The Clearing House, 84: 119122, 2011
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0009-8655 print; 1939-912x online
DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2011.564968
Introduction
School Safety: Implications and
Guidelines for Secondary Schools
TONY ARMENTA and DAVID L. STADER
R esponsibility for the safety and welfare of students
and teachers has been an important part of the
school leaders role for decades. For example, in the
MetLife Survey of the American Teacher (MetLife 2003),
students, teachers, parents, and principals overwhelm-
ingly reported that school safety is the most impor-
tant part of the principals job. The importance of this
role intensified in April 1999 when two students at
Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, shot
and killed several classmates and a teacher before com-
mitting suicide in the school library. These shootings
became one of the most watched news stories of the
year (Lawrence and Birkland 2004). The intensive live
media coverage of the shootings resonated deeply with
students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and
lawmakers around the country (Stader 2011). One of
the few empirical research studies of students percep-
tions of school culture and safety found a small. . .
[but] compelling change in students levels of fear
immediately after the Columbine event (Addington
2003). These changes, though statistically small and
difficult to individualize, suggest that the raw emo-
tion of the unrelenting coverage significantly impacted
parents, students, teachers, and administrators (Stader
2011).
Concerns about school safety have not been lost on
national and state legislative bodies, federal and state
judges, and local school boards. For example, 35 percent
of the bills introduced by the 106th Congress immedi-
ately after Columbine dealt with school violence. Only
9 percent of such bills were introduced in any other time
frame for that legislative session (Lawrence and Birkland
2004). Since 2000, virtually every state legislative body
has passed some form of school safety law (Education
Commission of the States n.d.). These laws and policies
vary widely, but they commonly focus on empowering
school leaders to discipline students who commit cer-
tain crimes anywhere in the community, engaging law
119
enforcement in school safety efforts, or mandating that
local school boards adopt policies aimed at reducing
bullying in schools.
It is difficult to argue that concerns about school vi-
olence have not impacted decisions made by various
judges. For example, in a concurring opinion on student
speech that could reasonably be interpreted as promot-
ing drug use, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Al-
ito stated the following: Any argument for altering the
usual free speech rules in the public schools cannot rest
on a theory of delegation but must instead be based
on some special characteristic of the school setting. The
special characteristic that is relevant in this case is the
threat to the physical safety of students (Morse v. Frederick
2007, emphasis added).
Local school districts have also responded to the con-
cern by adopting several school safety policies. Since
at least 1997, the National Center for Education Statis-
tics (NCES) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
have complied and reported statistical information on
the prevalence of various types of crime and safety poli-
cies in public schools. The most recent NCES-BJS survey
(Dinkes, Kemp, and Baum 2009) of school crime and
safety reports that the percentage of schools using vari-
ous security measures has increased over time. To illus-
trate, between the 19992000 and 20072008 school
years there was an increase in the percentage of public
schools reporting controlled access to school grounds
during school hours (from 75% to 90%); the use of
one or more security cameras to monitor a school (from
19% to 55%); the provision of telephones in most class-
rooms (from 45% to 72%); and the requirement that
students wear uniforms (from 12% to 18%). Students
ages 1218 also reported an increase in school security
measures. For example, between the 19992000 and
20072008 school years the percentage of students re-
porting one or more security cameras at their school
increased from 39 to 66 and the percentage of students
120 The Clearing House
reporting locked entrance or exit doors during the day
increased from 38 to 61.
Violent deathsdefined as homicides, suicides,
deaths by law enforcement, and accidental firearm-
related deathson school campuses are rare, but tragic,
events. From July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008, there were
43 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and
secondary schools in the United States (Dinkus, Kemp,
and Baum 2009). For this survey school-associated vio-
lent deaths included students, staff members, and oth-
ers who were not students on the way to, or returning
from, regular sessions at school or attending or traveling
to or from an official school-sponsored event. Of the 43
student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent
deaths during the timeframe, 38 were youths ages 518.
Of this number, 30 were homicides and 8 were suicides.
For the 20072008 school year there was approximately
one homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school
per 2.1 million students.
While school shootings may be statistically rare,
student-on-student victimization is a fairly common oc-
currence on middle and high school campuses. In 2007
about 32 percent of students ages 1218 reported having
been bullied at school during the school year (Dinkes,
Kemp, and Baum 2009). Of this number, 10 percent
reported being bullied once or twice a week and 7 per-
cent reported being bullied almost daily. Most of the
bullying behavior (80%) occurred inside the school.
About 2 percent of students experienced cyberbully-
ing. In addition, 10 percent of students reported that
someone at school had used hate-related words against
them, and 35 percent reported seeing hate-related graf-
fiti at school. Student-on-student victimization, such as
bullying, hate-related words and symbols, and threats,
are a serious school safety issue. For example, in the
2003 MetLife survey students were the least likely of
the survey participants to describe their schools as safe.
Conversely, although 89 percent of the principals, 67
percent of the teachers, and 57 percent of the parents
said that their schools are safe, only 46 percent of the
students described their schools this way. This special
theme issue focuses primarily on increasing awareness
of the problem of student-on-student victimization and
prevention methods, although other topics related to
school safety also appear.
Overview of the Articles
In the first article, Creating Safe Learning Environ-
ments for At-Risk Students in Urban Schools, Shonta
M. Smith explores the particular plight of at-risk stu-
dents from urban high schools, many of whom have
been exposed to a culture of violence in their commu-
nities. Smith paints a picture of the circumstances from
which many at-risk students come and to which most
school personnel do not relate. As a result, these stu-
dents end up lacking the support systems necessary to
84(4) 2011
help function in an academic setting. Smith explains
how schools must, and can, work with the community,
parents, and the students in creating a safer learning
environment to counteract some of the negative vari-
ables that can deleteriously impact urban students both
emotionally and academically. Additionally, Smith of-
fers techniques for enhancing behavior and increasing
learning outcomes for urban youth.
Chris Pack, Alexander White, Katherine Raczynski,
and Aijun Wang follow with a data-driven article cen-
tered around the Safe School Ambassadors program.
Evaluation of the Safe School Ambassadors Program:
A Student-led Approach to Reducing Mistreatment and
Bullying in Schools describes the components of the
Safe School Ambassadors program, a product of the
nonprofit Community Matters organization. The au-
thors then present research data to illustrate the effec-
tiveness of the Safe School Ambassadors model. Data is
presented that measure the impact of the program on
school discipline indicators, school climate, and on the
varying personnel who are part of the program. The au-
thors espouse the virtues of what they label an inside-
out, student-centered approach for reducing bullying
and harassment in the school setting. They conclude the
article by positing best practices for utilizing students to
assist in creating a more positive school climate.
The theme of bullying continues in Preventing Bul-
lying and Harassment of Sexual Minority Students in
Schools by Holly N. Bishop and Heather Casida.
Bishop emphasizes how school districts must be cog-
nizant of the emotional, physical, and academic toll on
students who are bullied and harassed because of their
sexual orientation. The authors detail how the power
of degrading words, if not actual physical violence,
impacts these students in several debilitating ways in-
cluding anxiety, physical problems, and lack of interest
in school. Additionally, Bishop and Casida cite the in-
crease in litigation by sexual minority students and pro-
vide an excellent synopsis of court decisions that have
compelled school districts to take measures to protect
these students. The authors conclude by proffering ways
schools can create safer, more welcoming atmospheres
free of bullying and harassment for sexual minority stu-
dents.
David L. Staders article, Dating Violence, convinc-
ingly makes the argument that dating violence is a
phenomenon about which school leaders should be
concerned. While some might think that dating violence
is something that happens away from the school set-
ting and is, therefore, not the schools concern, Stader
elucidates how dating violence does impact the school
and why schools are compelled to address the issue.
The author cites various legal theories and federal leg-
islation that suggest schools can be held liable for
dating violence perpetrated by students. Stader then
enumerates several strategies schools and districts can
 Introduction
employ to educate students and parents about dating
violence with the hope of lessening, if not eliminating,
its occurrence.
A Proposal for Increasing Student Safety through
Suicide Prevention in Schools, by Janice E. Ward and
Melissa A. Odegard, begins by documenting the preva-
lence of suicidal thoughts in students, suicide attempts,
and, in some cases, actual suicides. The authors relate
the findings of their qualitative study involving a rural
high school after a suicide and an attempted suicide. In-
terviews with school counselors who were close to the
situation provide insight into the effect of the suicide
and attempted suicide on students, families, and the
community. Ward and Odegard indicate signals to look
for that might indicate a high-risk suicide student. The
authors reinforce the responsibilities of schools to pro-
tect students while referencing several states that have
instituted suicide prevention training for school staff.
Ward and Odegard also detail how a suicide preven-
tion program might be structured and offer specifics
concerning what to look for when choosing a suicide
prevention curriculum for schools.
Jeanne L. Surface, through the article Not All Threats
Are Equal, examines varying threat types. The author
explains how threats can range from overt physical ag-
gression, like shootings, to seemingly mild threats, such
as exercising ones First Amendment rights to freedom
of expression. Even for milder threats, Surface reminds
school leaders that resolution often requires finding a
balance between the rights of individual students to free-
dom of expression and the equally important duty to
protect the safety rights of the larger group. The author
chronicles important U.S. Supreme Court cases such
as Tinker and Bethel, among others, to illustrate how
courts have provided guidance for schools. Surface also
explores hate speech, the increase in student expres-
sion on the Internet, and anonymous and ambiguous
threats. The author then offers information about the
determination of threat levels and the development of
threat inquiry teams and threat assessment teams, as
well as factors to be considered in assessing threats. Sur-
face concludes the article by listing suggested steps for
school boards when developing board policy related to
the various types of threats in schools.
This issue takes a different turn with Tony Armentas
article, Playing it Smart: Safety in Extracurricular Ac-
tivities. Armenta delves into the fun and games of
athletics, cheerleading, and field trips and reminds us
that these, too, can impact school safety. Many students
each year end up in emergency rooms and some even
suffer death due to negligence on the part of school
staff. Armenta documents several examples of students
being injured or dying as the result of lax supervision or
lack of proper instruction by those entrusted with their
care. After pointing out the possible dangers in the area
of athletics, the author turns to the related subject of
121
cheerleading, which, he contends, no longer resembles
the cheerleading of the 1950s and 1960s. Todays cheer-
leading is much more athletic in nature and requires
more gymnastics and acrobatic skills. Consequently, in-
juries have skyrocketed. Armenta provides guidelines
for ensuring cheerleader safety through more rigorous
training of coaches. The article concludes by pointing
out the dangers that also can befall students while on
school-sanctioned outings. Armenta then lists several
recommendations for planning school field trips that
teachers and administrators should follow to heighten
student safety.
Spencer C. Weiler and Martha Cray collaborate for the
final two articles in the issue. In response to the increase
in school violence in the recent past, the presence of
School Resource Officers (SROs) has been a common
sight on public school campuses, particularly in middle
schools and high schools. In their first article, Police at
School: A Brief History and Current Status of School Re-
source Officers, the authors trace the evolution of SROs
and present statistical information concerning the ef-
fectiveness of having SROs on a campus. Based on this
extensive review of literature, Weiler and Cray offer a
broad overview of SRO programs from their genesis to
their current status, including the challenges of acquir-
ing and maintaining funding.
As a follow-up to Police at School, Cray and Weiler
team up once again to share results from their empir-
ical study that sheds light on the answers to three ma-
jor questions regarding SRO programs. Policy to Prac-
tice: A Look at National and State Implementation of
School Resource Officer Programs depicts the patterns
for SRO programs in public schools, policies in schools
that guide the program, and whether policy documents
grant the SROs what they need to function effectively.
Cray and Weiler gathered data from 67 randomly se-
lected school districts in their home state to determine
what policies guide school district SRO programs and
the degree to which those policies assist SROs in carrying
out their duties. As a result of their findings, the authors
make several recommendations that school districts can
follow to make an SRO program more effective and, ul-
timately, help create a safer learning environment.
The readers of this special issue are sure to benefit
from the information contained within. The coeditors
are grateful to the authors who have shared their time
and expertise in order to increase the likelihood that all
U.S. schoolchildren will attend safer schools.
REFERENCES
Addington, L. A. 2003. Students fear after Columbine: Findings from
a randomized experiment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 99 (4):
36787.
Dinkes, R., J. Kemp, and K. Baum. 2009. Indicators of school crime
and safety: 2009. NCES 2010012/NCJ 228478. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education sci-
ences, U. S. Department of Justice.
122 The Clearing House 84(4) 2011

Education Commission of the States. n.d. Recent state policies/activities:
School safety-safe and drug free schools initiatives. http://www.ecs.org.
Lawrence, R. G., and T. A. Birkland. 2004. Guns, Hollywood, and
school safety: Defining the school-shooting problem across public
arenas. Social Science Quarterly 85 (5): 11931207.
MetLife. 2003. Metlife survey of the American teacher: An examination of
school leadership. http://www.metlife.com.
Morse v.Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
Stader, D. L. 2011. A leaders guide for safe schools. Norwood, CA:
Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Copyright of Clearing House is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.