Lake's Dissertation Defense PPT

1. Student Fears on Secondary School Campuses and
Their Perceptions of Policies and Procedures that
Increase Feelings of Safety and Security
James A. Lake
Ed.D. Dissertation Defense
Dissertation Committee—
Dr. Chet Jensen, Committee Chairperson
Dr. John Borba, Committee Member
Dr. Robert Price, Committee Member

2. Need for the Study

3. Secondary Schools in the U.S

4. Democratic Ideals and Social
Awareness

9. Significance of the Study
• Discover what fears students of a variety of
demographic categories experience on high school
campuses
• Identify safety methods that increase students’
perceptions of security and well-being
• Promote the use of student input in establishing
school security and safety measures
• Encourage a broader conversation by state and
local policy makers

10. Purpose
• Conduct a demographic study at the
secondary school level regarding what
students fear and what security measures
increase their feeling of safety and well-
being on campus.

11. Research Questions
The research questions are:
1. What fears do high school students have on campus in terms
of safety and security?
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 feeling of safety and well-being at
school?

12. Literature
Manning and Bucher (2005)
• “The challenge lies with the educators who are responsible for
making sure that students do not fear attending school” (p. 5).
Wood and Huffman (1999)
• “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).

13. School Culture and Climate
Johnson (2009) examined 25 research studies that produced 5
specific, overlapping points on reducing school violence:
• (1) students and teachers must develop positive relationships of trust with each
other
• (2) students and teachers must be well informed of the rules and believe they are
just
• (3) students must have ownership in their school and want to be a part of the
planning and learning process
• (4) classrooms should be well-organized and conducive to academic learning
• (5) school safety must increase student perceptions of safety a school that is
orderly and constantly improving.

14. Academic Achievement
Shumow and Lomax (2001)
• Student safety and perceptions of well-being has been directly interrelated
to positive academic achievement
Bowan and Bowan (1999)
• violence at school contributed to:
• difficulty paying attention
• not participating in class
• lowered grades
• lack of attendance and/or dropping out

15. Cognitive Problems
Wolf (2002)
• A students ability to solve general
problems is hindered when faced with
stressful and fearful situations.
• Consequently, the students are more
likely to be tuned out, and fail in the
classroom environment.

16. The research on safety measures
Bullock & Fitzsimmons (1996); Winter (2001); Wood
& Huffman, (1999) maintained:
• Qualitative and/or quantitative research conducted has
never really asked high school students what
environment they feel safe in.
• State and local officials and school districts have
implemented stricter policies, expensive equipment, and
law enforcement officers to try and alleviate fears.

17. Including Students in the Process
Varnham (2005) suggested students should be involved in
the school policy making process
• Develop self-confidence, communication skills,
responsibility and independent thinking
• Strengthen the democratic process in schools
and increase student’s perceptions of their own
safety.

18. Methodology
Statistical Analysis
To determine if there was a
significant difference in the
distribution of responses
between cohorts of
students in the following
demographic categories:
ethnicity and race,
socioeconomic status (SES),
grade level, and gender
A Chi-Square Test
for Independence was
used.
An alpha level of .05
was selected to
determine significance.

19. Methodology Descriptive Analysis
• The descriptive analysis was conducted using frequencies and
percentages to illustrate the numerical relationship between
response cells for each survey statement.
• Notable responses were identified when >67% or more of
both cohorts responded in a like manner to any survey
question.
• The student-safety survey utilized a five-point Likert-type
interval scale (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=no opinion,
2=disagree, and 1=strongly disagree).

20. Data Organization
• Certain survey statements were redundant, no
longer relevant to the present study, or limited by an
inadequate response rate. These statements were
discarded.
• The number of response cells were reduced from
five to three.

21. Demographic Categories
Disaggregated into Cohorts
• Ethnicity/race
• White and Hispanic
• Socioeconomic Status
• Eligible and not eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch
• Grade Level
• Lowerclassmen and Upperclassmen
• Gender
• Males and Females

22. Cohorts n
White 55
Hispanic/Latino 130
Eligible 133
Not Eligible 81
Lowerclassmen (LC) 129
Upperclassmen (UC) 140
Male 128
Female 141
Demographic Data by Cohorts

23. Research Themes Established
The research questions are:
1. What fears do high school students have on campus in terms of
safety and security?
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 feeling of safety and well-being at school?
Research Theme 1. Personal Safety and Security
Research Theme 2. Academic, Social and Physical Well-being
Research Theme 3. Specific Security Measures

24. Personal Security and Safety
Statement
Category
E/R SES Grade Level Gender
1-safe in at least one class N+ N+ N+ S/N+
3-safe from bullying N+ N+ S/N+
5-at least one caring adult N+ N+ N+ N+
7-drug use/sales S S
9-student fights S
13a-culture S
13c-ethnicity/race S S
13d-gender S S
13f-sexual orientation S S
14a-bathrooms
14e-hallways S
14f-locker rooms S
14g-parking lots S
16-physically bullied S S
17-socially bullied S S
18-verbally bullied S S
21-avoided school activities S S/N-
-=strongly
disagreed and
disagreed
N=Notable
response (>67%)
S= Statistically
Significant
(p<.05)
N&S=notable and
significant
+=strongly agreed
and agreed

25. Personal Safety and Security
From this research theme six critical areas of need were identified
based on the significance and importance of the responses to the
Student Safety Survey:
1. general student perceptions of school safety
2. drug use
3. physical violence
4. bullying
5. prejudice and racism
6. campus locations perceived as safe or unsafe

26. Academic, Social and Physical Well-being
Statement
Category
E/R SES Grade Level Gender
12a-alcohol S
12c-cyber bullying S S
12d-drugs S
12f-gang activity S S
12l-physical bullying S S
12m-physical fights S S
12n-racism S S
12p-school shooting S
12q-social bullying S S
12r-student suicide S
12s-theft S S
12t-vandalism S S
12u-verbal bullying S S
12w-weapons S S
22-fear distracts from academics N+ S
N=Notable
response (>67%)
S= Statistically
Significant
(p<.05)
+=strongly agreed
and agreed

27. Academic, Social and Physical
Well-being
From this research theme six critical areas of need based on
the significance and importance of the responses to the
Student Safety Survey:
1. general student perceptions of school safety
2. drug use
3. physical violence
4. bullying
5. social impacts
6. school/personal property crimes

28. Specific Safety Measures
Statement
Category
E/R SES Grade Level Gender
6a-anonymous tip hotline S S
6c-drug dogs S
6d-fences around school S
6f-lockdown drills N+
6g-locked entrances/exits S S
6i-metal detectors S
6j-armed police (SRO)
6k-campus supervisors
6l-student searches S
6m-student ID’s required S
6n-surveillance cameras S
6o-suspending/expelling students S S
6p-teachers observing in halls S
6q-visitor check-in
6r-dress code S
24-reporting unsafe behavior S S
N=Notable
response (>67%)
S= Statistically
Significant
(p<.05)
+=strongly agreed
and agreed

29. Specific Safety Measures
From this research theme four critical areas of need based on
the significance and importance of the responses to the
Student Safety Survey:
1. facilities
2. personnel
3. safety procedures
4. school disciplinary policies

30. Findings/
Conclusions
1. General Student Perceptions
of School Safety
2. Drug Use
3. Bullying and Physical
Violence
4. Prejudice and Racism
5. Social Impacts
6. Securing Facilities and
Campus Locations
7. School- and Personal-
Property Crimes
8. School Personnel
9. Safety Procedures and
Disciplinary Policies

31. 1. General Student Perceptions of
School Safety
• The overwhelming opinion of
students on campus was that they
feel extremely safe on campus—
that they feel safe and free from
bullying in at least one class on
campus, and that there is at least
one caring adult whom they
believe they can trust.

32. 2. Drug Use
• Demographics revealed vast
differences of opinions—
most responses across all of
the cohorts did not reveal an
increase in fear due to drug
use or sales on campus;
however, nearly half of
lowerclassmen expressed fear
that drugs affected their well-
being.

33. 3. Bullying and Physical Violence
• The cohorts most susceptible to
fear of bullying or physical violence
were females and lowerclassmen.
Chronological age, levels of
maturity, and gender norms appear
to have an important impact on
students’ sense of security at
school.

34. 4. Prejudice and Racism
• White students felt a stronger sense of
prejudice toward gender than Hispanic
students.
• Lowerclassmen feared prejudice toward
sexual orientation increased safety issues
for students.
• Females feared for their safety or the
safety of others based on expressions
of racism and prejudice toward culture,
ethnicity/race, gender and sexual
orientation

35. 5. Social Impacts
• Student suicide, although tragic does
not have the impact on student fears
one would think.
• The presence of gang activity on
campus affects less students by
ethnicity and race, and more students’
fears by grade level and gender.
• Interestingly, the reports of gang
related activity is down even with the
numbers of gang members increasing
on campuses.

36. 6. Securing Facilities and Campus
Locations
• The use of security devices
such as surveillance
cameras, metal detectors,
and locked entrances and
exits does not guarantee an
increase in students’
perceptions of safety at
school.

37. 7. School- and Personal-Property
Crimes
• According to the most
recent literature, theft and
vandalism in schools are on
the decline; however, a
large percentage of
lowerclassmen and female
students still express
significant fear regarding
these issues on campus.

38. 8. School Personnel
• Students eligible for free and
reduced lunch felt safer with
adults supervising in the hallways
more than any other cohort.
However, 3 cohorts (eligible,
male and female students) all
agreed that reporting unsafe
behavior would not result in a
timely solution by an adult.

39. 9. Safety Procedures and
Disciplinary Policies
• All manner of safety procedures and
disciplinary policies affect the
perceptions of student cohorts
differently (i.e metal detectors,
surveillance cameras, suspending and
expelling students). However, what
is conclusive is that grade level and
gender play a powerful role in
determining a students perception of
security and well-being.

40. Recommendations for
Practitioners—
1. Instruct teachers in proven classroom management strategies and techniques
for building relationships of trust with students.
2. Advertise school safety policies by using traditional methods as well as the
Internet and social media.
3. Initiate a study into drug and alcohol use and sales on campus to discover the
implications on lowerclassmen and their feelings of well-being.
4. Provide students with multiple methods by which to report bullying and
implement proven programs to enhance students’ self-esteem and confidence.
5. Examine the impact that prejudice and racism has on students’ sense of well-
being and utilize data gathering to accurately address the needs of the students.

41. Recommendations for
Practitioners continued—
6. Establish programs that focus on suicide prevention and policies that
delineate what to do in case of a student suicide.
7. Identify gang activity on campus and create policies for dealing with the
issue before it negatively affects the school’s culture.
8. Work with students, staff, and parents to develop methods for protecting
personal property and to deal with vandalism on campus.
9. Develop an accountability system to ensure that students’ concerns are
addressed and that students’ trust and confidence in teachers,
administrators, and staff is well-established and nurtured.
10. Create a student-based safety council consisting of and equally
represented by male and female students, upperclassmen and
lowerclassmen, and other demographics the school considers significant.

42. Recommendations for Future
Studies—
1. Replicate this study to compare student academic performance and
attendance with their general feelings of safety and well-being.
2. Conduct a comparative analysis of teacher-to-student perceptions of
safety and security at school.
3. Conduct a study that measures students’ feelings of participation in
the creation and implementation of safety, security, and disciplinary
measures.
4. Conduct a study to determine what percentage of student bullying is
being reported and why students are choosing to convey or not convey
this information to school officials.