Anti-violence programs make schools safer
Ewing says programs with faculty, student, staff input belong in school curriculum

By MARY BETH SPINA
News Services Editor

Anti-violence programs that include input from students, staff and teachers must become part of the curriculum in order to make schools safer, a UB forensic psychologist maintains.

Although a majority of schools already have some type of program aimed at preventing violence, they vary in content, quality and duration, says Charles Patrick Ewing, professor of law and adjunct professor of psychology.

Ewing, a nationally recognized authority on juvenile violence, favors a public-health model that includes offering anti-violence education programs as part of the curriculum, altering the school environment to minimize opportunities for violence and establishing hotlines to alert officials to potentially violent persons or situations.

Until society effectively deals with the greater problems that cause youth violence, Ewing emphasizes, every reasonable step should be taken to restore order in the schools and protect children and teachers.

Ewing said that based on his research and experience as an expert witness in cases involving violent behavior, he would be shocked if, in a case such as the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado, there were no suspicions from anyone that a student was contemplating or actually planning violence.

"Key among all the warning signs are explicit or implicit verbal threats to hurt or kill others," he says.

Although students showing one or more of a myriad of other signs may not act homicidally at school or anywhere else, he points out that they could be referred to appropriate services in or out of school. "Even if no action is taken," Ewing says, "school personnel could respond more quickly if they were aware of those students."

Warning signs include low self-esteem and feelings of powerlessness; being the perpetrator or victim of bullying; excessive interest in violent media; fascination with fire, weapons or explosives, and being victimized by or witnessing violence in the home.

Moreover, changing the school environment to minimize the opportunity for violence is another-and often relatively inexpensive-preventive measure school officials can take.

These include requiring students and staff to wear photo identification badges, changing fencing and landscaping outside the school, limiting building access, mounting convex mirrors in halls and stairways, using weapons detectors and installing video monitors on school grounds and in buildings. Other steps include equipping teachers and staff with cell phones or two-way radios and planning and rehearsing "stop and drop" drills, should violence erupt.

Ewing says he's not suggesting that schools need to take any or all of these preventive measures, but should, after assessing their own likelihood of violence, take whatever safety precautions are warranted. Schools also could consider establishing confidential hotlines to be used by students and others to report threats or suspicious behavior.

"Zero-tolerance policies that are being adopted by an increasing number of schools clearly enforce the rule that students who make a threat of violence will be suspended, pending further investigation," Ewing says, noting that laws already on the books cover criminal charges that face those who bring weapons to school.

Lastly, schools should have a plan if violence should erupt, including notifying parents, dealing with the media and, in the worst-case scenario, identifying grief counselors who can help students and staff. "For the time being, at the very least we can work together to reclaim our schools, to provide our children with an educational environment in which they can learn without fear, and to foster the kind of leadership future generations will need to seek the solutions our generation could not, or would not, see," Ewing says.