Article

Aggression and violence

exposure in adolescence
and the role of schoolbased policy initiatives

ecsj
Education, Citizenship and
Social justice
6(2) 125136
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1746197911410370
esj.sagepub.com

Anne Kennedy

Liverpool Hope University, UK

Abstract
This article reports on an exploratory study into young peoples 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 1316 from two secondary schools in the north-west of England.
The main findings reveal that the young peoples 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.

Keywords
aggression, community, policy, prevention, school, violence

Introduction
Children and young peoples 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 violence, 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 disproportionately 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

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 intervention 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 peoples 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 childs 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 peoples 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; Childrens 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 (Childrens 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 evidence 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 1316 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 mediating 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 demographic information.
Descriptive responses were elicited from a nine-page self-completion questionnaire, which contained 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 (AB); the young persons 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)

60

Percentage (n = 98)

50
40
School

30

Community

20
10
0
Witnessed Fight

Fight -Peers

Fight -Friends

Figure 1. Locations of exposure to fights

peers, injuries sustained and the locations of any incidents (EF); the nature of relationships with
family members, parental engagement and discipline (GJ); parental conflict, aggression and violence (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 incidents. 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 community (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

129

Kennedy: Aggression and violence exposure in adolescence

25

Percentage

20

15

Girls (n = 53)
Boys (n = 45)

10

Never*

None**

1-2

3-5

6-10

11-20+

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.

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 others that they had witnessed, with over a third (34%) who had witnessed 35 incidents, followed by
610 incidents (26%) and 12 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 15 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 peoples 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 consistent with previous research, which has identified being grabbed, pushed, pulled or kicked as the
most likely type of assault that 1015 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

130

Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 6(2)

Hit Object

Hit Fist

Girls (n = 21)

Kicked

Boys (n = 16)

Slapped

Pushed

4
6
Percentage

10

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

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 serious 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 questioned, 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.

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 peoples
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; Childrens 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 appropriate approach as it provides a unifying lens as opposed to the fragmented lenses through
which we focus on just one aspect of a childs 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 (Childrens Society, 2006).
The findings of this research also suggest that the young peoples exposure to violence and
aggression across both locations (i.e. school and community) is sustained, which may be considered harmful for several reasons (Katz, 1997). First, young people are unable to escape such negative 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 relationships, 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 providing 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 ones actions. While it is reported that conflict is a key
concern for young people, and reference is made to the terms conflict resolution, anger management 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 community (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 prevention and intervention programmes to reduce violence in schools and thus promote the emotional 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 communities (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 community. 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 behaviour of their pupils, while the designated police officer provides support and advice where necessary. 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 appropriate 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 recommendations 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 identification 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 childrens 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 aggression 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 education 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 effective 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, perpetrators 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.
Childrens Society (2006) Good Childhood? A Question for Our Times. London: The Childrens Society.
Crime Research Centre (2001) Young People and Domestic Violence: National Research on Young Peoples
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): 282298.
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) Childrens witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence
14(8): 839870.
Elliott DS (1994) Youth violence: An overview. Paper presented at the Aspen Institutes Childrens 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): 124.
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,
657701.
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, 602640.

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,
101123.
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): 185200.
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, 356380.
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
Childrens Bureau.
Margolin G (2005) Childrens exposure to violence: exploring developmental pathways to diverse outcomes.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20(1): 7281.
Mayall B (2002) Towards a Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from Childrens 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): 356376.
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 environment, and peer pressure. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4(4): 291313.
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.