School Support Staff Support for Punitive Measures in Schools: The Need for Social Work Violence Prevention Training for the Entire School

Background

Research suggests a growing number of schools are implementing both evidence-based interventions and punitive measures at the same time. Most interventions and empirical investigations on school violence focus only on teachers, leaving out other school support staff. Some school staff (e.g. bus drivers, cafeteria workers, yard and hall monitors, SRO’s) are specifically charged with safety in different locations and times within schools. Their views about discipline, procedures may contrast with school professionals who receive evidence based safety training. Prior studies suggest that without training, school staff may resort to zero tolerance and hardening measures. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of school support staff on violence and safety in their schools.

Methods

Data for this study come from a national study assessing school staff perspectives about school violence. Open ended questions were created to solicit school staff perceptions about safety in their schools. This analysis included responses from 1060 school staff across the US. Qualitative responses were coded using inductive thematic analysis. School staff were categorized by several components including a. the times and spaces staff tend to occupy (e.g. whether they predominantly work in or outside classrooms), b. how they fit in a school’s organizational hierarchy (relating to job role and responsibilities surrounding safety), and c. their potential exposure to students, colleagues, and parents.

Findings

Support staff perceptions were more punitive in their solutions around discipline compared with teachers. For example, support staff in classrooms with students commonly spoke about disrespectful or aggressive behaviors (e.g. “Students who are likely to lash out. Throwing or shoving chairs or desks”); they often suggested the removal of these children from classroom environments (e.g. “...Students with violent behaviors... should be immediately removed from classrooms and work somewhere else in the school for the rest of the day...”). School staff outside of classroom spaces emphasized unpredictable behavior in public spaces (e.g. “Students who are quick to violent outbursts against both peers and adults.”) and suggested disciplinary measures to prevent them (e.g. “A RESOURCE OFFICER ON CAMPUS ALL THE TIME”). SROs and Security personnel reported concern about the threats of violence, adherence to school safety policy, and a desire for hardening (e.g. “I need restraint training. A zero-tolerance policy toward weapons in the possession of a student. All ASSUALTS need criminal prosecution.”).

Implications

Support staff suggested mainly disciplinary and hardening measures in response to safety issues involving students. These perceptions contrast with existing school safety studies with educators and school social workers that show a preference for nonpunitive interventions. Support staff may lack training, support, and agency in schools to recognize students with violent behaviors as students in need of more holistic, preventative supports, as opposed to reactive consequences. Social work should develop interventions that include all school staff in safety training specific to their job role, time and location, that is nonpunitive so that the goals of welcoming and supportive school environments could be achieved.