Students’ Perceptions of Unsafe Schools: An Ecological Systems Analysis
In the aftermath of several school shooting incidents in recent years, students’ perceptions of unsafe schools has been a major concern for parents, teachers, school officials, school practitioners, and policy-makers. Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework, we examined the micro-, meso-, and exosystem level factors associated with perceptions of unsafe school environments in a nationally representative sample of 10- to 15-year-old youth in the United States. We found that for the socio-demographic characteristics, students who were older, male, and poor had increased risks of perceiving higher levels of unsafe school environments. Within the microsystem of the family, our results indicate that parent-youth discussions of school activities/events decreased the risk of students perceiving unsafe schools. All of the school environment variables—ease of making friends, teachers’ involvement, observed weapon carrying, and school rule enforcement—were related in the expected direction to students’ perceiving their schools as unsafe. At the mesosystem level, findings from our study demonstrate that variables measuring parental school involvement were unrelated to perceptions of school safety. Finally, at the exosystem level, we found that students’ perceptions of residing in a safer neighborhood and residence in a non-central city metropolitan area, compared with a central city, decreased the odds of perceiving school environments as unsafe. School policy and practice implications are discussed.
KeywordsSchool safety Ecological model Family environment Neighborhood environment School environment
- Allison, P. D. (2001). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
- Bachman, R., Randolph, A., & Brown, B. L. (2010). Predicting perceptions of fear at school and going to and from school for African American and White students: The effects of school security measures. Youth & Society, 1–22. doi:10.1177/0044118X10366674.
- Bowen, G. L., Bowen, N. K., & Richman, J. M. (2000). School size and middle school students’ perceptions of the school environment. Social Work in Education, 22, 69–82.Google Scholar
- Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and lossm, Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 2, pp. 1643–1647). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- Center for Human Resource Research. (2004). NLSY 79 child & young adult data users guide. Washington, DC: Center for Human Resource Research.Google Scholar
- Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., Baum, K., & Snyder, T. D. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety (NCES 2010-012/NCJ 228478). Retrieved July 9, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2009/.
- Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Eamon, M. K. (2001). Poverty, parenting, peer, and neighborhood influences on young adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Social Service Research, 18, 1–23.Google Scholar
- Epstein, J. L., & Lee, S. (1995). National patterns of school and family connections in the middle grades. In B. A. Ryan, G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family-school connection, Vol. 2. Theory, research and practice (pp. 108–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383.Google Scholar
- Laub, J., & Lauritsen, J. (1998). The interdependence of school violence with neighborhood and family conditions. In D. Elliott, B. Hamburg, & K. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools (pp. 55–93). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lizotte, A. J., & Sheppard, D. (2001). Gun use by male juveniles: Research and prevention (Juvenile Justice Bulletin, NCJ 188992). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
- Meyer, E. J. (2008). A feminist reframing of bullying and harassment: Transforming schools through critical pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 43, 33–48.Google Scholar
- Miller, D., & Chen, V. (2006, December) Imputation methods document. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://search-results.aset.psu.edu/search?q=imputation+methods+document&btnG=Search&client=PennState&proxystylesheet=PennState&output=xml_no_dtd&site=PRI.
- Nelson, G. M. (2000). Self-governance in communities and families. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
- Phillips, M., & Chin, T. (2004). School inequality: What do we know? In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 467–519). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Sheridan, S. M., Warnes, E. D., & Dowd, S. (2004). Home-school collaboration and bullying: An ecological approach to increase social competence in children and youth. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 245–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Shumow, L., & Lomax, R. G. (2001). Predicting perceptions of school safety. School Community Journal, 11, 93–112.Google Scholar
- US Department of Education. (2010). OSDFS: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/programs.html.
- US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000). NLS handbook, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.Google Scholar