School violence encompasses assault, including student-on-student combat and corporal punishment; emotional violence, including spoken punishment; sexual physical violence, including rape and intimate harassment; many types of bullying, including cyberbullying; and carrying tools in college.[1] Its widely held to have become a serious issue in recent decades in many nations, specially in which tools including weapons or knives may take place. It includes violence between college pupils also real attacks by pupils on school staff.

Danger factors

Internalizing and externalizing behaviors

a difference is created between internalizing and externalizing behavior. Internalizing actions mirror withdrawal, inhibition, anxiety, and/or depression. Internalizing behavior has been present some situations of youth violence although in a few youth, despair is related to drug abuse. Because they rarely operate down, students with internalizing dilemmas tend to be overlooked by college personnel.[2] Externalizing habits reference delinquent activities, aggression, and hyperactivity. Unlike internalizing behaviors, externalizing habits consist of, or are directly associated with, violent episodes. Violent actions such as punching and kicking are often learned from observing others.[3][4] Just as externalizing habits are located outside college, such behaviors additionally observed in schools.[2]

Other specific factors

A number of other individual factors are associated with higher quantities of aggressiveness. In comparison to kids whoever antisocial conduct begins in adolescence, very early starters have a worse prognosis regarding future aggression and other antisocial activities.[5] Lower IQ is related to higher quantities of aggression.[6][7][8] Other findings suggest that in boys very early problematic motor skills, attentional difficulties, and reading problems predict later persistent antisocial conduct.[9]

Home environment

the house environment is thought to play a role in school violence. The Constitutional Rights Foundation implies long-term contact with weapon violence, parental alcoholism, domestic violence, real abuse of the youngster, and child sexual abuse shows kids that unlawful and violent tasks are appropriate.[10] Harsh parental discipline is associated with higher levels of aggressiveness in youth.[11] There is certainly some proof showing that experience of television violence[12][13] and, to a lesser degree, violent video clip games[14] is related to increased aggressiveness in kids, which, in turn, may carry over into college.

Straus adduced evidence the view that contact with parental corporal punishment increases the threat of aggressive conduct in kids and adolescents.[15] Straus's findings are contested by Larzelere[16] and Baumrind.[17][18] A meta-analysis of this vast literature on corporal punishment, however, indicates that corporal punishment is related to poorer results in children and youth.[19] The methodologically soundest studies suggest «positive, mildly sized associations between parental corporal punishment and children’s aggression.»[20] Gershoff unearthed that the trajectory of mean impact sizes (the size of the end result of corporal punishment on kids' issue behavior) had been curvilinear using the largest mean impact size in center college (M = 0.55; an average of the mean of corporal punishment team ended up being more than half a regular deviation more than the mean of this non-punishment team) and somewhat smaller impact sizes in grade college (M = 0.43) and highschool (M = 0.45).

Gerald Patterson's social interactional model, that involves the mother's application together with child's counterapplication of coercive habits, also explains the growth of aggressive conduct in youngster.[21][22] Inside context, coercive habits consist of behaviors that are ordinarily punishing (age.g., whining, yelling, hitting, etc.). Abusive house surroundings can inhibit the development of social cognitive skills needed, as an example, to know the motives of others.[10][23] Short-term longitudinal proof is consistent with the view that a lack of social cognitive abilities mediates the web link between harsh parental discipline and aggressive conduct in kindergarten.[24] Longer-term, follow-up research with similar children shows that partial mediating impacts last until 3rd and 4th grade.[23] Hirschi's (1969) control theory escalates the view that kiddies with weak affective ties to moms and dads and college have reached increased danger of doing delinquent and violent behavior inside and out of school.[25] Hirschi's cross-sectional data from north California high-school students are mostly in keeping with this view.[25] Findings from case-control[11] and longitudinal studies[26][27] will also be in line with this view.

Neighbourhood environment

Neighbourhoods and communities supply the context for college violence. Communities with a high prices of criminal activity and medication usage teach youth the violent behaviors that are carried into schools.[10][28][29][30] Young ones in violent areas often perceive that their communities are high-risk, and that these feelings of vulnerability carry up to the school environment.[31] Dilapidated housing into the neighbourhood of college has been discovered to be associated with college violence.[32] Teacher attack ended up being prone to take place in schools situated in high-crime neighbourhoods.[33] Experience of deviant peers is a risk factor for high levels of aggressivity.[4][8] Analysis has shown that poverty and high population densities are connected with higher rates of college physical violence.[28] Well managed longitudinal research suggests that youngsters' contact with community physical violence throughout the early primary college years escalates the danger of aggression later on in primary college, as reported by teachers and classmates.[34] Other, well controlled longitudinal research that used tendency rating matching indicates that contact with gun violence in very early adolescence relates to the initiation of severe physical violence in later on adolescence.[35] Neighbourhood gangs are believed to contribute to dangerous college surroundings. Gangs make use of the social environment for the college to recruit members and connect to opposing teams, with gang violence carrying over from neighbourhoods into some schools.[36] Instead, many young ones whom grow up in violent areas learn to intentionally find making «street-oriented» friends as an instrumental strategy always you shouldn't be victimized.[31] Without threat of physical violence, young ones more commonly develop friendships centered on homophily, or provided traits.

Class environment

Present research has connected the school environment to school physical violence.[32][37] Instructor assaults are connected with a higher percentage male faculty, a greater proportion of male students, and a greater percentage of students receiving free or lower cost lunch (an indicator of poverty).[33] Generally speaking, a big male population, higher grade amounts, a history of high levels of disciplinary problems in school, high student to instructor ratios, and an urban location are regarding violence in schools.[32][38] In pupils, academic performance is inversely associated with antisocial conduct.[6][39] The study by Hirschi[25] among others,[11][26][27] cited above into the section in the home environment, normally in keeping with the view that insufficient accessory to school is connected with increased threat of antisocial conduct.

Prevention and intervention

the purpose of prevention and intervention strategies should stop college violence from occurring. In line with the CDC, you will find about four amounts of which violence-prevention programs can work: on degree of culture generally speaking, the institution community, your family, and person.[40]

  • Society-level avoidance strategies make an effort to alter social and cultural conditions to be able to reduce violence no matter where the physical violence occurs. For example reducing news violence, reshaping social norms, and restructuring academic systems.[39] The techniques are rarely utilized and tough to implement.
    • Now May be the Time is a federal initiative developed in 2013 in response towards the growing quantity of gun associated college violence incidents. The effort provides funding and resources to schools so that you can reduce weapon physical violence in schools. Funding is going to be provided for utilization of school interventions and training teachers and staff, programs which will support the mental and real wellness of pupils, conflict quality programs to lessen further school violence, and restoration of college environment after a violent incident.[41]
  • School-wide methods are made to modify the college faculties which can be connected with physical violence. An avenue of mental research is the reduced amount of physical violence and incivility, particularly the development of interventions at the amount of the school.[42][43][44] The CDC recommends schools promote class room administration techniques, cooperative learning, and close student supervision.[39][45] At the primary college degree, the group behavioral intervention known as the Good Behavior Game helps reduce classroom disruption and encourages prosocial class room interactions.[46][47] There was some evidence your 2nd action curriculum, which is focused on advertising impulse control and empathy among 2nd and third graders, creates reductions in actually aggressive behavior.[48] Other school-wide techniques are targeted at reducing or eliminating bullying[49][50][51][52] and arranging the area authorities to raised combat gang physical violence.[53][54]
    • The implementation of school-wide early-warning systems, the school exact carbon copy of a DEW Line-like surveillance operation designed to «prevent the worst situations of college physical violence,» is problematic.[42] Recent developments in early threat assessment, however, reveal vow.[55] Violence-prevention efforts may also be usefully inclined to developing anti-bullying programs, assisting teachers with classroom-management methods, using behavioral strategies like the Good Behavior Game, implementing curricular innovations such as the 2nd action syllabus, developing programs to bolster families (see below), and implementing programs targeted at improving the social and educational skills of at-risk pupils (see below).
  • Teachers would be the expert group who works straight where college bullying takes place and who spends probably the most time with both bullies, victims and bystanders. Hence, whether and how instructors intervene in the case of bullying is of good value. Analysis has shown that teachers prefer authority-based interventions towards bullies but seem to neglect to offer the victims.[56] Unfortunately, most instructor training curricula cannot include preventive and interventive abilities regarding school physical violence.[56]
  • Some intervention programs are targeted at enhancing household relationships.[39] There is some proof that such intervention techniques have actually modest effects in the behavior of kiddies within the short[57][58] and longterm.[59] Patterson's house intervention system involving moms has been shown to lessen aggressive conduct in kids.[21] A significant question involves the extent to which the impact of this program carries over in to the child's conduct in school.
  • Some avoidance and intervention programs give attention to individual-level strategies. These programs are targeted at pupils who exhibit aggression and violent behaviors or are at risk for participating in such behaviors. Some programs include conflict quality and team problem-solving.[39] Other programs train pupils social skills.[60] The Conduct issues Prevention Research Group, while developing and applying a universal anti-aggression component for all primary school children, also developed and implemented a separate social-skills and scholastic tutoring component that targets kiddies that probably the most at an increased risk for participating in aggressive behavior.[61][62]
  • Bullying prevention programs including Olweus provides materials for educators that'll train them on the best way to mediate a bullying situation along with procedures to simply take if a young child is suicidal.

Challenges in calculating physical violence in schools

Research on violence affecting children in schools is challenging for many different reasons.[1]

Methodological issues

When trying to gauge the range of violence in schools and also to check out the kinds of physical violence experienced by pupils, some key problems include: from what categories of the school community to collect the information; just what data must certanly be gathered from each groups; and making use of which practices. For instance, should there be studies or studies in which scientists ask pupils directly about physical violence in school, through self-reports towards violence they experienced as targets or perpetrators? Or as long as they be expected about incidents of violence they've witnessed as bystanders? Should these questions be expected via self-administered questionnaires or questionnaires administered by researchers in schools? Does it make more sense to collect this data outside schools, for instance, through home surveys? Or through internet surveys where pupils get access to the world wide web? Or is it better to rely on mechanisms for reporting incidents of violence in educational organizations when they are available, either in schools themselves or outside schools (government hotlines, internet-based reporting systems, authorities and justice sectors, etc.)? Exactly what questions can be asked of children, utilizing terminology that is straightforward, age-appropriate and culturally sensitive and painful?[1]

Legal and ethical issues

in many nations you will find strict rules linked to research involving young ones, since they are beneath the age of consent. Consequently, requesting informed permission through the kiddies in a research involves their parents and guardians. Asking young ones about physical violence, and particularly physical violence they have experienced themselves, may be traumatic. Finally, investigating issues associated with sexual orientation and gender identity/orientation in education plus in regards to kids has extra challenges. In a few contexts it's not appropriate to discuss these issues either in schools and even outside of schools. In which it's legal, it may be considered as an extremely sensitive and painful topic become talked about with kids and young adults. Asking kids and young adults questions associated with their intimate orientation and gender identification in college environment is ethically questionable, since it could embarrass them and expose them to stigma and discrimination, unless concerns are asked in strict self-confidence and anonymity is given by independent researchers external to schools.[1]

See also

  • Bullying
  • Bullying in teaching
  • Childnet
  • Cyber-bullying
  • Gun violence
  • List of school-related attacks
  • School bullying
  • School discipline
  • School shooting
  • School violence in Australia
  • School physical violence in Belgium
  • School violence in Bulgaria
  • School violence in France
  • School physical violence in Japan
  • School physical violence in Poland
  • School violence in Southern Africa
  • School physical violence in United Kingdom
  • School physical violence inside United States
  • School-to-prison pipeline
  • Suicide of Megan Meier
  • School-related gender-based physical violence (SRGBV)
  • Violence


this short article incorporates text from a totally free content work. Licensed under CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0 License statement: School Violence and Bullying: Global reputation Report, 9, 110-111, UNESCO, UNESCO. UNESCO. To master how exactly to include open permit text to Wikipedia articles, be sure to see this how-to web page. For home elevators reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.


  1. ^ a b c d UNESCO (2017). School Violence and Bullying: Global Status Report (PDF). Paris, UNESCO. pp. 9, 110–111. ISBN 978-92-3-100197-0.
  2. ^ a b Christie, C.A., Nelson, C.M., & Jolivet, K. (2005). Prevention of antisocial and violent behavior in youth: overview of the literary works. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. Retrieved 2009-05-01.
  3. ^ Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews. New York: Academic.ISBN 0-12-278801-X
  4. ^ a b Akers, R. L.; Krohn, M. D.; Lanza-Kaduce, L.; Radosevich, M. (1979). «Social learning and deviant behavior: a certain test of a broad theory». American Sociological Review. 44 (4): 635–655. doi:10.2307/2094592. JSTOR 2094592. PMID 389120.
  5. ^ Patterson, G. R.; Forgatch, M. S.; Yoerger, K. L.; Stoolmiller, M. (1998). «Variables that initiate and continue maintaining an early-onset trajectory for juvenile offending». Development and Psychopathology. 10 (3): 531–547. doi:10.1017/S0954579498001734.
  6. ^ a b Hirschi, T.; Hindelang, M. J. (1977). «Intelligence and delinquency: A revisionist review». United States Sociological Review. 42 (4): 571–587. doi:10.2307/2094556. JSTOR 2094556. PMID 900659.
  7. ^ Huesmann, L. R.; Eron, L. D.; Yarmel, P. W. (1987). «Intellectual functioning and aggression». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (1): 232–240. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.232. PMID 3820075.
  8. ^ a b Loeber, R.; Farrington, D. P.; Stouthamer-Loeber, M.; Moffitt, T. E.; Caspi, A.; Lynam, Don (1998). «The development of male offending: Key findings through the first ten years for the Pittsburgh Youth Study» (PDF). Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 7 (4): 273–297. doi:10.1023/A:1013574903810.
  9. ^ Moffitt, T. E. (1990). «Juvenile delinquency and attention deficit disorder: men' developmental trajectories from age 3 to age 15». Child Developing. 61 (3): 893–910. doi:10.2307/1130972. JSTOR 1130972. PMID 2364762.
  10. ^ a b c Constitutional Rights Foundation. (1997). Causes of college physical violence. Retrieved on April 20, 2009.
  11. ^ a b c Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime into the generating: Pathways and switching points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.ISBN 0-674-17604-9
  12. ^ Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Ramifications of televised physical violence on aggression. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of kids and media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.ISBN 0-7619-1954-6
  13. ^ Paik, H.; Comstock, G. (1994). «The ramifications of television physical violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis». correspondence analysis. 21 (4): 516–546. doi:10.1177/009365094021004004.
  14. ^ Anderson, C. A.; Bushman, B. J. (2001). «Effects of violent game titles on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive influence, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic report on the systematic literature». Emotional Science. 12 (5): 353–359. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00366. PMID 11554666.
  15. ^ Straus, M. A. (1991). «Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of young ones and violence along with other crime in adulthood». Personal Problems. 38 (2): 133–154. doi:10.1525/sp.1991.38.2.03a00010.
  16. ^ Larzelere, R. (1997). Review of anti-spanking research. Biola University.
  17. ^ Words from Diana Baumrind on corporal punishment. (1998).
  18. ^ Baumrind, D.; Larzelere, R.; Cowan, P. (2002). «Ordinary real punishment: can it be harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002)» (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 128 (4): 580–589. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.580. PMID 12081082.
  19. ^ Gershoff, E. T. (2002a). «Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review». Emotional Bulletin. 128 (4): 539–579. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539. PMID 12081081.
  20. ^ Gershoff, E. T. (2002b). «Corporal punishment, physical punishment, plus the burden of evidence: Reply to Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002), Holden (2002), and Parke (2002)». Psychological Bulletin. 128 (4): 602–611. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.602.
  21. ^ a b Patterson, G. (1982). Coercive family members process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.ISBN 0-916154-02-5
  22. ^ Patterson, G. R. (1995). Coercion as a basis for early age of beginning for arrest. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-lasting views (pp. 81–105). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  23. ^ a b Dodge, K. A.; Pettit, G. S.; Bates, J. E.; Valente, E. (1995). «Social information processing patterns partially mediate the consequence of very early physical abuse on subsequent conduct problems». Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 104 (4): 632–643. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.104.4.632. PMID 8530766.
  24. ^ Weiss, B.; Dodge, K. A.; Bates, J. E.; Pettit, G. S. (1992). «Some consequences of very early harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style». Child Development. 63 (6): 1321–1335. doi:10.2307/1131558. JSTOR 1131558. PMID 1446555.
  25. ^ a b c Hirschi, T.W. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of Ca Press.ISBN 0-520-01487-1
  26. ^ a b Borowsky, I. W.; Ireland, M.; Resnick, M. D. (2002). «Violence risk and protective facets among youth held back school». Ambulatory Pediatrics. 2 (6): 475–484. doi:10.1367/1539-4409(2002)002<0475:VRAPFA>2.0.CO;2. PMID 12437395.
  27. ^ a b Wiesner, M.; Windle, M. (2004). «Assessing covariates of adolescent delinquency trajectories: A latent growth mixture modeling approach». Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 33 (5): 431–442. doi:10.1023/B:JOYO.0000037635.06937.13.
  28. ^ a b Evans, G. W. (2004). «The environment of youth poverty». United States Psychologist. 59 (2): 77–92. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77. PMID 14992634.
  29. ^ Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1985). Victimization in schools. Nyc: Plenum.ISBN 0-306-42023-6
  30. ^ Johnson, S.L.; Burke, J.G.; Gielen, A.C. (2011). «Prioritizing the institution environment in college physical violence prevention efforts». Journal of School Health. 81 (6): 331–340. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00598.x. PMC 4697272. PMID 21592128.
  31. ^ a b Tack, Anjanette M. Chan (February 2017). «Making buddies in Violent Neighborhoods: techniques among Elementary School Children». Sociological Science. 4: 224–248. doi:10.15195/v4.a10.
  32. ^ a b c Limbos, M.A.P.; Casteel, C. (2008). «Schools and communities: Organizational and ecological factors associated with criminal activity in additional schools». Journal of Class Wellness. 78 (10): 539–544. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00341.x. PMID 18808473.
  33. ^ a b Casteel, C.; Peek-Asa, C.; Limbos, M.A. (2007). «Predictors of nonfatal attack injury to public school instructors in la City». United states Journal of Industrial Medicine. 50 (12): 932–939. doi:10.1002/ajim.20520. PMID 17979131.
  34. ^ Guerra, N. G.; Huesmann, L. R.; Spindler, A. (2003). «Community violence visibility, social cognition, and violence among urban elementary college children». Child Development. 74 (5): 1561–1576. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00623. PMID 14552414.
  35. ^ Bingenheimer, J. B.; Brennan, R. T.; Earls, F. J. (2005). «Firearm violence exposure and serious violent behavior». Technology. 308 (5726): 1323–1326. doi:10.1126/science.1110096. PMID 15919997.
  36. ^ Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M., & Sellin, T. (1987). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.ISBN 0-226-90553-5
  37. ^ Meyer-Adams, N.; Conner, B.T. (2008). «School physical violence: Bullying behaviors together with psychosocial school environment in center schools». Young ones and Schools. 30 (4): 211–221. doi:10.1093/cs/30.4.211.
  38. ^ Larsen, E. (2003). Violence in United States public schools. ERIC Identifier: ED482921
  39. ^ a b c d e Centers for infection Control and Prevention.«School Wellness Policies and products Study 2006», 2008. Retrieved April 20, 2009.
  40. ^ Centers for Infection Control and Prevention. (2006). School wellness policies and programs research. Retrieved on April 20, 2009.
  41. ^ Examining School Protection and Gun Violence in the us. (2014). Curriculum Review, 54(4), 8-9
  42. ^ a b Schonfeld, I.S. (2006). School physical violence. In E.K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds). Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 169–229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  43. ^ Howard, K. A.; Flora, J.; Griffin, M. (1999). «Violence-prevention programs in schools: State of technology and implications for future research». Used & Preventive Psychology. 8 (3): 197–215. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80077-0.
  44. ^ Scheckner, S.; Rollin, S. A.; Kaiser-Ulrey, Cheryl; Wagner, R. (2002). «School Violence in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis associated with the effectiveness of current interventions». Journal of class Violence. 1 (2): 5–32. doi:10.1300/J202v01n02_02.
  45. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Using ecological design to avoid college violence. Retrieved April 20, 2009.
  46. ^ Dolan, L. J.; Kellam, S. G.; Brown, C. H.; Werthamer-Larsson, L.; Rebok, G. W.; Mayer, L. W.; et al. (1993). «The short-term impact of two classroom-based preventive interventions on aggressive and timid actions and poor achievement». Journal of Used Developmental Psychology. 14 (3): 317–345. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(93)90013-L.
  47. ^ Embry, D. D. (2002). «The Good Behavior Game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine». Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 5 (4): 273–296. doi:10.1023/A:1020977107086. PMID 12495270.
  48. ^ Grossman DC, Neckerman HJ, Koepsell TD, Liu PY, Asher KN, Beland K, Frey K, Rivara FP (1997). «Effectiveness of a violence avoidance curriculum among kiddies in primary school: A randomized controlled trial». Journal of this American Health Association. 277 (20): 1605–1611. doi:10.1001/jama.277.20.1605. PMID 9168290.
  49. ^ Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim dilemmas among schoolchildren: fundamental facts and aftereffects of a school-based intervention. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of youth aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  50. ^ Olweus, D. (1994). «Annotation: Bullying in school: fundamental facts and ramifications of a school-based intervention program». Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 35 (7): 1171–1190. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x. PMID 7806605.
  51. ^ Olweus, D. (1997). «Bully/victim dilemmas in school: Knowledge base and a powerful intervention program». Irish Journal of Psychology. 18 (2): 170–190. doi:10.1080/03033910.1997.10558138. ISSN 0303-3910.; Additionally reprinted as Olweus, DAN (1996). «Bullying in school: Knowledge Base and an Effective Intervention Program». Annals of this nyc Academy of Sciences. 794: 265–276. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb32527.x.
  52. ^ Olweus, D. (1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. In P. K. Smith, J. Junger-Taqs, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The type of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 7–27). New York: Plenum.
  53. ^ Young, B. (2009, Mar. 2). Seattle schools scramble to outsmart gangs. Seattle Days.
  54. ^ TAL Worldwide's CEB Case Study.
  55. ^ Cornell, Dewey; Allen, Korrie (2011). «Development, Evaluation, and Future guidelines for the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines». Journal of Class Violence. 10: 88–106. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.519432.
  56. ^ a b Burger, Christoph; Strohmeier, Dagmar; Spröber, Nina; Bauman, Sheri; Rigby, Ken (2015). «How teachers react to school bullying: An examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator results, and concurrent use of multiple strategies». Training and Teacher Education. 51: 191–202. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.004.
  57. ^ Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). «Preventing conduct problems in Head begin kiddies: Strengthening parenting competencies». Journal of Asking and Clinical Psychology. 66 (5): 715–730. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.5.715. PMID 9803690.
  58. ^ Tremblay, R. E.; Pagani-Kurtz, L.; Mâsse, L. C.; Vitaro, F.; Pihl, R. O. (1995). «A bimodal preventive intervention for troublesome kindergarten males: Its impact through mid-adolescence». Journal of Asking and Clinical Psychology. 63 (4): 560–568. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.63.4.560. PMID 7673533.
  59. ^ Olds D, Henderson CR Jr, Cole R, Eckenrode J, Kitzman H, Luckey D, Pettitt L, Sidora K, et al. (1998). «Long-term aftereffects of nurse home visitation on youngsters' unlawful and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial». Journal of American Medical Association. 280 (14): 1238–1244. doi:10.1001/jama.280.14.1238. PMID 9786373.
  60. ^ Bennett-Johnson, E. (2004). «The root of college physical violence: Causes and strategies for an agenda of action». University Student Journal. 38: 199–202.
  61. ^ Conduct Issues, Prevention Research Group (1999a). «Initial Impact regarding the Fast Track Prevention test for Conduct issues: I. The High-Risk Sample». Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 67 (5): 631–647. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.631. PMC 2762610. PMID 10535230.
  62. ^ Conduct Problems, Prevention Analysis Group (1999b). «Initial Impact of this Fast Track Prevention Trial for Conduct issues: II. Class Effects». Journal of Asking and Clinical Psychology. 67 (5): 648–657. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.648. PMC 2761630. PMID 10535231.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has news related to class violence.
  • U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009).Indicators of college criminal activity and safety 2009.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Understanding college violence: Fact sheet.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Youth violence: National and state statistics instantly.
  • Schonfeld I.S. (2006). School Violence. In E.K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (eds.). Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 169–229). Thousand Oaks, California, United States Of America: Sage Publications.
  • Using Canines to handle Class Violence (FBI)
Authority control
  • NARA: 10641779
  • NDL: 01058790
Retrieved from ""

How to cite this essay: