Bruce Morris and Donna Wells, Editors

School as a Reflection of Community

In spite of all the media focus, the increasing public funds that are being directed to the issue, and the growing concern of parents, most students go to school safe every day. In fact, less than one percent of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years old) take place on school property or on the way to or from school. The total number of violent crimes occurring on school property has been declining steadily since the 1992-93 academic year. Yet, while the overall rate is dropping, the number of high profile events involving multiple victims has increased, now averaging about five events per year.

Is street violence making its way into the hallways, classrooms, and cafeterias of our elementary, middle, and high schools? Given the number of student-involved shootings that have occurred in schools across the country, including the 1998 crime at Richmond’s Armstrong High School, we have a responsibility to assess whether such crimes are truly isolated events, specific to schools, or if, more accurately, they mirror what is happening in our communities. Such an assessment can guide policy-makers in the development of appropriate responses.

Although crime does not originate in school, it sometimes culminates there. Statistics indicate that school-based crime and victimization often parallel the crime and victimization rates in the surrounding neighborhoods. Examination of changing demographics, cultural shifts, and trends in society can provide policy-makers with an increased understanding of events occurring in schools. The high-profile violent crimes in our schools, for example, are similar in many ways to workplace violence we have been witnessing for several years. To reduce the number and types of crimes occurring in schools, law enforcement and education specialists, as well as policy makers, must examine what is happening in the community and how that environment is spilling over into schools.

Nationally, the crime rate is continuing its downward trend. According to figures just released by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the nation’s violent crime rate dropped 10.4 percent last year. This is the most significant decline since DOJ began its national citizen survey 26 years ago and continues a trend that began in 1994. In 1999, there were 28.8 million violent and property crimes compared to 44 million when the survey first began. Property crime also fell nearly 9 percent last year, continuing a trend that began in 1974.

Still, no crime rate, in schools or in the community, is acceptable. Crime victims care little whether they are one in a hundred or one in a thousand. If schools reflect what is occurring in our homes and communities, then what factors should we consider to keep our students and staff safe?

Of all factors impacting schools and communities, family structure and stability have the greatest impact; however, it is significant that since 1960, the structure of the American family has undergone its most dramatic change. The evolution is due primarily to three factors: divorce, teen pregnancy, and two-income families. The current divorce rate is double what it was in 1960, teen pregnancies quadrupled between 1960 and 1992, and currently, 60 percent of married women with young children work outside the home. These changes require schools to provide far more than academic excellence for students.

According to a Wall Street Journal poll conducted in June 1999, 83 percent of Americans believe that the greatest threat to families today is that parents are not paying enough attention to what’s going on in their children’s lives. Additional responsibility then falls upon schools to meet those increasing needs. Early learning programs have been made available for children whose parents do not or cannot provide a healthy early learning environment at home. The pervasive influence of drugs in society has resulted in schools providing drug education. Many schools now offer before and after school programs for children with working parents. Some provide breakfast to students who otherwise would not have it. And increasingly, counselors are being used in elementary schools to assist children who face divorce or other stressful, non-academic situations.

Another community factor impacting schools is multiculturalism. With various groups providing moral and cultural options, moral relativism has replaced the more stringent American view of right and wrong behavior. Reflecting this, students tend to rely on situational ethics that are determined by place and time, rather than on objective moral truths. When groups of people do not agree on a universal set of acceptable behaviors or virtues, then individual expression, rather than corporate moral stance, becomes acceptable.

This lack of civility or standards may constitute one of the primary reasons for the current concern over the state of American society. According to the results of a survey conducted last February, by U.S. News and World Report, 90 percent of Americans believe incivility poses a serious problem and 50 percent say it is an extremely serious problem that may lead to a profound social breakdown. Nine out of ten Americans believe it contributes to the violence in communities and 85 percent think it further erodes our value system.

That same ill-mannered behavior has become the norm in the political process and is manifesting itself among our students. According to U.S. News, “from one end of the country to the other, parents and teachers complain of the lack of civility among children and the disrespect they show their elders.”

Should school violence be addressed, separate and distinct from other types of crime? For at least the past three decades, many criminologists, educators and psychologists attempted to defy reality by separating schools from the community, not only in addressing youth-related crime, but concerning many aspects of students lives. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, for example, was used to ensure that no student information was released to other agencies. Such thinking was both unrealistic and ill-advised. Schools do not operate in a vacuum. Students do not check their families or their neighborhoods at the door. As was noted by the National Governor’s Association, “Schools are not islands. They exist within a larger community and need strong links with community leaders, businesses, social service agencies, police, faith-based organizations, juvenile justice authorities, and parents to design an effective violence prevention plan” (1999).

The view that what children do and say and how they act at school should be kept separate from what they do and say and how they act elsewhere is becoming less popular. Dr. Pamela L. Riley, Executive Director of the North Carolina Center for the Prevention of School Violence reflects the growing perspective that “school violence is youth violence that happens at school,” and thus, should be treated as part of the broader issue of crime in the community. This view supports the argument that schools are an integral part of the community and must be considered within its broader context. Current crime and drug trends lend credence to this perspective.

Numerous recent studies provide us with a snapshot of youth-related safety issues, both in the community and on school property.

• The National Center for Injury Prevention at the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), teamed up with the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to examine school-related violence (1999). The study concluded that less than one percent of all homicides among school-aged children (ages 5-19) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school. The CDC also conducted a Youth Risk Behavior Survey to assess risks among students in grades 9 ­ 12. During 1997, the researchers found that violent behavior is a general problem for youth. Over eight percent (8.3) of students reported carrying a weapon during the 30 days preceding the survey. But that was very similar to the 8.5 percent who admitted carrying a weapon on school property during the same time period.

• Similarly, an analysis of data from the 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1997 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys indicates that between 1991 and 1997, the percentage of students involved in a physical fight within 30 days of the survey decreased from 42.5 percent to 14 percent. The number of students involved in a fight on school property declined, as well, from 16.2 percent to 14.8 percent. The percentage of students carrying a weapon during the period decreased from 26.1 percent to 18.3 percent. On school property, the number of students carrying a weapon decreased from 11.8 percent to 8.5 percent (Brener, Simon, Krug, and Lowry, 1999).

• According to the National Victimization Survey conducted annually by the U.S. Department of Justice, violent victimization among students has declined to its lowest level since 1992.

• The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration conducts an annual National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. The 1999 survey reported that, overall, an estimated 14.8 million Americans are current users of illicit drugs. And 10.9 percent of youths ages 12 ­ 17 reported current use of illicit drugs. The survey also reported that young adults (ages 18-25) who smoke are four times more likely to use illegal drugs while youth, ages 12-17, who smoke are seven times more likely to use drugs.

The General Assembly continues to address the safety of our schools. For example, schools are required to conduct safety and security audits every three years. They are also required to complete crime and violence reports each year. And, they are required to develop written school crisis and emergency management plans. Yet, community issues and circumstances exist which can provide additional opportunities to enhance safety.

With the statewide implementation of Incident-Based Reporting (IBR), law enforcement officials now have a much more detailed record of criminal activity in specific neighborhoods. This provides an opportunity to assess crime and violence data of a specific school site in direct relation to crime data in its surrounding neighborhood or community. A school can use appropriate IBR data in the development of its safety and security audit to ensure that the school is fully addressing the problems and opportunities specific to its site.

Also, although we cannot legislate the stability of families, the number of homes with access to the Internet, or the ability of parents to effectively “parent” their children, there are opportunities to enhance school and community safety. For example, the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act provided additional protection for school sites. And, the federal Children’s Online Privacy Act, passed by Congress last fall, limits access and information about children to commercial web sites.

Numerous additional legislative issues remain to be considered. Presently, state law does not impose penalties to commercial sites used in the commission of a school-based violent offense. Hence, if a student prepares an explosive device using instructions downloaded from a particular website and then uses that device in the commission of a school-related crime, the individual responsible for posting those instructions currently has no criminal liability. The propriety of this situation is worthy perhaps of some consideration and attention.

The influence of the community on the school is felt far beyond safety concerns. Other factors have a direct effect on the policies and practices of our schools.

The role and the responsibilities of media must be considered in addressing youth-related crime, both in schools and in the community. While crime rates are at historically low levels, fear of crime remains high, fueled, in part, by intense media focus on dramatic, but still decidedly rare, incidents.

A related issue in the larger community concerns the need to recognize that adolescents are still children and that, developmentally, they differ significantly from the rest of the population. In the wake of the high-profile school crimes, some individuals and organizations wanted to develop a system to “profile” students in much the same way that adult perpetrators are sometimes profiled. In September 2000, the FBI issued a 45-page report rejecting the practice of such profiling, stating that it is nearly impossible to predict who will commit a violent act.

Finally, one of the most important factors, for policy considerations, is the juvenile justice support system in the Commonwealth. Historically, juvenile services have been separated, not only from adult services, but also from one another. Nationally, that trend may be reversing. For example, North Carolina just integrated all its juvenile-related programs and services under one umbrella agency to address its youth from birth to age of majority. The rationale is that this approach will better serve children throughout their childhood years.

For several years, circumstances required that we address the negative impacts of the community on our schools. This may no longer be the case. Recent trends suggest that community factors driving behaviors and education practices have taken a more positive turn.

The fracturing of the American family appears to have stabilized. Teen pregnancies, for example, are declining, the robust economy is providing a financial cushion for families, and the divorce rate is leveling off. National and state welfare reforms also appear to be contributing to greater family and community stabilization.

The continued decline in both violent and property crime is also encouraging. It had been assumed by leading criminologists that as the juvenile population began to rise in the late 1990s, so, too, would the crime rate. In fact, not only has it not done so, but it continues to show significant decreases. According to the FBI, last year, for the eighth straight year, the national violent crime rate dropped. Virginia’s rates followed the national trend.

Additionally, increased accountability on the part of both students and schools is increasing our ability to assess what works and what doesn’t and to respond appropriately. Lisbeth Schorr, Director of the Project on Effective Interventions at Harvard University noted that “if school success is in fact (sic) to be the top priority, we will have to re-examine some of our more romantic notions about how better education comes about. We will have to factor in the growing evidence that the key to real school reform lies in profound changes in instructional practice, especially as it affects the children who need good teaching the most.”

These encouraging developments bode well for school safety and for education in general. No matter what, schools are an integral part of the community. The key for policy-makers is to determine why violence and other types of crimes are decreasing and to institutionalize those interventions that prove most effective.

Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history of “School as a Reflection of Community.”

Brener, Nancy D., Thomas R. Simon, Etienne G. Krug, and Richard Lowry, “Recent Trends in Violence-Related Behaviors Among High School Students in the United States,” JAMA, Vol. 282, No. 5, August 4, 1999.

Critical Incident Response Group, FBI Academy, “The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective,” FBI, September 2000.

Kaufman, P. et al, “Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 1998,” U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.

National Governors’ Association, “Issues Brief: Making Schools Safe,” August 1999.

Schorr, Lisbeth. “The Intersection of School and Community,” Education Week, July 12, 2000.

U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice, “Annual Report on School Safety.”

www.cdc.gov

www.edweek.org

www.ncsl.org

www.tokeepschoolssafe.org

www.usnews.com

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.