Education, Citizenship and Social justice6(2) 125 –136

© The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1746197911410370

esj.sagepub.com

ecsjAggression and violence exposure in adolescence and the role of school- based policy initiatives

Anne KennedyLiverpool Hope University, UK

AbstractThis article reports on an exploratory study into young people’s exposure to aggression and violence. It undertakes a collective examination of the domains occupied by young people and in doing so focuses on an area that has for the most part been overlooked by previous researchers in the UK. The analysis is based on the responses of 98 young people aged 13–16 from two secondary schools in the north-west of England. The main findings reveal that the young people’s exposure to violence as a bystander is a regular occurrence and that their communities were no more or less damaging than the schools they attended. Observations are also offered in relation to policy initiatives intended to promote pupil well-being and a more conducive learning environment within primary and secondary schools.

Keywordsaggression, community, policy, prevention, school, violence

Introduction

Children and young people’s exposure to aggression and violence has become a prominent concern within public, political and academic discourse and is also a source of anxiety for the youth of today. Evidence indicates exposure to violence in childhood is a major risk factor for problems in later life (Katz, 1997; Saunders, 2003). Young people have often witnessed several types of vio-lence, on multiple occasions (Daro et al., 2004; Katz, 1997; Margolin, 2005; Morgan and Zedner, 1992; Pinheiro, 2006; Saunders, 2003; UNICEF, 2007), and, compared with adults, figure dispro-portionately as victims of crime (Innocenti Digest, 1997; Morgan and Zedner, 1992). In addition, gender plays a key role in determining the type of victimization this population are subjected to:

Corresponding author:Anne Kennedy, Department of Social Work, Care and Justice, Liverpool Hope University, Hilda Constance Allen Building, Room 048, Hope Park, Merseyside, United Kingdom, L16 9JD, UK Email: kenneda@hope.ac.uk

Article

126 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(2)

boys are at greater risk of physical violence, while girls are at greater risk of neglect and sexual violence (Pinheiro, 2006). The risk of victimization is also exacerbated for young people from British Minority Ethnic groups, particularly those of African Caribbean origin (Madge, 2001).

While young people view violence as a major problem, there is also a tendency for them to view these experiences as commonplace and a part of growing up (NSPCC, 2007). This assumption of ‘normality’ in young people is rather alarming, not least because it suggests that their exposure is routine and endured. Given the potential consequences for wider society with routine acceptance of violence in a future generation of citizens, there is a need to consider the messages that young people impart from their experiences (Crime Research Centre, 2001; McAlister Groves, 2002; Siann, 1985), the extent to which their lives are marked by adversity (Daro et al., 2004; Margolin, 2005; Sullivan, 2006) and the impact of any exposure. The need for early identification and inter-vention in the lives of this vulnerable population to prevent the development of violent attitudes and behaviours in later adolescence and adulthood is of primary importance (Daro et al., 2004; Farrington, 2002, 2007; Innocenti Digest, 1997; Pinheiro, 2006; Saunders, 2003; UNICEF, 2007).

Research rationale

The research and findings presented here are taken from a wider study with young people while doing comparisons with similar experiences within the school, community and the home, which provided insights at the individual level and facilitated comparisons across all three domains. The focus of this article is young people’s exposure to aggression and violence within the school setting, with some comparisons drawn with their exposure to aggression and violence in the community,1 alongside an examination of several policy initiatives which have been introduced into some schools to promote pupil well-being within the curriculum and school leadership.

Despite some advances being made into exploring childhood exposure to violence across the different domains (i.e. home, school and community), there has been a tendency to resist this (Saunders, 2003), which Daro et al. (2004) argue has resulted in a ‘specialization’ that impedes knowledge progression on such issues and creates ineffective public policy. Therefore, it would appear reasonable to assume that in promoting collaborative research and drawing upon this wealth of expertise it would be of immense benefit to the most vulnerable sections of society. The alternative is that we retain a fragmented approach in which children exposed to violence will ultimately continue to suffer (Daro et al., 2004; Edleson, 1999; Margolin, 2005; Saunders, 2003). It has been reported in the literature of the need to ‘expand our paradigms for explaining how violence exposure disrupts domains of individual development and also invades broader spheres of the child’s life including family, school and community’ (Margolin, 2005: 78). Taken together, these observations indicate that urgent action is needed, particularly in light of the recent calls from UNICEF (2007) to undertake further inquiry into children and young people’s exposure to violence of all kinds.

Alongside the family, it is essential that young people feel safe and positive about their school environment as experiences therein are considered crucial to their educational attainment and future well-being (Danzinger, 1971; Elliott, 1994; Health Development Agency, 2004; Hossack et al., 2006). Schools are tasked with promoting pro-social attitudes and behaviour in their pupils and have a responsibility to safeguard their welfare, and reduce the potential for aggression and violence within school. As the largest arena in which young people congregate, schools can become the focal point for contests of status and power among peers, which may lead to negative incidents arising (Aye Maung, 1995; Children’s Society, 2006; Elliott, 1994; Gulbekian Foundation Commission, 1995; Wilson et al., 2006).

Kennedy: Aggression and violence exposure in adolescence 127

Several studies report that the school is a potentially harmful environment within which young people interact and negotiate space on a daily basis (Children’s Society, 2006; Elliott, 1994; Gulbekian Foundation Commission, 1995; Hossack et al., 2006; MORI, 2004). In particular, the school playground is considered potentially damaging for children and young people, as it is an arena that they have to manage not out of choice but through necessity (Mayall, 2002). The evi-dence suggests that the majority of assaults against young people take place for the most part either in or in close proximity to the school (Aye Maung, 1995; MORI, 2004) and this is also where the use of weapons is increasing (Beinart et al., 2002). Acts of aggression and violence directed at young people are often perpetrated by their peers (Armstrong et al., 2005; Aye Maung, 1995; Beinart et al., 2002), of a similar age group (MORI, 2004; Wilson et al., 2006), highlighting the tenacity of some young people to inflict harm on others with the intent to seriously hurt them (Armstrong et al., 2005; Beinart et al., 2002; Hoffman and Edwards, 2004).

The study

This research draws upon the ‘risk factor prevention paradigm’ originally developed within the field of medicine and public health by David Hawkins and Richard Catalano in 1992 and adopted by criminology in the 1990s (Farrington, 2000). In particular, the questionnaire has elaborated upon the theoretical model of ‘risk and protection’ (Farrington, 2000, 2002, 2007). The application of this model to the young people population is considered controversial since their behaviour is often heavily targeted, circumscribed and criminalized. As indicated above, this population is very vulnerable. Hence there is a need to take on board the adversity that young people experience, along with protective influences that facilitate their social development and well-being.

A total of 98 young people aged 13–16 years were recruited from two secondary schools within an urban location in the north-west of England. Young people of later secondary school age were selected because it was anticipated that they would have greater social awareness of the issues raised, would be more socially active and would be better able to distinguish between horseplay and more serious acts of aggression and violence. In total 53 girls and 45 boys participated in the study, with a mean age of 14.3. Nearly one-third of the sample (n = 30) came from School A, which can be described as a mixed comprehensive in a largely affluent area. The remainder of participants (n = 68) came from School B, which consisted of two distinct catchment areas. The majority (68%) of the young people lived with both parents, followed by those who lived with their mother and step-father (18%), mother only (11%), father or carer (1%). All the young girls (100%) and the vast majority of the boys (82%) described themselves as white British, with the remainder being of Pakistani origin (13%) or other ethic background (5%). Race is a crucial medi-ating factor in the experiences of young people; however, only a small minority of young people of ethnic origin participated in this study, which prevented analysis in this respect, beyond demo-graphic information.

Descriptive responses were elicited from a nine-page self-completion questionnaire, which con-tained both open-ended and closed questions designed around the notion of risk and protection. The questionnaire was divided into ten sections and examined the following features: demographic information on the young person and his/her family (A–B); the young person’s experience of school, i.e. attendance, attitude, communication with teachers and engagement in school activities (C); the nature of relationships with friends, social activities, communication, frequency of serious conflict and whether such conflict escalated in severity and led to serious fights (D); passive or active involvement in aggression and violence with peers, i.e. experiences of witnessing serious fights between other young people, threatening behaviour, involvement in serious fights with

128 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(2)

peers, injuries sustained and the locations of any incidents (E–F); the nature of relationships with family members, parental engagement and discipline (G–J); parental conflict, aggression and vio-lence (K). For the most part, this article will focus on the responses from questions in Sections C (school), D (friends) and E (peers).

The young people were asked to consider two time frames when responding to questions. In the first instance, respondents were asked: ‘Have you ever …?’ followed by a series of different inci-dents. Essentially, this was to establish whether the young person had ever been exposed to an adverse experience (i.e. an act of aggression and/or violence) at any time. Secondly, the young people were asked to report the number of serious incidents they had witnessed and/or experienced in a more specific time frame. For example, ‘Since starting secondary school about how many times have you …?’. This time frame was selected to ascertain exposure to adverse experiences during a period considered to be turbulent for some young people. The transition from primary to secondary school brings young people into contact with strangers of the same age; this in itself can be fraught with emotional and physical challenges. In this new environment, young people are required to integrate with others to establish new peer networks; this may invoke competition and/or tension. The young people were also asked to provide details about the worst incident they had experienced and to report the number of serious episodes they had encountered. It was left up to the young person to determine whether his/her worst incident was of a serious nature.

Findings

Violence and aggression

As shown in Figure 1, participants were more likely to witness a fight in school (52%) than in the community (42%), and fights with peers were almost equally likely at school (14%) and the com-munity (15%). However, fights with friends were more likely in the community (15%) than in school (8%).

Where participants reported involvement in fights with peers, they were requested to provide details on the age group of the other person(s) involved. Regardless of whether the fight took place

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Witnessed Fight Fight -Peers

Per

cent

age

(n =

98)

SchoolCommunity

Fight -Friends

Figure 1. Locations of exposure to fights

Kennedy: Aggression and violence exposure in adolescence 129

with a peer or with a friend, all the young people reported that the other person was of a similar age. In some instances, injuries were sustained during those fights with peers (16%) and with friends (10%); however, it was not possible to determine the nature of those injuries.

In light of this evidence it was considered necessary to establish the levels of repeat exposure. In Figure 2, boys and girls are compared with respect to the number of serious fights between oth-ers that they had witnessed, with over a third (34%) who had witnessed 3–5 incidents, followed by 6–10 incidents (26%) and 1–2 incidents (24%). Out of the total sample (n = 98), 94 had witnessed a fight, and of these young people, only four reported that the fight was not of a serious nature. As shown in Figure 2, girls predominate in witnessing 1–5 serious fights while boys predominate in witnessing six or more serious fights. This means that more serious fights are actually witnessed by the boys.

The next set of findings are based on young people’s responses to being asked whether they had ever been subjected to threatening behaviour, the nature of that threat and the number of times they had been threatened in a serious way since staring secondary school. Only a small percentage of girls (21%) and boys (16%) had experienced threatening behaviour from their peers. This line of questioning was pursued further in order to explore the nature of such threats. Participants were asked if, within that incident, any of the following had occurred: being slapped, being pushed, being kicked, being hit with fist, being hit with object. As shown in Figure 3, the threatening behaviour consisted mostly of pushing, with only a few young people reporting that they had been kicked or hit with objects identified as bricks and bottles. Looking at the levels of physical attack, from low level (push slap) to more serious encounters (kick, punch or hit with object) there was a very limited amount of low-level violence experienced at the hands of peers. This finding is con-sistent with previous research, which has identified being grabbed, pushed, pulled or kicked as the most likely type of assault that 10–15 year olds will experience (Wilson et al., 2006).

To examine the extent of threatening behaviour the young people were asked to report how many times they had been threatened in a serious way since starting secondary school. Of the 37 young people who responded to say they had been threatened, 23% reported one serious

Per

cent

age

0

5

10

15

20

25

Never*

Girls (n = 53)

Boys (n = 45)

11-20+6-103-51-2None**

Figure 2. Number of serious fights witnessed since starting secondary school.*Respondents had never witnessed a fight between other young people.** Respondents had never witnessed a serious fight between other young people.

130 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(2)

incident, and 10% said that they had experienced a serious threat on more than one occasion. A very small minority (4%) said that the worst threat they had experienced was not of a seri-ous nature.

When examining the age of the perpetrator of the violence or threatening behaviour, it was found that two-thirds (24%) were of a similar age group and one-third (13%) were older. Alongside being the recipients of aggressive and violent acts a small number of participants (26%) reported that they had threatened another young person. The three main reasons given were: the result of ‘annoying behaviour’ of another young person; in response to a verbal insult; and in retaliation to a threat received from another individual. With regards to which locations provided the greatest exposure to aggressive incidents, participants were almost as likely to be exposed to threats within the school environment (14%) as in the community (18%).

School outlook

The school is considered to be the second most prominent area of influence upon the lives of young people, and as such it is important that they have positive attitudes and experiences in school as these are considered crucial to their future well-being and educational attainment. In the present study, all of the young people said that they attended school five days a week, and when asked to describe how they felt about school just over half (53%) said they went to school but did not like it, with the reminder of participants (47%) indicating that they looked forward to school. When asked to report what it was they liked best about school, 59% said ‘socializing with their friends’, followed by ‘friends and favourite subjects’ (20%) and ‘seeing friends and learning’ (11%). The features of school that participants disliked the most were: boring lessons (38%), teachers and/or the teaching methods used (22%) and too much homework (16%). Of the young people ques-tioned, 52% said they engaged in extra-curricular activities, i.e. sports (38%), music and/or drama (8%) and charity work (6%), with 48% reporting no such participation.

Percentage0 10

Pushed

Slapped

Kicked

Hit Fist

Hit Object

Girls (n = 21)

Boys (n = 16)

2 4 6 8

Figure 3. Types of violence and threatening behaviour experienced by young people from peers in school and the community

Kennedy: Aggression and violence exposure in adolescence 131

One of the reasons for asking young people their feelings towards school was to find out how many young people disliked school because they had had a negative experience there. Here, only a small proportion (4%) said they disliked school because of exposure to a negative incident, i.e. ‘sometimes people hit me’, ‘pupils throwing stuff at us’ (e.g. bottles) and ‘bullies’. Overall, the findings suggest that, for the most part, young people present a fairly positive image of school despite the prevalence of serious fights within their school environment.

Discussion

Several key themes can be drawn from the research findings. In the first instance, it is quite significant that young people are exposed to this amount of violence within the school and the community, but particularly so in respect of the former, since the school has a duty of care to keep young people safe. This study also found that only a small minority were exposed to multiple forms of violence, and violence was primarily of a low-level nature.

At the onset of the research, it was anticipated that the young people would be more likely to report higher instances of exposure to aggression and violence within the community, primarily because they are constantly supervised in school and the school has a duty of care to keep the pupils in its care safe. These findings seem to contradict the popular understanding of the school as a completely safe place, resonating with research reported elsewhere, which suggests that the school is increasingly becoming the focus of much serious conflict, aggression and violence (Armstrong et al., 2005; Aye Maung, 1995; Beinart et al., 2002; Elliott, 1994; Gulbekian Commission Foundation, 1995; MORI, 2004; Wilson et al., 2006), where children and young people may be exposed to violence and/or aggression either as a bystander, victim or perpetrator.

Clearly neighbourhood context is also vital to understanding the complexity of young people’s lives and the ways in which it can perpetuate, prevent or potentially eliminate violence. Issues such as alienation, marginalization and exclusion are all areas of concern for young people, and the extent to which their communities are marked by criminal activity, inadequate recreational facilities and the need for space are all pertinent considerations in the reduction and prevention of violence (Beinart et al., 2002; Beunderman et al., 2007; Children’s Society, 2006). In examining the multiple domains of the child, knowledge and expertise in these issues may be transferred to various agencies to create what Daro et al. (2004) refer to as a ‘road map’, which is a more appro-priate approach as it provides a ‘unifying lens’ as opposed to the ‘fragmented lenses’ through which we focus on just one aspect of a child’s life (p. 284). In submissions made to the Good Childhood Inquiry, young people also spoke of the need to feel safe at home, at school and in the community (Children’s Society, 2006).

The findings of this research also suggest that the young people’s exposure to violence and aggression across both locations (i.e. school and community) is sustained, which may be consid-ered harmful for several reasons (Katz, 1997). First, young people are unable to escape such nega-tive experiences, either as a result of their dependency in that they are legally required to attend school or because the problem is located within their neighbourhood. Second, as noted earlier, exposure to violence may become ‘normalized’ as reflected in the observations of the Crime Research Centre, who explain that ‘the more violence is routinely used and witnessed in daily (public) life, and the more accepted and unchallenged its use, the more this provides a fertile ground for the use and acceptance of relationship violence’ (2001: 13). Pinheiro points out that ‘by being victims, perpetrators and witnesses of violence, children learn that violence is an acceptable way for the strong and aggressive to get what they want from the comparatively weak, passive or peaceful’ (2006: 111). Third, for some young people a degree of apprehension may be experienced

132 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(2)

as a bystander in the knowledge that fairly innocuous situations may escalate into something more menacing.

Policy initiatives

Violence can be defined in many ways (Krug et al., 2002). In defining violence here we adopt the view that violence is deliberate behaviour carried out by exerting force over another individual for self-gain, and the harm caused is intentional. Itzin (2000) maintains that definitions are important because they affect individual perceptions, the overall view of the issue, and inform research, law, policy and social responses. With this in mind several key documents are examined to ascertain what is being implemented at policy level within schools to ensure that the problem of violent and threatening behaviour is being adequately addressed.

In 1999, the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) published guidance for the National Healthy School Standard, which sets out the criteria for schools to participate in an accredited programme to achieve ‘healthy school status’. To achieve such recognition, schools are provided with specific themes which they must address: drug education, sex and relation-ships, and emotional well-being, which includes bullying. The DfEE (1999) also advises that the school setting should support the moral, spiritual, cultural and social growth of its pupils by pro-viding them with accessible material and equipping them with the necessary skills and attributes to inform them in their decision making. However, in terms of enhancing behaviour management in pupils there is no explicit reference to aggression and/or violence within this guidance and none within the ‘supporting resources’ for educational practitioners.

Drawing on this earlier document, in 2004 the Health Development Agency published Promoting Emotional Health and Wellbeing, which details the role of the school in the development of pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural skills. Amongst the skills listed are positive conflict resolution and the ability to handle and articulate negative emotions in a constructive manner. This strategy was designed to enable children and young people to develop effective interpersonal relations that encourage respect and accountability for one’s actions. While it is reported that conflict is a key concern for young people, and reference is made to the terms conflict resolution, anger manage-ment and ‘hot spots where pupils feel vulnerable’ (Health Development Agency, 2004: 34), there is no explicit dialogue in this publication on the subject of violence. It is noted that ‘the key for schools is that emotional wellbeing is critical in developing a healthy, successful school commu-nity’ (p. 7). However, less emphasis is placed on suggesting ways of addressing this key issue, which would indicate the need for a more proactive approach in terms of engaging with pupils and teachers, and influencing the school ethos and management.

In September 2007, the Department for Health (DH) and the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) published the Whole School Approach to the National Healthy Schools Programme. Building on the ‘healthy schools status’ discussed above, the key aims of this programme are to support pupils in developing ‘healthy behaviours’, to reduce ‘health inequalities’, promote ‘social inclusion’ and raise attainment levels of pupils (DH and DCSF, 2007). To achieve such ‘status’ schools must demonstrate that they are meeting criteria under four key thematic headings: (1) Personal Social and Health Education, (2) Healthy Eating, (3) Physical Activity and (4) Emotional Health and Wellbeing (DH and DCSF, 2007). Schools participating in this programme are also expected to develop policies on numerous issues, several of which are relevant to this discussion, namely bullying, behaviour, and sex and relationships. This publication shares similar limitations to the two documents mentioned earlier; in particular

Kennedy: Aggression and violence exposure in adolescence 133

there is no mention of any kind on the subject of aggression or violence. Policy initiatives of this nature need to provide greater guidance to schools on how they should implement pre-vention and intervention programmes to reduce violence in schools and thus promote the emo-tional well-being of pupils and staff alike. Clearly, there is potential to address these issues explicitly within the curriculum, in the context of lessons in personal health, social education and citizenship.

Adopting a very different approach, the Safer Schools Partnership undertakes a more proactive standpoint with a principal aim of reducing the number of incidents of victimization in schools. The Safer School Partnership is a collaborative initiative undertaken with schools, police and local agencies to ‘reduce the prevalence of crime, anti-social behaviour and victimization amongst young people and to reduce the number of incidents and crimes in schools and their wider com-munities’ (Hossack et al., 2006: 4). The benefits of undertaking this initiative are to encourage more pro-social values, an environment more conducive to learning and a safer school commu-nity. This initiative has seen the introduction of full-time police officers based within educational establishments and is perhaps indicative of the scale of the problems facing many of the youth today, and those who work within the school environment. At first, some school governing bodies and headteachers expressed concern at the introduction of police officers to schools and the impact this might have on the reputation of the schools; however, these reservations have since subsided. Targeted interventions include ‘a database of at risk young people’ and ‘reports provided to school management on specific young people’ (Hossack et al., 2006: 5).

A more updated version of this document has recently been published (DCSF, 2009) which reports that over 5,000 schools now have agreed to some type of formal arrangement with the police, and that such partnerships should be viewed as the norm and not the exception. It is also reported within this document that schools retain the responsibility for the discipline and behav-iour of their pupils, while the designated police officer provides support and advice where neces-sary. The language used is essentially about identification, prevention, victimization, enforcement, policing, safety and behaviour. There is also an emphasis on building positive links between the school and the local community. For the most part the descriptive content replicates the earlier version of the document, but there is a new focus on the Youth Crime Action Plan, gang culture, violent extremism, weapons and financial fraud.

There are two observations to be made at this point in respect of all five policy documents. First, the findings from the present study support earlier reports that the school is a prevalent source of exposure to aggression and violence for young people. Second, in order to reduce the levels of violence, it is widely acknowledged that early intervention is crucial (Daro et al., 2004; Farrington, 2002, 2007; Innocenti Digest, 1997; Pinheiro, 2006; Saunders, 2003; UNICEF, 2007). Intervention appears to have been given limited attention in the first three publications, so it would be appropri-ate to address this omission in future publications and adopt a more explicit practice of naming and recognizing aggression and violence as important social concerns to be addressed within the school curriculum. Clearly, this would be dependent on the school climate and the willingness of those individuals within the school to engage in reciprocal relationships to foster change and bring about a reduction in the levels of aggression and violence within the school environment. Within all three documents it is apparent that these concerns have not been taken on board. In line with recommen-dations reported elsewhere (Pinheiro, 2006), policy initiatives directed at violence prevention need to be given far greater attention.

The concerns in relation to the Safer School Partnership are very different. Schools are ideally placed to influence the attitudes and behaviour of children and young people by their leadership,

134 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(2)

and therefore play a crucial role in socialization and development (Gulbekian Foundation Commission, 1995; Haydon, 1997; Pinheiro, 2006). The implementation of policy initiatives that permit law enforcement agencies to work within primary and secondary schools may be considered a step too far by some organizations, primarily because it may result in the identifi-cation and stigmatization of certain children and in exclusionary measures being enacted. Or is this collaboration with law enforcement agencies merely indicative of contemporary society? While acknowledging the success of this initiative in providing a safer school environment, there will be many children’s charities and other professional bodies who will be perturbed by some of the measures introduced under the Safer School Partnership. Rather, to reduce the levels of victimization experienced by young people in schools there should be more emphasis on interactive learning involving choice and self-control to encourage understanding of the concepts of right and wrong in order to reduce negative behaviours and increase levels of morality and respect. Embedded within the curriculum, the surmounting problems of aggres-sion and violence in childhood and youth can be more explicitly addressed. Engaging with young people in this way may reduce the extent to which unacceptable behaviour is used within future generations.

Summary and conclusions

The Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (2007) stated: ‘Everyone in the edu-cation service shares an objective to help keep children and young people safe by contributing to the provision of a safe environment for children and young people to learn in education settings’ (p. 3). Findings from this study support the existing literature, essentially that the school can be the site for much aggression and/or violence between young people (Aye Maung, 1995; Elliott, 1994; MORI, 2004; Wilson et al., 2006).

This study was undertaken with young people in recognition of their status, but also of their potential to effect a greater change within society. Understandably young people want to be consulted on matters that affect them, to have a right to be heard, to be actively involved in the solutions to social concerns and to have a choice, but with this comes an element of responsibility that needs to be conveyed to them in an age-appropriate manner. Young people may benefit from discussions aimed at understanding the reasons for their behaviour and working towards a solution. In addition, they may need to acknowledge that the situation is not all about them, that others are affected by their actions. In the school setting they may learn to recognize difference, to tolerate others, exercise self-control, accept responsibilities for their actions and thus undertake more effec-tive methods of conflict resolution and reduce the potential for escalation.

Importantly, findings from this study reiterate the need for early intervention and effective preventative measures with this population in which the school setting has a central role to play in assisting young people in learning about social concerns such as aggression and violence and ultimately in transforming society. Undoubtedly, schools should not be required to accept sole responsibility for this problem; rather a political commitment is needed from government and stakeholders at all levels of the decision-making process, both locally and nationally.

These are crucial issues that need to be addressed and require the government to employ more rigorous policies incorporating primary prevention and a more proactive approach in practice. Ultimately this could bring about a change in the social environment and contribute to a reduction in the levels of victimization experienced by the children and young people of today and for future generations to come. The benefits of this would be incalculable to the victims, bystanders, perpe-trators and wider society.

Kennedy: Aggression and violence exposure in adolescence 135

Acknowledgements

With thanks to Rosemary Kilpatrick for comments on an earlier draft. This research was supported by the Economic Social Research Council PTA-030-2003-01701 awarded to Anne Kennedy.

Note

1. The findings in respect of the family domain are not discussed within this article owing to the very small numbers of reported aggressive and violent incidents between parents.

References

Armstrong D, Hine J, Hacking S, Armaos R, Jones R, Klessinger N and France A (2005) Children, Risk and Crime: The On Track Youth Lifestyles Surveys, Home Office Research Study 278. London: Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

Aye Maung N (1995) Young People, Victimisation and the Police: British Crime Survey Findings on Experiences and Attitudes of 12 to 15 Year Olds, Home Office Research Study 140. London: Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

Beinart S, Anderson B, Lee S and Utting D (2002) Youth at Risk? A National Survey of Risk Factors, Protective Factors and Problem Behaviour among Young People in England, Scotland and Wales. London: Communities that Care.

Beunderman J, Hanon C and Bradwell P (2007) Seen and Heard: Reclaiming the Public Realm with Children and Young People. London: Demos.

Children’s Society (2006) Good Childhood? A Question for Our Times. London: The Children’s Society.Crime Research Centre (2001) Young People and Domestic Violence: National Research on Young People’s

Attitudes and Experiences of Domestic Violence. Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia and Donovan Research: Marke Communications Research Consultants.

Danzinger K (1971) Socialization. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Daro D, Edleson JL and Pinderhughes H (2004) Finding common ground in the study of child maltreatment,

youth violence, and adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19(3): 282–298.DCSF (2009) Safer School Partnership Guidance. Department for Children, Schools and Families. Available

at: www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00500-2009 (accessed June 2011).

Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (2007) Safeguarding Children in Education: The Role of Local Authorities and Governing Bodies under the Education Act 2002. Welsh Assembly Government Consultation. Available at: http://wales.gov.uk/publications/circular/2008/safeguardingchildren/?lang=en (accessed June 2011).

DfEE (1999) Healthy Schools: National Healthy Schools Standard Guidance. Nottingham: Department for Education and Employment Publications.

DH and DCSF (2007) Whole School Approach to the National Healthy Schools Programme. Department for Health and Department for Children, Schools and Families. Available at: www.healthyschools.gov.uk (accessed January 2010).

Edleson JL (1999) Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14(8): 839–870.

Elliott DS (1994) Youth violence: An overview. Paper presented at the Aspen Institute’s Children’s Policy Forum, Queenstown, New Zealand.

Farrington D (2000) Explaining and preventing crime: the globalization of knowledge – The American Society of Criminology 1999 Presidential Address. Criminology 38(1): 1–24.

Farrington DP (2002) Developmental criminology and risk-focused prevention. In: Maguire M, Morgan R and Reiner R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 657–701.

Farrington DP (2007) Childhood risk factors and risk-focused prevention. In: Maguire M, Morgan R and Reiner R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 602–640.

136 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(2)

Gulbekian Foundation Commission (1995) Children and Violence. London: Calouste Gulbekian Foundation.Haydon D (1997) Crisis in the classroom? In: Scraton P (ed.) Childhood in Crisis. London: UCL Press,

101–123.Health Development Agency (2004) Healthy Schools: Promoting Emotional Health and Wellbeing through

the National Healthy School Standard. London: DfES.Hoffman KL and Edwards JN (2004) An integrated model of sibling violence and abuse. Journal of Family

Violence 19(3): 185–200.Hossack L, Hancock P, Cotteril B, MacNicoll D, Lee J and Talbot S (2006) Safer School Partnerships:

Mainstreaming. London: DfES.Innocenti Digest (1997) Children and Violence, Innocenti Digest no. 2. Florence: UNICEF International

Child Development Centre.Itzin C (2000) Gendering domestic violence: the influences of feminism on policy and practice. In: Hanmer J,

Itzin C, Quaid S and Wigglesworth D (eds) Home Truths About Domestic Violence: Feminist Influences on Policy and Practice, A Reader. London: Routledge, 356–380.

Katz M (1997) On Playing a Poor Hand Well: Insights from the Lives of those who have Overcome Childhood Risks and Adversities. London: W.W. Norton.

Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB and Lozano R (2002) World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Madge N (2001) Understanding Difference: The Meaning of Ethnicity for Young Lives. London: National Children’s Bureau.

Margolin G (2005) Children’s exposure to violence: exploring developmental pathways to diverse outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20(1): 72–81.

Mayall B (2002) Towards a Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from Children’s Lives. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

McAlister Groves B (2002) Children Who See Too Much: Lessons from the Child Witness to Violence Project. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Morgan J and Zedner L (1992) Child Victims: Crime, Impact and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.MORI (2004) MORI Youth Survey. Available at:http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.

asp?idproduct=187&eP (accessed June 2011).NSPCC (2007) NSPCC 100 day challenge for Gordon Brown to Tackle Violence against Children. Available

at: www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/mediacentre/pressreleases/2007 (accessed May 2007).Pinheiro PS (2006) World Report on Violence against Children. New York: United Nations. Online: www.

violencestudy.org (accessed January 2008).Saunders BE (2003) Understanding children exposed to violence: Toward an integration of overlapping

fields. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 18(4): 356–376.Siann G (1985) Accounting for Aggression: Perspectives on Aggression and Violence. London: Allen and

Unwin.Sullivan CJ (2006) Early adolescent delinquency: assessing the role of childhood problems, family environ-

ment, and peer pressure. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4(4): 291–313.UNICEF (2007) Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries, A

Comprehensive Assessment of the Lives and Well-Being of Children and Adolescents in the Economically Advanced Nations (Report Card 7). Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Wilson D, Sharp C and Patterson A (2006) Young People and Crime: Findings from the 2005 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey. London: Home Office.