Promoting non-violence in schools: The role of cultural,
organizational and managerial factors
Ms Dawn Jennifer & Dr Julie Shaughnessy
Roehampton University
Address for correspondence:
Ms Dawn Jennifer
Roehampton University
Whitelands College
Holybourne Avenue
London
SW15 4JD
E-mail: D.Jennifer@roehampton.ac.uk
Article accepted by Educational & Child Psychology
February 2005
1
Abstract
Whilst schools are increasingly being asked to address issues of violence, certain
cultural, organizational and managerial factors can obstruct violence prevention
reinforcing a culture in which violent attitudes impede the development of a safe learning
environment. The focus of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention
strategy designed to support schools and young people in promoting non-violence. The
longitudinal study (one year) built on the UK-001 CONNECT project funded by the
European Union within which Checkpoints was selected for evaluation as part of ongoing
work relating to violence in schools. The research design used a test/retest design
involving baseline measures and qualitative case study data, including semi-structured
interviews, diaries, observations, and documentary evidence. Twelve schools were
selected to participate based upon their previous involvement with work on anti-bullying.
Three of the final seven study schools experienced a significant decrease in overt
bullying and aggressive behaviours. These results are discussed in the light of the
qualitative findings which highlighted three organizational models that illustrate the
process of a school’s readiness to implement an intervention. The models describe the
cultural, organizational and managerial factors that can either inhibit or facilitate the
promotion of non-violence. At one end of the spectrum is the school that recognizes the
negative consequences of not addressing the issues of bullying and violent behaviour and
which is committed to the process of change; at the other is the school that is not yet
sensitive to the bullying and violent behaviour experienced by their children and young
people, and which experiences difficulty in articulating a clear way forward.
Setting the context
The World Health Organization (WHO, 1999) suggests that ‘violence affects everyone’.
Not only does it undermine the health, learning potential and emotional well-being of
young people, staff and community members, but ‘reducing and preventing violence is
necessary to help schools achieve their full potential’ (WHO, 1999, p. 3). From the
pupil’s perspective, research suggests that a safe learning environment supports pupil
participation and interaction with teachers (Turunen, Tossavainen, Jakonen, Salomäki &
Vertio, 1999). In turn, positive peer relations in school, operationalized in the school
playground, are linked with adjustment to school life generally and with academic
success (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Pellegrini & Blatchford, 2002).
From the perspective of the staff and organization as a whole, reducing violent behaviour
minimizes disruption, supports the authority of the school staff and creates a safe school
environment (Hayden & Blaya, 2001). A safe learning environment can decrease tension
between staff, decrease workloads, improve the utilization of resources, and decrease
disruption to the teaching and learning process (Glover, Gough & Johnson., 2000;
Hayden & Blaya, 2001; Neill, 2001). It may also prevent teachers from leaving the
profession altogether (Neill, 2001).
Children have the right to be educated in a safe environment and every member of the
school community is equally entitled to that right. However, in the UK, the results of a
large-scale study carried out in Sheffield in 1990, in which over 6,700 pupils participated,
suggest that ‘being physically hurt’ is experienced by over one quarter of pupils (Whitney
2
& Smith, 1993). In a longitudinal study carried out by Katz, Buchanan and Bream (2001)
in 1996, 1998 and 2000, interview and survey data from 7000 respondents between 13
and 18 years of age suggested that more than half of all respondents had been bullied at
some time, with over 10 per cent reporting that they had been bullied severely. In
addition, around 20 per cent of girls in the same sample had been violently attacked, with
this proportion increasing over the four years of the study. More recently, Glover, Gough
and Johnson (2000) reported on the actual nature of physical bullying. In this study,
4,700 pupils aged 11-16 in 25 schools took part in a questionnaire survey which revealed
that, within the current school year, 67 per cent of pupils engaged in ‘pushing’, 38 per
cent engaged in ‘punching’, 36 per cent engaged in ‘tripping’ and 29 per cent engaged in
‘kicking’. Furthermore, in a report by Gill and Hearnshaw (1997), survey data generated
from over 2000 schools revealed that 83 per cent of teachers thought that violence was a
serious threat to staff morale and 40 per cent considered that schools were no longer safe
places in which to work.
Interventions currently in place around the UK specifically relevant to the promotion of
non-violence in schools include a wide range of approaches such as, conflict resolution
and peer support, health promotion, anger management, and self-auditing tools. One
such self-auditing tool, Checkpoints, is a pair of publications aimed at facilitating the
promotion of non-violence in schools including Towards a Non-Violent Society:
Checkpoints for Schools (Varnava, 2000) and Towards a Non-Violent Society:
Checkpoints for Young People (Varnava, 2002).
Checkpoints for Schools is a
publication with three main functions: to raise awareness, to facilitate institutional selfaudit and to offer guidance. The use of Checkpoints involves a self-audit, the results of
which enable a school to identify progress in behaviour management. This is achieved
through the completion of a 60-item checklist divided into six sub-lists, known as
Checkpoints, covering the main aspects of school life, that is, Home/School/Community
(e.g. “Agreed standards of behaviour apply to all members of the school and to visitors”);
Values (e.g. “Mutual respect is consistently promoted and expected of everyone”);
Organization (e.g. “There is a budget for the implementation of non-violence policies”);
Environment (e.g. “Students share in the management of the school environment to
reduce the risk of aggressive or violent behaviour”); Curriculum (e.g. “Non-acceptance of
violence is prominent in the planning and delivery of the curriculum and the school’s
development plan”); and Training (e.g. “[Training might include knowledge about] the
different types of violence – physical and non-physical, their causes and consequences”).
For each Checkpoint, schools are required to respond to 10 items by ticking either “in
place”, “proposed”, or “not in place”. Following completion, results are transferred to a
web diagram to create a visual record of the results which, when completed, illustrates a
school’s strengths in violence-prevention and highlights areas where further action may
be taken. Checkpoints for Young People is aimed at young people experiencing the
transition from primary to secondary school; its intention is to offer a second dimension
to the process of auditing in that it aims to create a dialogue between young people and
adults and provide a framework from within which the voices of young people can be
heard.
3
This longitudinal study built on the UK-001 CONNECT project funded by the European
Union in which Checkpoints was selected for evaluation as part of ongoing work relating
to the promotion of non-violence in schools (see www.ukobservatory.com)
Aims and objectives
The overall aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Checkpoints in
supporting children, young people and schools in promoting non-violence. More
specifically, the key aims were to
 introduce Checkpoints as a whole school initiative in a cluster of schools;
 integrate Checkpoints into current initiatives such as the development of
Citizenship and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), healthy
school and teaching and learning policies;
 evaluate Checkpoints as an intervention strategy - to create new momentum to
carry schools further forward in their own practice in the reduction of
violence;
 describe how Checkpoints is successful in effecting change; and
 evaluate the whole process.
Method
Design
This longitudinal study over one academic year employed a two-group, pre-test/post-test
design and a case study approach which included interviews, diaries, observations and
documentary evidence.
Participants
Children and young people from Year 6 and Year 7 in seven case study schools (N =
560), and 5 control schools (N = 674), including one primary, four secondary and one
special school.
Data collection
The participating schools were all volunteers and had been invited to participate because
of their existing involvement with other anti-bullying work in the local area. This
provided an initial common starting point for the participating schools, which ranged
across primary, secondary and special sectors, and represented a range of geographical
locations.
Case study schools nominated one or two key members of staff who were responsible for
the facilitation of the intervention in their school. Nominated facilitators were invited to
a launch where the key aims of the study were shared. The case study schools were
invited to implement and use Checkpoints for Schools (Varnava, 2000) in an unspecified
way in accordance with their current view of bullying and violence in their school.
Following administration of the pre-test measures to Year 6 and Year 7 pupils at the
beginning of the academic year, the intervention was initially dispatched to study schools
only (control schools received the intervention on completion of the study). In-depth
qualitative data, including semi-structured interviews with pupils, senior managers and
nominated facilitators, facilitator diaries, researcher observations of various aspects of
4
school life (such as, lessons, playtimes, mealtimes, staff meetings, lesson changeovers),
and documentary evidence (such as, behaviour management policies and School
Development Plans) were collected from the seven case study schools between
September 2002 and September 2003 (Yin, 1984). Post-test measures were administered
to Year 6 and Year 7 pupils in both case study and control schools at the end of the
academic year.
Pre- and post-test measures were selected on the basis of considering the impact of the
intervention on tangible aggressive behaviour and internal emotional well-being. This
paper focuses specifically on The My Life in School Checklist (Arora & Thompson, 1987),
a self-completion questionnaire, employed to measure elements of behaviour such as
bullying and overtly aggressive behaviours. The secondary version consists of 40-items
and the primary version consists of 39-items. The questionnaire consists of a mix of
positive items, such as, ‘another pupil was very nice to me’ and negative items, such as,
‘another pupil tried to make me give them money’ describing bullying behaviour, friendly
behaviour and aggressive behaviour. Participants were asked to indicate whether they had
experienced the behaviour in the last week either ‘not at all’, ‘only once’ or ‘more than
once’.
Results
Case study data
Following data collection, analysis of the case study data was carried out using a
Grounded Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This involved transcribing the
interviews, reading the facilitator diaries, and writing up the observation reports;
summarizing the transcripts, diaries and reports; and coding and grouping the data into
clusters and categories. The initial coding produced key words and phrases from each
data source which were clustered into categories. Emergent themes were then identified
and together with a selection of key quotations a two-dimensional picture emerged from
which the models of school readiness were generated.
Analysis of the data identified the schools responses to the intervention. Of the seven
study schools, two schools withdrew from the study; one school integrated the
intervention; two schools introduced the intervention as an additional initiative; and two
schools introduced half the intervention. More specifically
 School 2 used Checkpoints for Schools with all staff as part of the Behaviour
Policy Review and as an extension of the School Development Plan and used
Checkpoints for Young People over a series of lessons introducing one
Checkpoint at a time;
 School 3 used Checkpoints for Schools with the Senior Management Team (SMT)
as an additional initiative and teaching staff and used Checkpoints for Young
People over a series of six/seven lessons addressing one Checkpoint at a time;
 School 6 used Checkpoints for Schools at a training day for teaching staff as an
additional initiative and used Checkpoints for Young People in one lesson
addressing all the Checkpoints together;
 School 4 used Checkpoints for Schools with all staff as an extension of the School
Development Plan and did not use Checkpoints for Young People; and
5

School 1 did not distribute or use Checkpoints for Schools with the staff and used
Checkpoints for Young People in one/two lessons addressing all the Checkpoints
together.
Following coding of the case study data as described above eight key themes emerged:
philosophy and ethos; leadership and management; home/school/community relationship;
behaviour policy and practice; teaching and learning; communication, training and
development; and, environment. Following contemplation of the emergent themes and
selected quotations, certain cultural, organizational and managerial characteristics
emerged that illustrated issues relating to the ability of the organization to engage with
change related to behaviour. Three models were generated: the Circular Model,
representing a school that is reflexive and responsive, operating from a clearly focused
rationale; the Corkscrew Model, reflecting a school that is pragmatic, sometimes
reflexive but not always clearly focused; and, the String Model, representing a school that
is strategic or autocratic, and experiences difficulty in identifying a clear course of action
(see Figure 1 for a summary).
FIGURE 1 HERE
My Life in School Checklist
Statistical analysis was undertaken in SPSS 11.5 and took the form of an analysis of the
differences between the means of total pre- and post-test scores derived from the My Life
in School Checklist (Arora & Thompson, 1987). Quantitative data was unavailable for
School 5 Time 1 and Time 2 and School 7, Time 2 and is, therefore, not reported.
The total scores for negative behaviours were totaled to generate composite scores preand post-test for each participant; pro-social behaviours were not incorporated since the
absence of such behaviours is conceptually different from the presence of negative
behaviours. These scores were used to calculate the mean scores for each school (see
Table 1).
Table 1: Mean scores and paired samples t-tests for each school for the My Life in School Checklist
School
Study Primary
School 2
School 3
School 4
Study Secondary
School 1
N
Pre-test
mean
Post-test
mean
t value
df
p
15
20
43
33.73
41.90
36.47
33.93
34.85
32.30
-.117
2.923
2.212
14
19
42
.909
.009**
.032*
79
33.53
30.76
4.052
78
.000**
6
School 5
School 6
School 7
Control Primary
School 8
School 10
School 11
School 12
Control Secondary
School 9
61
37.30
36.59
.575
60
.568
4
10
15
35
31.75
31.20
34.60
29.51
36.25
31.50
28.93
31.34
-1.441
-.132
2.266
-1.320
3
9
14
34
.245
.898
.040*
.196
39
33.44
34.56
-1.061
38
.295
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Using the mean scores, paired samples t-tests were computed to test the difference
between the mean scores at pre-test and post-test for significance. Table 1 presents the
results. The results were significant for three out of five study schools, that is, School 1 (t
= 4.052; df = 78; p < 0.01), School 3 (t = 2.923; df = 19; p < 0.01) and School 4 (t =
2.212; df = 42; p < 0.05). In other words, the total negative behaviours experienced was
significantly lower post-test compared with pre-test. School 6 experienced a decrease in
negative behaviours between pre- and post-test but this was not significant. School 2
experienced an increase in negative behaviours but this was not significant. Results were
significant for one of the control schools, that is, School 11 (t = 2.266; df = 14; p < 0.05).
In other words, the total negative behaviours experienced was significantly lower at posttest compared with pre-test. For the remaining control schools, that is, Schools 8, 9, 10
and 12, the increase in negative behaviours was insignificant.
Discussion
In consideration of the results, the researchers would like to highlight that whilst the
study was intentionally designed to be non-prescriptive, that is, study schools were
invited to implement the intervention in an unspecified way and in accordance with their
own perspective of bullying and violence in their school, it is possible that the My Life in
School Checklist (Arora & Thompson, 1987) was not a suitable measure for measuring
the efficacy of Checkpoints as only one of the schools actually integrated the intervention
as a whole-school initiative, and not all of the schools implemented all of the
intervention. This observation is not meant as a criticism of the participating schools,
rather an acknowledgement that the nature of the school as an organization is such that, in
view of the findings, the variety of ways of implementing the intervention may not be
conducive to the administration of such tests. Given the findings, in research such as this
which employed a pre-test/post-test design, it could be argued that the conditions of
implementation ought to have been controlled by the research team.
That said, the results suggest that three out of the five study schools experienced a
significant decrease in overt bullying and aggressive behaviours, such as hitting, tripping
7
or shouting. Taking the quantitative and qualitative results together, what the findings
suggest is that in School 1 this may have been due to Checkpoints for Young People
being used with Year 7 over one/two lessons; in School 3 this may have been due to
Checkpoints for Schools being introduced as an additional initiative with Checkpoints for
Young People being used with Year 6 over a series of lessons taking one Checkpoint at a
time; and, in School 4 this may have been due to Checkpoints for Schools being
introduced as an extension of the School Development Plan. An alternative explanation,
according to Arora and Thompson (1987), is that there are seasonal variations in levels of
bullying, with rates often higher in the Autumn term, when the pre-test measures were
administered, and lower in the Summer Term, when the post-test measures were
administered, although, data from the control schools does not support this. Bearing in
mind this alternative explanation, it might have been preferable to administer the
measures at the same time in the academic year, although this would have presented
problems with the Year 6 cohort who would have made the transition from primary to
secondary school by the time of the post-test administration. Future research might
consider recruiting Year 5 and Year 7 pupils for the study with post-intervention
measures being carried out in Year 6 and 8 respectively. Furthermore, the results may
have been more conclusive had the study run for two years instead of one; Smith,
Ananiadou and Cowie (2003) suggest that programme length is an important variable
with longer interventions being more successful.
With regard to the control schools, levels of overt bullying and aggressive behaviours had
significantly decreased for one school. This decrease could be explained in terms of the
seasonal variations outlined above, although these results were not common to all the
control schools; alternatively, it could be that this control school was involved in its own
activities or initiatives that had an impact on the levels of bullying and aggressive
behaviours. With hindsight, it would have been helpful to conduct follow up interviews
with the control schools at the end of the study to ascertain what activities and initiatives
they had been engaged in during the academic year, which may have helped explain the
findings.
Despite the design and methodological limitations outlined above what the results from
the case study analyses suggest is that the process of implementing and, in some cases,
integrating Checkpoints acts as a tool to raise awareness about auditing and selfevaluation. For example, one headteacher said ‘it provided the focus for the work on
non-violence. It was also useful to refer back to the documentation for self-evaluation
throughout the year’. However, whilst the qualitative data suggests that Checkpoints
achieves two out of three of its main functions, raising awareness and facilitating
institutional self-audit, it failed to achieve the third in terms of offering guidance.
Another headteacher said ‘we moved to doing our own development of behaviour as we
felt there was no back up once the audit was done’. Thus, notwithstanding the nonprescriptive nature of Checkpoints, it could be argued that the level of support that
individual schools required for implementation was not adequate. However, an
evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention in Flanders suggests that extra support from
8
researchers had no additional effect (Stevens, de Bourdeaudhuij & van Oost, 2000).
Indeed, Smith et al., (2003) suggest that perhaps what is important is not the level of
support provided by the research team but how much time and effort schools themselves
invest in the intervention. Our results concur with this suggestion in terms of a school’s
readiness to implement an intervention, and offer a unique insight into the process of
addressing change in terms of cultural, organizational and managerial factors. The results
suggested that some schools were more ready to embrace organizational change than
others, and thus more ready to implement the intervention. This process can be
understood in terms of the three models of readiness (see Figure 1):
The Circular Model reflects an organization that is self-aware and responsive and
operates from a clearly focused rationale. The school is able to prioritize its course of
action and is aware of the need for constant review and evaluation of practice. The
culture in the school could be characterized as democratic with a focus on children’s
participation in decision making. The school recognizes the negative consequences of
not addressing the issues of bullying and violence and is committed to the process of
change. The school has an internal locus of control. A school operating from this model
of readiness is likely to implement both Checkpoints for Schools (Varnava, 2000) and
Checkpoints for Young People (Varnava, 2002) as an extension of the School
Development Plan.
The Corkscrew Model reflects an organizational culture that fluctuates. The school is
sometimes able to identify action through self-reflection but the action is not always
clearly focused. The culture in the school could be characterized as pragmatic with some
emphasis on children’s participation. Whilst the school acknowledges the existence of
bullying and violence, takes ownership of the problem, and identifies some of the
negative aspects of its presence, it is ambivalent about committing to the process of
change. The school has a locus of control that fluctuates between external and internal
input. A school operating from this model of readiness is likely to either feel complacent
about the issue of violence or to feel ambivalent about implementing Checkpoints.
The String Model reflects a fragile organizational culture. The school has limited selfevaluation and experiences difficulty in identifying a clear course of action. The culture
in the school could be characterized as strategic with little emphasis placed on children’s
participation. The school is not yet sensitive to the bullying and violence experienced by
their children and young people; however, others may be aware of a problem, for
example, parents or the wider community. The school has an external locus of control.
A school operating from this model of readiness is unlikely to have much success with
implementing Checkpoints.
A school’s readiness to change, therefore, will be dependent upon the extent to which the
key elements defined in the three models will support the introduction of an intervention
and whether children, young people and staff are empowered to participate meaningfully
9
in its development. This concurs with the work of other researchers (for example,
Dusenbury, Falco, Lake, Brannigan & Bosworth, 1997; Roffey, 2000; Sammons, Hillman
& Mortimore, 1995). In an educational climate in which schools are increasingly being
asked to address issues of bullying and violence, a school’s understanding of its readiness
to implement an intervention is an important starting point for the successful promotion
of non-violence. Without this understanding, schools will have little success in
addressing the issue of change.
In analyzing the process of implementing and, in some cases integrating the intervention,
it has been possible to not only define the process, but also to suggest a model of
readiness which emphasizes key elements of cultural, organizational and managerial
factors that may either impede or facilitate change. The importance of school ethos in
promoting positive behaviour and effective learning has long been acknowledged and
defining and examining a school’s ethos is therefore vital for understanding how violence
can be prevented. In an educational climate in which schools are inundated with
initiatives, understanding the factors within an organization which influence learning and
using a tool to determine readiness to change are the crucial first steps for the promotion
of non-violence. Only schools that recognize the negative consequences of not
addressing the issues of bullying and violent behaviour, and who are committed to the
process of change, will be able to enhance the development of a safe environment for
learning and teaching, thus providing a positive schooling experience for children and
young people.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all those children and young people, staff, schools and
the Local Education Authority who took part in this research and who gave generously of
their time. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for commenting on the
original draft of this paper, and Tony Daly for his comments on the final version.
References
Arora, C. M. J. & Thompson, D. A. (1987). My Life in School Checklist cited in S.
Sharp (1999) Bullying Behaviour in Schools. Windsor: NFER WILSON.
Coie, J. D. & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and anti-social behaviour. In N.
Eisenberg (Ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology, 3, 779-862). New York: Wiley.
Dusenbury, L., Falco, M., Lake, A., Brannigan, R. & Bosworth, K. (1997). Nine
critical elements of promising violence prevention programs. Journal of School Health,
67(10), 409-414.
Gill, M. & Hearnshaw, S. (1997). Personal Safety and Violence in Schools. DfEE
Research Report 21. London: HMSO.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago:
Aldine.
10
Glover, D., Gough, G. & Johnson, M. (2000). Bullying in 25 secondary schools:
incidence, impact and intervention. Educational Research, 42(2), 141-156.
Goodman, R. (1999). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research
note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586.
Hayden, C. & Blaya, C. (2001). Violent and aggressive behaviour in English
schools. In E. Debarbieux & C. Blaya (Eds.) Violence In Schools, (pp. 47-73). Issy-lesMoulineaux: ESF.
Katz, A., Buchanan, A. & Bream, V. (2001). Bullying in Britain: Testimonies from
Teenagers. London: Young Voice.
Neill, S. R. St J. (2001). Unacceptable Pupil Behaviour: A Survey Analysed for the
National Union of Teachers. University of Warwick, Institute of Education.
Pellegrini, A. D. & Blatchford, P. (2002). Time for a break. The Psychologist,
15(2), 60-62.
Roffey, S. (2000). Addressing bullying in schools: Organizational factors from
policy to practice. Educational and Child Psychology, 17(1), 6-19.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key Characteristics of Effective
Schools. London: Institute of Education/Office for Standards in Education.
Smith, P.K., Ananiadou, K. & Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce school
bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 591-599.
Stevens, V., de Bourdeaudhuij, I. & van Oost, P. (2000). Bulling in Flemish
schools: an evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195-210.
Turunen, H., Tossavainen, K., Jakonen, S., Salomäki, U. & Vertio, H. (1999).
Initial results from the European network of health promoting schools program on
development of health education in Finland. Journal of School Health, 69, 387-391.
Varnava, G. (2000). Towards a Non-Violent Society: Checkpoints for Schools.
London: National Children’s Bureau.
Varnava, G. (2002). Towards a Non-Violent Society: Checkpoints for Young
People. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Whitney, I. & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of
bully/victim problems in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research,
35, 3-25.
World Health Organization (1999). Violence Prevention: An Important Element of
a Health-Promoting School. Geneva: WHO.
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
11
Figure 1: Readiness models
12