Thinking About School Safety

Lesson No. 1: Safety means different things to different people

Though obvious, it is necessary to reaffirm the fact that safety is a matter of perception. Perceptions, in turn, are highly influenced by experience. Someone who has experienced an assault is likely to think about safety differently from someone who has never been attacked. Those who know firsthand what it means to be victimized are less likely, for example, to take safety for granted. In schools serving poor students from high-crime neighborhoods, middle-class teachers with little personal experience of violence may find it difficult to comprehend what their students are thinking about as they sit in class. Someone who has never worried about what awaits them on the journey home or once they arrive may not appreciate the escalating anxiety that builds as the day goes on and intrudes on classroom learning. Someone who has never been abused by a family member may not understand why offers of help are met with distrust and wariness.

We have learned over the years that people's tolerance for certain behaviors varies considerably (Coleman, 1992, pp. 19–20). These variations reflect how they think about safety. One person may have a high tolerance for criticism and barbed humor, but another person is ready to fight at the drop of a sarcastic remark. It is not always easy to understand what factors in an individual's life conspire to produce a violent reaction. Our own perceptions frequently form a substantial barrier to understanding perceptions of others. Failure to understand, unfortunately, may only serve to exacerbate volatile situations.

Because school safety means different things to different people, it is prudent for educators to avoid assuming that consensus exists regarding such matters as the perceived level of safety in school or the best ways to combat safety threats. One violent incident, for example, may prompt some individuals to regard their school as unsafe. Others, because of their experiences, may treat fights and aggressive behavior as commonplace acts that do not necessitate great concern or unusual measures. Educators cannot turn back the clock and alter what students, staff members, and parents have experienced, nor can they easily dislodge inaccurate perceptions of school safety. What educators can do, though, is help people become aware of their different beliefs about safety and how best to achieve it.

Lesson No. 2: People confront threats to school safety with different mental models

How people think about matters such as school safety is highly influenced by what Senge (1990, pp. 174–204) calls "mental models." A mental model is a deeply held conviction about how the world works. Mental models range from simple generalizations, such as "some kids are just bad kids," to elaborate theories of human motivation. The power of mental models resides in the fact that they determine what we attend to. If we believe that unsafe schools are caused by a small number of "bad kids," we are unprepared to look for underlying conditions that contribute to violent and disruptive behavior.

Whether one reads books by experts or listens to citizens at public hearings on school safety, it is hard to ignore the variety of mental models that guide how people think about school safety. Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams (1998, pp. 17–20) identify four theories that have guided research on school violence: social-ecological theory, life course theory, developmental theory, and public health theory. Coleman (1992, p. 20) reports that behavior disorders can be accounted for by five different conceptual models: behavioral, biophysical, psychodynamic, ecological, and sociological.

Highly formalized theories, conceptual models, and perspectives are more reflective of the thinking of researchers and experts than citizens in general. The mental models that characterize the thinking of nonexperts are apt to be less complex and more straightforward. Some people, for example, are convinced that public schools cannot be made safe for all students. Each violent incident, no matter how isolated, serves to confirm their cynicism. They expect the worst of their fellow man, and they are never disappointed. Believing that human nature is basically self-serving and aggressive, they approach life as if it were a matter of "survival of the fittest."

Other people possess mental models that recognize the possibility of safe schools. These individuals frequently express their beliefs with suppositions. "If only the troublemakers were removed, this school would be a safe place for everyone." The author once participated in a school improvement project at an urban junior high school. The faculty believed that, if a small number of disruptive students were placed in an alternative school, the remaining students would have a productive and problem-free educational experience. An alternative school was, in fact, created in an annex to the school, and the chronically disruptive students were assigned to it. Within three months, faculty members had identified a new group of disruptive students who stood between them and the goal of a peaceful and effective school.

Decades of initiatives designed to create safe schools have taught that the best mental models are not those based on a single solution to a complex problem. Because unsafe schools are the result of more than one cause, it is unlikely that "one best strategy" will transform them into safe schools. Multiple approaches are necessary. The first challenge for anyone committed to making schools safe for all students, therefore, is to provide opportunities for students, staff members, and parents to examine their mental models.

Lesson No. 3: Reflection is often a better response to safety problems than reaction

Teachers and school administrators contend on a daily basis with time constraints. There is never enough time to accomplish everything that needs to be done. Under such circumstances, reflection is a predictable victim. Educators complain that they spend a substantial percentage of their time reacting to situations that have little to do with teaching and learning. These situations often concern discipline problems and actual or potential safety threats.

If experience with school safety has taught any lesson, it is to beware of overly hasty reactions to problems. Most educators can recall at least one occasion when such a reaction made matters worse rather than better. Perhaps it was jumping to the conclusion that a student broke a rule, when, in fact, the individual was innocent. Or it could have been an ultimatum delivered in anger that left a student feeling alienated and misunderstood. Because educators are powerful role models for young people, it is crucial that they model circumspection and thoughtfulness when handling problems.

If busy educators are not mindful, they easily can slip into a mode of operation in which they wait until safety threats arise and then deal with them (James, 1994, p. 190). Such a reactive pattern of behavior means that little time is devoted to reflecting on the nature of school safety problems and what they might indicate about the unmet needs of young people and dysfunctional school practices. Reflection on such matters, in the long run, is a smart investment, not a waste of time. Only by reflecting on safety problems will educators be able to take the steps necessary to eliminate their causes.

Lesson No. 4: School safety is best regarded as a function of learning

Unsafe schools can be attributed to many factors—poverty, school size, racial and ethnic tension, neighborhood crime, gang activity, overcrowding, and so on. Of all the sources of threats to the well-being of students, though, ignorance may be the most serious. Many safety problems can be traced to lack of knowledge regarding how to handle difficult situations, when to avoid confrontations, and what to do in an emergency. People are not born knowing why rules exist or how to estimate the possible consequences of risky behavior. Young people do not spontaneously acquire strategies for resisting dangerous temptations and dealing with aggressive and abusive acts. They must learn how to conduct themselves in ways that reduce the likelihood of harm. Because the primary mission of schools is to promote learning that will allow young people to lead productive lives, it is entirely appropriate for schools to offer instruction related to personal safety.

The challenge for educators is to design environments in which students are likely to acquire the skills and knowledge to protect themselves and others. This learning cannot be assumed to occur at home.  An important component of many intervention strategies for students who violate school rules is instruction in appropriate forms of behavior. Educators may not be able to guarantee that every student will take advantage of safety-related instruction, but they can make certain that such instruction is available and considered an integral part of the school's central mission.