Creating Safe Schools

Author(s): Katherine T. Bucher and M. Lee Manning

Source: The Clearing House, Vol. 79, No. 1, Classroom Management for Middle and
Secondary Schools (Sep. - Oct., 2005), pp. 55-60
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30182108
Accessed: 04-03-2018 02:30 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30182108?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Clearing House

This content downloaded from 201.116.104.137 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 02:30:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Creating Safe Schools
KATHERINE T. BUCHER and M. LEE MANNING

thousand children were killed, only eighty homicides

V iolent andUnited
in the potentially
States violent
continueincidents
to make in schools
the head- were committed at school; the odds of being shot and
lines, with school-related violent deaths in the United killed in school are 1 in 6 million (Merrow 2004). A
States in the first half of the 2003-04 school year exceed- study conducted in Mississippi from 1993 to 2003
ing the deaths for the entire 2002-03 academic year (Vail found a decrease in students physically fighting, while
2004). There was a shooting outside the cafeteria in Bal- the number of students carrying weapons at school
lou Senior High School in Washington, DC, and a female reached an all-time low (Zhang and Johnson 2005).
student was stabbed in a restroom at Southwood Middle On a national level, according to a report of the U.S.
School in Florida (Bowman 2004a). Bomb threats cost Departments of lustice and Education, the violent
one North Carolina school division thousands of dollars crime rate at school declined 50 percent from 1992 to
and disrupted classes (Bowman 2004b). In 2005 in Red2002 (Devoe et al. 2004). This same report contains
Lake, Minnesota, a 16 year-old boy killed his grandpar-many other findings (see table 1) that support the idea
ents before killing seven others at his high school. Tothat schools are becoming safer.
combat violence in schools, the National Association of However, other findings in the same report (see table
School Resource Officers asked (Congress to enact a 1) show that violence is still present in many schools.
homeland security measure for schools and to fund In addition, some educators believe that by relying on
school safety (Colgan 2004). In this article, we look at the self-reported data from school divisions, the govern-
ultimate form of classroom management-the issue of ment statistics underestimate the violence found in
safety in school-by examining the current status of schools (Paulson 2004). A survey by the National Asso-
school safety in secondary schools and identifying the ciation of School Resource Officers (Paul 2003) found
most effective strategies to ensure that all students attend that 89 percent of school police thought that school
safe schools. crimes were underreported.
A provision of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires
Are American Schools Safe?
that students who are in schools which are labeled "per-
In spite of the incidents mentioned above, there sistently
is no dangerous" must be allowed to transfer to other
easy answer to this question. The response dependsschools.
onThe law also allows states to write their own def-
the definition of "safe schools," the statistics that are of persistently dangerous schools. A 2003
initions
used, and the policies that are being implemented to survey found that only fifty-four schools nation-
national
make schools safe for both students and educators. wide were identified as dangerous, with forty-four states
On the surface, it would appear that schools in theplus the District of Columbia reporting no persistently
United States are safe. "Less than one-thousandth of a dangerous schools (Robelen 2003). California reported
percent of homicides took place in schools between no dangerous schools among its nine thousand schools,
1992 and 1994" (Stevick and Levinson 2003, 326). Asand Texas had only six schools with the "persistently dan-
Kohn (2004) points out, in the 1990s, while eightgerous" designation (Paul 2003). This is in contrast to the

Katherine TI Bucher is a professor and assistant department chair and M. Lee Manning
is a professor and eminent scholar in the Department of Educational Curriculum and
Instruction at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.

55

This content downloaded from 201.116.104.137 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 02:30:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
56 The Clearing House September/October 2005

national statistics (DeVoe et al. 2004) show that 20 per-

TABLE 1. Indicators of School Crime and Safety,
2004 cent of all public schools experienced one or more seri-
ous violent crimes. In 2004, fifteen Baltimore schools
Key findings
/ Thirty-two school-associated violent deaths were
reported from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000.
/ The victimization rate for students ages twelve to
eighteen declined between 1992 and 2002.
/ In 2002, adolescents were less likely to be victims of
serious nonfatal violent crime at school than away
from school.
/ 5 percent of adolescents reported being victims of
nonfatal crimes in 2003.
/ Between 1993 and 2003, 7 to 9 percent of high school
students reported being threatened or injured with a
weapon at school.
/ In 2003, overall, 7 percent of adolescents reported
being victims of bullies, an increase from 5 percent in
1999.
/ In 2003, 10 percent of rural students reported being
bullied versus 7 percent of urban and suburban stu-
dents.
/ 20 percent of all public schools experienced one or
more serious violent crimes in 1999-2000, with 54
percent of public schools reporting at least one inci-
dent involving serious disciplinary action.
/ 92 percent of secondary schools experienced a violent
incident in 1999-2000 in comparison to 61 to 87 per-
cent for elementary, middle, and combined schools.
/ The use of a firearm or an explosive device led to dis-
ciplinary action in 2 percent of public schools.
$ From 1998 to 2002, secondary school teachers (twenty
per thousand teachers in high school, twenty-six per
thousand teachers in middle/junior high school) were
more likely to be victims of violent crimes than ele-
mentary teachers (twelve per thousand teachers).
/ From 1998 to 2002, urban teachers were more likely
to be victims of violent crimes than suburban or rural
teachers.
/ Between 1993 and 2003, the percent of high school
students who reported carrying a weapon at school
declined from 12 percent to 6 percent.
/ In 1999-2000, 29 percent of principals reported daily
or weekly incidents of student bullying and 19 percent
reported acts of student disrespect for teachers.
/ In 2003, 29 percent of high school students reported
being offered, given, or sold an illegal drug on school
property.
Source. DeVoe, J. F., K. Peter, P. Kaufman, A. Miller, M. Noonan,
T. D. Snyder, and K. Baum. 2004. Indicators of school crime and
safety: 2004 (NCES 2005C002/NCJ205290). U.S. Departments of
Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
1999-2000 national statistics of school crime in which itors to interact in a positive, nonthreatening manner
71 percent of U.S. schools reported at least one violentthat reflects the educational mission of the school
incident, with 36 percent reporting at least one violent while fostering positive relationships and personal
incident to police (U.S. Department of Education, growth. The decisions of individual teachers about
National Center for Education Statistics 2004). Otherclassroom management theories or their choices of
were told they were one year away from being designat-
ed as 'dangerous' buildings" ("NCLB policies leave safe,
orderly schools behind," American Teacher 89 (5): 6).
Teachers and the Baltimore Teachers Union claim that
this warning has inspired schools to decrease the num-
ber of student suspensions rather than attempt to elimi-
nate the cause of the problem behaviors. There were also
reports that the principals pressured staff "to keep inci-
dent reports to a minimum" (6).
What is a Safe School?
Obviously, a determination of safe schools must g
beyond statistics and government reports. One way
decide whether schools in the United States are safe
begins with a definition of a safe school. However, with
the many factors involved, defining a safe or unsafe
school can be difficult. Is a safe school one in which
guards patrol the halls, metal detectors protect all
entrances, and all violent incidents are reported to
police? Or is a safe school one in which students stab
each other with needles as a prank but no one reports
the incidents because that is just the way adolescents
act? Or is it a school where everything seems peaceful
even though some adolescents will not sit beside oth-
ers for group work, or where members of a dominant
peer group "rank" their classmates on a 1 to 10 scale of
acceptability?
Most educators would agree that creating a safe
school means more than eliminating knifings, fights,
and shootings. Violence is also subtle things such as
name calling; fear of being ridiculed; teasing; offen-
sive touching; racial, ethnic, cultural, or sexual slurs;
and bullying (Hernandez and Seem 2004). In 1999,
13 percent "of high school students said they were
targets of hate-filled words and 36 percent... of hate
graffiti" (Verdugo 2002, 50). In fact, violence is some-
times defined as any act that negatively impacts the
internal school climate (Hernandez and Seem 2004).
Most violence in schools does not happen overnight;
rather, it develops over a long-term period as a reac-
tion to other events and an attempt to right old
wrongs, make a statement, or promote a point of
view. According to Stevick and Levinson (2003),
"violence is the most extreme manifestation of a
range of behaviors that run contrary to schools
expectations and purposes" (325).
A safe school is one in which the total school climate
allows students, teachers, administrators, staff, and vis-

This content downloaded from 201.116.104.137 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 02:30:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vol. 79, No. 1 Creating Safe Schools 57

management practices and strategies

and care for have
every child. It is a place free of bullyingsignif
where
effects on the school behavior expectations
climate and the are clearly communicated,
ways in consis-
whic
tently enforced, and fairy applied. (Mabie 2003, 157)
dents resolve
problems (Manning and Bucher 2
By providing freedom from violence,
Table 2 provides a list of somefear, and int
additional indicators of
dation, a safe school fosters
safe schools. acceptance and car
an environment where expectations for student
What are
ior are clearly articulated, the Best Strategies to Promote
"consistently enforce
Safe Schools
fairly applied" (Mabie 2003, 157). Today?
Encompassing more than Violentjust physical
incidents such as those at safety,
Columbine High s
safety also implies intellectual and emotional
School spurred the development of safe school plans. s
(Kohn 2004, Merrow 2004). With intellectual
Currently, in some districts, those plans are now just sa
students know that they can say
dusty documents "I don't
that administrators can under
pull out to
and no one will laugh show
at thatthem. They also realiz
they are, indeed, creating safe schools in
they can think, doubt, and question what
their school divisions. In many other contemporary th
learning, and even make mistakes
secondary schools, studentsinanda secure
staff en
wear ID badges,
ment (Merrow 2004). Teachers
campus security officers ortake the
police patrol tim
the halls and
inquiry learning and utilize a the
limit access to number
school, staff areof instruc
trained in security
strategies to involve all students.
procedures, Classroom
visitors sign in rul
after showing a picture ID,
procedures provide a safety net where individu
and a district code of conduct regulates all interactions
freeto express their concerns
(Potter 2003).and
However,ideas.
in order to be emotionally
Emotional safety is also important. According
and intellectually safe, schools must go beyond the
number of studies (Sandhu
obvious checks for physical safety to create aAspy
and Aspy 2000; sense of
2004), violent events such
community as(Astor,
those in Littleton
Benbenishty and Meyer 2004;
orado and Conyers, Georgia were
Schroeder 2005), preceded
increased student-teacherby in
coopera-
when the eventually violent students were tease
tion, and a common "conflict management language"
lied, or ostracized by others
(Selfridgeor
2004,when they
61). Educators must bewere iso
sure that the
from other students. Stevick
policies they adopt andand Levinson
the measures that they use to
believe that "our inability topolicies
enforce those comprehend why
are equitable and appropriate,
people would be so happy to kill us aggravat
sense of powerlessness and sense of personal sec
(324). Lewis (2003) contends that
TABLE 2. Indicators we
of a Safe School are in an e
school militarization and student criminalization that
is reducing civil liberties and creating the culture of a/ High academic standards (Blum 2005)
police state in schools. One can only imagine the emo-/ Positive and respectful relationships (Blum 2005)
tional state of a high school senior who committed sui- / Strong teacher support (Blum 2005)
cide after being expelled from a class trip because he / Systematic conflict resolution strategies (such as, peer
mediation and anger management training), including
had marijuana in his backpack (Merrow 2004).
communication skills and cooperative problem solv-
Unfortunately, many educators believe that the focus
ing (Chittooran and Hoenig 2005)
on high-stakes tests makes schools less intellectually and / A clean campus (including the restrooms and recre-
emotionally safe. Some teachers perceive a conflict ational facilities) that makes a statement about
between the need to care for the emotional or personal "school pride, cleanliness and order, and respect for
well-being of students and the need to have students do property" (Mabie 2003, 157)
/ School personnel who listen to the constituents (stu-
well on high-stakes tests (Willert and Lenhart 2003). dents, parents, community, and local agencies) that
Kohn (2004) even links high-stakes testing to zero toler- they serve (Willert and Lenhart 2003)
ance policies which remove disruptive students from the / Teachers who care about students and have positive
classroom before the tests begin. When teachers believe interactions with and mutual respect for students
(Willert and Lenhart 2003)
that they must teach to the test, they often have less time
/ Commitment to civility and a positive classroom cul-
for discussions and focus on moving the class forward ture (Manning and Bucher 2003)
rather than addressing individual learning problems. / Efforts to curb bullying (Manning and Bucher 2003)
What, then, is a safe school? According to Ronald D. / Quality environmental design (Manning and Bucher
Stephens, the executive director of the National School 2003)
/ Administrators who are committed to safe schools
Safety Center in 2003.
(Selfridge 2004) and who have a positive relationship
a safe school is a place where the business of education with students as well as teachers (Mabie 2003)
can be conducted in a welcoming environment free of / A team-developed safe school plan and implementa-
intimidation, violence, and fear. Such a setting provides tion strategy (Selfridge 2004)
an educational climate that fosters a spirit of acceptance

This content downloaded from 201.116.104.137 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 02:30:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 58 The Clearing House September/October 2005

democratic
and that these policies eliminate rather environment, (4) are proactive, (5) are
than exacerbate
data
inappropriate behaviors. The driven, and (6)
learning focus on the whole school-no
environment
the individual
must be psychologically as well student.
as physically safe for all
students and must provide students with "safe havens
in which to learn" (Bucher Establish Continuous Preventative Programs for School
and Manning 2003, 163).
Safety
The following are, we believe, the most successful
The most successful
strategies for insuring safe secondary programs used to create safe
schools.
schools combine intervention with continuous preven-
Provide a Positive Process-based Rather than a Negative
tive actions (Stevick and Levinson 2003). By using strate-
Product-based Approach to Safety
gies such as conflict resolution programs, educators are
Rather than a product-based able
concept
to create an environment
of school
that fosters the
safety
develop-
(such as metal detectors, surveillance cameras,
ment of resiliency by helping students preserve relation- and
guards), a safe school shouldships,
be process-based
control with
their behavior, and resolve conflicts peace- an
fully (Bucher and Manning
emphasis on a positive school climate, student 2003). Peer and
mediation, with
staff
support systems, and counseling opportunities.
its reliance on peers for implementation, fits well withThis
whole-school approach to dealing with
the developmental violence
characteristics of adolescents whoisare very
shifting their
different from the approach used inalliances
many from adults to peers (Chittooran
schools of iso-
lating and dealing with violent
and Hoenig students
2005). One program, the individually
Resolving Conflict
Creatively Program
(Schroeder 2005). There is a great (RCCP), focuses on conflict
difference betweenresolu- a
problem-centered approach totion and intergroup
school relations by that
safety using peer ismediation
reac-
tive and a positive approachwiththat
extensive is both
training in conflictpreventative
resolution. RCCP has
and proactive, and attempts been
tosuccessful
develop in preventingemotional
violence and developing liter-
a
acy skills (such as empathy positive
and school environment inand
respect) schools from Oregon
a sense of
community for all stakeholdersand Alaska to New York and Georgia (Selfridge 2004).
(Dake, Price, and Telljo-
hann 2003; Smith and Sandhu 2004).
Research has also shownOlafson
that school-basedand Field
family coun-
studied middle school students and
seling with noted
individuals theincidents
involved in fighting "punish-
at
ment culture" (2003, 144) thatschool and their families
exists in can some
reduce the rate of recidi-
schools
vism, make
when teachers are more concerned a positive
with impact on student behavior,
establishing and and
increase
enforcing rules than in helping communication
students within families
make (Canfield and
"sensitive,
informed choices about what Ballard
is 2004).
right and good" (144).
This may actually increase misbehaviors and jeopardize
Focus on the Elimination of Low-level Violence
positive relations between students and educators.
While educators use all types of peer
"Bullying, technology in an based
sexual harassment, victimization
effort to make schools safe, true
on knownsafety
or presumedonly comes
gay or lesbian from
sexual orientation,
positive human relations (Mabie 2003;
and the psychological Kohn
maltreatment 2004),
of students by teach-
"institutional legitimacy" (Stevick and
ers" (Dupper and Levinson
Meyer-Adams 2002, 351)2003,
or low-level
violence cannot must
346), and a climate of trust. Educators be ignoredrealize
in secondary schools or
that
they do not need to respond sweptequally
aside with theto all that
comment threats
"kids will beorkids."
even provide the same consequences.
Aggressive adolescents While apologies,
may be skilled at bullying and
retractions, and explanationsteasing
can butdisarm
they need help many threats,
learning how to work with
not even substantive threatsothers,
have to
control lead
their toapply
anger, and expulsions
moral reasoning to
or suspensions (Cornell et al. 2004).
social situations Even when
(Black 2003). Preventionschools
is more effec-
develop zero tolerance policies, these
tive than measures
reactionary must
approaches. However, be
Dake, Price,
and Telljohann
equitable and reasonable, reflective of (2003)
thefoundsocialthat while
and 86.3cul-
percent of
tural contexts in which students
teachers hadlive,
talks withand
bullies must
and victims change
after a prob-
from being primarily punitive lem
toarose,
offerless thanalternatives
one-third of teachers set
toaside
sus-time
pension or expulsion such as to community
talk about bullying and service,
ways to preventschool
it or work
service, or alternative education (Verdugo
with students 2002).
to create classroom rules to prevent bully-
Astor, Benbenishty, and ing. Meyer
In addition to(2004) maintain
placing students at risk, a culture of
that the most successful programs low-level violence to prevent
deprives students of "theschool
opportunity
violence are those that involve all stakeholders and to benefit from the educational opportunities a school
are tailored to fit the specific needs of an individual
provides" (Dupper and Meyer-Adams 2002, 357).
school. In contrast to safe school plans developed in
the United States, plans developed in Australia Develop
and a School Climate that Nurtures All Students.
Europe (1) fit the plan to the specific school, According
(2) to Freiberg and Stein (1999), the "school
climate
empower both students and teachers, (3) create a is the heart and soul of a school. .. It can fos-

This content downloaded from 201.116.104.137 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 02:30:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. 79, No. 1 Creating Safe Schools 59

ter resilience or become What Safe-school

should be characterized
tive responses to diversitx, sensitivity to others' v
cooperative interactions among students, teacher
school staff, and an environment that expects and
forces appropriate behavior" (l)upper and M
Adams 2002, 360-61). In a schol with a positi
mate, adults act as role models, staff actions are
consistent and coherent, positive messages go beyond
statements on bulletin boards, and democracy is in
action throughout the school. In addition, the school
must make connections with thL community that it
serves, provide opportunities for community service
learning and student engagement, and have a strong,
supportive school admninistration (Noonan 2004).
A negative school c limate with poor communication
between administrators and faculty, unclear rules and
reward structures, ambiguous consequences for misbe-
haviors, feelings by students that thiey are not valued or
respected by educators, low expectations for student
achievement, little engagement of students in the
learning process, low morale of students and educa-
tors, and disorderly ,lassroom elnvironments can have
an impact on schotol safety (HtIrnandez and Seem
Key words: safety, school violence, school climate
2004). Conversely, s:chool connetctedness is linked to
healthy behaviors bh adolescents (Blum 2005). Thus,
educators must makt a concerted effort to reach out to
disenfranchised students as well as those who have no
friends or peer suppoirt. School cotinselors can provide
leadership in a collaborative eflort that utilizes
mental health resources of the community to supple- (1): 39-49.
ment those of the school (Canfielel and Ballard 2004).Black, S. 2003. New remedies for high-school violence. Education
TABLE 3. Internet Resources for Safe Schools
Center for the Prevention of School iolence
http://www.nedjjd(ip
Guidance Channel Onlilne
http://www.guidanccchannel.com1
National Mental Heaith Information ('enter---
Youth Violence
http://www.mental health.org/school
National Youth Violence Prevention Campaign
http://violencepre\entionweek.org/
Ribbon of Promise- National Campaigt to Prevent
School Violence
http://www.ribbonofipromise.org/
School Violence Resource Center
http://www.svre.nca
U.S. Department o` Education--Safe ,mnd Drug-Free
Schools
http://www.ed.gov/iadmins/lead/safet/edpicks.jhtml?scr=qcc
Yahoo! News--U.S. School Violence
http://new.yahoo.com/fe?tmpl=fecid=348in=
US&cat=School Violence
a risk Challenges
factor" (11).Lie Ahead?
The c
by "warmth, tolerance
While violent crimes continue to make the headlines,
most public schools are physically safe places for educa-
tors and students (Kohn 2004; Merrow 2004). However,
this does not mean that secondary educators can forget
about the problems of providing safe schools. Instead,
their focus must now change. While still considering
physical safety, they must also consider the intellectual
and emotional safety of adolescents. As indicated in the
preceding discussion, we believe that secondary educa-
tors must focus on low-level violence (often the prede-
cessor to more violent behaviors), become more process-
based, take positive preventative actions through
continuing programs, and develop a school climate that
is culturally sensitive and supportive for all students. To
promote truly safe schools, educators must understand
the culture of all of their students and the community
they serve, and help all students understand and respect
the culture and climate of the schools they attend. Table
3 lists some Web sites that provide additional resources
and suggestions for developing safe high schools and
middle schools.
REFERENCES
Aspy, C. B., R. F. Oman, S. K. Vesely, K. McLeroy, S. Rodine, and 1,.
Marshall. 2004. Adolescent violence: The protective effects of
youth assets. lournal of Counseling and Development 82 (3): 268-77.
Astor, R. A., R. Benbenishty, and H. A. Meyer. 2004. Monitoring and
the mapping student victimization in schools. Theory Into Practice 43
Digest 69 (3): 43-47.
Blum, R. W. 2005. A case for school connectedness. Educational Lead-
ership 62 (7): 16-20.
Bowman, D. I1. 2004a. Killings in schools prompt cries for better
security. Education Week 23 (22): 3.
---. 2004b. Bomb threats taking financial toll. Education Week 24
(1): 1, 22-23.
Bucher, K. T., and M. I.. Manning. 2003. Challenges and suggestions
for safe schools. The Clearing House 76 (3): 160-64.
Canfield, B. S., and M. B. Ballard. 2004. School and family coun-
selors work together to reduce fighting at school. Professional School
(Counseling 8 (1): 40-46.
Chittooran, M. M., and G. A. Hoenig. 2005. Mediating a better solu-
tion. Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.) 5 (7): 11-15.
Colgan, C. 2004. Killings renew debate about SROs. American School
Board Journal 191 (4): 8.
(Cornell, D. G., P. 1.. Sheras, S. Kaplan, D. McConville, I. Douglass, A.
Flkon, I,. McKnight, C. Branson, and I. Cole. 2004. Guidelines for
student threat assessment: Field-test findings. School Psychology)
Revieu 33 (4): 527-46.
D)ake, I. A., i. II. Price, and S. K. Telljohann. 2003. Teacher percep-
tions and practices regarding school bullying prevention. Journal Of
School Hlealth 73 (9): 347-55.
DeVoe, J. !., K. Peter, P Kaufman, A. Miller, M. Noonan, TI. D. Snyder,
and K. Baum. 2004. Indicators of school crime and saety,: 2004
(NCES 2005C002/NC1205290). U.S. Departments of Education
and lustice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General Dupper, D. R., and N. Meyer-Adams. 2002. Low-level violence: A
neglected aspect of school culture. Ulrban Education 37 (3):
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence 350-64.
Freiberg, It. i., and T. A. Stein. 1999. Measuring, improving and s
taining healthy learning environments. In School climate: Measu

This content downloaded from 201.116.104.137 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 02:30:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 The Clearing House September/October 2005

Robelen,
ing, improving and sustaining healthy E. W. 2003.
learning States report few schoolsed.
environments, as dangerous.
H. J. Educa-
Freiberg, 11-29. London: Falmer. tion Weeh 23 (4): 1, 32-33.
Sandu, A
Hernandez, T. J., and S. R. Seem. 2004. D. S.,safe
and C. B. Aspy, eds. 2000.
school Violence inA
climate: American
sys- schools:
temic approach and the school counselor.
A practical Professional School
guide for counselors. Alexandria, Coun-
VA: American Counsel-
seling 7 (4): 256-62. ing Association.
Kohn, A. 2004. Safety from the inside
Schroeder,
out:
K. 2005.Rethinking
Education news in brief:
traditional
K-6 violence is global.
approaches. Educational Horizons 83 (1): Digest
Education 33-41.
70 (7): 71-73.
Lewis, T. 2003. The surveillanceSelfridge,
economy of post-Columbine
J. 2004. The resolving conflict creatively program: How we
schools. Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies
know it works. Theory Into Practice 25 (4):
43 (1): 59-67.
335-55. Smith, D. C., and D. S. Sandhu. 2004. Toward a positive perspective
oninter-
Mabie, G. E. 2003. Making schools safe for the 21st century: An violence prevention in schools: Building connections. Journal of
view with Ronald D. Stephens. Educational Forum, no. 67:156-62.
Counseling and Development 82 (3): 287-93.
Manning, M. L., and K. T. Bucher. 2003. Classroom management:Stevick, E. D., and B. A. U. Levinson. 2003. From noncompliance to
Mod-
Columbine: Capturing student perspectives to understand non-
els, applications and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Merrow, J. 2004. Safety and excellence. Educational Horizons compliance
83 (1): and violence in public schools. Urban Review 35 (4):
19-32. 323-49.
NCLB policies leave safe, orderly schools behind. 2005. American
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education St
Teacher 89 (5): 6. tics. 2004. Crime and safety in America's public schools: Selected fi
Noonan, J. 2004. School climate and the safe school: Seven con- ings from the school survey on crime and safety. NCES 2004-37
tributing factors. Educational Horizons 83 (1): 61-65. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Olafson, L., and J. C. Field. 2003. A moral revisioning of resistance. Vail, K. 2004. Troubling rise in school violence. American Sc
Educational Forum, no. 67:140-47. Board Journal 191 (1): 9-10.
Paul, N. C. 2003. School-safety rankings-or just black marks. Chris- Verdugo, R. R. 2002. Race-ethnicity, social class, and zero-toler
tian Science Monitor, August 20, http://www.csmonitor.com/ policies: The cultural and structural wars. Education and Urban S
2003/0820/pOls02-ussc.htm (accessed January 31, 2005). ety 35 (1): 50-72.
Paulson, A. 2004. Why school violence is declining. Christian ScienceWillert, H. i., and A. M. C. Lenhart. 2003. Tackling school viol
Monitor, December 6, http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1206/ does take the whole village. Educational Forum, no. 67:110-18.
p01s01-ussc.htm (accessed January 31, 2005). Zhang, L., and W. D. lohnson. 2005. Violence-related behaviors
Potter, L. 2003. Safety in our schools. Principal Leadership (Middle school property among Mississippi public high school studen
School Ed.) 4 (3): 81-82. 1993, 2003. Journal of School Health 75 (2): 67-71.

This content downloaded from 201.116.104.137 on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 02:30:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms