Student Perceptions of School Safety Policies

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

Student Perceptions of School Safety Policies

Student Perceptions of School Safety Policies

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Student Perceptions of School Safety Policies

Similar to Student Perceptions of School Safety Policies (20)

More from Dr. James Lake

More from Dr. James Lake (14)

Student Perceptions of School Safety Policies