Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

PURPOSE. Existing theories and empirical findings suggest that schools embedded in communities with high poverty and violence are expected to have higher rates of school violence. Yet, there are some schools with very low violence that are in high poverty and violent communities. Exploring the characteristics and practices of schools reporting ‘atypical' low victimization could inform theory and practice. We posit that specific social/ organizational variables within the school can powerfully buffer community influences on student victimization rates in schools. Our aim is to identify school factors that buffer student victimization. METHOD. Using a mixed methods approach the study was carried out in two phases. In phase 1 nine ‘atypical' schools were selected based on quantitative analyses from a nationally representative database of schools in Israel. Research instruments were anonymous self-report questionnaires based on the work of Benbenishty & Astor (2005). Very detailed school and neighborhood context information was gathered from the Ministry of Education and the Israeli census bureau. Atypical schools were identified when schools had much higher (N = 4) or much lower victimization (N = 5) levels than predicted by the characteristics of their community. In phase 2, two and a half years of qualitative methods were employed at the nine school sites. These included focus groups (N = 14), key constituents interviews (N = 140), structured observations (N = 189), school violence mapping methods (N = 15 groups), and an analysis of school policy and procedures relevant to school violence. RESULTS. None of the schools with atypical low levels of violence had evidence based school safety programs. These schools believed the teachers, principals, students, parents and community were the guardians of safety. A collective awareness around procedures of school safety at the local school level is key for safe schools. Aspects of school safety were infused within the academic curriculum of the school (e.g., in literature, history, art, writing, mathematics) and part of the cultural celebrations of the school (e.g., focus on peace, nonviolence, accepting diversity). Mainstreaming and inclusion of special education was used as a tool for acceptance of diversity and social responsibility (e.g., one school had all the student learn sign language and had a large number of hearing impaired students, another school integrated children with cerebral palsy into the classes for the same reasons). Variables most influential in the atypically safest schools include: 1) a strong visionary and ideological “leader” principal, 2) established school organizational procedures surrounding safety, 3) the use of indigenous cultural practices and values to articulate the school mission, and 4) an “outward” community orientation, meaning that practices were geared towards changing violence outside the school. IMPLICATIONS. Currently, evidence based school safety interventions do not include key variables within the school environment. Our empirical examination of how policy and social supports within schools buffer student victimization suggests school safety practices (such as involving parents) that are sustained for longer periods of time since they emerge from the schools' normal educational mission.