An Assessment of an Alternative Education Program for At-Risk Delinquent Youth
Cox, Stephen M., Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 323-336, August 1999
The Based on the premise that schools play a significant role in curbing youth crime; the Delinquency Prevention through Alternative Education Initiative was passed. Although no standards were passed for alternative schools they were designed to create a more successful learning environment through low teacher: student ratios, individualized and self-paced instruction, noncompetitive performance assessments, and less-structures classrooms for students who were deemed delinquent youth. The authors’ study focused on the utility of an alternative school as a delinquency intervention program. Data was collected prior to the beginning of the program, immediately following program completion, and one year following program completion.
The study concluded alternative school produced small short-term effects that disappeared by the long-term follow-up. Additionally, before deeming a student delinquent school officials should consider factors that may contribute to delinquency (e.g., family, peers, neighborhood, social economic status, etc,). Then assess if alternative school is best for the student. As a school-related program may not be the answer for youth with other types of problems that contribute it their delinquent behavior.
Hi Chanelle,
Thanks for your post.
Currently, there is significant debate over deterrence. Stigmatization is an obstacle to for both rehabilitative- and deterrence-based prevention strategies.
I found the following abstract after reading your post and thought I would paste it here, as it illustrates your point.
Reexamining the President’s Crime Commission
The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society after Ten Years
Samuel Walker
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha
In the ten years following the initial publication of the report of the Presi dent’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, we have seen significant changes in criminal justice. Though widely con sulted today, the report has become out of date. As a reference work, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967) remains valuable, but it no longer reflects the dominant issues in American criminal justice. The single most important change over the past decade has been the decline in faith in the idea of rehabilitation. The report of the President’s Crime Commission reflected the belief that alternative correctional programs could effectively attack the causes of crime; now, however, rehabilitation has become an unpopular goal. The debate today over deterrence and the growing interest in determinate sentencing are phenomena unforeseen by the commission’s report. These changes in criminal justice are, in part, a result of the growing public frustration over the continued rise in the rate of violent crime. Another significant change-for which the President’s Crime Commission is partially responsible—is the increased awareness of the criminal justice system as a system. The development of a federal justice agency and the emergence of a new academic discipline of criminal justice represent the new strategy of approaching criminal justice as a un ified system.
Hellman and Beaton (1986) investigate the relationship between school crime, school characteristics, and the characteristics of the surrounding community using Boston, Massachusetts’ public schools. They identify two models of crime with the first focusing on how the community influences the school, including socioeconomic factors, physical characteristics, and the amount of outsiders or trespassers that contribute to disciplinary problems. The second model focuses on the environment within the schools which includes school size, student and teacher demographics, physical space characteristics, academic programs, and the administrative climate.
Hellman and Beaton (1986) apply these models to middle schools and high schools separately and find interesting differences between the age groups. Looking at school suspension rates within middle schools it was found that the problems are mainly internal and the community characteristics had no effect. Examining high school suspension rates proved to be quite different with the community crime rate positively and significantly contributing to suspension problems, independent of the internal school environment. This means that controlling high school violence and crime involves a much more complex remedy. Improving academic programs and reducing student instability will help, but controlling and reshaping the influence of the outside community and its crime rate is the major consideration.
To overcome the negative outcomes of difficulty in school, solutions suggested by Hellman and Beaton (1986) entail controlling community crime, violence, and disruption in schools by changing the structure of the community, either physically or socially. The most significant change would be the improvement of housing quality. In other words, to control the school problems, school environment must be restructured to compensate for the influence of the community. When Hellman and Beaton (1986) look for solutions to middle school educational difficulties related to crime, the function of the school environment must be examined, not the surrounding community. They have found that the most important characteristic of the school environment is the ratio of students to teachers. If an adequate number of teachers relative to student population were provided, disruption and violence in middle schools would be reduced. For high schools the solution is a more difficult one. Administrators must continue to promote a social and learning school environment that compensates for the problems of the surrounding community, but they must also reduce the influence that outsiders have on school environments too. A major problem identified and contributing to high school crime and violence is the amount of trespassing and access to school buildings and property by unauthorized individuals. Development of strategies to reduce intruders in large urban schools would significantly change school environmental crime problems.
Reference:
Hellman, D. A., & Beaton, S. (1986). The pattern of violence in urban public schools: the
influence of school and community. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 23(2), 102-127.
It is evident that the majority of academic literature regarding the relationship between difficulties in education and crime state that there is indeed a direct correlation between criminal behavior and poor academic performance. It can be deduced that this relationship is a strong indicator of future criminal behavior. “Poor academic achievement has consistently predicted later delinquency (Maguin and Loeber, 1996; Denno, 1990). Academic failure in the elementary grades also increases risk for later violent behavior (Farrington, 1989; Maguin et.al., 1995).” However, as noted in Hirschfield’s article and in Bouwmeester’s posting, there seems to be a fine line in which by labeling individuals, we can instead contribute to their unsatisfactory behavior. If we continue practicing “zero tolerance policies,” in schools and elsewhere, we can ensure a future of punitive procedures that do not aim to rehabilitate, but rather just to punish. The youth are our future and they should not be thrown away.
Thank you for the comment concerning this week’s subject area. I completely agree with you that harsh feedback can have damaging effects on youth, that there can be a kind of self-fulfilling element to delinquency issues. In your posting there are two references to the relationship between academic performance and delinquency and violent behavior. Both emphasize a kind of predictive perspective, like a judgment, or a foregone conclusion, regarding this relationship. Is the relationship between academics and juvenile delinquency predictive, or is it correlative? Maybe this attitude that you warn of, this throwing away of our youth, is furthered by this kind of out of hand rigidity regarding the cause and effect of education and crime. That’s why I say get to kids EARLY with a zero tolerance policy regarding poor early-childhood education. I believe that by the time juveniles are caught up in ‘the life’ it is often pretty hard to change their course.
You make an excellent point. Sometimes school performance or behavioral issues can often be a manifestation of other problems which exist outside the learning environment. Obviously, educational interventions and alternative schools are not the solution to every problem or for every troubled youth that comes along. Furthermore, Wald and Losen (2003) admit that alternative schools and programs may conflict with the educational goals and desires of those students required to participate (p.13). On the other hand, many proven interventions for behavioral and learning problems exist which can and do “reduce risk and enhance protective factors” for those at risk of engaging in delinquent behaviors (Wald & Losen, 2003, p.13). Wald & Losen (2003) also reference studies from 2001 and 2002 which show that school commitment and connectedness act as “protective buffers against risk factors for” drug abuse and violence, and can be linked with lower occurrences of emotional disorders, suicide attempts and pregnancies (p.12). In other words, students engaged and invested in their school environment are less likely to resort to delinquency – especially if this environment fills a void left by the lack of peer, family or neighborhood support.
Wald, J. & Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 9-15. Retrieved February 6, 2009 from National Criminal Justice Reference Service database (NCJ 204329).
You wrote about some of the difficulties in school and how they relate to the community. If you could somehow change the structure of the community either physically or socially you could remove some of the negative outcomes in school. I believe this to be correct. In 1982, sociologists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling introduced their “Broken Windows” thesis. They believed there is a connection between disorder, fear, crime, and urban decay.
Robert Sampson and Steven Raudenbush (2001) suggest social and physical disorder in urban neighborhoods if unchecked can lead to serious crime. They suggest even minor crime if unchecked can lead to serious crime. So, in order to control the school problem, (i.e. truancy, vandalism, or other manifestation of disorder) the residents of these communities might use their informal social controls to intervene.
Reference:
Sampson, R.J., & Raudenbush, S.W. (Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods – Does It Lead to Crime.) February 2001
Difficulty in school can also manifest itself as the result of bullying as well. Whether this problem has gotten worse or is just receiving more media attention lately is up for debate. But the repercussions can’t be ignored.
Nels Ericson, a senior writer-editor for the ODJJP explores the topic of bullying. He reports estimates of 1.6 million children in grades 6 through 10 are being bullied at least once a week (Ericson, 2001, p. 1). That is quite an amazing number especially when remembering that for those children, their torment is occurring week after week. It is then understandable that many students live lives blanketed by fear. Obviously, this permeates through the school’s culture in a negative manner. Both the bullies and the bullied are at greater risk for isolation, poor school performance, smoking and drinking (Ericson, 2001, p. 2). Such outcomes would be expected from troubled youth and do not seem as large of a hill to climb. But the effects of bullying extend much farther than some minor school difficulties. The short term humiliation and insecurity victims suffer in school, can extend into adulthood, leading to long term issues such as depression and other mental health problems (Ericson, 2001, p. 1). The bullies themselves show a transformation into adulthood as well. While in school, bullies often engage in delinquent behavior such as vandalism, truancy, fighting and shoplifting which leads to further criminal behavior as an adult (Ericson, 2001, p. 1).
In order to reduce future violence, many schools are adopting anti-bullying programs. One successful example is the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. It is a comprehensive strategy that revolves around the three players in bullying-the school staff, the students and the parents (Ericson, 2001, p. 2). By raising awareness of bullying, enforcing clear rules and by providing support and protection to victims’ schools have been able to reduce bullying by 50%, improve the classroom climate, and reduce antisocial behavior.
Reference
Ericson, N. (2001). Addressing the problem of juvenile bullying. ODJJP Fact Sheet, 27. Retrieved from ncjrs.gov on February 6, 2009.
As Team Two’s research stated the correlation between difficulties in education and crime. Some ways that certain schools can prevent or control the level of delinquency according to researchers are schools acting sooner at the sign of trouble. Most juvenile delinquents have shown signs of academic problems at a young age. An example is bullying in school, a longitudinal research associate between children’s bullying and serious delinquent behavior; however, there is not one expecific cause. According to research social and environment can trigger levels of delinquency among most of the juvenile delinquents. The study finds the correlation between juvenile delinquency for secondary school. Most students came from broken homes, their residence are in slums and being brought up with a permissive type of child rearing. Most of the juveniles that commits crimes, about one-half of them reject their school as boring or no hope with learning success. Psychological reports reveal that these juvenile delinquents are sensitive, aggressive, regressive, and low self-esteem. They also have problems with adjustment, making relationships with other, dependency, and inferiority feeling.
You make some very interesting points in your post. I was hoping that you would be able to cite your sources so that I might be able to read the articles you have. I am specifically interested in the longitudial study that you make reference to regarding children bullying and serious delinquent behavior. I can only assume that there is some truth in this statement and would like to find out what their sample size was and the age of the children.
Crimes within school are problematic in that it interferes with the educational aspect of schooling and the safe and secure atmosphere that every school should hold. The statistics you shown are particularly disturbing. Crime rates should not be that high in schools. I am curious if those statistics show different crime rates for different regions of the United States. It would be interesting to find out if there are any specific crime patterns over the past ten years in certain states. Maybe we could then look into the demographics of high crime rate areas and form a hypothesis as to why the rates are so high in some areas and not in others.
I agree with Peter Burrell and also think the issue of education and crime “transcends schools”. I believe behavior that is being exhibited at school, as troubling, is an extension of what is happening at home. It is at this point where, ideally, the combined efforts of the teachers, counselors, and family pull together. However, if a child is being raised in an environment where “surviving” is the norm and the school system is dysfunctional, then I believe the path to criminal behavior will be an easier route for a youth. It is at this point where ignoring the behavior will almost guarantee the young person will end up in the adult criminal justice system.
I have to say that I am on the same page with Peter Burrell and Michelle Baglioni, the schools do play a part in delinquency, but that it also comes from a youth’s environment once they leave school. For some children, school is the most safe, positive atmosphere they have.
However, school can also play a large part in delinquency prevention. Worrall states that it can be done through target hardening, violence prevention, and student-based problem solving. In those schools that are “dangerous,” metal detectors and surveillance cameras may be used as a form of target hardening. Personally, I have not seen any schools with this and cannot atest to their effectiveness. As part of violence prevention, school counselors may pull at-risk students aside and work with them. In student-based problem solving, students would be involved with school officials and police officers to voice their concerns and possible solutions. Of the three, I feel that students would most like the last one and feeling involved in the decision process. It would help make their bond to school stronger.
Worrall, J.L. (2006). Crime control in America: What works? Second Edition.
Amongst the studies selected for review here, which focus on delinquency, its causes, and its aggravating and mitigating factors, there appears to be very little focus on parenting techniques.
After reading the posts for this week and then rereading Cullen and Gendreau (2001), as well as Welsh and Farrington (2001), the absence of research on parenting seems really odd. There are several good reasons, in my opinion, to support such a line of inquiry, but these are purely speculative. Still, wouldn’t it be helpful to know, definitively, if and how parenting can, of its own accord, contribute to deviant behavior in children?
Tashema Eubanks wrote,
An Assessment of an Alternative Education Program for At-Risk Delinquent Youth
Cox, Stephen M., Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 323-336, August 1999
The Based on the premise that schools play a significant role in curbing youth crime; the Delinquency Prevention through Alternative Education Initiative was passed. Although no standards were passed for alternative schools they were designed to create a more successful learning environment through low teacher: student ratios, individualized and self-paced instruction, noncompetitive performance assessments, and less-structures classrooms for students who were deemed delinquent youth. The authors’ study focused on the utility of an alternative school as a delinquency intervention program. Data was collected prior to the beginning of the program, immediately following program completion, and one year following program completion.
The study concluded alternative school produced small short-term effects that disappeared by the long-term follow-up. Additionally, before deeming a student delinquent school officials should consider factors that may contribute to delinquency (e.g., family, peers, neighborhood, social economic status, etc,). Then assess if alternative school is best for the student. As a school-related program may not be the answer for youth with other types of problems that contribute it their delinquent behavior.
Link | February 5th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Maria Ochoa wrote,
Hi Chanelle,
Thanks for your post.
Currently, there is significant debate over deterrence. Stigmatization is an obstacle to for both rehabilitative- and deterrence-based prevention strategies.
I found the following abstract after reading your post and thought I would paste it here, as it illustrates your point.
http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/1
Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1-12 (1978)
DOI: 10.1177/001112877802400101
Reexamining the President’s Crime Commission
The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society after Ten Years
Samuel Walker
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha
In the ten years following the initial publication of the report of the Presi dent’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, we have seen significant changes in criminal justice. Though widely con sulted today, the report has become out of date. As a reference work, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967) remains valuable, but it no longer reflects the dominant issues in American criminal justice. The single most important change over the past decade has been the decline in faith in the idea of rehabilitation. The report of the President’s Crime Commission reflected the belief that alternative correctional programs could effectively attack the causes of crime; now, however, rehabilitation has become an unpopular goal. The debate today over deterrence and the growing interest in determinate sentencing are phenomena unforeseen by the commission’s report. These changes in criminal justice are, in part, a result of the growing public frustration over the continued rise in the rate of violent crime. Another significant change-for which the President’s Crime Commission is partially responsible—is the increased awareness of the criminal justice system as a system. The development of a federal justice agency and the emergence of a new academic discipline of criminal justice represent the new strategy of approaching criminal justice as a un ified system.
Link | February 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Lynn Webb/Team 3 wrote,
Hellman and Beaton (1986) investigate the relationship between school crime, school characteristics, and the characteristics of the surrounding community using Boston, Massachusetts’ public schools. They identify two models of crime with the first focusing on how the community influences the school, including socioeconomic factors, physical characteristics, and the amount of outsiders or trespassers that contribute to disciplinary problems. The second model focuses on the environment within the schools which includes school size, student and teacher demographics, physical space characteristics, academic programs, and the administrative climate.
Hellman and Beaton (1986) apply these models to middle schools and high schools separately and find interesting differences between the age groups. Looking at school suspension rates within middle schools it was found that the problems are mainly internal and the community characteristics had no effect. Examining high school suspension rates proved to be quite different with the community crime rate positively and significantly contributing to suspension problems, independent of the internal school environment. This means that controlling high school violence and crime involves a much more complex remedy. Improving academic programs and reducing student instability will help, but controlling and reshaping the influence of the outside community and its crime rate is the major consideration.
To overcome the negative outcomes of difficulty in school, solutions suggested by Hellman and Beaton (1986) entail controlling community crime, violence, and disruption in schools by changing the structure of the community, either physically or socially. The most significant change would be the improvement of housing quality. In other words, to control the school problems, school environment must be restructured to compensate for the influence of the community. When Hellman and Beaton (1986) look for solutions to middle school educational difficulties related to crime, the function of the school environment must be examined, not the surrounding community. They have found that the most important characteristic of the school environment is the ratio of students to teachers. If an adequate number of teachers relative to student population were provided, disruption and violence in middle schools would be reduced. For high schools the solution is a more difficult one. Administrators must continue to promote a social and learning school environment that compensates for the problems of the surrounding community, but they must also reduce the influence that outsiders have on school environments too. A major problem identified and contributing to high school crime and violence is the amount of trespassing and access to school buildings and property by unauthorized individuals. Development of strategies to reduce intruders in large urban schools would significantly change school environmental crime problems.
Reference:
Hellman, D. A., & Beaton, S. (1986). The pattern of violence in urban public schools: the
influence of school and community. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 23(2), 102-127.
Link | February 5th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Angelica Mejia-Rutland_Group 3 wrote,
It is evident that the majority of academic literature regarding the relationship between difficulties in education and crime state that there is indeed a direct correlation between criminal behavior and poor academic performance. It can be deduced that this relationship is a strong indicator of future criminal behavior. “Poor academic achievement has consistently predicted later delinquency (Maguin and Loeber, 1996; Denno, 1990). Academic failure in the elementary grades also increases risk for later violent behavior (Farrington, 1989; Maguin et.al., 1995).” However, as noted in Hirschfield’s article and in Bouwmeester’s posting, there seems to be a fine line in which by labeling individuals, we can instead contribute to their unsatisfactory behavior. If we continue practicing “zero tolerance policies,” in schools and elsewhere, we can ensure a future of punitive procedures that do not aim to rehabilitate, but rather just to punish. The youth are our future and they should not be thrown away.
References:
Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention. (2000). Predictors of Youth Violence. Retrieved February 3, 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/179065.pdf
Link | February 5th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Theo Krause - Group 2 wrote,
Hello Angelica,
Thank you for the comment concerning this week’s subject area. I completely agree with you that harsh feedback can have damaging effects on youth, that there can be a kind of self-fulfilling element to delinquency issues. In your posting there are two references to the relationship between academic performance and delinquency and violent behavior. Both emphasize a kind of predictive perspective, like a judgment, or a foregone conclusion, regarding this relationship. Is the relationship between academics and juvenile delinquency predictive, or is it correlative? Maybe this attitude that you warn of, this throwing away of our youth, is furthered by this kind of out of hand rigidity regarding the cause and effect of education and crime. That’s why I say get to kids EARLY with a zero tolerance policy regarding poor early-childhood education. I believe that by the time juveniles are caught up in ‘the life’ it is often pretty hard to change their course.
Link | February 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Layla McKinnon - Group 2 wrote,
Tashema,
You make an excellent point. Sometimes school performance or behavioral issues can often be a manifestation of other problems which exist outside the learning environment. Obviously, educational interventions and alternative schools are not the solution to every problem or for every troubled youth that comes along. Furthermore, Wald and Losen (2003) admit that alternative schools and programs may conflict with the educational goals and desires of those students required to participate (p.13). On the other hand, many proven interventions for behavioral and learning problems exist which can and do “reduce risk and enhance protective factors” for those at risk of engaging in delinquent behaviors (Wald & Losen, 2003, p.13). Wald & Losen (2003) also reference studies from 2001 and 2002 which show that school commitment and connectedness act as “protective buffers against risk factors for” drug abuse and violence, and can be linked with lower occurrences of emotional disorders, suicide attempts and pregnancies (p.12). In other words, students engaged and invested in their school environment are less likely to resort to delinquency – especially if this environment fills a void left by the lack of peer, family or neighborhood support.
Link | February 6th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Layla McKinnon - Group 2 wrote,
Please see reference for above comment below.
Wald, J. & Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 9-15. Retrieved February 6, 2009 from National Criminal Justice Reference Service database (NCJ 204329).
Link | February 6th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
David Killeen wrote,
Lynn Webb,
You wrote about some of the difficulties in school and how they relate to the community. If you could somehow change the structure of the community either physically or socially you could remove some of the negative outcomes in school. I believe this to be correct. In 1982, sociologists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling introduced their “Broken Windows” thesis. They believed there is a connection between disorder, fear, crime, and urban decay.
Robert Sampson and Steven Raudenbush (2001) suggest social and physical disorder in urban neighborhoods if unchecked can lead to serious crime. They suggest even minor crime if unchecked can lead to serious crime. So, in order to control the school problem, (i.e. truancy, vandalism, or other manifestation of disorder) the residents of these communities might use their informal social controls to intervene.
Reference:
Sampson, R.J., & Raudenbush, S.W. (Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods – Does It Lead to Crime.) February 2001
Wilson, J.Q., & Kelling, G.L., (Broken Windows), 1982
Link | February 7th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Melissa Forsythe-Group 1 wrote,
Difficulty in school can also manifest itself as the result of bullying as well. Whether this problem has gotten worse or is just receiving more media attention lately is up for debate. But the repercussions can’t be ignored.
Nels Ericson, a senior writer-editor for the ODJJP explores the topic of bullying. He reports estimates of 1.6 million children in grades 6 through 10 are being bullied at least once a week (Ericson, 2001, p. 1). That is quite an amazing number especially when remembering that for those children, their torment is occurring week after week. It is then understandable that many students live lives blanketed by fear. Obviously, this permeates through the school’s culture in a negative manner. Both the bullies and the bullied are at greater risk for isolation, poor school performance, smoking and drinking (Ericson, 2001, p. 2). Such outcomes would be expected from troubled youth and do not seem as large of a hill to climb. But the effects of bullying extend much farther than some minor school difficulties. The short term humiliation and insecurity victims suffer in school, can extend into adulthood, leading to long term issues such as depression and other mental health problems (Ericson, 2001, p. 1). The bullies themselves show a transformation into adulthood as well. While in school, bullies often engage in delinquent behavior such as vandalism, truancy, fighting and shoplifting which leads to further criminal behavior as an adult (Ericson, 2001, p. 1).
In order to reduce future violence, many schools are adopting anti-bullying programs. One successful example is the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. It is a comprehensive strategy that revolves around the three players in bullying-the school staff, the students and the parents (Ericson, 2001, p. 2). By raising awareness of bullying, enforcing clear rules and by providing support and protection to victims’ schools have been able to reduce bullying by 50%, improve the classroom climate, and reduce antisocial behavior.
Reference
Ericson, N. (2001). Addressing the problem of juvenile bullying. ODJJP Fact Sheet, 27. Retrieved from ncjrs.gov on February 6, 2009.
Link | February 8th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Wurzburg--Week 5 Posting wrote,
As Team Two’s research stated the correlation between difficulties in education and crime. Some ways that certain schools can prevent or control the level of delinquency according to researchers are schools acting sooner at the sign of trouble. Most juvenile delinquents have shown signs of academic problems at a young age. An example is bullying in school, a longitudinal research associate between children’s bullying and serious delinquent behavior; however, there is not one expecific cause. According to research social and environment can trigger levels of delinquency among most of the juvenile delinquents. The study finds the correlation between juvenile delinquency for secondary school. Most students came from broken homes, their residence are in slums and being brought up with a permissive type of child rearing. Most of the juveniles that commits crimes, about one-half of them reject their school as boring or no hope with learning success. Psychological reports reveal that these juvenile delinquents are sensitive, aggressive, regressive, and low self-esteem. They also have problems with adjustment, making relationships with other, dependency, and inferiority feeling.
Link | February 8th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Alex Hurlbert wrote,
Denelia,
You make some very interesting points in your post. I was hoping that you would be able to cite your sources so that I might be able to read the articles you have. I am specifically interested in the longitudial study that you make reference to regarding children bullying and serious delinquent behavior. I can only assume that there is some truth in this statement and would like to find out what their sample size was and the age of the children.
Alex
Link | February 8th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Katie Hayes Group 2 wrote,
Jon Flick,
Crimes within school are problematic in that it interferes with the educational aspect of schooling and the safe and secure atmosphere that every school should hold. The statistics you shown are particularly disturbing. Crime rates should not be that high in schools. I am curious if those statistics show different crime rates for different regions of the United States. It would be interesting to find out if there are any specific crime patterns over the past ten years in certain states. Maybe we could then look into the demographics of high crime rate areas and form a hypothesis as to why the rates are so high in some areas and not in others.
Katie
Link | February 8th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Michelle Baglioni-Group One wrote,
I agree with Peter Burrell and also think the issue of education and crime “transcends schools”. I believe behavior that is being exhibited at school, as troubling, is an extension of what is happening at home. It is at this point where, ideally, the combined efforts of the teachers, counselors, and family pull together. However, if a child is being raised in an environment where “surviving” is the norm and the school system is dysfunctional, then I believe the path to criminal behavior will be an easier route for a youth. It is at this point where ignoring the behavior will almost guarantee the young person will end up in the adult criminal justice system.
Link | February 8th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Lodi Presley wrote,
I have to say that I am on the same page with Peter Burrell and Michelle Baglioni, the schools do play a part in delinquency, but that it also comes from a youth’s environment once they leave school. For some children, school is the most safe, positive atmosphere they have.
However, school can also play a large part in delinquency prevention. Worrall states that it can be done through target hardening, violence prevention, and student-based problem solving. In those schools that are “dangerous,” metal detectors and surveillance cameras may be used as a form of target hardening. Personally, I have not seen any schools with this and cannot atest to their effectiveness. As part of violence prevention, school counselors may pull at-risk students aside and work with them. In student-based problem solving, students would be involved with school officials and police officers to voice their concerns and possible solutions. Of the three, I feel that students would most like the last one and feeling involved in the decision process. It would help make their bond to school stronger.
Worrall, J.L. (2006). Crime control in America: What works? Second Edition.
Link | February 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Maria Ochoa wrote,
Amongst the studies selected for review here, which focus on delinquency, its causes, and its aggravating and mitigating factors, there appears to be very little focus on parenting techniques.
After reading the posts for this week and then rereading Cullen and Gendreau (2001), as well as Welsh and Farrington (2001), the absence of research on parenting seems really odd. There are several good reasons, in my opinion, to support such a line of inquiry, but these are purely speculative. Still, wouldn’t it be helpful to know, definitively, if and how parenting can, of its own accord, contribute to deviant behavior in children?
Link | February 9th, 2009 at 12:26 am