School Size and Youth Violence: Potential Mediating and Moderating Role of School Connectedness

Abstract

Results did not support school connectedness as a moderator; however, results did support school connectedness as a mediator between school size and youth violence. Although no direct relationship was found between school size and youth violence, there was a significant inverse relationship between school size and school connectedness and a significant inverse relationship between school connectedness and youth violence. These findings highlight the importance of how the quality of individual student-school personnel relationships can play a role in preventing violence both within and outside of the school setting. Furthermore, increasing school student population appears to vii play a role in creating challenges in the development of quality relationships between students and school personnel, which in turn impedes prevention of youth violence. In addition to contributing to the literature on preventing youth violence, this study also underscores the need for future research to take caution in research design and measurement with Add Health data, and further exploration in alternative contextual relationships that may prevent youth violence. Introduction and Literature Review Youth ViolenceViolence in some form has always existed in our schools and communities, but the highly publicized shootings in the 1990s, such as Littleton, Colorado, Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Paducah, Kentucky received extensive media attention resulting in an increase in public awareness and concern (Modzeleski et al., 2008). In 2001, the Surgeon General released a report in order to designate youth violence as a public health concern in the United States (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Although this report showed that youth violence was less lethal than it was in 1993, violent behaviors involving adolescents showed trends of increasing. In fact, violent crimes committed by adolescents have dramatically increased (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999) to the point that this population commits more violent crimes than any other age group (Pastore & Maguire, 2002). Also of concern are the findings that adolescent problem and criminal behaviors are related to future adult illegal behaviors (Loeber & Hay, 1997;Sampson & Laub, 1990). Furthermore, compared to all other age groups, children and adolescents are most likely to be the victims of crimes (Furlong & Morrison, 2000 Moreover, there appears to be a general theme of youth violence being related to feelings of distress, anger, hopelessness, and shame from youth witnessing or experiencing violence (Martinez & Richters, 1993; Ludwig & Warrn, 2009;Osofsky, Werers, Hann, & Fick, 1993 An additional concern of youth exposure to community violence tends to be a resulting cycle of violence where the victims become the perpetrators (Osofsky et al., 1993). Brookmeyer, Fanti, and Henrich (2006) in their analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health (Add Health)found that simply being exposed to violence is a significant predictor of...

Disrupting the link between maltreatment and delinquency: how school, family, and community factors can be protective

“…School connectedness was measured with a standardized summative scale (alpha = .73) of eight items assessing if the respondent feels like they are a part of their school, close to the people at school, feel safe at school, feel the teachers care about them, etc. [55, 56] Neighborhood collective efficacy was measured with a standardized summative scale of five items (alpha = .60) estimating whether the respondent feels safe in their neighborhood, thinks people in the neighborhood look out for each other, communication between neighbors, knowing most of your neighbors, and satisfaction living in the neighborhood [57]. Both the standardized scales were tested comparing mean to high scores (two standard deviations above the mean) and low (two standard deviations below the mean) to high scores, for sensitivity analyses.…”

Are U.S. schools places of community? Does it matter?

“…Many students in urban schools, especially those from high-poverty neighborhoods, do not form relationships with teachers and therefore experience school as impersonal and detached from their social contexts (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). The school community is somewhat lower in larger versus smaller schools (McNeely et al, 2002; Niehaus et al, 2016; Volungis, 2016) and in schools serving neighborhoods with more households in poverty and higher percentages of renters (Thompson et al, 2006). The high mobility in many areas makes it difficult for schools to create solid connections since connections take time to develop.…”

School Violence Prevention

“…Yet, minimal to no literature has explicitly addressed "how" school connectedness can be achieved and/or enhanced by school personnel. Because school connectedness is a malleable construct, it only makes sense that guidance and direction should be provided to enhance teacher-student relationships (Volungis, 2016). The postulated theoretical model in Figure 1 is provided with the hope that this can afford conceptual and applied guidance in bridging the gap between research and practice.…”

“…The major theoretical premise of this review is that the more students feel connected to their teachers, the fewer incidents of school violence (Brookmeyer et al, 2006;Henrich et al, 2005;Karcher, 2004;Volungis, 2008Volungis, , 2016. The attachments students have with school personnel-school connectedness-influence how they respond to perceived injustices.…”

“…Furthermore, students are also more prone to seek assistance with interpersonal problems if they feel connected to their teachers and peers, which results in a decreased propensity to feel alienated by others (Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998; Townsend & McWhirter, 2005). Overall, there is significant support for school connectedness having a vital role in preventing school violence due to positive school personnel relationships (Brookmeyer et al, 2006; Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Henrich et al, 2005; Karcher, 2002; Volungis, 2016; Yablon, 2010). Thus, it is no surprise there is a strong consensus that school connectedness is a critical area to consider as an avenue to preventing school violence (Fein et al, 2002; Hoagwood, 2000).…”