Taking Steps to Promote Safer SchoolsGretchen D. Werle

Exposure to media violence1 and bullying2 stand out as 2distinct factors that contribute to aggressive and violent

youth behavior. In the current educational environment ofhigh academic demands and low budgets, schools may ad-dress violence prevention issues minimally or not at all.While these factors and others affecting school safety maybe related to family and larger societal problems,3 schoolshave a responsibility to develop programs and interventionsthat promote the safety, health, and well-being of the schoolcommunity. It can be a daunting task for school health per-sonnel to convince administrators and school boards thatresources—such as materials, staff, and time—need to be al-located to bullying and violence prevention programming.There is a wealth of data regarding what works (and whatdoes not) in promoting school safety. This paper presents2 low-cost, high-impact programs that have been shown tobe effective in addressing media violence exposure andbullying. It is hoped that educators may choose these orother effective programs to take steps toward promotingsafer schools.

EDUCATIONAL CLIMATEEducational mandates contained in the federal No

Child Left Behind legislation have put unprecedented pres-sure on public schools to be accountable for all studentsreaching academic proficiency as measured by rigorous stan-dardized tests.4 In addition, many school districts are feel-ing the effects of fiscal crises at the state and federal levels.In 2005, at least 26 states were projecting budget deficitsof 7.3-8.3% for fiscal year 2006, with a combined deficitof approximately $32-$36 billion.5 Deep cuts in spendingat the federal level have been approved for fiscal year2006, partially in response to concerns about costs relatedto Hurricane Katrina.6

Lack of funding for school budgets over time has re-sulted in staff layoffs, reductions in services and supplies,and greater demands placed on administrators, teachers,and staff.7

MEDIA VIOLENCE EXPOSUREHigh-profile cases of school violence have made this

an area of major concern for parents, students, educators,political leaders, and members of the community atlarge.8 Factors contributing to school violence are complexand multifaceted. Leone et al suggest a possible linkbetween school violence and factors within US culture andsociety such as changes in family structure, easy access toguns, and exposure to violence in the media, including anincreased focus in the news media on reporting a widerange of violent crime.1

Grossman and DeGaetano9(p121) define media violence as‘‘portrayals of violence in the media that glamorize and/orsensationalize violent acts toward other human beings oranimals and show them as acceptable behavior.’’ Anderson

et al10(p81) summarized data on media violence as follows:‘‘Research on violent television and films, video games,and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violenceincreases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behaviorin both immediate and long-term contexts. The effects ap-pear larger for milder than for more severe forms of aggres-sion, but the effects on severe forms of violence are alsosubstantial.’’ Grossman11(p3) has extensively studied the ef-fects of violent media on youth, with a focus on the newertechnology of increasingly violent video games. Grossmanstates that some young people gain ‘‘the skill and the will tokill’’ through the repetitive, simulated acts of killing ontheir video screens.

Compounding the issues described above is the fact thatyoung people, on average, spend an enormous amount oftime each week engaged in media use. Roberts et al12 re-ported that children and adolescents aged 2-18 years spentan average of 5 hours 48 minutes a day with electronic media,while spending only 44 minutes a day with print media.

BULLYINGBullying is a form of behavior characterized by re-

peated aggressive acts against a weaker individual. Bullyingmay be verbal, physical, or social, and can include sexualharassment, racial and ethnic harassment, and intimidation.13

Nansel et al14 reported on the results of a nationally represen-tative survey of 15,686 US youth in grades 6-10. Findingsindicate that 29.9% of the sample reported moderate or fre-quent involvement in bullying. While bullying is associatedwith milder (but pervasive) forms of aggression and schooldisruption, it is also related to more severe forms of schoolviolence. The US Secret Service completed an interim reporton characteristics of students involved in school shootingsand found that in 37 cases involving 41 attackers, two thirdsof the attackers had been victims of bullying.2 The report con-cludes that in a number of cases where bullying was ‘‘long-standing and severe, the experience of bullying appeared toplay a major role in motivating the attack at the school.’’2(p7)

INEFFECTIVE APPROACHESIn some instances, school districts focus resources on

building security as a main tactic to improve schoolsafety. This approach is largely unsupported in the litera-ture. Mayer and Leone8 examined factors for creatingsafer schools and found that a heavy focus on creatinga secure building, through measures such as locked doors,security guards, and identification badges, may actuallyfoster violence and disorder. In this type of highly restric-tive environment, students may engage in more self-protective acts and be fearful. The study concluded thatapproaches that focus on control and containment are inef-fective and may contribute to an atmosphere of mistrustand resentment. More effective approaches involve‘‘humanization of the school environment with promotionof a sense of community and collective responsibility’’(p 334) through clearly defined and communicated rules,expectations, and consequences.

Gretchen D. Werle, RN, MSN, Health Educator, (gretchenwerle@aol.com),24 Corticelli St, Florence, MA 01062.

156 d Journal of School Health d April 2006, Vol. 76, No.4 d � 2006, American School Health Association

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICEResearch-based data is available to guide practice in

addressing the issues of media violence exposure and bul-lying effectively. The most effective schoolwide violenceprevention initiatives address the needs of all students, arecomprehensive and multifaceted, include a broad range ofservices and supports, and are provided over a sufficientperiod of time.1 Price et al15 analyzed data gathered froma random sample of 1912 urban fourth- and fifth-grade stu-dents regarding perceptions of fighting behavior and con-ceptions of personal safety. Findings indicated that whileviolent behavior peaks at 16-17 years of age, the use of vio-lence is learned much earlier and is evident during the earlyelementary years. The authors concluded that implement-ing effective violence prevention programs with elementary-age students is more effective than waiting until middle orhigh school.

Data on the effectiveness of antibullying programs inthe United States are inconclusive; however, there is sup-port in the literature for whole-school approaches. Whole-school programs involve multiple levels of interventionsuch as school policies, classroom curriculum, and staffprofessional development. This approach is considered tobe low cost and nonstigmatizing as it is delivered to theentire school community.16

EFFECTIVE PROGRAMSThe SMART (Student Media Awareness to Reduce

Television) curriculum has been shown to be effective inreducing aggressive behavior in young children. Robinsonet al17 conducted a randomized, controlled trial with 192third- and fourth-grade students, which assessed the effectsof reducing television, videotape, and video game use onaggressive behavior and perception of the world as a meanand scary place. The intervention group of children re-ceived an 18-lesson, 6-month classroom curriculum. Thechildren in the control group were not exposed to the cur-riculum. Postintervention, researchers found that ‘‘childrenin the intervention group had statistically significant de-creases in peer ratings of aggression and observed verbalaggression.’’17(p17) They concluded that an intervention toreduce media use in elementary children decreases aggres-sive behavior. The Delta-Schoolcraft Intermediate SchoolDistrict in Escanaba, Michigan, implemented the SMARTcurriculum in 20 schools during the 2004-2005 schoolyear and conducted follow-up playground observations at6 elementary schools and 1 secondary school. Their find-ings were consistent with previous data with an observed30-80% reduction in aggressive behavior.18 While thesefindings are unpublished to date, the data were presentedat a Safe Schools and Healthy Students Institute held inEscanaba during the summer of 2005.

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is a whole-school approach, which has been implemented and stud-ied in a variety of cultures in Europe and the UnitedStates, and at all grade levels. The first comprehensivestudy was conducted in Bergen, Norway, in 1983-1985with 2500 elementary and junior high school students.This quasiexperimental study showed a 50% or morereduction in frequency of student reports of both beingbullied and bullying others. The first US study to examinethe effectiveness of the program was conducted in the

mid-1990s in 18 middle schools in South Carolina. After1 year of program implementation, the study found large,significant decreases in boys and girls reports of bullyingothers and similar decreases in boys’ reports of being bul-lied and feelings of social isolation.19 Other documentedoutcomes of the Olweus program include student andteacher reports of reductions in problem behaviors such asvandalism, fighting, theft, and truancy. Students also re-ported an improved climate as evidenced by greater orderand discipline, more positive social relationships, and betterattitudes toward schoolwork and school.20

INCREASING KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESSDake et al21 identified areas where further research is

needed regarding the problem of bullying in US schools.These included determining the causes and consequencesof bullying in the United States compared to other coun-tries, identifying the level of preprofessional training teach-ers receive pertaining to bullying prevention, and assessingthe effectiveness of bullying prevention activities. It wasreported that further education and in-service training areneeded to prepare teachers to effectively address the issueof bullying in schools. Additionally, a whole-school approachto bullying prevention requires the participation of theentire school community and will not be effective without ex-tensive support from teachers, parents, and administrators.22

In looking specifically at elementary school principals’ideas and practices pertaining to bullying prevention, Dakeet al23(p383) found that a whole-school approach is ‘‘rarelybeing done,’’ even though many principals stated that therewere no barriers to doing so. The researchers recommendedthat efforts be made to educate principals regarding boththe seriousness of the problem of bullying as well as inter-ventions designed to reduce bullying behaviors.

CONCLUSIONSchool safety is a complex issue with no easy answers

or quick fixes. It is clear, however, that media violenceexposure contributes significantly to aggressive and vio-lent behavior in young people. Bullying is a pervasiveproblem affecting high numbers of students on a dailybasis, and it is periodically linked with deadly acts of vio-lence in US schools. Despite the barriers that stand in theway, educators have a responsibility to address these is-sues, using evidence-based practice.

Preprofessional and continuing education is needed forteachers and administrators regarding the effects of bully-ing and how to prevent it. The SMART curriculum andthe Olweus Bullying Prevention Program are 2 examplesof interventions that can promote safer schools, 1 step ata time. j

References1. Leone PE, Mayer MJ, Malmgren K, Meisel SM. School violence

and disruption: rhetoric, reality, and reasonable balance. Focus ExceptChild. 2000;33:1-29.

2. US Secret Service Report. An interim report on the prevention oftargeted violence in schools. Available at: http://www.secretservice.gov.Accessed August 1, 2005.

3. Pollack I, Sundermann C. Creating safe schools: a comprehensiveapproach. Juv Justice J. 2001;VIII(1). Available at: http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal_2001_6/jj2.html. Accessed July 15, 2005.

Journal ofSchool Health d April 2006, Vol. 76, No.4 d � 2006, American School Health Association d 157

4. US Department of Education. No Child Left Behind overview.Available at: www.ed.gov. Accessed July 17, 2005.

5. McNichol EC. State fiscal crisis looming. Center on Budget andPolicy Priorities. Available at: www.cbpp.org. Accessed November 19,2005.

6. Kogan R, Sherman A, Hardy B. What are the effects of cuttingdomestic spending appropriations another two percent? Center on Budgetand Policy Priorities. Available at: www.cbpp.org. Accessed November19, 2005.

7. Johnson N, Zahradnik R. State budget deficits projected for fiscalyear 2005. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Available at:www.cbpp.org. Accessed July 15, 2005.

8. Mayer MJ, Leone PE. A structural analysis of school violence anddisruption: implications for creating safer schools. Educ Treat Child.1999;22:333-351.

9. Grossman D, DeGaetano G. Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill. NewYork, NY: Crown Publishers; 1999.

10. Anderson CA, Berkowicz L, Donnerstein E, et al. The influence ofmedia violence on youth. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2003;4(3):81-110.

11. Grossman D. Teaching kids to kill. Phi Kappa Phi Forum. 2000;10-14.

12. Roberts DF, Foehr UG, Rideout VG, Brodie M. Kids and Mediaand the New Millennium: Executive Summary. Menlo Park, Calif: KaiserFamily Foundation; 1999.

13. Bonds M, Stoker S. Bully Proofing Your School: A ComprehensiveApproach for Middle Schools. Longmont, Colo: Sopris West; 2000.

14. Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Ramani SP, Ruan WJ, Simons-MortonB, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US youth. JAMA. 2001;285:2094-2100.

15. Price JH, Telljohann SK, Dake JA, Marsico L, Zyla C. Urbanelementary school students perceptions of fighting behavior and concernsfor personal safety. J Sch Health. 2002;72:184-191.

16. Smith JD, Schneider BH, Smith PK, Ananiadou K. The effective-ness of whole-school antibullying programs: a synthesis of evaluationresearch. Sch Psychol Rev. 2004;33:547-561.

17. Robinson TN, Wilde ML, Navracruz LC, Haydel F, Varady A.Effects of reducing children’s television viewing and video game use onaggressive behavior: a randomized trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:17-23.

18. Delta-Schoolcraft Intermediate School District. Safe schools andhealthy students institute. Available at: www.dsisd.k12.mi.us. AccessedJuly 10, 2005.

19. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Blueprints modelprograms: bullying prevention program. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/programs/BPP.html. Accessed on August 3, 2005.

20. Limber SD. Implementation of the Olweus Bullying PreventionProgram in American Schools: lessons learned from the field. In EspelageD, Swearer S, eds. Bullying in American Schools: A Social-Ecological Per-spective on Prevention and Intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum;2004:351-363.

21. Dake JA, Price JH, Telljohann SK. The nature and extent of bully-ing at school. J Sch Health. 2003;73:173-180.

22. Dake JA, Price JH, Telljohann SK, Funk JB. Teacher perceptionsand practices regarding school bullying prevention. J Sch Health. 2003;73:347-355.

23. Dake JA, Price JH, Telljohann SK, Funk JB. Principals’ percep-tions and practices of school bullying prevention activities. Health EducBehav. 2004;31:372-387.

158 d Journal of School Health d April 2006, Vol. 76, No.4 d � 2006, American School Health Association