Upload
martintimhall7434
View
1.187
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A Comparison between Older Secondary Schools, Newer Secondary Schools and Government Industrial Schools
Citation preview
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Running Head: VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS – A COMPARISON
Violence in Schools: A Comparison between Older Secondary Schools, Newer Secondary
Schools and Wards (Government Industrial Schools) in Barbados.
PSYC3011: Research Paper in Psychology
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelors of Arts
(Psychology)
At
The University of the West Indies
Martin Hall
May, 2005
Faculty of Humanities
Cave Hill Campus
1
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Abstract
This paper compares violence levels amongst adolescents in older and newer secondary schools
and in the Government Industrial Schools (GIS) in Barbados. Through the use of an amended
version of the National School Crime and Safety Survey, data was collected and submitted to the
Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS) to be analysed. The results showed high levels
of violence in all areas of measure. The results also showed that violence levels in the wards-GIS
were higher than the level of violence in students from older secondary schools. Differences in
violence were compared amongst gender and living arrangements. Significant differences were
also seen within categorical schools. Moreover, recommendations to assist in the problem of
violence were given.
2
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
The rising level of violence in schools in Barbados is an ongoing problem mirroring the
rising level of violence in society as a whole. Although some researchers and groups believe that
there is an exaggeration of violence in schools (Mills, 2001), others believe that any level of
violence, even the lowest amount, is too high and the writer of this paper agrees. On the 12th May
2006 in the Nation Newspaper, psychiatrist Dr. Ermine Belle reported that teachers are not
equipped to handle the high levels of uncontrollable violence. Stating clearly that violence in
schools is not an exaggerated idea but a simple fact. Additionally, a principal at one of the
secondary schools in Barbados warned that levels of violence amongst the girls and the number
of fights that they were being involved in was becoming increasingly high (Best, 2005). Also,
Kim Ramsay, Director of the National Task Force on Crime Prevention said that 40% of the
persons incarcerated in Barbados for homicide were under the age of thirty. She also stated that
more youth were committing acts of violence than ever before, particularly young women (The
Nation Newspaper, 20 September, 2006). Furthermore, The White Paper on Education (1995)
cites a high rate of suspensions and expulsions from secondary schools due to fighting,
vandalism and assaulting or threatening teachers and principals. These reports on the subject
clearly show the conundrum that we are faced with as it relates to youth violence.
As a result, it is necessary through questionnaires, observations, interviews and any other
means possible to identify the causes of violence and areas where it is most likely to occur and to
develop possible interventions that could help to reduce it. Many psychologists, sociologists, and
researchers in general have done extensive work in the area of school violence. However,
extensive research on the topic has not been conducted in the Caribbean, Barbados in particular,
compared to research in other parts of the world.
3
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
It is very important that a definition of adolescent is reached. There is no one definition
of adolescence. Although many proffer a definition relating to age range, it is much more than
just chronological age. It includes the physical, social and cognitive development of the child as
well as age. Some may even go further and propose that it is the development from puberty until
an individual achieves economic independence. What is most important is that the particular
needs of the child, if not explicitly mentioned, at least, are implicitly implied. A definition of age
11 to 18 will suffice as a reasonable definition for adolescence for this paper.
In this paper, the term adolescence will be used synonymously with youth, and violence
and aggression are to be taken to mean the same thing. The Panel on the Understanding and
Causes of Violent Behaviour defined violence as “behaviours by individuals that intentionally
threaten, attempt or inflict physical harm on others” (Reiss & Roth, 1993). There are many
definitions of aggression; this is due to the multiplicity of approaches to the study of aggression
(Zillmann, 1979). According to Geen (2000), “aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus
from one person to another, with intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm,
when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus.” Geen (2000) calls this a
working definition due to the simplicity of the definition. It is admitted that this definition does
not cover all aspects of aggression, for example, reciprocal relationships, and therefore it may be
attacked on several points; but, it goes further than the simplest of definitions and includes
variables that are used in this paper, and thus is appropriate. These definitions are extremely
similar, and when adopted include not just physical harm but any behavior actuated to cause
harm and therefore spreading vicious gossip about someone in hopes of ruining that person’s
reputation would be considered aggression (Geen, 2000). Another effective way of aggressing
against someone could be damaging or destroying their property or even the display of controlled
4
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
gestures like a social snub can be a powerful source of harm, one that is intended by the person
delivering it (Geen, 2000).
It is very important that the causes of aggression be explored. Various theories were
formulated and reasons postulated to explain aggression. These theories include instinct theories,
biological theories, environmental theories, the Cognitive Neo-Association Theory, the Social
Learning Theory and the Script Theory. Additionally, other factors that influence aggression
especially in young persons will be explored, for example, the family, the neighbourhood, the
school and peer context, and the adolescence – adulthood transition.
There are two types of aggression, these are hostile aggression and instrumental
aggression. When someone uses hostile aggression their primary purpose is to harm or injure.
This type of aggression is provoked by pain and anger and other upsetting emotions (Toch,
1992). Instrumental aggression, on the other hand, is not necessarily evoked by anger; it is
deployed mainly for gain (Toch, 1992).
Instinct theorists believe that aggression is inherited and not learnt; it is some form of
innate human drive (Gillespie, 1971). Freud explained aggression in terms of a death wish or
instinct (thanatos) that is turned outward towards others, through a process called displacement.
Aggressive impulses that are not channelled towards a particular person or group are expressed
indirectly through safe and acceptable activities like sports, a process referred to in the
Psychoanalytic theory as catharsis (Toch, 1992; Dugan, 2004; Smith, 1999). Lorenz (1966)
looked at instinctual aggressiveness as a product of evolution. He combined Freud’s theory of
aggression and Charles Darwin theory of natural selection. In his interpretation, aggression is
beneficial for survival. Stronger animals will eliminate weaker ones and the result will be a
5
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
stronger and healthier population. Today, these theories are discredited in favour of other
explanations but are still referred to for a complete understanding of the topic.
Like instinct theories, biological theories believe that aggression stems from inside an
individual. It is different to instinct theories because they attempt to describe the mechanism that
causes it. Cairns (1972) proposed a theory using mice to support the notion that one’s gene
affects aggression; this was also done by Maxon (1998). This was then applied to humans as a
genetic explanation for aggression and as a result aggressive people that procreate using this
theory would most likely have aggressive offspring (Brain & Benton, 1980). To support the
theory, that there is some biological basis to aggression, there is evidence that men with two Y
chromosomes commit more violent crimes (Goldstein, 2003). In addition, it is widely believed
that male sex hormones cause aggression and that men are more aggressive than women.
Adopting this view could cause some controversy. This is because men learn from society to be
aggressive, so the issue is whether or not there are gender differences in aggression in young
children. Archer (1993) suggests that both genders would behave in very similar ways if they
were to be treated identically. Eagly (1987) stated that even though previous research focused on
violence differences in children the tendency was that males were more aggressive than females,
more so in childhood than in adulthood, but that this disparity occurred in both psychological and
ethnographic research, showing that there maybe some difference.
Environmental theories purport that stress, frustration, and other factors in the
environment cause aggression. One such theory, the Frustration-Aggression Theory, states that
there is a cause and effect relationship between frustration and aggression (Landis, 1939). In
other words, aggression is always due to frustration and frustration is always due to aggression.
When we are blocked from achieving our goal this leads to frustration and ultimately aggression
6
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
((Morlan, 1949). This theory was proposed by a group of researchers led by John Dollard and
involved early studies using inmates. The results showed that the higher the frustration, the more
likely the person was to behave aggressively (Smith, 2004). Berkowitz revising the Frustration-
Aggression Theory stated that frustration led to anger, and anger can sometimes lead to
aggressive behaviour (Geen & Berkowitz 1967; Smith, 2004; Beck, 2005). Geen & Berkowitz
(1967) also stated that frustration is a weak instigator of aggression and that there are other
environmental cues that elicit more aggressive behaviour for example, heat, noise and crowding.
This theory explains another environmental theory - the Theory of Aggressive Cues, which states
that presence of items or persons that are associated with aggression, influences frustrated
persons and leads them to aggression. The Weapon Effects Study supports this theory. “The
results suggest that weapons can increase the instigation to aggression in aroused and uninhibited
individuals.” (Turner, Simons, Berkowitz & Frodi, 1977).
Berkowitz expanded on the Aggressive Cues theory and refers to it as the Cognitive
Neoassociation Theory. He extended his view after he observed that aggression can result even
when actions are not directed directly towards individuals (as cited in Potter, 1999, p. 20). For
example the environment may be uncomfortably hot and may make a person irritable and
aggressive but it does not mean that the heat was created for them individually. “The effects
process begins with an aversive event that stimulates a chain reaction leading to anger which is
an emotion which people feel when they become inclined to assault someone verbally or
physically” (Potter, 1999). This evokes two compulsive reactions – fight, which is associated
with aggression related thoughts and memories and flight, which is associated with escape
related responses (Krahé, 2001). After this, further cognitive processing takes place which
involves the evaluation of the stimulus situation, possible outcomes, related experiences, and
7
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
socially accepted expressions of emotions (Krahé, 2001). The final emotional state is the by
product of cognitive processes.
In contrast to instinct theories, the social learning theory of aggression focuses on learnt
behaviour. It is one of the most radical and well documented theories that explain aggression.
This approach focuses on the role that social influences such as models and reinforcement play
on the acquisition of aggression. Children learn aggression by observing it in their parents and
peers, and cultural form such as movies, television and colouring books. The Bobo Doll studies
show extensively how this aggressive behaviour is adapted. The results suggest that there is a
strong correlation between media violence and aggression (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961).
“Viewing violence can elicit aggressive behaviour by increasing the viewer’s arousal,
desensitising viewers to violence, reducing restraints on aggressive behaviour, and distorting
views about conflict resolution” (Collins, & Getz, 1976). Children tend to pay more attention to
models that are attractive to them. To adapt behaviour, they go through the process of attention,
retention, motivation and motor reproduction (Berk, 2006). Motivation can come from vicarious
experiences and other forms of reinforcement such as rewards.
Script theory is another theory which seeks to explain aggression. Scripts are a set of
well-rehearsed highly associated concepts in memory, often involving casual links, goals, and
action plans (Abelson, 1981). When items are strongly linked they form a script, which becomes
a unitary concept in semantic memory.
The learning of an aggressive script can be divided in three distinct phases, as can
most learning processes. One is the acquisition and encoding phase, in which the script or
rule for guiding behaviour is first acquired and represented internally. The second is the
maintenance phase, in which the internal representation is strengthened and elaborated.
8
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
The third is the retrieval and emission phase, in which the internal representation
manifests itself in actual behaviour (Huesmann & Malamuth, 1986, p. 3).
The acquisition of aggressive scripts is similar to modelling behaviour in the social learning
theory of aggression. Therefore, media violence plays a similar role in this theory. Additionally,
the family and peers also help to form these scripts/schemas.
As was suggested, the family and home setting sets the atmosphere in a child’s life. Early
exposure to violence in the family may involve witnessing violence or physical abuse. This is the
first environment that the child comes into extended contact with, and learns to accept as normal
(Berk, 2006). Therefore, if the home is one which has a lot of noise then the likely result is noisy
children and if the setting is an aggressive one then the likely result is an aggressive child. This is
especially so if the child is mimicking someone who they look up to and view as a role model.
As was previously stated media violence which occurs in abundance in homes, is another
instigator of aggressive behaviour. “In many homes, television is the de facto babysitter, with
little or no monitoring or supervision of content” (Elliott, 1994).
In addition to the family context, some neighborhoods provide avenues for learning and
engaging in violence. The existence of gangs and illegal markets soliciting illegal drugs and
alcohol provides high levels of exposure to violence and positive rewards for seriously violent
behavior. These rewards or reinforcements, makes violence seem necessary and right. Moreover,
when people are in a large group or crowd, they tend to loose a sense of their individual identity
and take on the identity of the group; this is called deindividuation, for example, members of
gangs or football hooliganism.
Patterns learnt in the family could be carried over to the school context. The school
provides situations where conflict and frustration can cause anger and result in someone
9
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
aggressing against another. For example, when a student does not live up to an exceptional
standard such as, high academic achievement, personal confidence and a capacity for developing
and maintaining interpersonal relationships, the demands placed on them by the school and peer
groups create stress and conflict. Friends are important sources of companionship and recreation;
they share exclusive information and serve as loyal allies. Most importantly, friends provide
stability in time of stress, and aid their comrades through their transitioning stages. In light of the
above, peer rejected children tend to be more aggressive than other children (Asher & Coie,
1990).
When adolescents travel smoothly through the adolescence-adulthood transition it
appears to reduce involvement in violent behavior. Adolescents often experience identity
confusion which too is a stressor in a person’s life and which also breeds conflict. Elliot (1994)
suggests that this transition is made harder when the adolescent is under privileged and therefore
open to less opportunities. “Youth from … [poor and disorganized] neighborhoods have lower
levels of personal competence, self-efficacy, social skills, and self-discipline” (Elliot, 1994).
Due to the preceding statement, broad classes of the potential causes of violence were
formed by Moore, Petrie, Braga, & McLaughlin (2003). These are macrosocial structures
affecting the communities in which violence occurs. Stable characteristics of the aggressors that
make them susceptible to committing violence, these characteristics are produced by some
combination of social factors operating on individuals and individual inheritances and
experiences that they have. Microsocial processes that create the social dynamics that make it
important for the offenders to act violently, directing their violence towards more or less
particular targets and enabling the action to be taken. The failure of control mechanisms in the
10
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
family, the community, and at the institutional level, that should have been successful in
preventing and controlling the violent events.
It is clear that there are several explanations to explain aggression; some are more
accepted than others depending on a person’s school of thought. Nevertheless, due to the wealth
of information, violent crimes should be on the decline but the contrary is in occurrence. As a
result many studies have been conducted, to measure violence but more importantly, reduce it.
Some of the studies that were conducted in Barbados and the Caribbean will be examined.
Furthermore, the need for this present study will be explained.
Victor Hutchinson (2000) conducted a case study on violence in one of the newer
secondary schools in Barbados. His study involved interviews and observations of the principal,
the guidance counsellor, schools teachers who were teaching at the school for substantial periods
and ten students, five who were considered deviant and five who were considered non-deviant.
The case study also involved interviews and observations of the parents or guardians of the
children interviewed. The study also examined records of the school, relating to incidents of
violence. Hutchinson analysed data by percentage distribution frequency counts and compared
for patterns. He found that there were high levels of violence and indiscipline correlates between
student life and family life. The structure of his study allowed him to examine not only self
report answers from students but to capture a fuller picture from teachers and guidance
counsellors. In addition, it allowed him to examine the living atmosphere in which each child
resided and to draw conclusions from it and thus deserves great merit. Unfortunately,
conclusions drawn from ten students might not accurately reflect societal problems as it relates to
violence, as a result, a larger sample might be more useful.
11
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
In a much larger study conducted by the United Nations Secretary General (2006) on
youth violence in the Caribbean, various aspects of violence were explored. That study, which
looked at 16 nations in the Caribbean, collected information in stages. The first major source of
information was from published sources and researchers in the area, working in the Caribbean.
The second was from questionnaires which were sent by the office of the United Nations High
Commissioner on Human Rights to all governments in the region. These questionnaires were to
provide information on legal framework, institutional framework, and the role of civil society in
addressing violence against children. In addition, policies and programmes to address violence
against children, data collection and research, awareness, advocacy and training were also topics
which the questionnaire sought to gain information. Information was also taken from the
Caribbean Consultation on Violence against Children held on March 9-11, 2005 in Port of Spain,
Trinidad. This extensive study speaks to violence in work situations, homes and families,
communities and on the streets, schools and institutions. The study reports that there is a high
level of violence in schools and that a high number of students in the Caribbean had witnessed a
violent act at some point in their lives. In addition, the study stated that many students do not feel
safe at school. This study which references another study carried out in Jamaica states that 78.5%
of the students had witnessed violence in their communities, 60.8% in their schools and 44.7% in
their homes. More surprisingly, some students even reported having caused serious injury to
persons.
The study does admit that further research is needed as it relates to violence against
children in institutions. Children’s homes in Jamaica were investigated and the results named the
children’s status as dangerous and one that could possibly thwart development. These children
were subject to some form of abuse but that abuse was seemingly random. The study did not
12
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
state explicitly if the perpetrators in these cases were staff or other juveniles or if the abuse
occurred before they were institutionalised.
Subsequently Director of Youth Affairs, Richard Carter (2005) conducted further
research on youth violence. The survey, done in the form of a self-administered questionnaire,
involved five hundred and twenty-one (521) first to sixth form students from twenty (20) public
secondary schools in Barbados. Carter’s research suggested that there is the potential for extreme
violence in our school setting. More than half of the students that were interviewed in the study
reported that they did not consider school a safe place with 35.1 % cent worried about being hurt
whilst there. 60 % of the respondents witnessed fights weekly with 64.3 % of the respondents
stating that they had been involved in a violent incident in school. This study encompasses a
wide range of students of varying levels and therefore creates a much clearer picture of violence
levels in Barbados. The study however does not show which schools show higher levels of
violence so that those schools can be dealt with first, a huge disadvantage. If youth violence is to
be combated, due to limited resources, policy makers need to know which schools take priority,
or simply whether the interventions should start in older secondary schools or newer secondary
schools.
A long time ago, the only schools that were managed by the Government of Barbados
were considered older secondary schools and were modelled after the English Grammar schools
and were highly academic in nature. Government then sought to establish other schools for
students who did not pass to the prestigious older secondary schools. These schools came to be
known as newer secondary schools and had a curriculum that included academics, vocational and
technical subjects. Although the Education Act 1990 named all of these schools public schools,
13
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
they are still referred to by Barbadians as older and newer secondary schools and the
fundamental differences that existed years ago still persist today.
This research project seeks to measure the level of violence in the older and newer
secondary schools, and also in the Government Industrial Schools (GIS) Summervale (females)
and Dodd’s (males) and to compare the results. Of the 263 questionnaires that were distributed,
203 (77%) were returned completed. The older secondary schools that were chosen are Queens
College and Combermere Secondary and the two newer secondary schools that were chosen are
St. George Secondary and Princess Margaret Secondary. The terms older secondary and upper
secondary will be used interchangeably and are taken to mean the same thing as well as the terms
newer secondary and lower secondary. This approach is necessary so that levels of violence
could be attributed to particular schools for expeditious intervention in those schools as opposed
to a more difficult nation wide attempt to reduce school violence. It is certainly not intended to
single out any particular school or to widen the gap of inequality between them, but to help foster
the preparation of a plan for a safer society and safer schools.
This present study utilises the National School Crime and Safety Survey (NSCSS) (Used
with permission from Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence, see Appendix
II) which is a revised instrument with one of the first instruments being the Adolescence
Violence Survey. The Adolescence Violence Survey examined varying types of violence such as
inventive violence; common violence; passive aggression; menacing language; severe menacing
and impulsive violence (Kingery, 1998). The NSCSS like the Adolescence Violence Survey is a
self report questionnaire with multiple response options, yes and no and several likert style
scales, where students report their likely actions if they were shoved or hit etcetera or if they
believed they were good fighters and so on. The instrument measures student perpetration of
14
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
crime, victimization, defence mechanisms and perceived ability to fight. The predicted outcome
of the study is that all three areas of measure would reveal some level of violence but that on a
scale GIS would be higher than the older and newer secondary schools and that the newer
secondary schools would show a higher level of violence than the older secondary schools. This
might be so because of the categories that these three levels are placed in society. With the older
secondary schools being labelled as prestigious, the newer secondary being labelled as not as
academic and GIS labelled as the deviant group.
15
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Method
Subjects
They were 203 participants in this study. Some of the participants were from public
secondary schools and the others were from the Government Industrial Schools (GIS). The
students were selected randomly with the assistance of teaching staff. There were 35 students
from Combermere Secondary School, 52 students from Queens College, 16 students from
Princess Margaret Secondary, 61 students from St. George Secondary School and 39 students
from GIS. These students ranged from age 11 to age 19 with a mean age of 14.3 years (SD =
1.56). There were 91 males and 112 females. The male complement was comprised of 11
students from Combermere, 34 from Queens College, 6 from Princess Margaret Secondary , 17
from St. George Secondary, and 23 wards from GIS (Dodd’s). The female complement was
comprised of 24 students from Combermere Secondary, 18 from Queens College, 10 from
Princess Margaret Secondary, 44 from St. George Secondary and 16 wards from GIS
(Summervale). Each of the students participated voluntarily and was each given specially
marked pencils to encourage participation.
Materials
The National School Crime and Safety Survey (NSCSS) was used but was amended with
permission after a test – retest was done (see Appendix I). A copy of the permission letter to use
instrument and amend it is attached (D. White, personal communication, May 9, 2008) (see
Appendix II). The amended questionnaire consists of ten (10) items. The first four (4) items
collect demographic information such as age and gender. The fifth item and sixth item measures
the adolescent’s motivation to fight and their perceived ability to fight respectively. The seventh
item measures defence mechanisms and the last two (2) items measures victimisation by
16
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
common aggression and common perpetration. Sample item for motivation to fight is – “I will
probably get into a fight if someone (a) shoved me – and allows for answers on a likert scale, for
example, 1 strongly agrees – 5 strongly disagree. Reliability alpha was .71, this alpha was
deemed to indicate high internal consistency reliability for all scales.
Design
The design of the questionnaire is a between subjects design. The participants were
selected based on the categories they were in, example older secondary, newer secondary and
GIS but were selected randomly within the category. The dependent variable in this study was
violence and this was measured in various scales. There was the overall violence scale, the
defence mechanisms scale, the common perpetration scale, the victimization by common
aggression scale, the perceived ability to fight scale and the motivation to fight scale. The
independent variables are the various categories that these schools are placed in as previously
mentioned.
Procedure
Initially a letter seeking permission to conduct interviews and distribute questionnaires
was sent to the Ministry of Education. Principals of the various schools involved gave
permission to interview students, after receiving a letter detailing specific research that was
going to be carried out. Students were told about the importance of the research and about the
problem that Barbados faces as it relates to violence in schools. They were also told that their
answers would remain confidential and that they should answer freely. The questionnaires were
administered to GIS (Dodds) individually, through the form of an interview, as some of the
juveniles there needed help interpreting some of the questions due to literacy problems. All other
questionnaires were administered to the students in a classroom setting. The students at the
17
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
various schools were chosen randomly and the institutions were chosen based on their status as
an older secondary school or a newer secondary school or Government Industrial School. The
test took approximately 35 minutes to complete and the information was collected over a period
of five weeks.
18
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Results
Scores received from students were processed using One-Way ANOVA and Independent
Sample t-test. The results show that there was a no significant mean difference amongst the
different categories on overall scores on the overall violence scale. F (2,198) = 2.24, N = 203, p
> .05. Table 1 shows the results.
Table 1 Mean scores within the categories of lower secondary, upper secondary and wards
on the overall violence scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Lower 50.53 8.49
Upper 52.94 9.63
Wards 54.20 11.29
There was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall
scores on the defence mechanisms scale. F (2, 200) = 1.19, N = 203, p > .05. However, there
was a significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the
common perpetration scale. F (2, 200) = 6.28, N = 203, p < .05. As illustrated in Figure 1,
students in the categories of the lower secondary school show lower levels of violence as it
relates to common perpetration (M = 10.08, SD = 4.21) than students in the upper secondary
category (M = 11.25, SD = 5.08) and in the wards (M = 13.56, SD = 6.14)
19
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Figure 1 Mean plots of student scores within the categories of lower secondary, upper
secondary and wards on the common perpetration scale.
Error Bars show 95.0% Cl of Mean
lower upper wards
category
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Co
mm
on
Pe
rpetr
ati
on
10.08
11.25
13.56
CI – Confidence Interval
These significant differences were between lower secondary schools and wards (M =
3.49, p = .001) and between upper secondary schools and wards (M = 2.31, p = .046) see Figure
1. There was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores
on the victimization by common aggression scale F (2, 200) = 2.23, N = 203, p > .05.
Additionally there was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall
scores on the perceived ability to fight scale F (2, 200) = 2.42, N = 203, p > .05. Moreover, there
was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the
motivation to fight scale F (2, 200) = .09, N = 203, p > .05.
When scores from the various schools and institutions were submitted the results showed
that there was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall
20
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
scores on the overall violence scale. F (5,195) = 4.40, N = 203, p < .05. Table 2 shows the
results, also see Figure 2 below.
Table 2 Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the overall violence
scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Dodds 51.83 8.54
Summervale 57.63 13.95
Queen’s College 55.90 10.43
Princess Margaret 51.50 6.97
Combermere 48.54 6.17
St. George Secondary 50.27 8.90
Figure 2, below, illustrates clearly that there was a significant mean difference between
Summervale and Combermere on the overall violence scale (M = 9.08, p = .02), that there was a
significant mean difference between Queen’s College and Combermere on the overall violence
scale (M = 7.36, p = .005) and that there was a significant mean difference between Queens’s
College and St. George Secondary on the overall violence scale (M = 5.63, p = .020)
21
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Figure 2 Mean plots of student scores from the various schools and institutions on the
overall violence scale.
There was no significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on
overall scores on the defence mechanisms scale. F (5,197) = .76, N = 203, p > .05. However,
there was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall scores
on the common perpetration scale. F (5, 197) = 4.89, N = 203, p < .05. As illustrated in Table 3,
these significant differences were between Summervale and Princess Margaret (M = 5.37, p
= .027), between Summervale and Combermere (M = 6.03, p = .001) and between Summervale
and St. George Secondary (M = 5.67, p = .001)
22
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Table 3 Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the common
perpetration scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Dodds 12.09 5.13
Summervale 15.69 6.99
Queen’s College 15.33 5.87
Princess Margaret 10.31 4.39
Combermere 9.65 3.04
St. George Secondary 10.01 4.20
There was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall
scores on the victimization by common aggression scale F (5, 197) = 4.18, N = 203, p < .05.
There was a significant mean difference between Queen’s College and Combermere (M = 4.12, p
= .004) and there was a significant mean difference between Queen’s College and St. George (M
= 3.22, p = .012) the results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the victimisation by
common aggression scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Dodds 13.47 4.60
Summervale 15.94 7.30
Queen’s College 16.35 5.95
Princess Margaret 12.69 4.80
23
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Combermere 12.22 2.80
St. George Secondary 13.13 4.73
There was no significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on
overall scores on the perceived ability to fight scale F (5, 197) = 1.73, N = 203, p > .05
Neither, was there a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall
scores on the motivation to fight scale F (5, 195) = .400, N = 203, p > .05.
No significant mean difference amongst gender on overall scores on the overall violence
scale was seen t (199) = 1.650, p = .10. Table 5 illustrates means score for males were (M =
53.52, SD = 9.91) and females (M = 51.30, SD = 9.33)
Table 5 Mean scores of males and females on the overall violence scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Male 53.52 9.91
Female 51.30 9.33
There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the defence mechanisms
scale t (201) = -.134, p = .90. Table 6 illustrates mean score for males (M = 6.38, SD = 1.85) and
females (M = 6.42, SD = 1.84)
Table 6 Mean scores of males and females on the defence mechanism scale
Mean Standard Deviation
Male 6.38 1.85
Female 6.42 1.84
24
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
There however was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the common
perpetration scale t (201) = 2.253, p = .02. Table 7 illustrates mean score for males (M = 12.14,
SD = 5.60) and females (M = 10.52, SD = 5.70)
Table 7 Mean scores of males and females on the common perpetration scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Male 12.14 5.60
Female 10.52 5.70
There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the victimization by
common aggression scale t (201) = .959, p = .34. Table 8 illustrates mean score for males (M =
14.42, SD = 5.70) and females (M = 13.71, SD = 4.91)
Table 8 Mean scores of males and females on the victimization by common aggression
scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Male 14.42 5.70
Female 13.71 4.91
There was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the perceived ability to fight
scale t (201) = -3.81, p = .000. Table 9 illustrates mean score for males (M = 6.04, SD = 1.94)
and females (M = 6.97, SD = 1.53)
Table 9 Mean scores of males and females on the perceived ability to fight scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Male 6.04 1.94
25
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Female 6.97 1.53
There was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the motivation to fight scale t
(199) = 1.33, p = .19. Table 10 illustrates mean score for males (M = 14.53, SD = 4.99) and
females (M = 13.70, SD = 4.06)
Table 10 Mean scores of males and females on the motivation to fight scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Male 14.53 4.99
Female 13.70 4.06
There were 121 students who lived in single parent homes, 69 who lived in nuclear
family structures and 13 who lived in homes with an extended family structure, Figure 3
illustrates the statistics.
Figure 3 The number of participants who lived in single parent, nuclear or extended
family structure.
26
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
There was no significant mean difference on overall scores relative to the living
arrangements on the overall violence scale F (2, 198) = 1.73 N = 203, p > .05
Neither, was there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements
on the defence mechanism scale F (2, 200) = .10 N = 203, p > .05. However, there was a
significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the common
perpetration scale F (2, 200) = 3.62 N = 203, p < .05. Table 11 illustrates the results.
Table 11 Mean scores of students in various living arrangements on the common
perpetration scale.
Mean Standard Deviation
Single Parent 11.21 5.20
Nuclear Family 10.70 4.62
Extended Family 14.80 6.40
27
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
There was no significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living
arrangements on the victimisation by common aggression scale F (2, 200) = .84, N = 203, p
> .05. Neither was there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living
arrangements on the perceived ability to fight scale F (2, 200) = 2.64, N = 203, p > .05 nor was
there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the
motivation to fight scale F (2, 198) = 1.73 N = 203, p > .06
28
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Discussion
203 students from three separate school categories were interviewed in this study, and all
of them showed some degree of violence. Interestingly, there was no significant difference
between the categories of lower secondary, upper secondary and wards on the overall violence
scale. However, GIS did score a higher mean than the other two institutions, and therefore the
first research hypothesis, i.e. that GIS students would demonstrate a higher level of violence,
must be accepted. The upper secondary category scored higher than the lower secondary
category and therefore the second research hypothesis had to be rejected. One possible
explanation is that the attention that is placed on the violence which occurs in lower secondary
schools and the attention placed on the perceived deviant wards shadows violence which occurs
in the upper secondary schools.
Lower secondary schools have been plagued with the notion that they were non-
academic, deviant, more vocational, and more suited for under achievers. These results could
serve to enlighten persons who always thought negatively of the lower secondary schools.
Although the reason that the lower secondary schools scored lower on this scale could be due a
sampling bias by the lower secondary schools as students were selected with the assistance of the
guidance counsellor. This could be avoided by increasing the sample size of a future study.
Findings also show that there is no significant difference on the defence mechanisms
scale this implies that the youth in this sample choose to defend themselves in similar ways. Not
surprisingly on the common perpetration scale, wards showed a higher mean than the other two
categories. This result was expected and is in accordance with the research hypothesis, but the
higher secondary schools, measure higher on this scale than the lower secondary. This may have
been due to the similar reasons discussed above.
29
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
No differences were seen on the common aggression scale, the perceived ability to fight
scale or the motivation to fight scale. It is not unreasonable to suggest that most adolescents deal
with violence on these scales in similar ways, hence the reason there are no significant
differences but again this result could be due to a sampling bias.
When scores were processed by ANOVA in the category of institutions, there were
differences between schools on the overall violence scale. As expected there were differences
between Summervale and Combermere because of the category they were in (Summervale –
wards, Combermere – upper Secondary). There were also differences between Queen’s College
and St. George Secondary for the same reason mentioned above. There was also a difference
between Queen’s College and Combermere, this was not expected because they both fall into the
category of upper secondary school.
Again on the defence mechanisms scale, there were no significant differences amongst
the types of school, again implying that students or at least this sample dealt with violence in
similar ways. On the common perpetration scale, there were significant differences amongst
schools; these were between Summervale and Princess Margaret, Summervale and Combermere
and Summervale and St. George Secondary. This is because they all fall into different categories.
Summervale being labelled as one of the deviant group show that deviant potentiality suits that
class.
On the victimisation by common aggression scale, there was also a significant difference.
These differences were between Queen’s College and Combermere and Queen’s College and St.
George Secondary.
30
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
There were no differences on the motivation to fight scale or the perceived ability to fight
scale. This maybe that generally adolescents have similar perceptions about fighting ability and
are motivated to fight on similar levels and for similar reasons.
Both males and females measure similarly on the overall scale. There was no significant
difference, although males scored a slightly higher mean than females, it is not enough to address
the issue that one sex is more aggressive than the next. This similarity between genders could be
that, at least at school, males and females are treated in similar ways. These results are validated
by research conducted prior to this study. According to Archer (1993), “men and women would
behave identically if treated identically”. The finding that there was no significance difference
between genders in aggression scales was also found in previous research by Richardson (2005).
She found that aggressive acts between the genders could have been a function of the nature of
the relationship of participants, whether intimate, and close friendships or acquaintances. Her
findings and this present study suggests that there are more dimensions to aggression and that
gender in of itself is not always a clear indicator, although it does impact on aggression. Lines
(2007) suggested also that a range of factors exist like mixing with different friends or the efforts
of significant teachers and youth leaders who have willed them to be positive products. Some of
these factors serve to agitate acute violence.
There were no significant differences on the defence mechanism scale. However, in the
common perpetration scale males showed a significantly higher mean than females. Males are
thought of as more deviant than females and findings on this scale partially confirms that. Their
socialisation ensures this. Girls are taught to be lady like and so on, and therefore do not always
exude the same amount of deviance as some males (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). According to
Frisén, Jonsson, & Persson, (2007) research has shown that boys are more often involved in
31
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
physical bullying than girls, both as bullies and victims but the sex difference is less pronounced
for verbal bullying and is sometimes the reverse for indirect bullying.
There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the victimisation by
common aggression scale but there were significant differences on the perceived ability to fight
scale. Males perceive themselves as being more able to fight than females. Findings also show
that males were more motivated to fight than females. Although, “there is the possibility that the
two genders have the same degree of motivation to be aggressive but … men are more likely to
act out such violent impulses [more so] than women” (Archer & Lloyd, 1985).
Most of the students in this study lived in a single parent household 121 (59.6 %) with
only 13 (6.4 %) students living in homes with an extended family structure. There were no
significant differences on any scale except in the common perpetration scale. Surprisingly,
children in extended family homes scored higher on this scale, this result may have been
different if the sample size was larger. Previous research suggests that adolescents in single
parent homes are more deviant because single parents have fewer resources (Lareau, 1989;
Thompson, Alexander & Entwisle, 1988), have less time to supervise them (Thomson,
McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992) and are less likely to form strong parent child bonds as the only
breadwinner (Bellair & Roscigno, 2000).
This study adds to the body of literature on violence research studies in Barbados.
Violence from these findings appears to be a social epidemic. To reduce it persons must first
admit that the violence levels are out of control. Although some of the results received were not
expected. The study shows that there is a high level of violence and that the highest level is seen
in the Government Industrial Schools. Therefore social partners should seek recommendations as
how to deal with this problem and employ any interventions at the GIS first.
32
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Increased security, which in an intervention that has limited scope, is one of the most
common recommendations aiming to reduce violence, however, evidence shows through
research that this is very ineffective (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). This could be due to the
previously discussed frustration aggression theory, where a more intense secured atmosphere
serves as a precipitate to violence. A neighbourhood or community intervention which is a
comprehensive approach involving all institutions that serve the youth is a reasonable deterrence
for violence (Elliott, 1994). It should include all institutions that serve youth, such as, the family,
school, health agencies, and justice systems. This umbrella group could then develop task focus
groups such as family support programmes, community development cooperation, school based
clinics and counselling facilities.
These specialised focus groups are important, studies have shown that single approach
programmes prove to have a mild positive affect in reducing aggression and violence behaviour
even when compared to multiple approach programmes (Park-Higgerson, Perumean-Chaney,
Bartolucci, Grimley, & Singh, 2008). For example, the counselling role should be one that is
focused on by one sub group, if it is generalised the focus may be lost and others factors may
become the focus. According to Lines (2007) not all high-risk youngsters become violent adults
and sometimes counselling provides positive change.
It is recommended for future research to conduct longitudinal studies to see how the
students within the three main categories progress. These studies could test whether adolescents
in the various categories continue to be aggressive or if they become productive products of
society. Also, teachers could be interviewed, using the already developed teacher version of the
questionnaire, to see if there is any connection between what they view as violent and what
adolescents view as violent. Additionally, future research should compare socio-economic status
33
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
within the categories; this could provide social care providers with the much needed information
necessary to attend the problem of underachievement and aggression due to poverty. Finally, a
larger sample size should be used, collecting data from a larger number of the secondary schools,
thereby allowing for the research interest to paint a clearer picture of the problem on the whole.
34
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
References
Abelson, R. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist,
36(7), 715-729. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1982-04621-001&site=ehost-live&scope
=site
Archer, J. (1993). Male Violence: London: Routledge
Archer, J. & Lloyd, B. Sex and Gender. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation
of aggressive models. Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.
Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=mnh&AN=13864605&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Beck, S. (2005). Social Psychology. Retrieved on January 9, 2009, from
http://www1.appstate.edu/~beckhp/aggfrustrationagg.htm
Bellair, P., & Roscigno, V. (2000, June). Local Labor-Market Opportunity and
Adolescent Delinquency. Social Forces, 78(4), 1509-1538. Retrieved February 24, 2009,
from Academic Search Complete database http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3421673&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Berk, L. E. (2006). Child Development (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Best, R. (2005, June 14). Best on Tuesday – Violence among girls. The Nation
Newspaper. from http://www.nationnews.com
Brain, P. F. & Benton, D. (1980). The Biology of Aggression. Netherlands: Sijthoff and
Noordhoh International Publishers
Cairns, R. B. (1973). Fighting and Punishment from a Developmental Perspective.
35
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1972 (pp. 59-124). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Carter, R. (2005). Report on Violence in Schools and Community Survey. Ministry of
Education. Barbados
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990) Peer Rejection in Childhood (S. R.
Asher & J. D.Coie, Eds). USA: Cambridge University Press
Collins, W., & Getz, S. (1976). Children's social responses following modeled reactions to
provocation: Prosocial effects of a television drama. Journal of Personality, 44(3), 488.
Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx ?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7379415&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Dugan, M. A. (2004). Beyond Intractability. Retrieve January 8, 2009, from
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/aggression/
Eagly, A. H. (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: A Social-role Interpretation.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Education Act 1990 Cap 41 of the Laws of Barbados
Elliott, D. S. (1994). Youth Violence: An Overview. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/papers/CSPV-008.pdf
Frisén, A., Jonsson, A., & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescents’ Perception of Bullying: Who
is the Victim? Who is the Bully? What Can Be Done To Stop Bullying? Adolescence.
Retrieved January 18, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=
28031059&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Geen, R. G. (2000). Human Aggression (2nd ed.). Retrieved January 05, 2009, from
36
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
http://www.mcgrawhill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204716.pdf
Geen, R., & Berkowitz, L. (1967). Some conditions facilitating the occurrence
of aggression after the observation of violence. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 666-676.
Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=aph&AN=8935140&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Gillespie, W. (1971). Aggression and instinct theory. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis,
52(2), 155-160. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from PsycINFO database from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1974-20267-
001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Goldstein, J. S. (2003). War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and
Vice Versa. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Government Information Service. (2006). Out of Control. The Nation
Newspaper. from http://www.nationnews.com
Huesmann, L. R., & Malamuth, N. M. (1986). Media Violence and Antisocial Behaviour:
An Overview. Journal of Social Issues. 42, 1-6 Retrieved on January 11, 2009, from
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/86jsi42_1.pdf
Hutchinson, V. (2000). A study of violence and indiscipline in a secondary school in
Barbados. MA. University of the West Indies. Barbados
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1995). Reducing School Violence through Conflict
Resolution. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Kingery, P. M., 1998 the Adolescent Violence Survey – A Psychometric Analysis
University of Kentucky, USA
Krahé, B. (2001). The Social Psychology of Aggression. New York: Psychology Press.
37
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Landis, C. (1939). [Review of Frustration and aggression]. Psychological Bulletin, 36(8),
699-700. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2006-01837-018&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Lareau, A. (1989) Home Advantage: Social Class & Parental in Elementary Education.
New York: Falmer Press
Lines, D. (2007). Violence in School: What Can We Do?. Pastoral Care in
Education. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24998472&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression. London. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. USA:
Stanford University Press
Maxon, S. C. (1998). Homologous Genes, Aggression and Animal Models.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 14, 143–156
Moore, M. H., Petrie, C. V., Braga, A. A., McLaughlin, B. L., (Eds). (2003). Deadly
Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence. Case Studies of School Violence
Committee: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
Morlan, G. (1949). A note on the frustration-aggression theories of Dollard and
his associates. Psychological Review, 56(1), 1-8. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1949-03113-
001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Park-Higgerson, H., Perumean-Chaney, S., Bartolucci, A., Grimley, D., & Singh, K.
38
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
(2008). The Evaluation of School-Based Violence Prevention Programs: A Meta-
Analysis. Journal of School Health. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33533368&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Potter, J. W. (1999). On Media Violence. New York: SAGE.
Reiss, A. J., & Roth, J. A. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Violence: A
Sourcebook of International Research. New York: National Academies Press.
Richardson, D. (2005). The Myth of Female Passivity: Thirty Years of
Revelations About Female Aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Retrieved
October 19, 2008 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=a9h&AN=18035858&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Smith, A. (2004). Theories of Aggression. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1809
The National School Crime and Safety Survey. (1998). Hamilton Fish Institute on School
and Community Violence. The George Washington University.
Thomson, E., McLanahan, S., & Curtin, R. (1992). Family Structure, Gender, and
Parental Socialization. Journal of Marriage & Family, 54(2), 368-378. Retrieved
February 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9206082090&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Thompson, M., Alexander, K., & Entwisle, D. (1988). Household
Composition, Parental Expectations, and School Achievement. Social Forces, 67(2), 424.
Retrieved February 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database
39
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5285587&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Toch, H. (1992). Violent Men: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Violence. Hyattsville,
MD: American Psychological Association.
Turner, C., Simons, L., Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A. (1977). The Stimulating and Inhibiting
Effects of Weapons on Aggressive Behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 3(4), 355-378.
Retrieved January 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
United Nations Secretary General. (2006). Violence against Children in the Caribbean
Region Regional Assessment: Study on Violence against Children. Retrieved on
November 16, 2008 from http://www.uwi.edu/ccdc/downloads/
Violence_against_children.pdf
White Paper on Education Reform for Barbados. The Planning Section, Ministry of
Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, Barbados. July 1995.
Youth Crime on rise. (2006, September 20). The Nation Newspaper. from
http://www.nationnews.com
Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and Aggression. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
40
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Appendix I
41
Violence in Schools – A Comparison 42
Violence in Schools – A Comparison 43
Violence in Schools – A Comparison
Appendix II
Dear Martin Hall,
The original Adolescent Violence Survey has been revised more than
a few times. In its current form, it is called the National School
Crime and Safety Survey or NSCSS.
There are no restrictions on the use of the NSCSS; we simply ask
that you cite the Hamilton Fish Institute as the source for the
instrument.
Please note that questions 1-15 on the student form and questions
1-13 on the staff form are standard. You may add questions to the
supplemental section for your specific needs.
I have attached current versions of both surveys.
Good luck. We look forward to reading your research paper. Please
let us know if you have any other questions.
Sincerely yours,
Dennis L. White, Research & Policy AnalystHamilton Fish Institute on School and Community ViolenceThe George Washington University2121 K Street NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20037-1830202-496-8491202-496-6244 (fax)http://www.hamfish.org
44