The Code of Silence in Schools

Abstract

Socio-ecological models of victimization reporting incorporate normative constraints and instrumental considerations at the individual and contextual levels. Drawing on this model, we explore factors related to students' willingness to report problem behaviors that they might observe in school. Data obtained from student and teacher/administrator surveys and administrative data are used to explore these relationships. We find that individual-level factors are the primary determinants of reporting attitudes, but school context is also important. Students are more willing to report misbehavior in schools with democratic authority structures and consistent enforcement of school rules. Attitudes toward reporting are less favorable when the school culture is supportive of a street code, and the effect of street code culture is fully explained by students' personal norms and experiences. We also find evidence that personal adherence to a street code moderates the effect of school context on reporting attitudes. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Student Misbehaviour and School Climate: A Multilevel Study

“…In accordance with hypotheses 2.1 to 2.3 and along the lines of findings in previous research, our results confirm that misbehaviour perceived by teachers is reduced with three important measures to improve school climate: fairness of rules and discipline (Gottfredson et al, 2005;Morrison, 2018;Slocum et al, 2017;Way, 2011); family support for teachers (Sheldon & Epstein, 2002;Skaalvik et al, 2009); and better leadership from school principals, which encourages participation in school decisions by teachers -as is already the case in the majority of centres -but also by students and families, which few schools promote (Bowen et tal., 2006;Hopson & Lee, 2011;OECD, 2014OECD, , 2016Thapa et al, 2013;Tickle et al, 2011).…”

“…However, when family support was low, disruption was greater (or lesser) as students' perception of coercive treatment from teachers increased (or decreased). These results coincide with those obtained in the majority of research published in recent decades in this area regarding the role of coercion, which has reported that not only does coercion frequently not reduce misbehaviour levels; it even increases them (Demanet et al, 2012;Jennings et al, 2009;Morrison, 2018;Slocum et al, 2017;Wallace et al, 2014;Sun, 2015;Wang & Degol, 2016).…”

“…On the other hand, it has been observed that family messages encouraging peaceful conflict resolution reduce the risk of violence in general (Ohene et al, 2006) and of bullying in particular (Espelage et al, 2000), whereas advice favouring aggression ("If someone hits you, hit her/him") increases risk of bullying (Díaz-Aguado & Martínez Arias, 2013). This observation is further supported by findings by Slocum et al (2017), who reported that personal adherence to a street code (believing physical force and intimidation are necessary to achieve and maintain respect) moderates the effect of school context on reporting attitudes of misbehaviour. Given the reactive nature of disruption-coercion escalations that adolescents recognise (Bru et al, 2002;Honkasilta et al, 2016;Lewis, 2001), it would be reasonable to expect that such escalations would be more likely to occur with advice proposing the mistreatment of those who have mistreated an adolescent.…”

“…found that strict school coercive measures increase misbehaviour instead of reducing it (Skiba & Losen, 2016;Morrison, 2018), while such misbehaviour is reduced in schools in which rules and discipline are perceived as fair and legitimate (Gottfredson et al, 2005;Thapa et al, 2013;Wang & Degol, 2016). The findings of a study conducted by Slocum et al (2017) should be interpreted along the same lines; this study reported that students are more willing to report misbehaviour in schools with democratic authority structures and consistent enforcement of school rules. Way (2011) analysed 1,052 schools and found that although the perception of fairness of rules and discipline for students predict lower disruptions, the effects are mediated by positive teacher-student relations.…”

Misperceiving A Code of Silence: Peer Support for Telling Authorities About Weapons at School Among Middle School and High School Students in the United States

“…Although students often have information about a potential threat at school (Daniels et al, 2010; O’Toole, 2000; Pollack, Modzeleski, & Rooney, 2008; Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002), students who know about a threat may not report it or may only do so only if they personally experience a direct threat (Madfis, 2014). Furthermore, students’ capitulation to “negative” peers or a “street code,” and fear of retaliation or stigma of tattling, support a persistent “code of silence” that discourages reporting (Brank et al, 2007; Halbig, 2000; Madfis, 2014; Morris, 2010; Nekvasil & Cornell, 2012; Slocum, Esbensen, & Taylor, 2017).…”