December
1, 1997, Michael Carneal, a freshman in West Paducah, Kentucky opened fire on
his classmates, killing three and wounding five. One year later, on March 5, 1998, Mitchell Woodward
shot and killed five classmates and wounded eleven in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Just one year after that, Eric Harris and
Dylan Kleibold committed the most heinous act of school violence in United
States History in Littleton, Colorado.
There, in Columbine High School, Harris and Kleibold killed twelve
students, a teacher and later took their own lives. Random acts of school violence seemed to
spread across the nation undetected, and protecting no one.
These events occurred only a few years ago, and
it is important for college students to recognize the issue of school violence
as a problem that must not go unnoticed.
While for the most part, college campuses are isolated from the
incidents of violence that engulf many high schools and middle schools, it is
possible that college students could be indirectly affected by school
tragedies. For example, one may have a
friend whose sister was in a shooting, or a cousin whose school was on lock
down. Furthermore, there may come a day
when one’s own child will be at school desperately hiding from another angry
classmate. For these reasons, it is
important to address school violence as a significant problem and institute
methods of prevention.
Following
the shootings in West Paducah, Kentucky, Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Littleton,
Colorado, many people began searching for similarities between all three
incidents. Among these similarities were
certain characteristics possessed by the shooters. Michael Carneal, the shooter in West Paducah
was “fed up with school, parents not paying attention and nobody caring about
him,” according to his defense psychologist Dewey Cornwell (Malone 80). In Jonesboro, Arkansas, Mitchell Woodard was
described as angry, and had a long list of past incidents of trouble (Malone 80). Later, in Littleton Colorado, Eric Harris and
Dylan Kleibold were also social outcasts, who were constantly teased, and
therefor very angry and filled with rage (Malone 80). These common characteristics shared between
shooters have led many educators and lawmakers to profile potentially violent
students. Many educators have used a
checklist provided by the National School Safety Center, which consists of
characteristics of students who would be likely to commit an act of violence
(NSSC). Such characteristics include, displaying antisocial behavior, having a
history of bullying, or being bullied, and preferring read or watch material
containing violence. In many cases,
students possessing these traits have been suspended, and forced to attend
personality changing counseling sessions.
Is this truly a good solution in preventing school violence? Many people have disagreed. So what are the alternatives? Alternatives to profiling can be divided up
into three approaches including the educator’s approach, the parental approach
and the legislative approach.
The
educator’s approach to preventing school violence is aimed at using school
personnel as a positive way to combat school violence. Educators share two different ways to prevent
school violence, including pairing students with community involvement and
reducing school sizes. First, many educators see families and communities as
the “root” cause of violence in schools (Casella 349). The belief is that school violence may be
decreased by increasing school involvement with communities. So, in an effort to prevent school violence,
many schools have formed strong alliances with communities. Their main purpose is to let students know
that within the community in which they learn, there are people who care about
them, and want to help them with any problems they may have. In New York City, community alliances within
schools demonstrate a strong local commitment to, “the formation of
partnerships among a community based organization, and a nonprofit organization
with a demonstrated commitment to expertise in developing education programs or
providing educational services to students. The city had also promoted, “a
local law enforcement agency or any combination thereof and a high level of
youth participation in such projects or activities” (Casella 349). Likewise, in 1999, at Brandon High School in
New York, the town’s people of the city of Brandon formed a support group for
students made up of volunteers, and many people who had been affected by school
violence in the past. The group even
held a meeting which was named, the Community Town Meeting to Re- Invest in Our
Youth. Among the topics discussed were
youth and police relationships organizing evening social activities for youth
and creating supportive services for youth during and after school (Casella
349). The project coordinator expressed
how great it was to see that, “people could come together in a joint effort to
rid our schools of violence” (Casella).
The
second argument that educators make is that schools need to be smaller in order
for the threat of school violence to dwindle.
James Garbarino, director of the Family Life Development Center and
professor of human development at Cornell University stated, “If I could do one
single thing to prevent violence, it would be to ensure that teenagers are not
in a high school bigger than four to five hundred students. If you want safe schools, get schooling down
to size” (Klonsky 65). According to the
1999 report by the National Center for Education Statistics, schools with over
one thousand students are eight times more likely to report violence incidents
than schools with three hundred or less students (Klonsky 65). In his article,
“How Smaller Schools Prevent School Violence,” Mitchell Klonsky reports the
success that one school in Rhode Island has had in having a low
enrollment. At Perspectives High School
in Providence, Rhode Island, the main purpose of having smaller schools it to
increase the visibility of each student.
With an enrollment of less than four hundred, teachers are responsible
for fourteen students, which allows teacher to know their students better. As a result, the school has experienced one
-eighteenth the rate of suspensions regarding violence as other schools in
Providence (Klonsky 65). Both involving communities and cutting school size
down are much more positive alternatives to profiling in the attempt to prevent
school violence, and seem to be working.
Those
seeking the parental approach believe parents should practice positive
parenting techniques and need to be more involved in the lives of their
children. According to Carolyn Pereia
from the Educational Resources Information Center, parents should do two things
when raising their children to let them know they are cared for. First, parents need to recognize positive
accomplishments in their children.
Pereia suggests, “Kids need to know they’re on the right track” (Pereia
1). Second, parents should have high
expectations of their kids academically and socially. Pereia states, “If key people in a child’s
environment give clear and constant signals that violence is not the norm,
children will be more likely to develop anti-violent patterns of behavior”
(Pereia 1).
Similarly,
in the article, “School Violence- Family Responsibility”, Patricia Neufeld
conducted an experiment proving that parent involvement reduces aggression that
would cause a student to become violent.
The experiment concluded that parental involvement was positively
correlated with positive student attitudes towards schools and negatively
correlated with problem behaviors such as school violence and aggression
(Neufeld 207). The purpose of parents
being more involved is to become more familiar with the feelings of their kids.
Parents who are more aware of how their kids feel about school can help them to
solve the problems that they may be facing before they become violent (Neufeld
207). Second, a child whose parents are
more available is less likely to hold resentment towards their parents, and
take their aggression out on classmates when they get to school (Neufeld
207). Overall, parents need to be more
involved in their kids’ lives to become familiar with how their kids feel, and
to decrease the animosity that their kids feel towards them, so that the anger
is not brought to school.
Finally,
the legislative approach is aimed at providing funding to schools to prevent
violence, and impending tougher gun laws.
In his article, “Where the Policy Meets the Pavement: Stages of Public
Involvement in the Prevention of School Violence,” Ronnie Casella suggests that
schools need to implement programs aimed at preventing violence, however, they
do not have the money in their budgets to do so. Casella reports, that there
should be more laws such as President Clinton’s Gun Free Schools Act. The law mandates that schools enact a zero
tolerance policy in regards to firearms, and if the schools do not, then their
funding will be confiscated. The purpose of establishing more laws such as the
one above is to give schools initiatives to prevent school violence. This funding from the government can be used
to support programs that link schools to community organizations aimed at
preventing school violence (Casella 353). In fact, Casella reports that in
1999, three million dollars was given to schools to develop violence prevention
programs (Casella 353). Casella believes
that the establishment of more laws will decrease the incidents of school
violence (Casella b353).
Similarly,
legislators propose that there need to be stricter gun laws with harsher
consequences to make students think twice about bringing a gun to school. According to Richard E. Redding and Sarah M.
Shalf, in their article, “The Legal Contexts of School Violence: The
Effectiveness of Federal, State, and Local Efforts to Reduce Gun Violence in
Schools,” a gun law is currently being proposed. The Violent and Repeat
Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act’s goal is to have
strict consequences for juveniles having guns in school. The law would provide a maximum twenty year
sentence for carrying weapons in school zones and adds semiautomatic assault
weapons and automatic feeding devices as weapons forbidden for juveniles
(Redding and Shalf 297). It is believed
that if legislators provide funding to schools, and input tougher gun control
laws, then school violence will be less prevalent.
All
in all, the alternatives proposed by those seeking the educator’s approach, the
parental approach and the legislative approach are all positive solutions to
preventing school violence incidents in the United States. Many believe that
profiling is not the best method of prevention , so educators, parents and
legislators are seeking other alternatives in keeping America’s schools safe. It is important for college students to
learn about these alternatives because their children’s future in school may be
impacted by the preventions put in place today.