Engaging students in lessons that differentiate instruction and utilizing strategies they

can relate to in their own lives eliminates many behavior issues that teachers have in

class and helps establish relationships with students in which they feel like partners in

the learning process (Allen, 2010).

The final analysis of this study suggested that, “when teachers care about

students, when they organize classrooms such that positive student relationships

develop, and when they manage learning and behavioral issues in positive educative

ways, students are far less likely to engage in or experience bullying” (Allen, 2010,

p. 10). Classes that do not establish a culture of “understanding, caring, monitoring,

and intervention are likely to be predisposed to bullying” and violence (Allen, 2010,

p. 11).

57

Positive Relationships with School Personnel

Phillips, Pack, and Linney (2008) established that a student-centered approach

to school safety is needed to foster relationships with adults and to reduce, if not

eliminate, school violence. Pollack, Modzeleski, and Rooney (2008) found that

school teachers and administrators that were visible and approachable helped to

create trust and respect which in turn led to increased safety at school. Additionally,

Pollack et al. (2008) revealed that “Simple and genuine measures, such as regularly

greeting students, talking to students, and addressing students by name, help make

students feel connected and part of the school” (p. 8). Phillips et al. (2008) also

revealed that positive, trusting relationships between students and adults on campus

were the key to having students report inappropriate behavior that reduces criminal

activity and fights on campus. Trust encouraged students to share information with

responsible adults concerning threats, bullying, or violence (Pollack et al., 2008).

Furthermore, students submitted that having teachers and administrators whom they

trusted encouraged them to report suspicious activity, fights, sexual or physical

harassment, dangerous situations, bullying, and weapons at school (Wood &

Huffman, 1999).

Further research has shown that teachers have an impact on students’ feelings

of safety on school campuses. Hammond (2002) asserted that students consistently

felt more secure in a school where teachers were perceived to have greater control

over classroom discipline and student behavior. Even teachers who were

considerably stricter than others were viewed favorably in terms of increasing student

58

safety. A firm, fair, consistent teacher was a powerful key to students’ perceptions

of safety within the school (Hammond, 2002). Moreover, Hong and Eamon (2011)

asserted that students recognize their school as a safe place when they have teachers

who are willing to take time to build relationships of trust and understanding with

them. Building trust between students and adults takes time but is imperative in order

for students to obtain the feeling of well-being at school, which enables them to focus

on their academic and personal success.

A study that was carried out in Chicago during the 2009–2010 school year

concluded that “school safety depends far less on the poverty and crime surrounding

the campus than on the academic achievement of its students and their relationships

with adults in the building” (Sparks, 2011b, p. 13). The Consortium on Chicago

Schools Research discovered that students’ academic achievement plays a larger role

in school safety than the neighborhood in which a school resides, and trusting

relationships between students and staff are more important to safety than the rate of

crime in the community where the school is located. Through the study of 120,000

student surveys and 12,500 teacher responses, the researchers found three factors that

students and teachers agreed on. Sparks (2011b) suggested that “schools were safer

when its students came from safer neighborhoods” (p. 13). Additionally, students

with higher levels of academic achievement had a higher perception of school safety

than those students who exhibited lower test scores and grades. Last, the most

significant element in the perception of school safety is the trusting relationships that

students have with their teachers.

59

The Democratic Ideal in Schools and Student Safety

With the massive influx of immigrants to the U.S. through two Industrial

Revolutions, the 19th- and 20th-century American education system evolved into

post-elementary institutions and private academies that taught a broader curriculum

and focused on the “teaching of republican virtues” in order to ensure the social and

intellectual growth of the massive population of newly minted Americans, who, upon

leaving school, were expected to play an active role as citizens in a democratic

society (Foner & Garraty, 1991, p. 314). Social reformers such as Horace Mann “saw

education as a means to prevent poverty, establish good work habits, and instill the

American creed in a growing number of children from immigrant families” (Stevens

et al., 2002, p. 123).

To this day, school culture is a microcosm of American citizenship and

democracy in which students are empowered to take greater responsibility for their

educational environment and school safety. When seeking to create a democratic

society, younger generations need to learn the process of self-government and

problem solving. Varnham (2005) suggested that students should be given more

responsibility upon entering secondary school, allowing them to assist in problem

solving and in participating in student safety and school security issues. Student who

contribute to school policymaking develop communication skills that are essential to

success in life, and they acquire self-confidence and learn responsibility and

independence (Varnham, 2005). This type of student empowerment can lead to

improved school policies and practices and can strengthen the democratic processes

60

within the school, not to mention increasing students’ perceptions of their own

safety (Varnham, 2005).

Students need to have meaningful involvement in their schools; school rules

cannot feel like something being forced upon the students. They must accept rules on

the basis of citizenship, values, and participation in society even though secondary

school is a microcosm of the larger American society (Stevens et al., 2002). Stevens

et al. (2002) asserted that students’ opinions need to be heard and valued, as their

participation builds self-esteem and confidence and leads to improved student

behavior. Edmondson et al. (2007) found that students wanted more leadership roles

that could positively impact the safety and security of their schools.

Varnham (2005) claimed that, when students graduate from high school, they

must engage in the democratic process. However, the question is, whether students

are effectively prepared to accept responsibility and to serve a vital role as informed

citizens who make wise and informed decisions and are actively engaged in making

society a better place for all to live. In secondary schools, authoritarian methods of

discipline are perceived by students as punitive, without regard for due process.

Although school officials have the responsibility of maintaining a safe and secure

environment that is free from bullying and negative hostility, research shows that

traditional rule making and disciplinary methods meet with only partial success in

changing the perceptions of students and their safety within schools. Students’

opinions need to be heard and valued; schools should not be perceived as a

dictatorship where the people have no say in the rules. Students need to buy into the

61

rules for reasons of democratic citizenship, values, and eventual participation in

American society.

Summary

This chapter explored the issue of school security—measures that schools can

implement to make campuses more secure and policies designed to transform

students’ perceptions of their safety and security on high school campuses. Varnham

(2005) maintained that, “Upon leaving school, young people are expected to play an

active part as citizens in a democratic society” (p. 53). However, this statement raises

the question, “In what ways are students learning to take responsibility for the safety

of their school environments?” (p. 53). School officials may try to establish security

measures to create a feeling of well-being for students, but optimum safety will not be

achieved without students being taught to take a participatory role in which they

assume direct responsibility for the welfare of their school (Mirsky, 2007).

Disruptive behavior, discipline issues, suspensions, and expulsions are

“among the symptoms of schools which have lost the bonds of respect” and where

fear and violence fester (Mirsky, 2007, p. 5). Educators face major challenges in

transforming school cultures and instilling perceptions of safety and genuine security.

However, by including students in the implementation of safety measures on

secondary school campuses, educators can ensure that research-based programs and

policies will be more productive in reducing the potential for violence.

Chapter II utilized published research to discuss the efficacy of school safety

and security programs and policies in reducing student fears on campus. Chapter III

62

will discuss the methods and procedures designed to carry out the research study,

including: the sample population, instrumentation, hypotheses, alignment of the

research questions, methodology, and the framework for the statistical analysis.

63

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Having been a teacher in Alternative Education in California, and having

experienced numerous incidents of school violence involving gang activity and drug

abuse, this researcher was motivated to conduct this study about student safety on

secondary school campuses. However, due to recent school shootings, such as the

Virginia Tech shootings in 2007, the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy in 2012, and 19

incidents of school violence involving a firearm in 2014, this researcher expanded the

present study in an effort to discover how school violence impacts students’ fears and

motivations and what students perceive administration can do to help alleviate their

concerns. The purpose of this study was to utilize student ethnicity/race,

socioeconomic status, grade level, and gender to help determine (a) what personal

safety and security fears high school students have on campus; (b) how those specific

fears impact high school students’ academic, social, and physical well-being; and

(c) what specific safety measures high school students perceive increase their feelings

of safety and well-being at school.

Chapter III is divided into five subcategories. The first section provides a

detailed description of the sample population. The second section defines the survey

instrumentation used to collect the data. The third section explains the research

methodology, including procedures for data collection and steps to ensure fidelity

with this researcher’s stated objectives and hypotheses. The fourth section describes

64

the statistical and inferential tests that were used to analyze the data. The fifth

section summarizes the chapter.

Sample Population

According to the California Department of Education (CDE) (2014),

approximately 6,236,672 K–12 students were enrolled in the State’s public schools

during the 2013–2014 school year. Of that number, 1,952,314 students (491,493

freshmen, 484,993 sophomores, 477,425 juniors, and 498,403 seniors) attended 1,305

comprehensive high schools.

Because of the sensitive nature of the subject, this researcher experienced

some difficulty in obtaining permission to conduct a survey of public high school

students regarding school safety and security. After canvassing 16 potential school

districts and 25 possible secondary schools, one superintendent of a rural, unified

school district accepted this researcher’s invitation to participate. Subsequently, the

high school principal was contacted to discuss the details of the study, review the

research protocols, and request a Letter of Consent to conduct this study in the district

(see Appendix A).

The sample population for this study consisted of 1,690 students (447

freshmen, 474 sophomores, 402 juniors, and 367 seniors) who were enrolled in one

high school that served 9th- through 12th-grade students in a rural bedroom

community of the Bay Area in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The student body

represented many diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Responses were

65

obtained from those students whose parents approved of their participation in the

study.

The research school enrolled 1,690 students during the 2013–2014 school

year. According to data retrieved from educational on-line resources, 395 (23.4%) of

the students were English Language Learners (ELLs), and 1,131 (66.9%) of the

students were considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, as defined by

participation in the free or reduced-price lunch program. Ethnically, 275 (16.3%) of

the students were White, 1,141 (67.5%) were Hispanic, 143 (8.5%) were African

American, 12 (0.7%) were Native American, 41 (2.4%) were Asian, 25 (1.5%) were

Pacific Islander, 32 (1.9%) were Filipino, 20 (1.2%) reported two or more races (not

Hispanic), and 1 (.05%) reported None. The school’s 2014 graduation rate was

94.9% (Ed-Data, 2014).

Instrumentation

This researcher developed a survey in two parts. The first part requested

demographic information regarding the students’ ethnicity/race, socioeconomic

status, grade level, and gender. The second part requested that students respond to 97

statements regarding their perception of safety and security at school. The research-

based underpinnings of the survey instrument were aligned with the outcomes,

conclusions, and findings from the following studies, reports, and conference

presentations: Proceedings of Persistently Safe Schools Conference (2007),

Perceptions and Record of Violence in Middle and High School (2008), Youth Risk

66

Behavior Surveillance Report (2012), and the California Healthy Kids Survey

(2013) by West-Ed for the California Department of Education.

This researcher also acquired firsthand knowledge of the subject matter,

having served 8 years as a secondary school administrator who dealt directly with

student discipline and school safety. Additionally, this researcher interviewed

secondary school principals and assistant principals regarding school violence and

student security. The survey instrument was administered to 10 English- and

Spanish-speaking students who represented a sample of the student population, but

were not included in the research study. Their opinions were requested to improve

the readability and clarity of the survey statements. This researcher also submitted

the survey to two fluent Spanish-speaking parents and a Spanish translator to ensure

proper verification of basic grammar, vocabulary and language usage for the Spanish-

language versions of the documents utilized in the research study. Additionally, this

researcher submitted the survey to his university supervisor, his administrative

colleagues, and SROs. After discussion and debate, many of their recommendations

were incorporated into the final survey.

The student-safety survey utilized a five-point Likert-type interval scale

(5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = No Opinion, 2 = Disagree, and 1 = Strongly

Disagree) to quantify the respondents’ levels of agreement to 97 statements that were

related to the research hypotheses (see Table 1).

67

Table 1

Research Hypotheses

The research questions were as follows

1. What personal safety and security fears do high school students have on

campus?

2. How do those specific fears impact high school students’ academic, social, and

physical well-being?



The null hypotheses were as follows:



security on high school campuses, disaggregated by ethnicity/race.



security on high school campuses, disaggregated by socioeconomic status.



security on high school campuses, disaggregated by grade level.



security on high school campuses, disaggregated by gender.

68



their academic, social, and physical well-being disaggregated by ethnicity/race.



their academic, social, and physical well-being disaggregated by socioeconomic

status.



their academic, social, and physical well-being disaggregated by grade level.



their academic, social, and physical well-being disaggregated by gender.




disaggregated by ethnicity/race.




disaggregated by socioeconomic status.

69




disaggregated by grade level.




disaggregated by gender.

The survey statements were aligned with the research hypotheses to ensure

consistency and fidelity (see Table 2).

Table 2

Alignment of Survey Statements with the Research Hypotheses

Hypotheses

Survey

Statements Research Questions

H1; H2; H3;

H4

1 I feel physically safe when I am in at least one of my

classes at school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

2 I feel physically safe when I am not in class but am in

school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

3 I feel safe from social and cyber bullying when I am

in at least one of my classes at school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

4 I feel safe from social and cyber bullying when I am

not in class but am in school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

5 I believe there is at least one adult at this school who

cares about me and whom I trust.

Table continues

70

Table 2, continued

Hypotheses

Survey


H9; H10;

H11; H12

6a–s The following school security measures increase my

feeling of safety at school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

7 Drug use (including alcohol) or sales of drugs at

school increase my fear of safety and security on

campus.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

8a–j These forms of drugs have an impact on my feeling of

safety and security at school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

9 Student fights on campus increase my fear for my

safety at school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

10 I have witnessed or heard of at least one physical fight

at this school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

11 Most students fight after school, not on campus, and

therefore have no impact on my feeling of safety.

H5; H6; H7;

H8

12a–x The following issues at school increase my level of

fear and negatively affect me academically, socially,

and/or physically.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

13a–g Prejudice and racism are issues at my school in the

following areas and increase my fear for my safety

and/or the safety of other students.

H1; H2; H3;

H4;

14a–l These areas at school are NOT secure and increase

my fear for my safety on campus.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

15 Bullying on campus creates/increases my fear for my

safety at school.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

16 I fear being bullied physically at school (hit, kicked,

spit on, pinched, tripped, pushed, or breaking personal

items).

H1; H2; H3;

H4

17 I fear being bullied socially at school (left out,

embarrassed in public, rumors spread, telling others

not to be friends with).

Table continues

71

Table 2, continued

Hypotheses

Survey


H1; H2; H3;

H4

18 I fear being bullied verbally at school (teasing, name

calling, inappropriate comments, taunting, and

threats).

H1; H2; H3;

H4

19 I fear being cyber bullied off campus more than being

physically, socially, or verbally bullied on campus.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

20a–i I have experienced cyber bullying in the following

ways.

H1; H2; H3;

H4

21 I have avoided participating in school activities

because I fear for my safety and security.

H5; H6; H7;

H8

22 Because of the fear I have for my safety at school, it is

difficult to concentrate on my academics.

H5; H6; H7;

H8

23 Because of the fear I have for my safety outside of

school, it is difficult to concentrate on my academics.

H9; H10;

H11; H12

24 If I report unsafe, dangerous behavior or bullying, I

can be certain that the problem will be dealt with

immediately.

The survey instrument was submitted to the California State University

Stanislaus, Institutional Review Board and this researcher’s dissertation committee

for final approval. The University IRB approved the study on June 16, 2014 (see

Appendix B).

Methodology

This researcher obtained permission, via an official Letter of Consent to

conduct this study, from the district superintendent and principal representing the

secondary school participating in the survey. A Parent/Guardian Information and

Consent Letter informed parents that, if they did not want their child to participate in

72

the survey, all materials could be discarded without penalty, and no further action

was necessary on their part. Since 16.3% of the students were identified as White and

67.5% Hispanic, the Parent Information and Consent Letter and the Student Safety

Survey were provided in both English and Spanish (see Appendices C, D, E, and F).

This researcher, in working with the principal, believed that, given the number

of State tests and benchmark assessments are administered to students throughout the

school year, it would be unwise to conduct the survey during class time. Therefore,

to avoid interrupting instruction, the survey was sent home for the students to

complete on their own time.

This researcher was physically present on campus to supervise the

distribution, collection, and re-distribution (as needed) of survey materials. During

the last instructional period of the designated day for distribution, this researcher and

his team provided each teacher with a large manila envelope containing

(a) Parent/Guardian Information and Consent Letters; (b) Student Safety Surveys; and

(c) letter-sized envelopes for the return of the Parent/Guardian Information and

Consent Form and the completed Student Safety Survey to this researcher. In

addition, teachers were requested to read aloud a brief Information Statement to

students regarding the critical importance of the survey in terms of improved school

safety and to encourage its prompt return. A copy of this statement, in both Spanish

and English, was attached to the survey materials that were sent home to parents (see

Appendices G and H).

73

To protect the anonymity of the students who participated in the survey,

they were asked to seal their responses in the envelope provided with each packet by

this researcher. Students were allocated 1 day to return the Parent/Guardian Consent

Form and the completed Student Safety Survey to this researcher.

Student Incentive to Participate

Every student at the participating school was offered an incentive to

participate in the survey. Those students who returned the signed Parent/Guardian

Information and Consent Letter and the completed Student Safety Survey in the

sealed envelope to this researcher were given a raffle ticket to win one of 25 $20 gift

cards to Starbucks, Taco Bell, iTunes, Subway, Burger King, Google Play, and other

restaurants and stores.

This researcher was physically present on campus for 3 days and a total of

three separate distributions were carried out. The goal of this researcher was three

fold: (a) to ensure that the Parent/Guardian Information and Consent Forms and the

Student Safety Surveys were distributed to the teachers and sent home with the

students; (b) to collect the completed surveys in the sealed envelopes from the

students each day and provide the students with a raffle ticket; and (c) to determine if

a second distribution of survey materials was necessary to ensure a robust return rate.

All survey materials returned by the students were kept in a secure location and

destroyed after the completion of the present study.

74

Data Analysis

Statistical Analysis

This researcher disaggregated the students’ survey responses by demographic

category (ethnicity/race, socioeconomic status, grade level, and gender) and uploaded

these data into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The data were

analyzed by using the Chi-Square Test for Independence to determine if there was a

significant difference in the distribution of responses between cohorts (for example,

male and female students in the gender demographic category, and White and

Hispanic students in the ethnicity/race category). An alpha of .05 was selected to

determine significance.

Descriptive Analysis

A descriptive analysis was conducted using frequencies and percentages to

illustrate the numerical relationship between response cells for each survey statement.

Notable responses were identified when >67% or more of both cohorts responded in a

like manner to any survey question.

Summary

Chapter III presented the research methodology employed in this study,

including a description of the sample populations. This researcher also described the

instrumentation, methodologies, and statistical and descriptive analyses. Chapter IV

will present the findings and results of the research and will address the hypotheses

and objective of this study.

75

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to analyze secondary school students’ perceived

fears and specific measures they believed would ameliorate their fears and improve

school-wide safety. Chapter IV will provide the findings generated by the statistical

and descriptive analyses of the Student Safety Survey. The survey statements were

aligned to the following research questions:

1. What personal safety and security fears do high school students have on campus?

2. How do those specific fears impact high school students’ academic, emotional,

and physical well-being?



This chapter is organized into five sections: (a) demographic information, (b) data

organization, (c) statistical and descriptive analyses, (d) findings, and (e) summary.

Demographic Information

The sample population consisted of 269 secondary school students in grades 9

to 12 who were enrolled in a rural high school in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

Responses were gathered to evaluate students’ perceptions of safety and security on a

high school campus as it related to four demographic categories: ethnicity/race,

socioeconomic status, grade level, and gender (see Tables 3–6).

76

Table 3

Demographic Category: Ethnicity/Race

Ethnicity/Race N

Black or African American 20

American Indian/Alaskan Native 2

Asian 8

Filipino 2

Hispanic/Latino 130

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 5

White 55

Two or more races 43

Decline to respond 4

Table 4

Demographic Category: Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic Status N

Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 133

Not eligible 81

Unknown or decline to state 55

Table 5

Demographic Category: Grade Level

Grade Level N

9 63

10 66

11 76

12 64

77

Table 6

Demographic Category: Gender

Gender N

Male 128

Female 141

Data Organization

After evaluating the demography of the respondents who returned completed

surveys, this researcher determined that certain cohorts (e.g., African-American,

Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander) were not large enough in terms of

sample size to reliably provide results that could be generalized to a larger population.

Additionally, two demographic cohorts (i.e., “two or more races” and “unknown or

decline to state”) were no longer relevant and would yield insignificant data. This

researcher also combined four smaller grade-level cohorts (9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th

grades) into two larger cohorts (lowerclassmen-LC and upperclassmen-UC) to

provide larger, more reliable sample sizes. Therefore, the survey data were organized

into four demographic categories: ethnicity/race, socioeconomic status, grade level

and gender. These categories were further disaggregated into eight cohorts: White

and Hispanic, eligible and not eligible (for free or reduced-price lunch),

lowerclassmen (LC) and upperclassmen (UC), and male and female (see Table 7).

78

Table 7

Reorganized Demographic Data by Cohort

Cohorts n

White 55

Hispanic/Latino 130

Eligible 133

Not Eligible 81

Lowerclassmen (LC) 129

Upperclassmen (UC) 140

Male 128

Female 141

This researcher administered a survey consisting of 18 statements and six lists

of safety topics requiring a total of 97 responses by each individual. In addition,

respondents were provided the opportunity to insert open-ended comments. Prior to

conducting the comprehensive analyses reported in this chapter, this researcher

determined that certain survey statements were redundant, no longer relevant to the

present study, or limited by an inadequate response rate. These survey statements

were subsequently discarded. As a result, 52 of the original 97 survey statements

were used as data points for the statistical analysis.

Finally, this researcher reduced the number of response cells from five to

three in an attempt to simplify and streamline the massive amount of data obtained

from the survey. The following cells were combined for reporting purposes only:

(a) Strongly Agreed and Agreed, and (b) Strongly Disagreed and Disagreed.

79

Findings

Research Theme: Personal Security and Safety



security on high school campuses, disaggregated by ethnicity/race. (See Tables 8

and 9 for statistical analyses.)

Table 8

Statistical Analysis for White and Hispanic Cohorts: Pearson Chi Square (χ2)

Survey Statements χ2 p

1. I feel physically safe when I am in at least one class at

school.

5.45 .244

3. I feel safe from social and cyber bullying when I am in at

least one of my classes at school.

2.67 .615

5. I feel there is at least one adult at this school that cares

about me and I trust.

7.03 .135

7. Drug use (including alcohol) or sales of drugs at school

increase my fear of safety and security on campus.

5.56 .234

9. Student fights on campus increase my fear for my safety at

school.

2.69 .618

Table continues

80

Table 8, continued


13. Prejudice and racism are issues at my school in the

following areas and increase fear for my safety and/or the

safety of other students.

a) Culture 7.59 .108

c) Ethnicity/Race 8.48 .076

d) Gender 11.21 .024*

f) Sexual orientation 8.94 .063

14. These areas at my school are NOT secure and increase fear

for my safety on campus.

a) Bathrooms 3.91 .419

e) Hallways 8.39 .078

f) Locker rooms 8.04 .090

g) Parking lots 10.78 .029*

16. I fear being physically bullied at school (hit, kicked, spit

on, pinched, tripped, shoved, slapped, and having personal

items broken/stolen).

2.76 .599

17. I fear being bullied socially at school (left out, publicly

embarrassed, and spreading negative rumors).

6.88 .142

18. I fear being bullied verbally at school (teasing, name

calling, insults, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing

and threats).

4.54 .338

21. I have avoided participating in school activities because I

fear for my safety and security.

5.92 .205

*p<.05 (null hypothesis rejected)

81

Table 9

Descriptive Analysis for White and Hispanic Cohorts: Frequencies, Percentages,

Notable Responses (>67%)

Survey Statements

%

W

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

W

Disagree

%

H

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

H

Disagree

1. I feel physically safe when I am in at

least one class at school.

84* 9 7 88* 8 4

3. I feel safe from social and cyber

bullying when I am in at least one of

my classes at school.

76* 15 9 80* 11 9

5. I feel there is at least one adult at this

school who cares about me and I trust.

87* 6 7 74* 16 10

7. Drug use (including alcohol) or sales

of drugs at school increase my fear of

safety and security on campus.

47 46 7 34 49 17

9. Student fights on campus increase my

fear for my safety at school.

27 38 35 32 34 34

13. Prejudice and racism are issues at my

school in the following areas and

increase fear for my safety and/or the


a) Culture 49 31 29 31 39 30

c) Ethnicity/Race 47 27 26 40 33 27

d) Gender 40 31 29 25 41 34

f) Sexual orientation 44 29 27 39 39 22

14. These areas at my school are NOT

secure and increase fear for my safety

on campus.

a) Bathrooms 25 42 33 21 43 36

e) Hallways 20 42 38 18 32 50

f) Locker rooms 26 38 36 21 32 47

g) Parking lots 15 45 40 18 39 43

16. I fear being physically bullied at

school (hit, kicked, spit on, pinched,

tripped, shoved, slapped, and having

personal items broken/stolen).

29 25 46 35 28 37

Table continues

82

Table 9, continued

Survey Statements

%

W

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

W

Disagree

%

H

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

H

Disagree

17. I fear being bullied socially at school

(left out, publicly embarrassed, and

spreading negative rumors).

33 34 33 38 29 33

18. I fear being bullied verbally at school

(teasing, name calling, insults,

inappropriate comments, taunting,

cussing and threats).

31 33 36 30 32 38

21. I have avoided participating in school

activities because I fear for my safety

and security.

10 22 68 13 24 63

Note. W = White; H = Hispanic; *>67% (notable)

Statement 1. I feel physically safe when I am in at least one class at school.

There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between White

and Hispanic students (χ2=5.45, p=.244). Computed proportions indicated that 84%

of the White students and 88% of the Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or Agreed,

9% of the White students and 8% of the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 7%

of the White students and 4% of the Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or

Disagreed with the survey statement. Their perceptions were notable due to the

cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly Agree and Agree cells (>67%). Further,

the results indicated that ethnicity/race did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 3. I feel safe from social and cyber bullying when I am in at least

one of my classes at school. There was no significant difference in the distribution of

responses between White and the Hispanic students (χ2=2.67, p=.615). Computed

proportions indicated that 76% of the White students and 80% of the Hispanic

83

students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 15% of the White students and 11% of the

Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 9% of the White students and 9% of the

Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Their

perceptions were notable due to the cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly Agree

and Agree cells (>67%). Further, the results indicated that ethnicity/race did not

influence their perceptions.

Statement 5. I feel there is at least one adult at this school who cares about

me and I trust. There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses

between White and Hispanic students (χ2=7.03, p=.135). Computed proportions

indicated that 87% of the White students and 74% of the Hispanic students Strongly

Agreed or Agreed, 6% of the White students and 16% of the Hispanic students had No

Opinion, and 7% of the White students and 10% of the Hispanic students Strongly

Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Their perceptions were notable

due to the cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly Agree and Agree cells (>67%).

Further, the results indicated that ethnicity/race did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 7. Drug use (including alcohol) or sales of drugs at school

increase my fear of safety and security on campus. There was no significant

difference in the distribution of responses between White and Hispanic students

(χ2=5.56, p=.234). Computed proportions indicated that 47% of the White students

and 34% of the Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 46% of the White

students and 49% of the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 7% of the White

students and 17% of the Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the

84

survey statement. Therefore, White and Hispanic students’ perceptions were

inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that

ethnicity/race did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 9. Student fights on campus increase my fear for my safety at

school. There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between

White and Hispanic students (χ2=2.69, p=.618). Computed proportions indicated that

27% of the White students and 32% of the Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or

Agreed, 38% of the White students and 34% of Hispanic students had No Opinion,

and 35% of the White students and 34% of the Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed

or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, White and Hispanic students’

perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further, the results

indicated that ethnicity/race did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 13. Prejudice and racism are issues at my school in the following

areas and increase fear for my safety and/or the safety of other students.

Statement 13(a) Culture. There was no significant difference in the

distribution of responses between White and Hispanic students (χ2=7.59, p=.108).

Computed proportions indicated that 40% of the White students and 31% of the

Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 31% of the White students and 39% of

the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 29% of the White students and 30% of the

Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement.

Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not

85

statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that ethnicity/race did not


Statement 13(c) Ethnicity/Race. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 13(d) Gender. There was a significant difference in the distribution

of responses between White and Hispanic students (χ2=11.21, p=.024). Computed





Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’ perceptions were significantly different.

Further, the results indicated that ethnicity/race did influence their perceptions.

Statement 13(f) Sexual orientation. There was no significant difference in the



86

Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 29% of the White students and 39%

of the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 27% of the White students and 22% of

the Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement.




Statement 14. These areas at my school are NOT secure and increase fear for

my safety on campus.

Statement 14(a) Bathrooms. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 14(e) Hallways. There was no significant difference in the





87





Statement 14(f) Locker rooms. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 14(g) Parking lots. There was a significant difference in the





Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. The

descriptive data illustrates a response pattern of agreement when, in fact, there was

statistical disagreement between the cohorts. Due to the convenience of combining

the number of cells from five to three for descriptive purposes, an important statistical

88

anomaly was hidden. A significant difference was found in the distribution of

responses between the Disagree and Strongly Disagree cells that had been previously

combined. Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’ perceptions were

significantly different. Further, the results indicated that ethnicity/race did influence

their perceptions.

Statement 16. I fear being physically bullied at school (hit, kicked, spit on,

pinched, tripped, shoved, slapped, and having personal items broken/stolen). There

was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between White and

Hispanic students (χ2=2.76, p=.599). Computed proportions indicated that 29% of the

White students and 35% of the Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 25% of

the White students and 28% of the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 46% of the

White students and 37% of the Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed

with the survey statement. Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’ perceptions

were inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that


Statement 17. I fear being bullied socially at school (left out, publicly

embarrassed, and spreading negative rumors). There was no significant difference in

the distribution of responses between White and Hispanic students (χ2=6.88, p=.142).





89




Statement 18. I fear being bullied verbally at school (teasing, name calling,

insults, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing and threats). There was no

significant difference in the distribution of responses between White and Hispanic

students (χ2=4.54, p=.338). Computed proportions indicated that 31% of the White

students and 30% of the Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 33% of the

White students and 32% of the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 36% of the





Statement 21. I have avoided participating in school activities because I fear

for my safety and security. There was no significant difference in the distribution of

responses between White and Hispanic students (χ2=5.92, p=.205). Computed






90

statistically significantly. Further, the results indicated that ethnicity/race did not



survey of high school students’ perceived fears in terms of personal security and

safety on high school campuses, disaggregated by socioeconomic status. (See

Tables 10 and 11 for statistical analyses.)

Table 10

Statistical Analysis for Elegible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Pearson Chi Square (χ2)



school.

4.03 .401



6.63 .157

5. I feel there is at least one adult at this school who cares


4.08 .396



10.15 .038*


school.

1.89 .756




a) Culture .578 .965

c) Ethnicity/Race .711 .950

d) Gender 1.26 .869

f) Sexual orientation .242 .993

Table continues

91

Table 10, continued







g) Parking lots 5.52 .238

16. I fear being physically bullied at school (hit, kicked, spit on,

pinched, tripped, shoved, slapped, and having personal items

broken/stolen).

3.11 .540



4.39 .356

18. I fear being bullied verbally at school (teasing, name calling,

insults, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing and

threats).

1.99 .738



14.43 .006*

*p<.05 (null hypotheses rejected)

92

Table 11

Descriptive Analysis for Eligible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Frequencies,

Percentages, Notable Responses (>67%)

Survey Statements

%

E

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

E

Disagree

%

NE

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

NE

Disagree



86* 7 7 85* 10 5




70* 15 15 67* 21 12



68* 22 10 79* 15 6




33 41 26 32 58 10



33 31 36 28 37 35





a) Culture 32 40 28 38 37 25


d) Gender 29 35 36 35 37 28




on campus.

a) Bathrooms 22 44 34 23 35 42

e) Hallways 14 47 39 17 37 46

f) Locker rooms 19 50 31 24 32 44

g) Parking lots 23 48 29 20 37 43





30 38 32 24 33 43

Table continues

93

Table 11, continued

Survey Statements

%

E

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

E

Disagree

%

NE

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

NE

Disagree




33 40 27 31 36 33





28 42 30 27 40 33



and security.

9 37 54 11 15 74

Note. E = Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; NE = Not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

*>67% (notable)


There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses by eligible and

not-eligible students (χ2=4.03, p=.401). Computed proportions indicated that 86% of

the eligible students and 85% of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed or Agreed,

7% of eligible students and 10% of the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 7%

of the eligible students and 5% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or

Disagreed with the survey statement. Their perceptions were notable due to the

cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly Agree and Agree cells (>67%). Further,

the results indicated that socioeconomic status did not influence their perceptions.



responses by eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=6.63, p=.157). Computed

94

proportions indicated that 70% of the eligible students and 67% of the not-eligible

students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 15% of eligible and 21% of the not-eligible

students had No Opinion, and 15% of the eligible and 12% of the not-eligible students

Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Their perceptions were

notable due to the cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly Agree and Agree cells

(>67%). Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status did not influence

their perceptions.



between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=4.08, p=.396). Computed proportions

indicated that 68% of the eligible students and 79% of the not-eligible students

Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 22% of the eligible and 15% of the not-eligible students

had No Opinion, and 10% of the eligible and 6% of the not-eligible students Strongly



Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status did not influence their

perceptions.


increase my fear of safety and security on campus. There was a significant difference

in the distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=10.15,

p=.038). Computed proportions indicated that 33% of the eligible students and 32%

of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed and Agreed, 41% of the eligible students

95

and 58% of the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 26% of the eligible

students and 10% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with

the survey statement. Therefore, the eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions

were significantly different. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status

did influence their perceptions.



eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=1.89, p=.756). Computed proportions indicated

that 33% of the eligible students and 28% of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed

or Agreed, 31% of the eligible students and 37% of the not-eligible students had No

Opinion, and 36% of the eligible students and 35% of the not-eligible students

Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the eligible

and not-eligible students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically

significant. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status did not influence

their perceptions.




distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=.578, p=.965).

Computed proportions indicated that 32% of the eligible students and 38% of the not-

eligible students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 40% the eligible students and 37% of the

not-eligible students had No Opinion. and 28% of the eligible students and 25% of the

96

not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement.

Therefore, the eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions were inconclusive and

not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status

did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 13(c) Ethnicity/Race. There was no significant difference in the

distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=.711, p=.950).


eligible students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 34% of the eligible students and 35% of

the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 23% of the eligible students and 19% of

the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement.





of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=1.26, p=.869). Computed


students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 35% of the eligible students and 37% of the not-

eligible students had No Opinion, and 36% of the eligible students and 28% of the





97

Statement 13(f) Sexual orientation. There was no significant difference in

the distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=.242,


of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 42% of the eligible students

and 42% of the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 33% of the eligible students

and 31% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey

statement. Therefore, the eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions were


socioeconomic status did not influence their perceptions.




distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=2.57, p=.633).









distribution of responses by White and Hispanic students (χ2=2.03, p=.730).

98

Computed proportions indicated that 14% of the eligible students and 17% of the

not-eligible students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 47% of the eligible students and

37% of the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 39% of the eligible students and

46% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey













Statement 14(g) Parking lots. There was a significant difference in the






99






was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between eligible and

not-eligible students (χ2=3.11, p=540.). Computed proportions indicated that 30% of


38% of the eligible students and 33% of the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and

32% of the eligible students and 43% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed

or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the eligible and not-eligible

students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further, the

results indicated that socioeconomic status did not influence their perceptions.


embarrassed, and spreading negative rumors). There was no significant difference in

the distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=4.39,






100




insults, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing and threats). There was no

significant difference in the distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible

students (χ2=1.99, p=.738). Computed proportions indicated that 28% of the eligible

students and 27% of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 42% of the

eligible students and 40% of the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 30% of the

eligible students and 33% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or

Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the eligible and not-eligible




for my safety and security. There was a significant difference in the distribution of

responses by White and Hispanic students (χ2=14.43, p=.006). Computed proportions


Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 37% of the eligible students and 15% of the not-eligible

students had No Opinion, and 54% of the eligible students and 74% of the not-eligible

students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the

eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further,

the results indicated that socioeconomic status did influence their perceptions.

101

H3: There is no significant difference in the distribution of responses

on a survey of high school students’ perceived fears in terms of personal security

and safety on high school campuses, disaggregated by grade level. (See Tables 12

and 13 for statistical analyses.)

Table 12

Statistical Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen Cohorts: Pearson Chi

Square (χ2)


1. I feel physically safe when I am in at least one class at school. 2.16 .707

3. I feel safe from social and cyber bullying when I am in at least

one of my classes at school.

7.03 .134

5. I feel there is at least one adult at this school who cares about

me and I trust.

2.15 .709



23.42 .001*


school.

3.39 .494

13. Prejudice and racism are issues at my school in the following

areas and increase fear for my safety and/or the safety of other

students.

a) Culture 8.99 .061

c) Ethnicity/Race 17.66 .001*

d) Gender 5.39 .249

f) Sexual orientation 11.02 .026*

Table continues

102

Table 12, continued


14. These areas at my school are NOT secure and increase fear for







pinched, tripped, shoved, slapped, and having personal items

broken/stolen).

26.39 .001*



31.43 .001*


insults, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing and threats).

29.48 .001*

21. I have avoided participating in school activities because I fear

for my safety and security.

5.31 .257


Table 13

Descriptive Analysis of Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen Cohorts: Frequencies,


Survey Statements

%

LC

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

LC

Disagree

%

UC

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

UC

Disagree



81* 10 9 83* 9 8




65 23 12 75 15 10

Table continues

103

Table 13, continued

Survey Statements

%

LC

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

LC

Disagree

%

UC

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

UC

Disagree



72* 17 11 79* 13 8




48 39 13 22 62 16



36 36 28 28 37 35





a) Culture 42 39 19 31 34 35


d) Gender 35 40 25 32 34 34




on campus.

a) Bathrooms 27 30 43 21 39 40

e) Hallways 20 33 47 17 37 46

f) Locker rooms 26 31 43 18 37 45

g) Parking lots 28 32 40 20 40 40





44 28 28 24 22 54




48 31 21 28 23 49





42 38 20 27 29 44



and security.

13 25 62 8 19 73

Note. LC = Lowerclassmen; UC = Upperclassmen

*>67% (notable)

104

Statement 1. I feel physically safe when I am in at least one class at


lowerclassmen (LC) and upperclassmen (UC) (χ2=2.16, p=.707). Computed

proportions indicated that 81% of the LC students and 83% of the UC students

Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 10% of the LC students and 9% of the UC students had

No Opinion, and 9% of the LC students and 8% of the UC students Strongly



Further, the results indicated that grade level did not influence their perceptions.



responses between LC and UC students (χ2=7.03, p=.134). Computed proportions

indicated that 65% of the LC students and 75% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or

Agreed, 23% of the LC students and 15% of the UC students had No Opinion, and

12% of the LC students and 10% of the UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed

with the survey statement. Therefore, both the LC and UC students’ perceptions were

inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that grade

level did not influence their perceptions.



between LC and UC students (χ2=2.15, p=.709). Computed proportions indicated that

72% of the LC students and 79% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 17%

105

of the LC students and 13% of the UC students had No Opinion, and 11% of the

LC students and 8% of the UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the

survey statement. Their perceptions were notable due to the cohorts’ high response

rate in the Strongly Agree and Agree cells (>67%). Further, the results indicated that

grade level did not influence their perceptions.


increase my fear of safety and security on campus. There was a significant difference

in the distribution of responses between LC and UC students (χ2=23.42, p=.001).

Computed proportions indicated that 48% of the LC students and 22% of the UC

students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 39% of the LC students and 62% of the UC

students had No Opinion, and 13% of the LC students and 16% of the UC students

Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the LC and

UC students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results indicated

that grade level did influence their perceptions.


school. There was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between

LC and UC students (χ2=3.39, p=.494). Computed proportions indicated that 36% of

the LC students and 28% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 36% of the

LC students and 37% of the UC students had No Opinion, and 28% of the LC

students and 35% of the UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the

survey statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’ perceptions were inconclusive

106

and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that grade level did

not influence their perceptions.




distribution of responses between LC and UC students (χ2=8.99, p=.061). Computed




Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the LC and UC


results indicated that grade level did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 13(c) Ethnicity/Race. There was a significant difference in the

distribution of responses between LC and UC students (χ2=17.66, p=.001).








of responses between LC and UC students (χ2=5.39, p=.249). Computed proportions

107

indicated that 35% of the LC students and 32% of the UC students Strongly

Agreed or Agreed, 40% of the LC students and 34% of the UC students had No

Opinion, and 25% of the LC students and 34% of the UC students Strongly Disagreed

or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’


indicated that grade level did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 13(f) Sexual orientation. There was a significant difference in the



students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 33% of the LC students and 29% of UC students

had No Opinion, and 14% of the LC students and 30% of the UC students Strongly


students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results indicated that

grade level did influence their perceptions.









108

students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further,

the results indicated that grade level did not influence their perceptions.

















Statement 14(g) Parking lots. There was no significant difference in the




109







was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between LC and UC

students (χ2=26.39, p=.001). Computed proportions indicated that 44% of the LC

students and 24% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 28% of the LC

students and 22% of the UC students had No Opinion, and 28% of the LC students

and 54% of the UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey

statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’ perceptions were significantly

different. Further, the results indicated that grade level did influence their

perceptions.


embarrassed, and spreading negative rumors). There was a significant difference in

the distribution of responses between LC and UC students (χ2=31.43, p=.001).





110

UC students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results

indicated that grade level did influence their perceptions.


insults, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing and threats). There was a

significant difference in the distribution of responses between LC and UC students

(χ2=29.48, p=.001). Computed proportions indicated that 42% of the LC students and

27% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 38% of the LC students and 29%

of the UC students had No Opinion, and 20% of the LC students and 44% of the UC


LC and UC students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results



for my safety and security. There was no significant difference in the distribution of





with the survey statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’ perceptions were

inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that grade

level did not influence their perceptions.


survey of high school students’ perceived fears in terms of personal security and

111

safety on high school campuses, disaggregated by gender. (See Tables 14 and

15 for statistical analyses.)

Table 14

Statistical Analysis for Male and Female Cohorts: Pearson Chi Square (χ2)



school.

13.94 .007*



12.80 .012*

5. I feel there is at least one adult at this school who cares


6.31 .177



8.41 .078


school.

12.17 .016*




a) Culture 15.10 .005*

c) Ethnicity/Race 20.67 .001*

d) Gender 16.83 .002*

f) Sexual orientation 32.45 .001*




e) Hallways 13.84 .008*

f) Locker rooms 10.22 .037*


112


pinched, tripped, shoved, slapped, and having personal


16.72 .002*

Table continues

113

Table 14, continued




34.10 .001*


insults, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing and

threats).

37.76 .001*



10.12 .038*


Table 15

Descriptive Analysis for Male and Female Cohorts: Frequencies, Percentages,


Survey Statements

%

M

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

M

Disagree

%

F

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

F

Disagree



75* 20 5 85* 6 9




74* 20 6 68* 18 14



77* 12 11 75* 18 7




28 55 17 45 43 12



27 33 40 36 40 24

Table continues

114

Table 15, continued

Survey Statements

%

M

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

M

Disagree

%

F

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

F

Disagree





a) Culture 27 47 26 45 26 29


d) Gender 23 48 29 43 27 30




on campus.

a) Bathrooms 26 40 34 23 30 47

e) Hallways 17 45 38 19 26 55

f) Locker rooms 22 43 35 21 26 53

g) Parking lots 20 46 34 28 31 41





22 31 47 44 19 37




20 37 43 53 18 29





16 44 40 50 24 26



and security.

5 28 67* 15 16 69*

Note. M = Male; F = Female

*>67% (notable)


There was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between male and

female students (χ2=13.94, p=.007). Computed proportions indicated that 75% of the

115

male students and 85% of the female students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 20% of

the male students and 6% of the female students had No Opinion, and 5% of the male

students and 9% of the female students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the

survey statement. Therefore, both the male and female students’ perceptions were

significantly different. However, their perceptions were notable due to the cohorts’

high response rate in the Strongly Agree and Agree cells (>67%). Further, the results

indicated that gender did not influence their perceptions.


one of my classes at school. There was a significant difference in the distribution of

responses by male and female students (χ2=12.80, p=.012). Computed proportions

indicated that 74% of the male students and 68% of the female students Strongly

Agreed or Agreed, 20% of the male students and 18% of the female students had No

Opinion, and 6% of the male students and 14% of the female students Strongly

Disagreed or Agreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the male and female

students’ perceptions were significantly different. However, their perceptions were

notable due to the cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly Agree and Agree cells

(>67%). Further, the results indicated that gender did not influence their perceptions.



between male and female students (χ2=6.31, p=.177). Computed proportions



116




Further, the results indicated that gender did not influence their perceptions.


increase my fear of safety and security on campus. There was no significant

difference in the distribution of responses between male and female students

(χ2=8.41, p=.078). Computed proportions indicated that 28% of the male students

and 45% of the female students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 55% of the male students

and 43% of the female students had No Opinion, and 17% of the male students and

12% of the females Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement.

Therefore, the male and female students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not

statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that gender did not influence

their perceptions.


school. There was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between

male and female students (χ2=12.17, p=.016). Computed proportions indicated that

27% of the male students and 36% of the female students Strongly Agreed or Agreed,

33% of the male students and 40% of the female students had No Opinion, and 40%

of the male students and 24% of the female students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed

with the survey statement. Therefore, the male and female students’ perceptions were

117

significantly different. Further, the results indicated that gender did influence

their perceptions.



Statement 13(a) Culture. There was a significant difference in the distribution

of responses between male and female students (χ2=15.10, p=.005). Computed

proportions indicated that 27% of the male students and 45% of the female students

Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 47% of the male students and 26% of the female students

had No Opinion, and 26% of the male students and 29% of the female students

Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the male and

female students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results

indicated that gender did influence their perceptions.

Statement 13(c) Ethnicity/Race. There was a significant difference in the

distribution of responses between male and female students (χ2=20.67, p=000).

Computed proportions indicated that 34% of the male students and 57% of the female

students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 43% of the male students and 19% of the female

students had No Opinion, and 23% of the male students and 24% the female students






118

proportions indicated that 23% of the male students and 43% of the female

students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 48% of the males and 27% of the females had

No Opinion, and 29% of the male students and 30% of the female students Strongly

Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the male and female


gender did influence their perceptions.

Statement 13(f) Sexual orientation. There was a significant difference in the

distribution of responses between male and female students (χ2=32.45, p=.001).



students had No Opinion, and 25% the male students and 19% of the female students










students had No Opinion, and 34% of the male students and 47% of the female

students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed. Therefore, the male and female students’

119


indicated that gender did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 14(e) Hallways. There was a significant difference in the






male and female students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results


Statement 14(f) Locker rooms. There was a significant difference in the






male and female students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the

results indicated that gender did influence their perceptions.

Statement 14(g) Parking lots. There was no significant difference in the




120

students had No Opinion, and 34% of the male and 41% of the female students


female students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant.




was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between male and female

students (χ2=16.72, p=.002). Computed proportions indicated that 22% of the male

students and 44% of the female students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 31% of the male

students and 19% of the female students had No Opinion, and 47% of the male


survey statement. Therefore, the male and female students’ perceptions were

significantly different. Further, the results indicated that gender did influence their

perceptions.


embarrassed, and spreading negative rumors). There was a significant difference in

the distribution of responses between male and female students (χ2=34.10, p=.001).





121


results indicated that gender did influence students’ perceptions.


insults, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing and threats). There was a

significant difference in the distribution of responses between male and female



students and 24% of the female students had No Opinion, and 40% of the males and

26% of the females Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement.

Therefore, the male and female students’ perceptions were significantly different.

Further, the results indicated that gender did influence students’ perceptions.


for my safety and security. There was a significant difference in the distribution of

responses between male and female students (χ2=10.12, p=.038). Computed






indicated that gender did influence students’ perceptions.

Open-Ended Statements. Open-ended statements specifically focusing on

the research theme of personal security and safety were included in the study as a

122

method of gathering responses from the students that this researcher may have

overlooked. The open-ended statements from the Student Safety Survey that

addressed personal security and safety were 13(g) and 14(l).

Statement 13(g). Prejudice and racism are issues at my school in the

following areas and increase fear for my safety and/or the safety of other students.

Four students responded to this statement with the following comments: deformities

(1), personal style choices (1), and transgender students (2).

Statement 14(l). These areas at school are NOT secure and increase fear for

my safety on campus. Two students responded to this statement with the following

comment: classes (2).

Research Theme: Academic, Social, and Physical Well-being



their academic, social, and physical well-being, disaggregated by ethnicity/race.

(See Tables 16 and 17 for statistical analyses.)

123

Table 16



12. The following issues at school increase my fear level and

negatively affect me academically, socially, and/or

physically.

a) Alcohol 2.68 .615

c) Cyber bullying 2.76 .599

d) Drugs 5.70 .223

f) Gang activity 6.72 .152

l) Physical bullying 5.22 .265

m) Physical fights 2.45 .654

n) Racism 3.81 .432

p) School shooting 8.49 .075

q) Social bullying 4.79 .310

r) Student suicide 7.87 .096

s) Theft 4.74 .316

t) Vandalism 6.06 .195

u) Verbal bullying 5.20 .267

w) Weapons on campus (knives and guns) 2.59 .628

22. Because of fear I have for my safety at school, it is difficult

to concentrate on my academics.

7.14 .128


124

Table 17



Survey Statements

%

W

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

W

Disagree

%

H

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

H

Disagree

12. The following issues at school increase

my fear level and negatively affect me

academically, socially, and/or

physically.

a) Alcohol 36 37 27 28 42 30

c) Cyber bullying 38 27 35 29 39 32

d) Drugs 38 29 33 32 42 26

f) Gang activity 55 16 29 41 32 27

l) Physical bullying 51 22 27 38 35 27

m) Physical fights 44 29 27 34 40 26

n) Racism 45 29 26 42 38 20

p) School shooting 62 18 20 52 26 22

q) Social bullying 47 29 24 40 36 24

r) Student suicide 62 20 18 39 32 29

s) Theft 56 20 24 49 35 16

t) Vandalism 42 29 29 35 42 23

u) Verbal bullying 51 24 25 37 41 22

w) Weapons on campus (knives and

guns)

56 24 20 49 33 18

22. Because of fear I have for my safety at

school, it is difficult to concentrate on

my academics.

11 16 73* 10 22 68*

Note. W = White; H = Hispanic

*>67% (notable)

125

Statement 12. The following issues at school increase my fear level and

negatively affect me academically, socially, and/or physically.

Statement 12(a) Alcohol. There was no significant difference in the







statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that ethnicity or race did not


Statement 12(c) Cyber bullying. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 12(d) Drugs. There was no significant difference in the distribution


126








Statement 12(f) Gang activity. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 12(l) Physical bullying. There was no significant difference in the






127

Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’ perceptions were inconclusive and

not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that ethnicity or race did not


Statement 12(m) Physical fights. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 12(n) Racism. There was no significant difference in the









128

Statement 12(p) School shooting. There was no significant difference in

the distribution of responses between White and Hispanic students (χ2=8.49, p=.075).








Statement 12(q) Social bullying. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 12(r) Student suicide. There was no significant difference in the




129

the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 18% of the White students and 29% of

the Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement.




Statement 12(s) Theft. There was no significant difference in the distribution









Statement 12(t) Vandalism. There was no significant difference in the







130



Statement 12(u) Verbal bullying. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 12(w) Weapons on campus (knives and guns). There was no








ethnicity or race did not influence their perceptions.

22. Because of the fear I have for my safety at school, it is difficult to

concentrate on my academics. There was no significant difference in the distribution

131






perceptions were notable due to the cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly

Disagree and Disagree cells (>67%). Further, the results indicated that ethnicity or

race did not influence their perceptions.



their academic, social, and physical well-being, disaggregated by socioeconomic

status. (See Tables 18 and 19 for statistical analyses.)

132

Table 18

Statistical Analysis for Eligible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Pearson Chi Square (χ2)




physically.


c) Cyber bullying 1.37 .850

d) Drugs 4.31 .365

f) Gang activity 4.24 .375

l) Physical bullying 2.38 .667

m) Physical fights 2.55 .636

n) Racism 1.99 .738

p) School shooting .523 .971

q) Social bullying 3.01 .555


s) Theft 1.22 .875

t) Vandalism 3.52 .476

u) Verbal bullying 1.35 .854

w) Weapons on campus (knives and guns) .556 .968



12.70 .013*


133

Table 19



Survey Statements

%

E

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

E

Disagree

%

NE

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

NE

Disagree




physically.

a) Alcohol 30 39 31 36 40 24


d) Drugs 34 40 26 41 35 24

f) Gang activity 45 27 28 44 36 20



n) Racism 44 34 22 47 37 16




s) Theft 47 34 19 52 33 15

t) Vandalism 35 38 27 37 40 23



guns)

52 29 19 53 30 17



my academics.

10 35 55 9 16 75


134












Statement 12(c) Cyber bullying. There was no significant difference in the











135








Statement 12(f) Gang activity. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 12(l) Physical bullying. There was no significant difference in the




the not-eligible students had no opinion, and 27% of the eligible students and 23% of


136

Therefore, the eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions were inconclusive

and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic

status did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 12(m) Physical fights. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 12(n) Racism. There was no significant difference in the






Therefore, eligible and not eligible students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not

statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status did

not influence their perceptions.

137

Statement 12(p) School shooting. There was no significant difference in

the distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=.523,








Statement 12(q) Social bullying. There was no significant difference in the













138

the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 17% of the eligible students and

17% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey




Statement 12(s) Theft. There was no significant difference in the distribution









Statement 12(t) Vandalism. There was no significant difference in the







139

not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic

status did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 12(u) Verbal bullying. There was no significant difference in the











students (χ2=.556, p=.968). Computed proportions indicated that 52% of the eligible







22. Because of the fear I have for my safety at school, it is difficult to

concentrate on my academics. There was a significant difference in the distribution

140

of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=12.70, p=.013).





Therefore, the eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions were significantly

different. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status did influence their

perceptions.



their academic, social, and physical well-being, disaggregated by grade level.

(See Tables 20 and 21 for statistical analyses.)

141

Table 20

Statistical Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen: Pearson Chi Square (χ2)




physically.

a) Alcohol 16.38 .003*

c) Cyber bullying 26.72 .001*

d) Drugs 22.29 .001*

f) Gang activity 19.16 .001*

l) Physical bullying 23.60 .001*

m) Physical fights 20.54 .001*

n) Racism 21.85 .001*

p) School shooting 17.89 .001*

q) Social bullying 31.97 .001*


s) Theft 27.43 .001*

t) Vandalism 17.44 .001*

u) Verbal bullying 55.54 .001*

w) Weapons on campus (knives and guns) 17.12 .001*



7.60 .107


142

Table 21

Descriptive Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen: Frequencies,


Survey Statements

%

LC

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

LC

Disagree

%

UC

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

UC

Disagree




physically.

a) Alcohol 42 38 20 24 40 36


d) Drugs 48 37 15 26 39 35

f) Gang activity 53 30 17 40 29 31



n) Racism 52 39 9 41 33 26




s) Theft 65 23 12 39 39 22

t) Vandalism 47 38 15 31 40 29



guns)

64 27 9 48 30 22



my academics.

15 18 67* 6 19 75*

Note. LC = Lowerclassmen; UC = Upperclassmen; *>67% (notable)

143



Statement 12(a) Alcohol. There was a significant difference in the distribution

of responses between LC and UC students (χ2=16.38, p=.003). Computed







Statement 12(c) Cyber bullying. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(d) Drugs. There was a significant difference in the distribution




144

no opinion, and 15% of the LC students and 35% of the UC students Strongly




Statement 12(f) Gang activity. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(l) Physical bullying. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(m) Physical fights. There was a significant difference in the


145







Statement 12(n) Racism. There was a significant difference in the distribution








Statement 12(p) School shooting. There was a significant difference in the








146

Statement 12(q) Social bullying. There was a significant difference in the
















Statement 12(s) Theft. There was a significant difference in the distribution of





with the survey statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’ perceptions were

147

significantly different. Further, the results indicated that grade level did influence

their perceptions.

Statement 12(t) Vandalism. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(u) Verbal bullying. There was a significant difference in the












148

of the UC students had No Opinion, and 9% of the LC students and 22% of the

UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore,

the LC and UC students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results


Statement 22. Because of the fear I have for my safety at school, it is difficult

to concentrate on my academics. There was no significant difference in the






students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant; however,

their perceptions were notable due to the cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly

Agree and Agree cells (>67%). Further, the results indicated that grade level did not




their academic, social, and physical well-being, disaggregated by gender. (See

Tables 22 and 23 for statistical analyses.)

149

Table 22





physically.


c) Cyber bullying 23.98 .001*

d) Drugs 5.91 .206

f) Gang activity 11.58 .021*

l) Physical bullying 21.81 .001*

m) Physical fights 10.65 .031*

n) Racism 17.21 .002*

p) School shooting 7.40 .116

q) Social bullying 18.12 .001*

r) Student suicide 25.65 .001*

s) Theft 17.44 .002*

t) Vandalism 19.81 .001*

u) Verbal bullying 25.57 .001*

w) Weapons on campus (knives and guns) 20.71 .001*



8.14 .087


150

Table 23



Survey Statements

%

M

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

M

Disagree

%

F

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

F

Disagree




physically.

a) Alcohol 31 45 24 34 33 33


d) Drugs 30 43 27 44 34 22

f) Gang activity 39 37 24 55 23 22



n) Racism 34 43 23 58 30 12




s) Theft 40 36 24 62 26 12

t) Vandalism 26 45 29 51 34 15



guns)

42 37 21 67 21 12



my academics.

11 26 63 11 13 76


151









male and female students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically

significant. Further, the results indicated that gender did not influence their

perceptions.

Statement 12(c) Cyber bullying. There was a significant difference in the







results indicated that gender did not influence their perceptions.




152

Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 43% of the male students and 34% of the female





perceptions.

Statement 12(f) Gang activity. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(l) Physical bullying. There was a significant difference in the








153

Statement 12(m) Physical fights. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(n) Racism. There was a significant difference in the distribution








Statement 12(p) School shooting. There was no significant difference in the






154



perceptions.

Statement 12(q) Social bullying. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(r) Student suicide. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(s) Theft. There was a significant difference in the distribution of

responses between male and female students (χ2=17.44, p=.002). Computed


155

Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 36% of the male students and 26% of the female





Statement 12(t) Vandalism. There was a significant difference in the








Statement 12(u) Verbal bullying. There was a significant difference in the








156

Statement 12(w) Weapons on campus (knives and guns). There was a








perceptions.


to concentrate on my academics. There was no significant difference in the








perceptions.


the research theme of academic, social, and physical well-being were included in the

study as a method of gathering responses from the students that this researcher may

157

have overlooked. The open-ended statements from the Student Safety Survey that

addressed academic, social, and physical well-being was 12(x).

Statement 12(x). The following issues at school increase my fear level and

negatively affect me academically, socially, and/or physically. Two students

responded to this statement with the following comments: sexual harassment and

racist teachers (2).

Research Theme: Specific Safety Measures


survey of high school students’ perceptions in terms of specific safety measures

that are intended to improve their feelings of safety and well-being at school,

disaggregated by ethnicity/race. (See Tables 24 and 25 for statistical analyses.)

158

Table 24



6. The following school security measures increase my feeling

of safety at school.

a) Anonymous-tip hotline for students to call in case of

emergencies

6.67 .155

c) Drug dogs to search lockers and vehicles for firearms

and drugs

2.02 .733

d) Fences around the school 5.44 .245

f) Lockdown drills 8.23 .083

g) Locked entrances and exits during school hours 2.28 .684

i) Metal detectors 7.53 .110

j) Armed police officers (also known as School Resource

Officers)

3.63 .458

k) Unarmed campus supervisors 1.68 .795

l) Student searches 8.83 .065

m) Students required to show ID when entering the school 26.05 .001*

n) Surveillance cameras throughout the school 10.29 .036*

o) Suspending/expelling students for violence/drugs 7.96 .093

p) Teachers observing in the halls before, during, and after

school

3.06 .549

q) Visitor check-in at the main office before receiving

access to the school

8.62 .071

r) Dress code (eliminates gang attire) 4.70 .320

24. If I report unsafe, dangerous behavior or bullying, I can be

certain the problem will be dealt with immediately.

7.54 .110


159

Table 25



Survey Statements

%

W

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

W

Disagree

%

H

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

H

Disagree

6. The following school security

measures increase my feeling of safety

at school.

a) Anonymous-tip hotline for students

to call in case of emergencies

45 40 15 49 42 9

c) Drug dogs to search lockers and

vehicles for firearms and drugs

51 27 22 47 35 18

d) Fences around the school 43 33 24 60 25 15

f) Lockdown drills 73* 18 9 68* 27 5

g) Locked entrances and exits during

school hours

51 31 18 51 33 16

i) Metal detectors 31 29 40 33 42 25

j) Armed police officers (also known

as School Resource Officers)

55 27 18 52 32 16

k) Unarmed campus supervisors 53 29 18 46 39 15

l) Student searches 16 47 37 35 43 22

m) Students required to show ID when

entering the school

20 20 60 40 37 23

n) Surveillance cameras throughout

the school

33 35 32 42 38 20

o) Suspending/expelling students for

violence/drugs

61 29 10 59 37 4

p) Teachers observing in the halls

before, during, and after school

42 44 14 47 42 11

q) Visitor check-in at the main office

before receiving access to the

school

55 33 12 69 28 3

r) Dress code (eliminates gang attire) 38 31 31 46 37 17

24. If I report unsafe, dangerous behavior

or bullying, I can be certain the

problem will be dealt with

immediately.

26 27 47 23 32 45

Note. W = White; H = Hispanic; *>67% (notable)

160



Statement 6(a) Anonymous-tip hot line for students to call in case of

emergencies. There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses



Agreed or Agreed, 40% of the White students and 42% of the Hispanic students had

No Opinion, and 15% of the White students and 9% of the Hispanic students Strongly

Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the White and

Hispanic students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant.

Further, the results indicated that ethnicity or race did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 6(c) Drug dogs to search lockers and vehicles for firearms and

drugs. There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between



Agreed, 27% of the White students and 35% of the Hispanic students had No

Opinion, and 22% of the White students and 18% of Hispanic students Strongly




Statement 6(d) Fences around the school. There was no significant difference

in the distribution of responses between White and Hispanic students (χ2=5.44,

161

p=.245). Computed proportions indicated that 43% of the White students and

60% of the Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 33% of the White students

and 25% of the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 24% of the White students

and 15% of the Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey

statement. Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’ perceptions were



Statement 6(f) Lockdown drills. There was no significant difference in the






perceptions were notable due to the cohorts’ high response rate in the Strongly Agree

and Agree cells (>67%). Further, the results indicated that ethnicity or race did not


Statement 6(g) Locked entrances and exits during school hours. There was no






162

with the survey statement. Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’


indicated that ethnicity or race did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 6(i) Metal detectors. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 6(j) Armed police officers (also known as School Resource

Officers). There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses




No Opinion, and 18% of the White students and 16% of the Hispanic students

Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the White

and Hispanic students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant.


163

Statement 6(k) Unarmed campus supervisors. There was no significant






survey statement. Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’ perceptions were



Statement 6(l) Student searches. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 6(m) Students required to show ID when entering the school. There

was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between White and

Hispanic students (χ2=26.05, p=.001). Computed proportions indicated that 20% of

the White students and 40% of the Hispanic students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 20%

164

of the White students and 37% of the Hispanic students had No Opinion, and 60%

of the White students and 23% of the Hispanic students Strongly Disagreed or

Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’

perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results indicated that ethnicity

or race did influence their perceptions.

Statement 6(n) Surveillance cameras throughout the school. There was a

significant difference in the distribution of responses between white and Hispanic






were significantly different. Further, the results indicated that ethnicity or race did


Statement 6(o) Suspending/expelling students for violence/drugs. There was

no significant difference in the distribution of responses between White and Hispanic






165

were inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated

that ethnicity or race did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 6(p) Teachers observing in the halls before, during, and after




Agreed, 44% of the White students and 42% of the Hispanic students had No

Opinion, and 14% of the White students and 11% of the Hispanic students Strongly




Statement 6(q) Visitor check-in at the main office before receiving access to

the school. There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses




No Opinion, and 12% of the White students and 3% of the Hispanic students Strongly




Statement 6(r) Dress code (eliminates gang attire). There was no significant


166

(χ2=4.70, p=.320). Computed proportions indicated that 38% of the White







Statement 24. If I report unsafe, dangerous behavior or bullying, I can be

certain the problem will be dealt with immediately. There was no significant






survey statement. Therefore, the White and Hispanic students’ perceptions were






disaggregated by socioeconomic status. (See Tables 26 and 27 for statistical

analyses.)

167

Table 26

Statistical Analysis for Eligible and Not-Eligible Cohorts: Pearson Chi Square (χ2)





emergencies

3.22 .521


and drugs

1.45 .835



g) Locked entrances and exits during school hours 5.52 .238

i) Metal detectors 10.69 .030*


Officers)

3.57 .468



m) Students required to show ID when entering the school 8.42 .077

n) Surveillance cameras throughout the school 3.23 .520

o) Suspending/expelling students for violence/drugs 3.59 .465


school

12.33 .015*



5.55 .235




10.38 .034*


168

Table 27



Survey Statements

%

E

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

E

Disagree

%

NE

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

NE

Disagree



at school.



52 37 11 41 47 12



47 38 15 46 36 18


f) Lockdown drills 62 26 12 63 30 7


school hours

46 38 16 45 36 19




46 33 21 56 26 18




entering the school

38 32 30 21 40 39


the school

43 33 24 31 42 27


violence/drugs

53 39 8 62 30 8



47 32 21 36 53 11



school

70 23 7 56 36 8





immediately.

21 43 36 25 27 48


169



Statement 6(a) Anonymous-tip hotline for students to call in case of

emergencies. There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses






eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically


their perceptions.


drugs. There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between

eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=1.45, p=.835). Computed proportions indicated

that 47% of the eligible students and 46% of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed

or Agreed, 38% of the eligible students and 36% of the not-eligible students had No



and not-eligible students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically


their perceptions.

170

Statement 6(d) Fences around the school. There was no significant

difference in the distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students

(χ2=1.98, p=.739). Computed proportions indicated that 56% of the eligible students

and 50% of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 27% of the eligible

students and 30% of the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 17% of the eligible





Statement 6(f) Lockdown drills. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 6(g) Locked entrances and exits during school hours. There was no




171

eligible students and 36% of the not-eligible students had No Opinion, and 16% of

the eligible students and 19% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or




Statement 6(i) Metal detectors. There was a significant difference in the

distribution of responses between eligible and not-eligible students (χ2=10.69,



and 46% of the not-eligible students had no opinion, and 29% of the eligible students

and 33% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed and Disagreed with the

survey statement. Therefore, the eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions were

significantly different. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status did



Officers). There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses






eligible and not-eligible students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically

172

significant. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status did not


Statement 6(k) Unarmed campus supervisors. There was no significant









Statement 6(l) Students searches. There was no significant difference in the









Statement 6(m) Students required to show ID when entering the school. There


173

not-eligible students (χ2=8.42, p=.077). Computed proportions indicated that 38%

of the eligible students and 21% of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed or

Agreed, 32% of the eligible students and 40% of the not-eligible students had No



and not eligible students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically


their perceptions.

Statement 6(n) Students required to show ID when entering the school. There









Statement 6(o) Students required to show ID when entering the school. There





174





Statement 6(p) Students required to show ID when entering the school. There

was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between eligible and not-

eligible students (χ2=12.33, p=.015). Computed proportions indicated that 47% of the

eligible students and 36% of the not-eligible students Strongly Agreed or Agreed,





socioeconomic status did influence their perceptions.

Statement 6(q) Students required to show ID when entering the school. There





7% of the eligible students and 8% of the not-eligible students Strongly Disagreed or




175

Statement 6(r) Dress code (eliminates gang attire). There was no










certain the problem will be dealt with immediately. There was a significant







were significantly different. Further, the results indicated that socioeconomic status


H11: There is no significant difference in the distribution of responses on

a survey of high school students’ perceptions in terms of specific safety measures

176


disaggregated by grade level. (See Tables 28 and 29 for statistical analyses.)

Table 28

Statistical Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen Cohorts: Pearson Chi

Square (χ2)





emergencies

10.76 .029*


and drugs

13.14 .011*

d) Fences around the school 9.49 .050*


g) Locked entrances and exits during school hours 15.69 .003*



Officers)

4.08 .396





o) Suspending/expelling students for violence/drugs 9.80 .044*


school

3.44 .487



2.15 .708


177



4.87 .301


Table 29

Descriptive Analysis for Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen Cohorts: Frequencies,


Survey Statements

%

LC

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

LC

Disagree

%

UC

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

UC

Disagree



at school.



54 38 8 39 49 12



26 35 39 39 38 23




school hours

56 32 12 48 28 24




53 30 17 51 27 22




entering the school

35 30 35 34 34 32


the school

42 36 22 34 39 27


violence/drugs

67 27 6 54 34 12



46 42 12 42 41 16



school

66 27 7 66 26 8

178





immediately.

30 28 42 20 29 51

Note. LC = Lowerclassmen; UC = Upperclassmen




emergencies: There was a significant difference in the distribution of responses

between LC and UC students (χ2=10.76, p=.029). Computed proportions indicated

that 54% of the LC students and 39% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed,

38% of the LC students and 49% of the UC students had No Opinion, and 8% of the

LC students and 12% of the UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the

survey statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’ perceptions were significantly


perceptions.


drugs: There was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between LC

and UC students (χ2=13.14, p=.011). Computed proportions indicated that 26% of

the LC students and 39% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 35% of the

LC students and 38% of the UC students had No Opinion, and 39% of the LC


survey statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’ perceptions were significantly

179


perceptions.

Statement 6(d) Fences around the school: There was a significant difference

in the distribution of responses between LC and UC students (χ2=9.49, p=.050).







Statement 6(f) Lockdown drills: There was no significant difference in the






students’ perceptions were convergent but not significantly different. Further, the


Statement 6(g) Locked entrances and exits during schools hours: There was a




180

of the UC students had No Opinion, and 12% of the LC students and 24% of the

UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey statement. Therefore,

the LC and UC students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results


Statement 6(i) Metal detectors: There was no significant difference in the









Officers): There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses



of the LC students and 27% of the UC students had no opinion, and 17% of the LC



and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that grade level did not


181

Statement 6(k) Unarmed campus supervisors: There was no significant

difference in the distribution of responses between LC and UC students (χ2=2.23,

p=.693). Computed proportions indicated that 50% of the LC students and 46% of

the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 34% of the LC students and 38% of the

UC students had No Opinion, and 16% of the LC students and 16% of the UC


LC and UC students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant.


Statement 6(l) Student searches: There was no significant difference in the








Statement 6(m) Students required to show ID when entering the school: There

was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between LC and UC

students (χ2=1.35, p=.854). Computed proportions indicated that 35% of the LC

students and 34% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 30% of the LC

students and 34% of the UC students had No Opinion, and 35% of the LC students

and 32% of the UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey

182

statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’ perceptions were inconclusive



Statement 6(n) Surveillance cameras throughout the school: There was no








Statement 6(o) Suspending/Expelling students for violence/drugs: There was

a significant difference in the distribution of responses between LC and UC students





LC and UC students’ perceptions were significantly different. Further, the results


Statement 6(p) Teachers observing in the hallways before, during, and after

school: There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between

LC and UC students (χ2=3.44, p=.487). Computed proportions indicated that 46% of

183

the LC students and 43% of the UC students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 42% of

the LC students and 41% of the UC students had No Opinion, and 12% of the LC






the school: There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses



of the LC students and 26% of the UC students had No Opinion, and 7% of the LC

students and 8% of the UC students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey

statement. Therefore, the LC and UC students’ perceptions were inconclusive and

not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that grade level did not


Statement 6(r) Dress code (eliminates gang attire): There was no significant






184

LC and UC students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically

significant. Further, the results indicated that grade level did not influence their

perceptions.


certain the problem will be dealt with immediately. There was no significant








H12: There is no significant difference in the distribution of responses on

a survey of high school students’ perceptions in terms of specific safety measures


disaggregated by gender. (See Tables 30 and 31 for statistical analyses.)

185

Table 30






emergencies

13.50 .009*


and drugs

5.78 .216



g) Locked entrances and exits during school hours 12.91 .012*



Officers)

6.63 .157


l) Student searches 11.65 .020*



o) Suspending/expelling students for violence/drugs 12.42 .014*


school

7.76 .101



2.25 .690

r) Dress code (eliminates gang attire) 10.18 .037*



23.18 .001*


186

Table 31



Survey Statements

%

M

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

M

Disagree

%

F

Agree

%

No

Opinion

%

F

Disagree



at school.



39 48 13 57 36 7



41 37 22 52 35 13




school hours

44 40 16 60 21 19




44 34 22 59 23 18




entering the school

32 32 36 36 32 32


the school

38 37 25 37 31 32


violence/drugs

51 38 11 69 23 8



39 48 13 49 36 15



school

63 30 7 69 23 8





immediately.

16 37 47 32 14 54


187




emergencies: There was a significant difference in the distribution of responses







gender did influence their perceptions.


drugs: There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between






inconclusive and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that gender


Statement 6(d) Fences around the school: There was no significant difference

in the distribution of responses between male and female students (χ2=4.86, p=.303).

188

Computed proportions indicated that 52% of the male students and 60% of the

female students Strongly Agreed or Agreed, 27% of the male students and 27% of the

female students had No Opinion, and 21% of the male students and 13% of the female




perceptions.

Statement 6(f) Lockdown drills: There was a significant difference in the




students had No Opinion, and 7% of the male students and 5% of the female students


female students’ perceptions were inconclusive and not statistically significant.


Statement 6(g) Locked entrances and exits during school hours: There was a







189

significantly different. Further, the results indicated that gender did influence

their perceptions.

Statement 6(i) Metal detectors: There was no significant difference in the








perceptions.


Officers): There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses








Statement 6(k) Unarmed campus supervisors: There was no significant


190




16% of the female students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey

statement. Therefore, the male and female students’ perceptions were inconclusive

and not statistically significant. Further, the results indicated that gender did not


Statement 6(l) Student searches: There was a significant difference in the








Statement 6(m) Students required to show ID when entering the school: There

was a significant difference in the distribution of responses between male and female






191


gender did not influence their perceptions.

Statement 6(n) Surveillance cameras throughout the school: There was no









Statement 6(o) Suspending/expelling students for violence/drugs: There was a








perceptions.

Statement 6(p) Teachers observing in the halls before, during, and after

school: There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses between

192









the school: There was no significant difference in the distribution of responses



Agreed or Agreed 30% of the male students and 23% of the female students had No





Statement 6(r) Dress code (eliminates gang attire): There was a significant





14% of the female students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the survey

193

statement. Therefore, the male and female students’ perceptions were


perceptions.


to concentrate on my academics. There was a significant difference in the









the research theme of specific safety measures were included in the study as a method

of gathering responses from the students that this researcher may have overlooked.

The open-ended statements from the Student Safety Survey that addressed academic,

social, and physical well-being was 6(s).

Statement 6(s). The following school security measures increase my feeling of

safety at school. Two students responded to this statement with the following

comment: Staff members/teachers that care about students (2).

194

Summary

This chapter presented the statistical and descriptive results of 269 surveys

completed by the student respondents about the fears they might experience on

secondary school campuses and what policies and procedures the respondents

perceived increased their feelings of safety and security on campus. Chapter V

summarizes the results, presents conclusions, provides recommendations for

educators, and proposes recommendations for further study.

195

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this study was to ascertain secondary school students’

perceived fears and to identify specific measures that the students believed would

assuage their fears and increase safety school wide. The following research questions

were utilized to gain insight into students’ perceptions: (a) What personal safety and

security fears do high school students have on campus? (b) How do those specific

fears impact high school students’ academic, social, and physical well-being?

(c) What specific safety measures do high school students perceive increase their


Summary of Findings

Chapter IV presented the statistical and descriptive analyses of findings based

on 269 Student Safety Surveys that were completed by student respondents regarding

what fears they experienced on secondary school campuses and what policies and

procedures the respondents perceived would improve their feelings of safety and

security on campus. The frequency and percentages of the cohorts’ responses and the

application of the Chi-Square Test of Independence to the response distributions

generated quantifiable findings that lead to the conclusions discussed on the

following pages. Overall, the data generated by the White and Hispanic cohorts and

the eligible and not-eligible free or reduced-price lunch cohorts were generally in

agreement and more uniformly expressed across the response distributions. On the

196

other hand, the data generated by the lowerclassmen (LC) and upperclassmen

(UC) cohorts and the male and female cohorts were both convergent and divergent

and resulted in robust response distributions that were significant (p<.05) and notable

(>67%). (See Appendix I for a chart showing the Research Themes in this study.)

Research Theme 1: Personal Safety and Security

After analyzing the data generated by the Student Safety Survey, this

researcher concluded that Statements 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13 (a, c, d and f), 14 (a, e, f, and g),

16, 17, 18, and 21 were most closely aligned with Research Theme 1: Personal Safety

and Security. Further, this researcher identified six critical areas of need based on the

significance and importance of the responses to the Student Safety Survey: (a) general

students’ perceptions of school safety, (b) drug use, (c) physical violence,

(d) bullying, (e) prejudice and racism, and (f) campus locations perceived as safe or

unsafe. These areas of need are organized by demographic category and form the

foundation for the remaining discussion in this chapter.

Demographic Category 1: Ethnicity or Race. General Perceptions of

Students Regarding School Safety. The White and Hispanic students agreed that they

felt safe in at least one class at school, that they felt safe from social and cyber

bullying, and that they thought there was at least one caring adult at the school whom

they trusted. The cohorts consistently and strongly expressed a feeling of safety and

security at their school.

Prejudice and Racism. The White and Hispanic students differed in their

opinions regarding prejudice and racism, as expressed by the students on the basis of

197

gender. The White respondents sensed a stronger level of prejudice based on

gender than did the Hispanic students.

Campus Locations Perceived as Safe or Unsafe. The White and Hispanic

respondents agreed that the parking lots on campus were safe. However, the White

respondents expressed a higher level of confidence in the level of security than did

the Hispanic respondents.

Demographic Category 2: Socioeconomic Status. General Perceptions of

Students Regarding School Safety. The students who were eligible and those who

were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch agreed that they felt safe in at least

one class at school, that they felt safe from social and cyber bullying, and thought

there was at least one caring adult at the school whom they trusted. Their opinions

consistently and strongly expressed a feeling of safety and security at their school.

Additionally, both cohorts expressed that they did not fear for their safety enough to

avoid participating in school activities.

Drug Use. The students who were eligible and those who were not eligible for

free or reduced-price lunch expressed important, yet differing perceptions regarding

the use and sales of drugs on campus. A majority of the noneligible students

expressed no opinion about the subject compared to the eligible students, who were

more inclined to disagree with the perception that drug use and sales increased

student fears.

Demographic Category 3: Grade Level. General Perceptions of Students

Regarding School Safety. The lowerclassmen (LC) and upperclassmen (UC) agreed

198

that they felt safe in at least one class at school and thought there was at least one

caring adult at the school whom they trusted. Although both cohorts’ perceptions of

safety toward social and cyber bullying were high, they did not reach the level of

notable. Their opinions consistently and strongly expressed a feeling of safety and

security at their school.

Drug Use. The lowerclassmen and upperclassmen expressed opposing

opinions regarding the fear created by the use and sales of drugs on campus. Nearly

half of the lowerclassmen expressed a greater level of fear than did the

upperclassmen, who were more likely to minimize the issue.

Prejudice and Racism. The lowerclassmen and upperclassmen expressed

opposing opinions regarding the level of perceived prejudice based on sexual

orientation. The lowerclassmen believed that prejudice based on sexual orientation

increased their fear for their safety or the safety of other students. Some

upperclassmen felt similarly; however, a majority of the UC respondents thought that

the campus provided an environment free from prejudice based on sexual orientation.

Bullying. The lowerclassmen and upperclassmen expressed opposing opinions

regarding the effect of physical, social, and verbal bullying on student fears at school.

In fact, nearly twice as many lowerclassmen believed that bullying significantly

increased their feelings of fear on campus. The strength of their divergence of

opinion may reflect the effects of chronological age and level of maturation on

students’ feelings of security.

199

Demographic Category 4: Gender. General Perceptions of Students

Regarding School Safety. The male and female students agreed that they felt safe in

at least one class at school, that they felt safe from social and cyber bullying, and

believed that there was at least one caring adult at the school whom they trusted.

Their opinions consistently and strongly expressed a feeling of safety and security at

their school. Additionally, both cohorts expressed that they did not fear for their

safety enough to avoid participating in school activities.

Physical Violence. The males and females differed in their perceptions of

student fights on campus. The males were more likely to disagree with the notion

that fights increased their level of fear, while the females were more likely to perceive

physical fights as a fear-inducing event.

Prejudice and Racism. The males and females expressed conflicting attitudes

toward prejudice and racism based on culture, ethnicity or race, gender, and sexual

orientation. The females overwhelmingly expressed fear for their safety due to

prejudice and racism on campus.

Campus Locations Perceived as Safe or Unsafe. The male and female

students varied in their feelings about their safety and security at specific locations on

campus. The females suggested that hallways and locker rooms were safe, while the

majority of the males had no opinion about the level of security at either location.

Bullying. The males and females had opposing opinions regarding the effect

of physical, social, and verbal bullying on student fears at school. Bullying

significantly increased the females’ safety concerns on campus, while the males

200

appeared to be less apprehensive about their safety. The strength of their

divergence of opinion reflects the effect of gender on students’ feelings of security.

Research Theme 2: Academic, Social, and Physical Well-being


researcher concluded that Statements 12 (a, c, d, f, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, u, and w) and 22

were most closely aligned with Research Theme 2: Academic, Social, and Physical

Well-being. Further, this researcher identified six critical areas of need based on the

significance and importance of the responses to the Student Safety Survey: (a) general

students’ perceptions of school safety, (b) drug use, (c) physical violence,

(d) bullying, (e) social impact, and (f) school/personal property crimes. These areas

of need are organized by demographic category and form the foundation for the

remaining discussion in this chapter.

Demographic Category 1: Ethnicity/Race. General Perceptions of Students

Regarding School Safety. The White and Hispanic students validated that personal

fears did not affect their ability to concentrate on academics. The cohorts consistently

and strongly expressed a feeling of safety and security at their school.

Demographic Category 2: Socioeconomic Status. General Perceptions of

Students Regarding School Safety. The students who eligible for free or reduced-

price lunch and those who were not eligible generally agreed that personal fears at

school did not affect their ability to concentrate on academics. However, nearly twice

as many eligible students declined to state an opinion, with only a minority

expressing agreement.

201

Demographic Category 3: Grade Level. Drug Use. The lowerclassmen

and upperclassmen expressed opposing opinions regarding the effect of alcohol and

drug use on their academic, social, and/or physical well-being. Nearly half of the

lowerclassmen expressed a greater level of fear than the upperclassmen, who were

more likely to express no opinion and/or disagreed.

Physical Violence. The perceptions of the lowerclassmen and upperclassmen

differed regarding the effect of physical fights, school shootings, and weapons on

their academic, social, and/or physical well-being. Overall, the lowerclassmen were

more fearful than the upperclassmen.

Bullying. The perceptions of the lowerclassmen and upperclassmen differed

regarding the effect of cyber, physical, social, and verbal bullying on their academic,

social, and/or physical well-being. Overall, the lowerclassmen were more fearful

than the upperclassmen.

Social Impact. The perceptions of the lowerclassmen and upperclassmen

differed regarding the effect of gang activity and racism on their academic, social,

and/or physical well-being. Overall, the lowerclassmen were more fearful than the

upperclassmen.

School/Personal Property Crimes. The perceptions of the lowerclassmen and

upperclassmen differed regarding the effect of school and personal property crimes

on their academic, social, and/or physical well-being. Overall, the lowerclassmen

were more fearful than the upperclassmen.

202

Demographic Category 4: Gender. Bullying. The perceptions of the

male and female students differed regarding the effect of cyber, physical, social, and

verbal bullying on their academic, social, and/or physical well-being. Overall, the

female students were more fearful than the male students.

Social Impact. The perceptions of the male and female students differed

regarding the effect of gang activity and racism on their academic, social, and/or

physical well-being. Overall, the female students were more fearful than the male

students.

Physical Violence. The perceptions of the male and female students differed

regarding the effect of physical fights, school shootings, and weapons on campus on

their academic, social, and/or physical well-being. Overall, the female students were

more fearful than the male students.

School/Personal Property Crimes. The perceptions of the male and female

students differed regarding the effect of school and personal property crimes on their

academic, social, and/or physical well-being. Overall, the female students were more

fearful than the male students.

Research Theme 3: Specific Safety Measures


researcher concluded that Statements 6 (a, c, d, f, g, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r) and 24

were most closely aligned with Research Theme 3: Specific Safety Measures.

Further, this researcher identified four critical areas of need based on the significance

and importance of the responses to the Student Safety Survey: (a) facilities,

203

(b) personnel, (c) safety procedures, and (d) school disciplinary policies. These

areas of need are organized by demographic category and form the foundation for the

remaining discussion in this chapter.

Demographic Category 1: Ethnicity/Race. Safety Procedures. The White

and Hispanic students differed in their opinions regarding students showing

identification when entering campus. The Hispanic students suggested that the

procedure increased their feeling of well-being at school, while the White students

disagreed. However, both cohorts strongly agreed that lockdown drills positively

impacted students’ perceptions of safety.

Facilities. The White and Hispanic students exhibited divergent attitudes

about the use of surveillance cameras as a measure of increasing students’ feelings of

safety at school. The Hispanic students agreed, and the White students disagreed, that

the use of cameras increased students’ perceptions of safety.

Demographic Category 2: Socioeconomic Status. Safety Procedures. The

students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and those who were not

eligible disagreed about the use of metal detectors as a means of increasing students’

perceptions of safety at school. The eligible students agreed, while those who were

not eligible had no opinion.

Personnel. The students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and

those who were not eligible recorded a divergence of opinion about teachers

observing in the halls as a measure of increasing students’ feelings of safety. The

eligible students agreed, whereas, those who were not eligible had no opinion.

204

Conversely, the eligible students portrayed no opinion, while those who were not

eligible disagreed with the idea that reporting unsafe behavior would lead to a

solution to the problem.

Demographic Category 3: Grade Level. Safety Procedures. The perceptions

of the lowerclassmen and the upperclassmen differed regarding the implementation of

an anonymous-tip hotline on campus to increase student feelings of safety. Overall,

the lowerclassmen agreed, while the upperclassmen had no opinion.

School Disciplinary Policies. The lowerclassmen and the upperclassmen

expressed divergent feelings about the use of drug dogs to increase students’

perceptions of safety at school. The upperclassmen felt more strongly about this

policy as a means of increasing safety perceptions than did the lowerclassmen.

However, both cohorts agreed that the strategy of suspending or expelling students

for violence/drug use increased students’ perceptions of safety at school.

Facilities. The lowerclassmen and the upperclassmen expressed positive

opinions about the use of fences around the school and locked entrances and exits

during school hours as a means of increasing students’ perceptions of safety at school.

However, a small group of the upperclassmen disagreed that their use increased

student safety.

Demographic Category 4: Gender. Safety Procedures. The males and

females disagreed about the use of an anonymous-tip hotline as a means to increase

students’ perceptions of safety at school. The females strongly supported their use,

while the males remained neutral about the use of these phone numbers.

205

Facilities. The male and female students differed in their opinions about

locked entrances and exits during school hours as a means of increasing students’

perceptions of safety at school. More female students agreed with this as a method of

increasing safety than did male students.

School Disciplinary Policies. The perceptions of the male and female students

differed regarding the application of suspending and/or expelling students for

violence or drug use and the use of a dress code to increase student feelings of safety

at school. A majority of the female students agreed that these measures increased

their safety at school. The males were likely to agree but with less intensity.

Personnel. The perceptions of the male and female students were similar

regarding the belief that reporting unsafe behavior would lead to a solution to the

problem. Both cohorts generally agreed that reporting would not resolve the

complaint; however, more male students expressed no opinion than did female

students.

Conclusions

These critical areas of need (identified by research theme and demographic

group in the summary of findings) provide scaffolding for the remaining discussion.

Survey responses will be compared and contrasted across all demographic groups to

provide a cogent set of assumptions from which to draw conclusions regarding

secondary students’ perceptions of safety and security on their campus.

206

General Perceptions of Students Regarding School Safety

Across all demographic categories and cohorts, the respondents’ perceptions

of school safety was positive: They felt safe in at least one class at school; they felt

safe from social and cyber bullying in at least one class at school; and they believed

that at least one caring adult in school could be trusted. Additionally, White and

Hispanic students as well as students who were eligible and those who were not

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch Strongly Agreed that personal fears at school

did not affect their ability to concentrate on academics. Finally, male and female

students and students who were eligible and those who were not eligible for free or

reduced-price lunch reported that they did not avoid participating in school activities

due to fear for their safety.

Studies conducted by Hong and Eamon (2001), Sparks (2011b), and Hammond

(2002) showed that students recognize their schools as safe places when they have

teachers who are willing to build relationships of trust with them and are firm, fair,

and consistent in classroom management. Additionally, Friedberg (1998) and

Hantman et al. (2008) concluded that a school’s safety practices can positively impact

a student’s academic performance and attitude toward school.

This researcher believes that the findings from the present study validate the

research and strongly reflect the respondents’ collective opinion that they feel

extremely safe on campus and that school officials have implemented effective safety

practices. This researcher suggests that school districts continue to emphasize

professional development, specifically in the area of classroom management and

207

strategies for building relationships of trust with students. Additionally, this

researcher suggests that school districts widely advertise its safety practices and

policies to ensure that these norms are put into daily practice and become part of the

school culture.

Drug Use

Two demographic cohorts expressed differences of opinion regarding the fear

that drug and alcohol use and sales creates on campus. First, students who were

eligible and those who were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch disagreed and

had no opinion, respectively, that drug use and sales did not increase their fears.

Second, lowerclassmen and upperclassmen expressed opposing views regarding the

perceived impact that drugs and alcohol had on their academic, social, and physical

well-being. Nearly half of the lowerclassmen expressed fear that these substances

would affect their well-being in some way.

Robers et al. (2014) found that drug and illegal substance usage on school

campuses remained unabated, with approximately one fourth of the students in their

study admitting to being offered, sold, or given drugs. These statistics are somewhat

higher for Hispanic students. On a positive note, secondary students in Alabama

experienced a slight decrease in reported incidences (Pride Surveys, 2006).

Though the demography cited in the literature confirms the continued existence

of substance abuse and dangerous behaviors on school campuses, findings that

describe the potential consequences to students are limited (Pride Surveys, 2006;

Robers et al., 2014). This researcher notes that three of the four cohorts identified in

208

this section were not fearful that drugs and substance abuse would have a negative

effect on their security. However, the lowerclassmen were clearly apprehensive.

This researcher suggests that an intensive effort should be made by school officials to

understand why the youngest high school students express such anxiety toward drug

and alcohol use on campus and what strategies may be helpful in assuaging their

fears.

Bullying and Physical Violence

Two demographic cohorts expressed strong feelings about bullying and

physical violence. First, the lowerclassmen and upperclassmen expressed opposing

opinions regarding the harmful consequences of physical, social, and verbal bullying

to their feelings of well-being at school. In fact, nearly twice as many lowerclassmen

thought that bullying significantly increased their feelings of fear on campus.

Second, the male and female students expressed the same contrasting attitudes toward

bullying and physical violence. The female students conveyed nearly twice the fear

and apprehension toward bullying and fighting as did the male students.

The literature is replete with studies that confirm that high school students are

frequently bullied and that females and lowerclassmen are at the greatest risk for

attack, regardless of the source—social media, verbal, or on campus (Akiba, 2008;

Robers et al., 2014). Surprisingly, the number of students who have been actually

threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club, is relatively small

and more frequently male (Robers et al., 2014).

209

The present study confirms the demographic and descriptive findings of

Robers et al. (2014). Clearly, the cohorts most susceptible to the fear of bullying and

school violence were the females and lowerclassmen. These findings may reflect the

effects of chronological age, levels of maturation, and established gender norms on

these students’ sense of security. This researcher strongly suggests that safety

strategies be implemented to allow students opportunities to report bullying and

violence and to provide programs to enhance students’ self-esteem and confidence in

responding appropriately to potentially volatile behaviors on campus.

Prejudice and Racism

Three demographic cohorts expressed differences of opinion regarding the

fears that prejudice and racism create for students at school. First, the White

respondents sensed a stronger level of prejudice toward gender than did the Hispanic

students. Second, the lowerclassmen believed that prejudice toward sexual

orientation increased their fear for their safety or the safety of other students, while

the upperclassmen thought the school was mostly free from prejudice based on sexual

orientation. Third, the female respondents feared more for their safety or the safety of

other students based on expressions of prejudice and racism toward culture,

ethnicity/race, gender, and sexual orientation than did their counterparts.

Robers et al. (2014) found that prejudice toward ethnicity or race was more

prevalent among the male Hispanic students. The females were exposed to more

prejudice toward their sexual orientation than were the males; across grade levels,

there was an equal distribution of perceived prejudice and racism in general.

210

The literature confirms the findings of the present study that the well-being

of the cohorts identified in this section are at considerable risk. Ethnicity or race,

grade level, and gender are important cohorts when considering prejudice and racism

at school. This researcher suggests that schools examine closely the impact that

prejudice and racism have on students’ sense of well-being and look at specific

methods of data gathering to accurately determine the students’ needs.

Social Impacts

Fears about student suicide and gang activity differed among two

demographic cohorts—males and females and lowerclassmen and upperclassmen.

First, females maintained that student suicide increased fears about their own well-

being. However, student suicide had no other significance to any other cohort.

Second, the lowerclassmen were more fearful of gang-related activity than were the

upperclassmen, and the female students were more fearful than male students.

Robers et al. (2014) showed that secondary school student suicides are not as

prevalent as some would seem. Pride Surveys (2006) illustrated a decrease in violent

behavior and more students feeling safe at school than ever before, even with an

increasing number of students participating in gang-related activity.

The literature validates the findings of the present study, which depicts that

student suicide, although tragic, does not tend to increase student fears on campus.

Additionally, the fear of gang violence is less prevalent on secondary school

campuses. The present study also suggests that the fear of gang activity is an issue

that affects more than merely ethnicity and race; it also affects specific genders and

211

grade levels. This researcher recommends that (a) schools establish programs that

focus on suicide prevention and policies that delineate what to do in case of a student

suicide, and (b) schools evaluate and identify gang activity on campus and create

policies for dealing with the issue before it negatively affects the students involved

and other student.

Securing Facilities and Campus Locations

Four demographic cohorts expressed differing opinions about technology and

resources that are utilized to make students feel more secure at school. First, the

White and Hispanic students agreed that parking lots on campus were safe; however,

the White respondents expressed a greater degree of confidence. Second, the female

students suggested that hallways and locker rooms were safe. The males had no

opinion. Third, the White and Hispanic students exhibited divergent attitudes about

the use of surveillance cameras at school. More Hispanic students agreed that

cameras increased their safety, while the White students were less committal. Fourth,

the lowerclassmen and upperclassmen expressed positive, convergent opinions about

the use of fencing and locked entrances and exits during school hours to increase

students’ perceptions of safety at school; however, the male and female students

differed in their feelings. The female students agreed with the lowerclassmen and

upperclassmen that fences and locked entrances increased student safety, whereas the

male students did not. Fifth, students who were eligible for free or reduced-price

lunch and those who were not eligible differed in their opinions about metal detectors

212

on campus. The eligible students were more likely to agree that metal detectors

made students feel safer at school, while the noneligible students expressed no

opinion.

Robers et al. (2014) maintained that the majority of students in their study

reported that their schools used security cameras, locked entrances and exits, and

even metal detectors to ensure student safety, but the study does not reveal students’

perceptions of increased safety based on their implementation. However, Thomas

and Smith (2004), Hankin et al. (2011), and Sparks (2011a) discovered that metal

detectors in schools did not necessarily reduce the risk of violence in schools, and

many students viewed surveillance cameras as an invasion of privacy.

The present study validates the literature that students perceive the use of

security measures differently on campus. This researcher suggests that the present

study shows that some security measures that schools implement do not have their

desired impact on students’ perceptions of safety at school such as metal detectors

and security cameras. Additionally, this researcher suggests that schools explore

research data on what security measures are proven to increase students’ perceptions

of safety, and include students in the process of determining and establishing specific

security measures on campus.

School- and Personal-Property Crimes

The perceptions of the lowerclassmen and upperclassmen and the male and

female students differed regarding the effect of theft and vandalism on their feelings

213

of well-being. Overall, the lowerclassmen were more fearful of theft and

vandalism, as were the females.

The study by Robers et al. (2014) depicted that property crimes against students

and schools continue to be an issue that vexes schools, particularly lowerclassmen,

even with a decline in the problem over the years. This decrease could be due to

faculty, staff, and students who are more vigilant about protecting their personal items

or because of students who are less likely to report thefts.

The present study validates the literature which shows a large percentage of

students, both females and lowerclassmen, who are significantly fearful of school-

and personal-property crimes at school, even though thefts and vandalism are

declining in schools. This researcher suggests that schools work with students, staff,

and parents to develop methods for protecting personal property and to deal with

vandalism on campus.

School Personnel

Two demographic cohorts had divergent opinions about personnel matters that

were designed to alleviate students’ fears on campus. First, the students who were

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and those who were not eligible recorded a

divergence of opinion about teachers observing activities in the halls. The eligible

students asserted that their feelings of safety increased with teachers and staff

observing students, while the noneligible students had no opinion. Second, the

noneligible students and both the male and female students did not believe that

214

reporting unsafe behavior to a responsible staff member would resolve the

complaint or lead to a solution to the problem.

Robers et al. (2014) submitted that students noticed when adult supervision was

present in the hallways at school. Studies conducted by Wood and Huffman (1999);

Phillips, Pack, and Linney (2008); and Pollack, Modzeleski, and Rooney (2008)

showed that positive interactions must take place between students and school staff in

order to build trusting relationships that are key to having students report dangerous

and inappropriate behavior on campus.

This researcher believes the findings of the present study validate the literature

maintaining that adult supervision at school increases feelings of safety for some

students. However, the present study also exposes a vast difference between the

literature and the findings. The students who were eligible for free or reduced-price

lunch and the male and female students did not believe that reporting unsafe behavior

to a responsible adult would result in a timely solution to the problem. This

researcher suggests that schools (a) continue to promote, if not require, teacher and

staff supervision before, during and after school in the hallways and common areas;

(b) create multiple methods for students to report unsafe behavior; and (c) establish

an accountability system to ensure that students’ fears are addressed in order to build

student confidence and trust in teachers, administrators, and staff.

Safety Procedures and Disciplinary Policies

Each demographic cohort expressed a variety of opinions about whether

safety procedures and disciplinary policies increased students’ perceptions of

215

security. First, opinions differed between White and Hispanic students regarding

the policy of showing identification when entering campus and the practice of

lockdown drills. The Hispanic students asserted that showing identification when

entering school improved their feelings of well-being; however, with regard to

lockdown drills, both cohorts affirmed that the training helped to increase students’

perceptions of safety. Second, the perceptions of the lowerclassmen and

upperclassmen and the males and females differed regarding the implementation of

an anonymous-tip hotline. The lowerclassmen and the females agreed that the

practice increased their feelings of safety, while the upperclassmen and the males had

no opinion. Third, the lowerclassmen and upperclassmen expressed divergent

feelings about the use of drug dogs at school. The upperclassmen had a more positive

outlook about this policy as a means of increasing safety perceptions than did the

lowerclassmen. Fourth, the lowerclassmen and upperclassmen and the male and

female students varied in their attitudes about suspending or expelling students for

violence and drug use. The lowerclassmen, upperclassmen, and female students

conveyed feelings of increased safety when violent students and drug offenders were

suspended or expelled from school. The males were likely to agree but with less

intensity. Fifth, the use of a dress code to increase students’ feelings of safety at

school was an area where the male and female students thought the exercise enhanced

their feelings of safety on campus, although more females believed this than did the

males.

216

Studies conducted by Wood and Huffman (1999), Kennedy (2011), Toppo

(2006), Kress (2011), Gregory and Cornell (2009), and Lindle (2008) reported

findings that are both in favor and against all manner of safety procedures and

disciplinary policies ranging from showing identification, to drug dogs, dress code,

and zero tolerance. However, two distinguishing studies by Kitsantas et al., (2004)

and Edmondson et al., (2007) found that designing school safety policies without the

input of students are the feeblest approach to improving students’ perceptions of

safety. Students want to participate in creating a safe and secure environment.

This researcher believes the findings of the present study both validate and

invalidate the literature. Students’ perceptions of safety change depending on the

procedure, policy and demographic cohort being studied. However, what is

conclusive with regard to safety procedures and disciplinary policies is that grade

level and gender play the greatest role in determining what students perceived would

increase their feelings of security and well-being. Based on this information, this

researcher suggests that schools create a student-based safety council that provides

students with the opportunity to interact with school administration to develop

security and disciplinary policies.

Recommendations for Practitioners

This researcher suggests that practitioners implement a number of

recommendations in order to reduce the fears that students have on secondary school

campuses and to increase their feelings of safety and security:

217

1. Emphasize specific professional development in the area of classroom

management and instruct teachers concerning proven strategies for building

relationships of trust with students.

2. Advertise school safety policies to ensure that these norms are put into daily

practice and become part of the school culture by using traditional methods as

well as the Internet and social media to advertise and promote them.

3. Initiate a study about why the youngest high school students express greater

anxiety toward drug and alcohol use and sales on campus and implement proven

strategies that assist students in overcoming their fears.

4. Provide students with multiple methods by which to report bullying and

violence and implement proven programs to enhance students’ self-esteem and

confidence.

5. Examine the impact that prejudice and racism has on students’ sense of well-

being and utilize specific methods of data gathering to accurately determine the

issues specific to their schools that need to be addressed.

6. Establish programs that focus on suicide prevention and policies that delineate

what to do in case of a student suicide.

7. Evaluate and identify gang activity on campus and create policies for dealing

with the issue before it negatively affects the school’s culture.

8. Work with students, staff, and parents to develop methods for protecting

personal property and to deal with vandalism on campus.

218

9. Develop an accountability system to ensure that students’ concerns are

addressed in a timely manner in order to establish and nurture student trust and

confidence in their teachers, administrators, and staff.

10. Create a student-based safety council that provides students with consistent

interaction with school administration to develop security and disciplinary

policies. This student safety council should consist of- and be equally

represented by- male and female students, upperclassmen and lowerclassmen,

and other demographics the school considers significant.

Recommendations for Future Studies

The effects of safety-and-security measures on students and their perceptions

of well-being need to be further researched. This researcher recommends the

following areas of further study:

1. Replicate this study to compare student academic performance and attendance

with their general feelings of safety and well-being.

2. Conduct a comparative analysis of teacher-to-student perceptions of safety and

security at school.

3. Conduct a study that measures students’ feelings of participation in the creation

and implementation of safety, security, and disciplinary measures at school and

how important participation is in the process to the students themselves.

4. Conduct a study to determine what percentage of student bullying is being

reported and why students are choosing to convey or not convey this information

to school officials.

REFERENCES

220

REFERENCES

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2007, October). Safe schools in the context of school

improvement. In D. L. White, B. C. Glenn, and A. Wimes (Eds.), Proceedings

of persistently safe schools: The 2007 national conference on safe schools

(pp. 1–10). Washington, DC: Hamilton Fish Institute, George Washington

University.

Akiba, M. (2008). Predictors of student fear of school violence: A comparative study

of eighth graders in 33 countries. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 19(1), 51–72. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Akiba, M., LeTendre, G., Baker, D., & Goesling, B. (2002). Student victimization:

National and school system effects on school violence in 37 nations.

American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 829–853.

Allen, K. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices.

Professional Educator, 34(1), 1–15. Retrieved from http://webebscohost.com

Ashford, R., Queen, J. A., Algozzine, B., & Mitchell, G. (2008, August). Perceptions

and record of violence in middle and high school. Behavioral Disorders,

33(4), 222–232.

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., Benenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Rosemond, M. (2005).

School safety interventions: Best practices and programs. Children and Safety,

27(1), 17–32.

221

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Beyer, W. J. (1999). Unowned places and times:

Maps and interviews about violence in high schools. American Educational

Research Journal, 36(1), 3–42.

Bayh, B. (1975). Our nation’s schools—A report card: “A” in school violence and

vandalism. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Berkowitz, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2012). Perceptions of teachers’ support, safety,

and absence from school because of fear among victims, bullies, and bully-

victims. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 67–74.

Biegel, S. (1987, Summer). The “safe schools” provision: Can a nebulous

constitutional right be a vehicle for change? Hastings Constitutional Law

Quarterly, 14, 789–838.

Booth, B., Van Hasselt, V., & Vecchi, G. (2011). Addressing school violence. FBI

Law Enforcement Bulletin, 50(5), 1–9.

Bosworth, K., Ford, L., & Hernandez, D. (2011). School climate factors contributing

to student and faculty perceptions of safety on select Arizona schools. Journal

of School Health, 81(4), 194–201.

Bowan, N., & Bowan, G. (1999). Effects of crime and violence in neighborhoods and

schools on the school behavior and performance of adolescents. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 14, 319–342.

Bracy, N. L. (2011). Student perceptions of high-security school environments.

Youth & Society, 43(1), 365–395. doi:10.1177/0044118X10365082

222

Bullock, L. M., & Fitzsimons, A. M. (1996). Combating youth violence: An “all

hands on deck” approach to making schools safe again. Preventing School

Failure, 41(1), 34–42.

Bushaw, W. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2011). Highlights of the 2011 Phi Delta

Kappa/Gallup poll: What Americans said about the public schools. Kappan

Magazine, 93(1), 25. Retrieved from www.kappanmagazine.org

Bushaw, W. J, & Lopez, S. J. (2012). Public education in the United States: A nation

divided. The 44th annual pdk/gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward

public education. Kappan Magazine, 94(1), 8–25. Retrieved from

www.kappanmagazine.org

Bushaw, W. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2013). Which way do we go? The 45th annual

pdk/gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward public school. Kappan

Magazine, 95(1), 9–25. Retrieved from www.kappanmagazine.org

California Constitution, Article I, § 28, subdivision C “Right to Safe Schools”

Provision. 1982.

California Department of Education. (2002). Aiming high: High schools for the 21st

century. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.

California Healthy Kids Survey. (2013). Main report. San Francisco, CA: WestEd

Health and Human Development Program for the California Department of

Education.

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Thomas, S. B. (2009). Legal rights of

teachers and students (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

223

Cheng, J. C. (2003). Gangs in public schools: A survey of state legislation.

Brigham Young University and Law Journal, 1, 285–298.

Christie, K. (2004). Respecting diversity among states. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1),

5–6.

Christle, C., Nelson, C. M., & Jolivette, K. (2004). School characteristics related to

the use of suspension. Education and the Treatment of Children, 27(4),

509–526.

Cornell, D. G., & Mayer, M. J. (2010, January/February). Why do school order and

safety matter? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 7–15.

doi:10.3102/0013189X09357616

Cowie, H., & Oztug, O. (2008). Pupils’ perceptions of safety at school. Pastoral Care

in Education, 26(2), 59–67.

Crews, G. A., & Counts, M. R. (1997). The evolution of school disturbance in

America. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Davis, N. Z. (1971, February). The reasons of misrule: Youth groups and charivaris

in sixteenth century France. Past and Present, 50, 41–75.

DeMitchell, T. A. (2012, February 29). Concepts, theories and principals: In loco

parentis. Retrieved from http://educational-law.org/345-in-loco-parentis.html

Denmark, F., Krauss, H., Wesner, R., Midlarsky, E., & Gielen, U. (2005). Violence in

schools: Cross-national and cross-cultural perspectives. New York, NY:

Springer Science + Business Media.

224

DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., & Baum, K. (2005).

Indicators of school crime and safety: 2005. (NCES 2006-001/NCJ 210697).

Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.

Dufresne, J., & Dorn, M. (2005). Keeping students and schools safe. Reclaiming

Children and Youth, 14(2), 93–96. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Ed-data. (2014). School reports: Patterson high school. Retrieved from

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Pages/Home.aspx

Edmondson, L., Fetro, J. V., Drolet, J. C., & Ritzel, D. O. (2007). Perceptions of

physical and psychosocial aspects of a safe school. American Journal of

Health Studies, 22(1), 1–9.

Edwards, C. (2013, September). US government spending 1970–2013. Washington,

DC: Cato Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/blog/us-government-

spending-1970-2013?gclid=CO3SocaKwb0CFecWMgodVWcAmQ

Ethnicity. (n.d.). Collins English dictionary—Complete & unabridged 10th edition.

Retrieved March 18, 2014, from Dictionary.com Web site:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnicity

Fisher, C. (2007, May/June). School violence: Shooting ducks in a pond. Crime &

Justice International, 23(98), 46–47.

Flannery, D. J., Modzeleski, W., & Kretschmar, J. M. (2013). Violence and school

shootings. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(331), 1–7. doi:10.1007/s11920-

012-0331-6

225

Flask, M. L. (2007, October 24). Site of Cleveland school shooting reopens with

beefed-up security. Education Week, 27(9), 4–5.

Foner, E., & Garraty, J. A. (Eds.). (1991). The reader’s companion to American

history. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Freiberg, H. J. (1998). Measuring school climate: Let me count the ways. Educational

Leadership, 56(1), 22–26.

Gastic, B. (2011). Metal detectors and feeling safe at school. Education and Urban

Society, 43(4), 486–498 doi:10.1177/0013124510380717

Glaeser, B., & Calcagnie, K. (2005, November). The ABC’s of school liability in

California: A primer for lawyers, school districts and educators. Consumer

Attorneys of California Forum Magazine, 34–39.

Goldstein, S. E., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school:

Associations with school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth

Adolescence, 37, 641.

Greene, B., Barrios, L., Blair, J., & Kolbe, L. (2004). Schools and terrorism: A

supplement to the report of the national advisory committee on children and

terrorism. Journal of School Health, 74(2), 39–51. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com

Greenhough, S. (2008). School shootings and school violence. Retrieved from

www.faqs.org

226

Gregory, A., & Cornell, D. (2009). “Tolerating” adolescent needs: Moving

beyond zero tolerance policies in high school. Theory Into Practice, 48, 106–

113. doi:10.1080/00405840902776327

Hammond, C. L. (2002, January 1). The impact of school climate on students’

perceptions about safety. Electronic Doctoral Dissertations for Univ. of

Massachusetts, Amherst. Paper AAI3068563.

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3068563

Hankin, A., Mertz, M., & Simon, T. (2011). Impacts of metal detector use in

schools: Insights from 15 years of research. Journal of School Health, 81(2),

100–106.

Hantman, I., Bairu, G., Barwick, A., Smith, B., Mack, B., Meston, S., Rocks, L., &

James, B. (2008). Safety in numbers: Collecting and using incident data to

make a difference in schools. U.S. Department of Education: National Center

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Henry, S. (2000). What is school violence: An integrated definition. Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 16–29.

Hong, J., & Eamon, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of unsafe schools: An

ecological systems analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies. Advance

online publication. doi:10.1007/s10826-01109494-8

Hong, J. S., Cho, H., Allen-Meares, P., & Espelage, D. (2011). The social ecology of

the columbine high school shootings. Children and Youth Services Review,

33(6), 861–868. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.12.005

227

Johnson, S. (2009). Improving the school environment to reduce school violence:

A review of the literature. Journal of School Health, 79(10), 451–465.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Johnston, A. (2012, December 18). Gun violence in American schools is nothing

new. Retrieved from: http://www.thenation.com/blog/171838/gun-violence-

american-schools-nothing-new#

Jones, J. M. (2013, August 29). Parents’ school safety fears haven’t receded since

Newtown: One in three k–12 parents fear for child’s safety at school.

Retrieved from: www.gallup.com

Jorgensen, M.A., & Hoffman, J. (2003, December). History of No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001 (NCLB). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education.

Juvonen, J. (2001). School violence: Prevalence, fears, and prevention. Rand

Corporation. Retrieved from www.rand.org

Kennedy, M. (2010, June). Safe and secure: Managing growing security concerns

under current budget strains. American School & University. Retrieved from

http://asumag.com/security/securitymag

Kennedy, M. (2011, June). School security after 9/11. American School and

University, 83(10), 18–23.

Kesson, K., & Ross, W. E. (Eds.). (2004). Defending public schools: Vol. II.

Teaching for a democratic society. Westport, CT: Praeger Perspectives.

228

Kitsantas, A., Ware, H. W., & Martinez-Arias, R. (2004). Students’ perceptions of

school safety: Effects by community, school environment, and substance use

variables. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(4), 412–430.

Knox, G. W., Laske, D. L., & Tromanhauser, E. D. (1992). Schools under siege.

Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Kohn, A. (2004). Rebuilding school culture to make schools safer. Education Digest:

Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 70, 23–30.

Kress, T. (2011, Spring). Going high tech under high surveillance: Technology

integration, zero tolerance, and implications for access and equity. Radical

Teacher, 90, 15–24.

Lindle, J. C. (2008). School safety: Real or imagined fear? Educational Policy,

22(1), 28–44.

Lyons, L. (2009, March 29). Children and violence. Gallup Poll: Education and

Youth. Retrieved from www.gallup.com

Manning, M., & Bucher, K. (2005, September/October). Classroom management for

middle and secondary schools. Clearing House, 79(1), 5–6. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com

Marshall, M. L. (2004). Examining school climate: Defining factors and educational

influences. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(3), 217–227. Retrieved

from http://education.gsu.edu/schoolsafety/

May, D. C., & Dunaway, R. G. (2000). Predictors of fear of criminal victimization at

school among adolescents. Sociological Spectrum, 20(2), 149–168.

229

Mayes, T. (2008). Students with no-contact orders against abusive classmates:

Recommendations for educators. Preventing School Failure, 52(4), 37–44.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Mencken, H. L. (1920). Prejudices: Second series. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Mirsky, L. (2007). SaferSanerSchools: Transforming school cultures with restorative

practices. Reclaiming Youth and Children, 16(2), 5–12.

Mooij, T. (2005). National campaign effects on secondary pupils’ bullying and

violence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 489–511. Retrieved

from http://web.ebscohost.com

Mooij, T., Smeets, E., & de Wit, W. (2011, September). Multi-level aspects of social

cohesion of secondary schools and pupils’ feelings of safety. British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 369–390.

Myrstol, B. A. (2011). Public perceptions of school resource officer (SRO)

programs. Western Criminology Review, 12(3):20–40. Retrieved from

http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v12n3/Myrstol.pdf

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breaking ranks II:

Strategies for leading school reform. Reston, VA: Author.

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF). (2008, April). Low-cost

security measures for school facilities. Retrieved from www.ncef.org/

pubs/low-cost-security-measures.htm

Neiman, S., & DeVoe, J. F. (2009). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S.

public schools: Findings from the school survey on crime and safety: 2007–

http://www.ncef.org/

230

2008. National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Educational

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Ohlheiser, A. (2014). January’s epidemic: 11 school shootings in 19 days. The Wire.

Retrieved from: http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/01/januarys-school-

shootings/357448/

Paine, S., & McCann, R. (2009, September). Engaging stakeholders: Including

parents and the community to sustain improved reading outcomes. Sustaining

Reading First, 6, 1–16.

Paris, K. (1994). A leadership model for planning and implementing change for

school-to-work transition. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Center on Education & Work.

Peterson, M. (1997, March 10). Fatal high school stabbing prompts security

measures. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/1997/03/10/myregion/fatal-

high-school-stabbing-promotes-security-measures.htm

Phillips, R., Pack, C., & Linney, J. (2008). Safe school ambassadors: Harnessing

student power to stop bullying and violence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass/Wiley.

Pollack, W. S., Modzeleski, W., & Rooney, G. (2008). Prior knowledge of potential

school-based violence: Information students learn may prevent a targeted

attack. United States Secret Service and United States Department of

Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

231

Pride Surveys. (2006). Bullying, violence, and perceptions of safety: Alabama

students in grades 6–12, 2003–2005. Alabama Department of Education.

Retrieved from www.pridesurveys.com/customercenter/AL_violence_study_06

Ramey, K. (2004). Partners for safety. American School Board Journal, 191(4),

70–72.

Rea, D. W., & Stallworth-Clark, R. (Eds.). (2003). Fostering our youth’s well-being:

Healing the social disease of violence. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Custom

Publishing.

Reddy, M., Borum, R., Berglund, J., Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., & Modzeleski, W.

(2001). Evaluating risk for targeted violence in schools: Comparing risk

assessment, threat assessment, and other approaches. Psychology in the

Schools, 38(2), 157–172.

Reynolds, C. R., Skiba, R. J., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J. C., & Garcia-

Vazquez, E. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools?

American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862.

Robers, S., Kemp, J., Rathbun, A., and Morgan, R.E. (2014). Indicators of School

Crime and Safety: 2013 (NCES 2014-042/NCJ 243299). National Center for

Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Washington, DC.

Rorty, A. O. (Ed.). (1998). Philosophers on education: New historical perspectives.

London, England: Routledge Press.

232

Safra, S. J. (2000). The amended gun-free school zones act: Doubt as to its

constitutionality remains. Duke Law Journal, 50(637), 637–662.

Sawyer, K. (1983). The right to safe schools: A newly recognized inalienable right.

Pacific Law Journal, 14, 1309.

Schneider, T. (2007, September). Ensuring quality school facilities and security

technologies. Washington, DC: The Hamilton Fish Institute on School and

Community Violence & Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Secondary school. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th

Edition. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from Dictionary.com website:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secondary school

Shah, N. (2013, January 10). Discipline policies squeezed as views shift on what

works. Retrieved from www.educationweek.org

Shelton, A. J., Owens, E. W., & Song, H. (2009). An examination of public school

safety measures across geographic settings. Journal of School Health, 79(1),

24–29.

Sherman, L. W., Hoff Sommers, C., & Manno, B. (2000). The safe and drug free

schools program. Brookings Papers on Educational Policy, 2000(1),

125–171.

Shumow, L., & Lomax, R. G. (2001). Predicting perceptions of school safety. School

Community Journal, 11(2), 93–112.

233

Socioeconomic status. (n.d.). The American Heritage® New Dictionary of

Cultural Literacy (3rd ed.). Retrieved March 18, 2014, from Dictionary.com

website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socioeconomic status

Sparks, S. D. (2011a). Researchers highlight schools’ differences in security

practices: Minority pupils more likely to face metal detectors. Education

Week, 31(2), 8.

Sparks, S. D. (2011b). Study finds safe schools are high-achieving, closely knit.

Education Week, 30(31), 13.

Stanwood, H. M., & Doolittle, G. (2004). Schools as sanctuaries. Reclaiming

Children and Youth, 13(3), 169–172.

Stephens, R. D. (1994, January). Gangs, guns, and school violence. USA Today

Magazine, 122(2584), 29–34.

Stevens, E., Wood, G., & Sheehan, J. (2002). Justice, ideology, & education: An

introduction to the social foundations of education. New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill.

Studak, C. M., & Workman, J. E. (2007, September). Civil behavior, safe school

planning, and dress codes. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 99(3),

23–28.

Thomas, S. P., & Smith, H. (2004). School connectedness, anger behaviors, and

relationships of violent and non-violent American youth. Perspective in

Psychiatric Care, 40(4), 135–148.

234

Toppo, G. (2006, October 10). High tech security is on the rise. USA Today.

Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-10-09-school-

security_x.htm

Trump, K. S. (1999). Scared or prepared? Reducing risks with school security

assessments. The High School Magazine, 6(7), 18–23.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Unsafe school choice option: Non-regulatory

guidance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/

policy/elsec/guid/unsafeschoolchoice.pdf

Varnham, S. (2005). Citizenship in schools: The gap between theory and practice.

Education and the Law, 17(1–2), 53–64.

Volokh, A., & Snell, L. (1998, January). School violence prevention: Strategies to

keep schools safe (unabridged). Policy study no. 234. Los Angeles, CA.

http://reason.org/files/60b57eac352e529771bfa27d7d736d3f.pdf

Warner, B. S., Weist, M. D., & Krulak, A. (1999). Risk factors for school violence.

Urban Education, 34(1), 52–68.

Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy.

In D. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime and justice: Criminal

justice 2000 (pp. 451–489). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Winter, M. (2001). Safe schools. Human Ecology, 29(1), 21–23.

Wolf, O. (2009). Stress and memory in humans: Twelve years of progress? Brain

Research, 1293, 142–154. doi:10.1016/jbrainres.2009.04.013

235

Wood, S. F., & Huffman, J. B. (1999). Preventing gang activity and violence in

schools. Contemporary Education, 71(1), 19–27.

Wyatt-Brown, B. (1986). Honor and violence in the old south. New York, NY:

Oxford Univ. Press.

APPENDICES

237

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER TO SCHOOL DISTRICT

Dear Superintendent __________________,

My name is James Lake, a doctoral candidate at CSU Stanislaus, and I am in the

process of conducting a research study that explores the perceptions of student fears

on secondary school campuses, how they perceive their safety given the social issues

to which they are exposed, and the measures they believe school districts should

implement to improve student safety and security on high school campuses. This

project is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Chet Jensen, Professor at

CSU Stanislaus.

I respectfully request your approval to distribute a survey to the parents and students

of _______________ High School in September of 2014. I also request your

permission to contact the school principal to discuss the research protocol and to

solicit his or her cooperation. I have attached a copy of the survey and the informed-

consent document for your review. If you have any concerns or recommendations for

revision, please contact me at the email address below.

The findings of the study will be used for scholarly purposes only. School officials

who choose to participate in the survey may benefit from the research findings. This

study will use a variety of questions and checklists to discover what students fear on a

daily basis. The results may assist school district officials in determining the policies

and procedures that have the greatest influence on students’ perceptions of safety,

security, and well-being.

Any information obtained in connection with this study is confidential and will be

protected from any and all inappropriate disclosure under the law. All data will be

maintained for one year and will be destroyed by September 2015.

Upon the completion of the survey, the data will be compiled, analyzed, and finalized

in defense of my doctoral dissertation. If you wish a copy of the research report for

your school, I would be happy to provide one. If you require further information,

please do not hesitate to contact me, James Lake, at [—], or my faculty supervisor,

Dr. Chet Jensen, at [—]. If you have any questions regarding your rights and

participation as a research subject, please contact the UIRB Administrator by phone

(209)667-3784 or email [email protected].

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

James Lake, CSU Stanislaus

238

APPENDIX B

UNIVERSITY IRB APPROVAL TO CONDUCT STUDY

239

APPENDIX C

INFORMED-CONSENT LETTER TO PARENT/GUARDIAN

(ENGLISH VERSION)

Dear Parent/Guardian and Participant,

This letter is to inform you about a research study your student is being asked to participate in.

This research is being conducted in partial fulfillment of a doctoral degree in Educational

Leadership, through California State University, Stanislaus, in Turlock, California.

This study explores the perceptions of student fears on secondary school campuses; how students

perceive their safety, given the social issues to which they are exposed; and the measures students

believe school districts should implement to improve student safety and security on high school

campuses. A copy of the survey has been attached to this letter for you to read through before

providing parent approval.

Students will take the survey at home which will take approximately 15 to 20 minutes. No

student will be identified, but parent permission must be granted, unless the student is 18 years of

age. This survey is anonymous and voluntary, and students who complete the survey in its

entirety will have their responses combined into a single database and disaggregated through an

electronic data analysis program called Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

The findings of the study will be used for scholarly purposes only. The results may assist school

district officials in determining the policies and procedures that have the greatest influence on

students’ perceptions of safety, security, and well-being.

Any information obtained in connection with this study is confidential and will be protected from

any and all inappropriate disclosure under the law and will be held in a secure location. If you

have any questions about the research study, please contact the graduate researcher, James Lake,

at [—], or the faculty supervisor, Dr. Chet Jensen at [—]. If you have any questions regarding

your rights and participation as a research subject, please contact the UIRB Administrator by

phone (209) 667-3784 or email [email protected].

Parents, by signing your name and your students name at the bottom of the page, you provide

permission for your student to participate in this survey. Thank you for your time and

participation.

___________________________________

Student’s Name

___________________________________ _____________________________

Parent’s Signature Date

___________________________________ _____________________________

Student’s Signature (If 18 years of age) Date

240

APPENDIX D

INFORMED-CONSENT LETTER TO PARENT/GUARDIAN

(SPANISH VERSION)

Estimados padres/tutores,

Esta carta es para informarle de un estudio de investigación en que su estudiante se le solicita

participar. Esta investigación se está realizando en cumplimiento parcial de un doctorado en

liderazgo educativo, a través de la Universidad Estatal de California, Stanislaus, en Turlock,

California.

Este estudio explora las percepciones de los temores de estudiante en los campus de la

escuela secundaria; como los estudiantes perciben a su seguridad, dado los problemas

sociales a que están expuestos; y las medidas de los estudiantes que los distritos de escuelas

deben implementar para mejorar la seguridad de los estudiantes y la seguridad en los campus

de la escuela secundaria. Una copia de la encuesta se ha adjuntada a esta carta para que usted

puede leer antes de proporcionar la aprobación de los padres.

Los estudiantes tomarán la encuesta en casa que tomará aproximadamente 15 a 20 minutos.

Ningún estudiante será identificado, pero debe ser concedido el permiso de los padres. Esta

encuesta es anónima y voluntaria, y los estudiantes que completen la encuesta en su totalidad

tendrán sus respuestas combinados en una única base de datos y desglosados a través de un

programa de análisis de datos electrónicos llamado paquete estadístico para las ciencias

sociales (SPSS).

Los resultados del estudio se utilizarán únicamente con fines académicos. Los resultados

pueden ayudar a los funcionarios del distrito de escuela en la determinación de las políticas y

procedimientos que tienen la mayor influencia en las percepciones de los estudiantes de la

seguridad, la seguridad y bienestar.

Cualquiera información obtenida en relación con este estudio es confidencial y estará

protegida de toda divulgación inadecuada antes de la ley. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta sobre

el estudio de investigación, póngase en contacto con el investigador del posgrado, James

Lake, en [—], o el supervisor de la Facultad, el Dr. Chet Jensen en [—].

Los padres, mediante la firma de su nombre y sus estudiantes en la parte inferior de la página,

ustedes dan permiso para que su estudiante puede participar en esta encuesta. Gracias por su

tiempo y su participación.

___________________________________ _______________________

El nombre de estudiante Fecha

__________________________________

Firma del padre otorgamiento de aprobación

241

APPENDIX E

STUDENT SAFETY SURVEY (ENGLISH VERSION)

Demographic Data (All information will be kept confidential and anonymous.

Please circle one under each question)

1. Ethnicity/Race

a. Black or African American

b. American Indian/Alaskan Native

c. Asian

d. Filipino

e. Hispanic or Latino

f. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

g. White

h. Two or more races

i. Decline to respond

2. Socioeconomic Status

a. Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch

b. Not Eligible

c. Unknown or decline to state

3. Grade Level

a. 9

b. 10

c. 11

d. 12

4. Gender

a. Male

b. Female

Student Safety Survey (Please mark only one box per statement. If a statement does not pertain to you,

mark “No Opinion.”)

Definition of Bullying:

Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or

perceived imbalance of power. Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors,

attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.

Bullying occurs in four forms: verbal, social, cyber, and physical (stopbullying.gov).

Bullying behavior is repeated or has the potential to be repeated over time. There are four different

types of bullying:

1. Physical Bullying: Hit, kicked, spit on, pinched, tripped, shoved, slapped, or personal

items broken/stolen

2. Social Bullying: Left out, publicly embarrassed, spreading negative rumors, or leaving

others out of activities as a means of social torment

3. Verbally Bullying: Teasing, name calling, inappropriate comments, taunting, cussing, and

threats

4. Cyber Bullying: Verbally attacked through texting or on-line resources such as social

media. Usually the bullying is open for multitudes of people/friends to witness.

242

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

1. I feel physically safe when I am

in at least one of my classes at

school.

2. I feel physically safe when I am

not in class, but in school.


bullying when I am in at least one

of my classes at school.


bullying when I am not in class,

but in school.

5. I feel there is at least one adult at

this school that cares about me

and I trust.


measures increase my feeling of

safety at school.

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

a) Anonymous tip hotline

for students to call in

case of emergencies

b) Caring adult/teacher

who I trust at school

c) Drug dogs to search

lockers and vehicles for

firearms and drugs

d) Fences around the

school

e) Fire drills

f) Lockdown drills

g) Locked entrances and

exits during school

hours

h) Locker searches

i) Metal detectors

j) Armed police officers

on campus (Also known

as School Resource

Officers)

k) Unarmed campus

supervisors

l) Student searches

243

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

m) Students required to

show ID when entering

the school

n) Surveillance cameras

throughout the school

o) Suspending/Expelling

students for

violence/drugs

p) Teachers observing the

halls before, during and

after school

q) Visitor check-in at the

main office before

receiving access to the

school

r) Dress Code (eliminates

gang attire)

s) Other (write in)

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

7. Drug use (including alcohol) or

sales of drugs at school increase

my fear of safety and security on

campus.

8. These forms of drugs have an

impact on my feeling of safety

and security at school.

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

a) Alcohol

b) Cocaine/Crack

c) Ecstasy

d) LSD/Acid

e) Marijuana

f) Methamphetamine

g) PCP/Angel Dust

h) Prescription Meds --

Codeine, Hydrocodone,

Vicodin, Oxycontin

244

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

i) Sleeping pills

j) Other (write in)

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

9. Student fights on campus

increase my fear for my safety at

school.

10. I have witnessed or heard of at

least one physical fight at this

school.

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

11. Most students fight after school,

not on campus and therefore have

no impact on my feeling of

safety.

12. The following issues at school

increase my fear level and

negatively affect me


physically.

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

a) Alcohol

b) Being ignored by friends

c) Cyber bullying

d) Drugs

e) Fire

f) Gang activity

g) Graffiti

h) Hazing

i) Insults from other

students

j) Natural disaster

245

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

k) Negative rumors

l) Physical bullying

m) Physical fights

n) Racism

o) Sarcasm from teachers

p) School shooting

q) Social bullying

r) Student suicide

s) Theft

t) Vandalism

u) Verbal bullying

v) Verbal confrontations

w) Weapons on campus

(knives and guns)

x) Other (write in)

13. Prejudice and racism are issues at

my school in the following areas

and increase fear for my safety

and/or the safety of other

students.

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

a) Culture

b) Disability

c) Ethnicity/Race

d) Gender

e) Religion

f) Sexual orientation

g) Other (write in)

246

14. These areas at school are NOT

secure and increase fear for my

safety on campus.

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

a) Bathrooms

b) Cafeteria

c) Entrance

d) Gym

e) Hallways

f) Locker rooms

g) Parking lots

h) Stairs

i) Bus

j) Activities (theater, clubs

)

k) Athletic events

l) Other (write in)

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

15. Bullying on campus

creates/increases my fear for my

safety at school.

16. I fear being bullied physically at

school (hit, kicked, spit on,

pinched, tripped, shoved,

slapped, and having personal


17. I fear being bullied socially at

school (left out, publicly

embarrassed, spreading negative

rumors, leaving others out of

activities as a means of social

torment).

18. I fear being bullied verbally at

school (teasing, name calling,

inappropriate comments,

taunting, cussing and threats).

247

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

19. I fear being cyber-bullied off

campus more than being

physically, socially, or verbally

bullied on campus.

20. I have experienced cyber-

bullying in the following ways:

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

a) Email

b) Facebook, Instagram

c) On-line gaming (Xbox,

Playstation)

d) Snapchat

e) Texting

f) Twitter

g) Other (write

in)_____________

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

No

Opinion

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

21. I have avoided participating in

school activities because I fear

for my safety and security.

22. Because of fear I have for my

safety at school it is difficult to

concentrate on my academics.

23. Because of fear I have for my

safety outside of school it is

difficult to concentrate on my

academics.

24. If I report unsafe, dangerous

behavior or bullying, I can be

certain the problem will be dealt

with immediately.

248

APPENDIX F

STUDENT SAFETY SURVEY (SPANISH VERSION)

Encuesta demográfica y de (Toda la información se mantendrá confidencial y anónimo.

Por favor, círculo uno debajo de cada pregunta)

1. Raza/origen étnico

a. Afroamericano

b. Indio americano o de Alaska Native

c. Asiático

d. Filipina

e. Hispano o Latino

f. Nativo hawaiano o isleño del Pacífico

g. Blanco

h. Dos o más razas

i. Disminución de responder

2. Estatus socioeconómico

a. Elegibles para almuerzo libre o reducido

b. No son elegibles

c. Desconocido o rechazar al estado

3. Nivel de grado

a. 9 (Primero a ﬞno)

b. 10 (Primero a ﬞno)

c. 11 (Primero a ﬞno)

d. 12 (Primero a ﬞno)

4. Género

a. Hombre

b. Mujer

Encuesta de seguridad estudiantil (Por favor marque sólo una caja por declaración.

Si una declaración no pertenecen a usted, marca “no opinión.”) Definición de acoso escolar:

La intimidación es indeseado comportamiento agresivo entre niños en edad escolar que implica

un desequilibrio real o percibido de poder. Intimidación incluye acciones tales como amenazas,

rumores, atacar a alguien físicamente o verbalmente y excluir a alguien de un grupo a propósito. La

intimidación ocurre en cuatro formas: verbal, social, cyber y física (stopbullying.gov).

Comportamiento intimidatorio se repite o tiene el potencial de ser repetido en el futuro. Existen

cuatro tipos diferentes de intimidacion:

1. Intimidación física: Golpeado, patado, escupido, pellizcado, tropezado, empujado, una bofetada

o artículos personales rotos o robados

2. Bullying social: públicamente avergonzado, esparciendo rumores negativos, o dejando a otros

de las actividades como un medio de tormento social

3. Intimidación verbal: Fastidia, nombre inadecuado, llamando a comentarios, burla, maldiciendo

y amenazas

4. Cyber Bullying: Ataca verbalmente a través de mensajes de texto o recursos en línea como los

medios de comunicación social. Generalmente la intimidación está abierta a multitudes de gente

y amigos a presenciar.

249

Totalmente

de acuerdo

(5)

Estoy de

acuerdo

(4)

Ningun

a

opinión

(3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo

(2)

En total

desacuerdo

(1) 1. Me siento físicamente seguro

cuando estoy en al menos de una

de mis clases en la escuela.

2. Me siento físicamente seguro

cuando no estoy en clase, pero

en la escuela.

3. Me siento seguro de social y

el acoso cibernético cuando

estoy en al menos de una de mis

clases en la escuela.

4. Me siento seguro de social y

el acoso cibernético cuando no

estoy clase, pero en la escuela.

5. Siento que hay al menos un

adulto en esta escuela que se

preocupa para mí y en quien yo

confío.

6. Las siguientes medidas de

seguridad escolar aumentan mi

sensación de seguridad en la

escuela.

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

a) Línea telefónica anónima

para los llamar estudiantes

en caso de emergencia

b) Adulto/maestro cuidado

en quien confío a la escuela

c) Perros drogas para buscar

taquillas y vehículos para

las armas de fuego y drogas

d) Cercas alrededor de la

escuela

e) Simulacros de incendio

f) Ejercicios de aislamiento

g) Las entradas y salidas

bloqueadas durante las

horas escolares

h) Casilleros

i) Detectores de metales

j) Policías armados en el

campus (también conocido

como escuela de recursos

oficiales)

k) Supervisores desarmados

en campus

l) Búsquedas de estudiante

250

Totalmente

de acuerdo

(5)

Estoy de

acuerdo

(4)

Ningun

a

opinión

(3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo

(2)

En total

desacuerdo

(1) m) Es obligatorio que los

estudiantes muestran

identificación al entrar en la

escuela

n) Cámaras de vigilancia en

toda la escuela

o ) Suspender/expulsión de

estudiantes para la

violencia/drogas

p) Profesores observando

los pasillos antes, durante y

después de la escuela

q ) Visitantes se presentar la

oficina principal antes de

recibir el acceso a la escuela

r) Código de vestimenta

(elimina el atuendo de la

banda)

s) Otro (explica)

7. El uso de drogas (incluyendo

alcohol) o las ventas de drogas

en la escuela aumentan mi

miedo de protección y seguridad

en el campus.

8. Estas formas de drogas tienen

un impacto en mi sentimiento de

seguridad y en la escuela.

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

a) Alcohol

b) Cocaína/Crack

c) Éxtasis

d) LSD/ácido

e) Marihuana

f) Metanfetamina

g) PCP/Angel Dust

h) Medicamentos recetados-

-Oxycontin, Vicodin,

codeína, hidrocodona

i) Pastillas para dormir

j) Otro (explica)

251

Totalmente

de acuerdo

(5)

Estoy de

acuerdo

(4)

Ningun

a

opinión

(3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

9. Las luchas estudiantiles en el

campus aumentan mi miedo por

mi seguridad en la escuela.

10. He visto u oído por lo menos

una pelea física en esta escuela.

11. La Mayoría de los

estudiantes luchan después de la

escuela, no en el campus y por

lo tanto no tienen impacto en mi

sentimiento de seguridad.

12. Los siguientes problemas en

la escuela aumentar mi nivel de

miedo y me afectan

negativamente académico,

socialmente y físicamente.

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

a) Alcohol

b ) Siendo ignorado por los

amigos

c) Acoso cibernético

d) Drogas

e) Fuego

f) Actividad de pandillas

g) Graffiti

h) Novatada

i) Insultos de otros

estudiantes

j) Desastres naturales

k) Rumores negativos

l) Intimidación física

m) Peleas físicas

n) El racismo

o ) Sarcasmo de maestros

p) Escuela de tiro

q ) Intimidación social

r) Suicidio de estudiante

s) Robo

t) Vandalismo

u) Intimidación verbal

v) Enfrentamientos verbales

252

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

w) Armas en el campus

(cuchillos y armas de fuego)

x) Otro (explica)

13. Los prejuicios y el racismo

son problemas en mi escuela en

las siguientes áreas y aumentan

el miedo por mi seguridad y la

seguridad de otros estudiantes.

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

a) Cultura

b) Discapacidad

c) Etnia/raza

d) Género

e) Religión

f) Orientación Sexual

g) Otro (explica)

14. Estas áreas en la escuela no

son asegurar e incrementar el

miedo por mi seguridad en el

campus.

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

a) Baños

b) Cafetería

c) Entrada

d) Gimnasio

e) Pasillos

f) Vestuarios

g) Estacionamientos

h) Escaleras

i) Autob ﬞus

j) Actividades (teatro,

clubes)

k) Eventos deportivos

l) Otro (explica)

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

15. Intimidación en campus

crea/aumenta mi miedo por mi

seguridad en la escuela.

253

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

16. Tango miedo de

intimidación física en la escuela

(golpe, patadas, escupe sobre,

pellizcado, tropezado, empujas,

cachetada, tener personal

artículos rotos o robados).

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

acuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

17. Tango miedo de

intimidación social en la escuela

(públicamente avergonzada,

esparciendo rumores negativos,

dejando a otros de las

actividades como medio de

tormento social).

18. Tango miedo de

intimidación verbal en la escuela

(bromas, comentarios llamando,

inadecuado nombre, burla,

maldiciendo y amenaza).

19. Tango miedo de cyber-

intimidado fuera del campus

más que física social, o verbal

intimidado en el campus.

20. He experimentado acoso

cibernético de la siguiente

manera:

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

a) Correo electrónico

b) Facebook, Instagram

c) Juegos de azar en línea

(Xbox, Playstation)

d) Snapchat

e) Mensajes de texto

f) De twitter

g) Otros ___ (explica)

254

Totalmente

de acuerdo (5)

Estoy de

acuerdo (4)

Ningun

a

opinión (3)

Estoy de

desacuerdo (2)

En total

desacuerdo (1)

21. He evitado participar en

actividades escolares porque

temo por mi seguridad y la

seguridad.

22. Debido al temor que tengo

por mi seguridad en la escuela es

difícil concentrarme en mis

estudios.

23. Debido al temor que tengo

por mi seguridad fuera de la

escuela es difícil concentrarme

en mis estudios.

24. Si reporta comportamiento

inseguro, peligroso o

intimidación, puedo estar seguro

de que el problema se tratarán

inmediatamente.

255

APPENDIX G

INFORMATION STATEMENT TO STUDENTS (ENGLISH VERSION)

Dear Students,

The following forms are a part of an important Student Safety Survey the school is

conducting in conjunction with a graduate student researcher at CSU Stanislaus. This

is extremely important for the school in that it will provide us with valuable

information to make your experience at the school as safe and as enjoyable as

possible. Please take this information home for your parent or guardian to review.

Students who participate in this survey will be entered into a raffle to win one of ten

$20 gift cards to Starbucks, Taco Bell, iTunes, Subway, and Burger King.

If you wish to participate in this survey please follow these guidelines:

1. Your parents need to sign the attached Parent Information and Consent Form.

2. After they sign, please take a few minutes to fill out the survey using an ink

pen. If you do not know the answer or do not want to comment, please mark

“No Opinion” on the survey.

3. Do not write your name on it. The surveys are completely anonymous.

4. When you complete the survey enclose it in the attached envelop to ensure

your privacy.

5. Please return your signed parent permission form and the envelope containing

the completed survey to a campus supervisor who will provide you with your

raffle ticket.

Thank you for your assistance in making our school a safer place for everyone.

256

APPENDIX H

INFORMATION STATEMENT TO STUDENTS (SPANISH VERSION)

Estimados estudiantes,

Las formas siguientes son parte de una importante encuesta de seguridad de

estudiantes de la escuela, conjunto con un estudiante de postgrado investigador en

CSU Stanislaus. Éste es extremadamente importante para la escuela en que nos

proporcionará con información valiosa para hacer su experiencia en la escuela como

seguro y lo más agradable posible. Por favor tome a sus padres o tutor revisar esta

información. Los estudiantes que participan en este estudio se incorporarán a una rifa

para ganar uno de los diez tarjetas de regalo de $20 a Starbucks, Taco Bell, iTunes,

Subway y Burger King.

Si usted desea que participa en esta encuesta, por favor siga estas reglas:

1. Sus padres deben firmar información adjuntada: información de Padres y la forma

de consentimiento.

2. Después de firmar, por favor tome unos minutos para llenar la encuesta utilizando

una pluma de tinta.

3. No escribas su nombre en la encuesta. Las encuestas son totalmente anónimas.

4. Cuando usted completa la encuesta encerrarla en sobre para asegurar su

privacidad.

5. Por favor devuelva las formas firmadas de sus padres y el sobre que contiene la

encuesta completada con un supervisor de campus que le proporcionará su boleto

para la rifa.

Gracias por su ayuda en la fabricación de nuestra escuela un lugar más seguro para

todos.

257

APPENDIX I

RESEARCH THEMES

Documents

James Lakes Dissertation EdD Final