Assessment of Violence Behavior among Pupils in Elementary Schools at Mosul City

Assessment of Violence Behavior among Pupils in Elementary Schools at Mosul City

Zeyad Tariq Al-Noimi  *

Background and aim: school violence could be a growing drawback that has received widespread attention. Violent behavior for school children is primarily expressed as physical or verbal aggression. Varied factors contribute to violent and aggression by kids at homes, schools or individual risk factors. The aim of the present study is to measure the prevalence of violence, risk factors, and different forms among elementary school children, to identify consequence of violent exposure and children with abnormal behavior score.

Materials and method: A descriptive study was done enrolling a total of 180 elementary students from school of Mosul city. Data collected from students‘s parents were: violence behavior, home and family atmosphere, peer relation, exposure to violence at school; being victimized, witness, or initiator, and other risk factors. Standardized questionnaires were used as Child Behavior checklist, parent forms of Strength and Difficulty questionnaires (SDQ).

Results: Prevalence of different forms of violence was higher in pupils their parents  have universal level of education (22.2%) equal in male and female, the majority of the male pupils had high violence in the age group( 9-11)years which constitute (28.8%) and in female pupils had high violence in the age group (6-8)years which constitute (20%), the pupils  had high violence in the middle economic status which constitute (33.3%)in male and (25.5)in female, the majority of the male pupils had high violence in the sixth class which constitute(13.3%) and female pupils  had high violence in the first class which constitute (10%).

Conclusion and recommendations: Abnormal and borderline ample SDQ square measure high among studied students, Follow up and supervising is required to prevent violence among them. An efficient model to direct student's behavior ought to receive additional concern at the school and residential level.

Key words: Assessment, Violence Behavior, Pupils.

 Introduction

The WHO has defined violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, vulnerable or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a gaggle or community, that either leads to or features a high chance of leading to injury, death, psychological hurt, mal development or deprivation”.( WHO;2002).

Children aren’t born violent. Nor do they behave dead outside school, then become a violent bully the minute they reach field. The causes of violence in class area unit several and varied. Here area unit a number of the causes we have a tendency to run into daily. Home surroundings children learn what they live. If house is a daunting, violent, abusive, neglectful surroundings, that’s what the kid learns to expect, Depression and stress and anxiety, feeling swamped of these factors will cause a student to act enter frustration, Weapons the easy} availableness to weapons of every kind makes it simple for students to induce their hands on them, Media some believe that youngsters exposed to violence through movies, television, video games, the net, etc. area unit desensitized to violence, and thus commit it and settle for it a lot of simply, Peers youngsters area unit influenced by those around them; not simply reception, however in class, and within the community furthermore. they will learn and settle for violent behavior because the norm from their friends, Learning difficulties/health issues learning issues, which may be the results of health problems, will cause frustration and lashing out, Lack of steering while not adult oversight and positive role models, students don’t learn to tell apart right from wrong – acceptable from unsuitable behavior. They will conjointly struggle while not the flexibility to resolve conflict peacefully, Attention seeking violence are often the results of wanting others to listen to the coed. Even negative attention. (Medhat; 2008).

When school shootings occur, the shooters are often portrayed in the media as having some form of severe mental illness. Indeed the available evidence suggests that some are at the onset of what may become a serious disorder if they survive (Newman et al., 2004; Rocque, 2012; Moore et al., 2003). Although severe mental illness is linked with somewhat higher risk of violent acts, only 4% of violent acts are attributable to severe mental illness (Appelbaum, 2013). Of these acts, few involve guns (Appelbaum & Swanson, 2010). In fact, a lifetime diagnosis of a severe mental illness may add little additional risk of violence, especially if the individual is in remission or is receiving treatment (Appelbaum & Swanson, 2010). The factors predictive of future violence among the severely mentally ill are similar to those that predict violence in the general population (e.g., Van Dorn, Volavka, & Johnson, 2012). Despite these caveats regarding mental illness as a cause of violence, some forms of mental illness that characterize either rampage or street shooters could be targeted for prevention purposes. Early identification of suicidal youth in schools and other settings could be a target of intervention for school shooters (Cooper, Clements, & Holt, 2011). This is especially true if suicidal thoughts are expressed in conjunction with intense hostility toward others. For street shooters, heavy exposure to violence in the home and neighborhood predisposes youth to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder, both of which could be targeted especially among youth already involved in the criminal justice system (Schubert & Mulvey, 2014).

Methodology:  
           To evaluate the prevalence of violence among school pupils. To signify some factors like age, gender, class, economical standing of their family, academic level of their oldsters, on violence among pupils.

A descriptive style was disbursed. A likelihood sample (random) consisted of (180) student were chosen (90) male and (90) feminine of all classes. The information were collected from school in Mosul town of each right and left facet. The information assortment has been conducted throughout amount of 1 month extending from 25 November, 2016 to 25 December, 2016, through interview the patients. The SDQ could be a brief form that may be administered to the fogeys and academics of 6 to 16-year-olds. All versions of the SDQ raise concerning twenty five attributes. These twenty {five} things comprise five scales of five things each: Emotional symptoms (five items), Conduct issues (five items), Hyperactivity /inattention (five items), Peer relationship issues (five items), professional social behavior (five items).The total difficulties score is generated by summing the scores from all the scales except the pro social scale. The resultant score will vary from 0– 40. SDQ scores area unit classified as traditional, borderline and abnormal/cases. This tool is taken into account a rough methodology for police work behavioral disorders (Goodman and Scott, 1999).

To ensure the validity of the scale, method and procedure proposed to be carried out during the study, (10) experts of different specialties related to the field of the present study were chosen. They were asked to review the scale format for clarity and adequacy in order to achieve the present study objective. Data are prepared, organized and entered into a computer file; Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS, version 18) is used for descriptive data analysis. 

 Results:

Table (1): Distribution of pupils according to gender and level of violence

 The table shows that the majority of the pupils had high violence of university Educational level of parents which constitute (22.2%) equal in male and female.

Table (2): Distribution of pupils according to level of violence and economic status

The table shows that the majority of the pupils had high violence in the middle economic status which constitute (33.3%) in male and (25.5) in female.

Table (3): Distribution of pupils according to level of violence and age of pupils

The table shows that the majority of the male pupils had high violence in the age group( 9-11)years which constitute (28.8%) and in female pupils had high violence in the age group (6-8)years which constitute (20%).

Table (4): Distribution of pupils according to the level of violence and Educational level

The table shows that the majority of the male pupils had high violence in the sixth class which constitute (13.3%) and female pupils had high violence in the first class which constitute (10%).

 Discussion:

The prevalence of violence discovered in the current study among grammar school students deserves the eye of health professionals. Lower rates were reported by different studies. Students coverage themselves as initiators of violence acts were comparatively low and not parallel to the extent of violence in either college. A reason behind which will be disposition to admit this behavior or a violent child typically beats several students. Hence, figures of victimization act as associate indicator of violence prevalence in school. As well as only student's report of beating others might reveal denial thanks to their worry of punishment from the college authority. This study unconcealed that violence occurred each in lecture rooms and playgrounds (Fahmy&El-Safy;2003).

            The frequency and intensity of violence in U.S. schools is a cause for alarm and concern (Leary et al., 2003). Violence in schools encompass a range of experiences such as bullying, assault, and victimization, as well as crimes against the school community, such as school shootings and vandalism (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Cook et al., 2010; Tillyer et al., 2010). Some consider school violence to be a national and international emergency (Astor et al., 2001; Shapiro et al., 2002) given the high percentage of youth who experience school violence (44% of teens; Flannery et al., 2004). In a national survey conducted with 3,391 children (ages 5–17 years) to evaluate school violence, 48% of children reported exposure to at least one form of victimization (e.g., robbery, physical assault) within school (Finkelhor et al., 2016). School violence is a pressing issue which highlights the need for the implementation of effective prevention strategies.

The study findings shows that the bulk of the pupils had high violence of university academic level of fogeys that represent (22.2%) equal in male and feminine, and therefore the majority of the pupils had high violence within the middle economic standing that represent (33.3%)in male and(25.5)in female(table.1,2). The study findings suggest that the majority of the male pupils had high violence in the age group (9-11) years which constitute (28.8%) and in female pupils had high violence in the age group (6-8) years which constitute (20%), (table 3). And finally the results shows that the majority of the male pupils had high violence in the sixth class which constitute (13.3%) and female pupils had high violence in the first class which constitute (10%), (table 4)

Violent children typically return from violent homes wherever oldsters model violence as a way of breakdown conflict and handling stress. students with their university level oldsters experiencing violence over different academic level this result agreement with following result corporal penalization from their oldsters were considerably a lot of initiating violence at faculties than others.( Ez-Elarab et al;2007) Former exposure to punishment was related to activity disorders among adolescents as unconcealed in Port same Egypt. (Abdo et al; 2003) different factors in student's home atmosphere were insignificant though it was antecedently rumored that home atmosphere has associate result on violence among children.

    In agreement with the study results, Newman- Carlson and Horne found that, over (50%) of the oldsters smacked their kids for disobedience once every week and eight did it daily and a lot of boys than women were penalized in this means. 
       The high violence in middle economical standing. In agreement with the study results, El Bcheraoui et al. found that, college kids in Lebanon World Health Organization experienced physical abuse return from comparatively larger families’ three siblings with lower socioeconomic standing.

The present study is agree with studies of (Newman et al;2004) indicated a statistically  significant  difference  between student’s  age  and  abuse,  where  older  students from (9-11)years were  more exposed to emotional and school  related  violence.  Almost  the  same  results  were found by Ibrahim et al. who found the commonest age of exposure to physical abuse to be 8-

       On  the  other hand,  most  of  exposures  to  sexual  abuse  occurred   at younger  ages (the most vulnerable age groups were 4-

 References:

Abdo,S.,  Khalil,  A.,    Waheeb  Y.  (2003).Association  between  depression  in  adolescents  and  their  former  exposure  to  corporal  punishment  during  secondary  school  years.  In:  Proceedings of    the conference:  Violence among children and adolesescts.  25-27, Alexandria.

Appelbaum, P. (2013). Public safety, mental disorders and guns. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 565–566.

Appelbaum, P. S., & Swanson, J. W. (2010). Law & psychiatry: Gun laws and mental illness: How sensible are the current restrictions? Psychiatric Services, 61, 652– 654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ps.2010.61.7.652.

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Pitner, R. O. (2001). Elementary and middle school students’ perceptions of violence-prone school subcontexts. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1086/499685.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender. Oxford University Press.

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 65. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0020149.

Cooper, G. D., Clements, P. T., & Holt, K. (2011). A review and application of suicide prevention programs in high school settings. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32, 696 –702. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/ 01612840.2011.597911.

Ez-Elarab, H. S., Sabbour, S. M., Gadallah, M. A., & Asaad, T. A. (2007). Prevalence and risk factors of violence among elementary school children in Cairo. The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 82(1-2), 127-146.‏

Fahmy  HH,  El-Safy  ER. (June 2005)  Impact  of  media  violence  on  school  children's, Epidemiological Study Of Risky Behaviours And Their Relation With Mental Ill Health Among Secondary School Students In Cairo, The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine Vol., 19: 1– 17.

Finkelhor, D., Vanderminden, J., Turner, H., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. (2016). At-school victimization and violence exposure assessed in a national household survey of children and youth. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.952816.

Flannery, D. J., Wester, K. L., & Singer, M. I. (2004). Impact of exposure to violence in school on child and adolescent mental health and behavior. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(5), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20019.

Goodman R, Scott S (1999). Comparing the
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the
Child Behavior Checklist: Is small beautiful?
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 7:17–24.

Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10061.

Medhat, Abu-Nasr - Professor at the Faculty of Social Work - HelwanUniversity – Egypt, Step Magazine Issue May 28, 2008.

Moore, M. H., Petrie, C. V., Braga, A. A., & McLaughlin, B. L. (Eds.). (2003). Deadly lessons: Understanding lethal school violence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Newman, K. S., Fox, C., Harding, D., Mehta, J., & Roth, W. (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Newman‐Carlson, D., & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully busters: A psychoeducational intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(3), 259-267.‏

Poipoi, M. W. U., Agak, J. O., & Kabuka, E. K. (2011). Perceived home factors contributing to violent behaviour among public secondary school students in western province, Kenya. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2(1), 30-40.‏

Rocque, M. (2012). Exploring school rampage shootings: Research, theory, and policy. The Social Science Journal, 49, 304 –313. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.soscij.2011.11.001.

Schubert, C. A., & Mulvey, E. P. (2014). Juvenile justice bulletin: Behavioral health problems, treatment, and outcomes in serious youthful offenders (NCJ 242440). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/publications/pubresults.asp.

Shapiro, J. P., Burgoon, J. D., Welker, C. J., & Clough, J. B. (2002). Evaluation of the peacemakers program: School-based violence prevention for students in grades four through eight. Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 87–100. https://doi. org/10.1002/pits.10040.

SM, A. (2012). Physical and verbal/emotional abuse of schoolchildren, Lebanon, 2009.‏

Tillyer, M. S., Wilcox, P., & Gialopsos, B. M. (2010). Adolescent school-based sexual victimization: Exploring the role of opportunity in a gender-specific multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1071–1081. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.010.

Van Dorn, R., Volavka, J., & Johnson, N. (2012). Mental disorder and violence: Is there a relationship beyond substance use? Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47, 487–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00127-011-0356-x.

WHO. Violence: a public health priority. In: Global consultation on violence and health. Geneva: WHO, 2002 (WHO/ EHA/       SPI.POA.2).