School indicators of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of Dutch LGB versus non-LGB secondary students and staff, 2006 - 2010.

Ton Mooij

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Gender and sexual orientation are expressed in heterosexual, lesbian (L), gay (G), bisexual (B), transgender (T), or queer (Q) interests and behavior. Compared with heterosexual persons, LGBTQ persons seem to experience more antisocial behavior including negative discrimination and violence. To assess differences in LGBTQ related discrimination in schools the question for this research is: Do the degrees of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of LGBTQ students and staff in a school differ from those of non-LGBTQ students and staff in the same school? Secondary analysis was carried out on data from a Dutch national digital monitor survey on safety in secondary schools. In 2006, 2008, and 2010, participation amounted to 570 schools, 18,300 teaching and support staff, and 216,000 students. Four indicators were constructed at the school level: two Mokken Scale means assessing severity of violence experienced and two Alpha Scale means assessing feeling unsafe. Analysis of mean differences showed that LGB students experienced more violence and felt less safe than non-LGB students; LGB staff felt less safe in school than non-LGB staff. When LGB students experienced more violence at school than non-LGB students, LGB students also felt less safe than non-LGB students for all three years. No such relationships existed for LGB staff, or between LGB staff and LGB students. No significant relationships were found between the four LGB school indicators and contextual school variables. The outcomes and uniqueness of the study are discussed. Limitations are the use of secondary data and the operationalization of LGBTQ. Recommendations are made to improve assessment and promote prosocial behavior of students and staff in schools to reduce LGBTQ discrimination and violence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3413-3442
JournalJournal of Interpersonal Violence
Volume31
Issue number20
Early online date8 May 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2016

Fingerprint

violence
staff
school
student
discrimination
human being
operationalization
secondary analysis
sexual orientation
secondary school
participation
gender
Teaching
experience

Keywords

  • School violence
  • LGB issues
  • School indicators
  • LGB students
  • LGB teachers
  • Prevention of violence

Cite this

@article{419b50af9d7445ee85593f246a4dfcb9,
title = "School indicators of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of Dutch LGB versus non-LGB secondary students and staff, 2006 - 2010.",
abstract = "Gender and sexual orientation are expressed in heterosexual, lesbian (L), gay (G), bisexual (B), transgender (T), or queer (Q) interests and behavior. Compared with heterosexual persons, LGBTQ persons seem to experience more antisocial behavior including negative discrimination and violence. To assess differences in LGBTQ related discrimination in schools the question for this research is: Do the degrees of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of LGBTQ students and staff in a school differ from those of non-LGBTQ students and staff in the same school? Secondary analysis was carried out on data from a Dutch national digital monitor survey on safety in secondary schools. In 2006, 2008, and 2010, participation amounted to 570 schools, 18,300 teaching and support staff, and 216,000 students. Four indicators were constructed at the school level: two Mokken Scale means assessing severity of violence experienced and two Alpha Scale means assessing feeling unsafe. Analysis of mean differences showed that LGB students experienced more violence and felt less safe than non-LGB students; LGB staff felt less safe in school than non-LGB staff. When LGB students experienced more violence at school than non-LGB students, LGB students also felt less safe than non-LGB students for all three years. No such relationships existed for LGB staff, or between LGB staff and LGB students. No significant relationships were found between the four LGB school indicators and contextual school variables. The outcomes and uniqueness of the study are discussed. Limitations are the use of secondary data and the operationalization of LGBTQ. Recommendations are made to improve assessment and promote prosocial behavior of students and staff in schools to reduce LGBTQ discrimination and violence.",
keywords = "School violence, LGB issues, School indicators, LGB students, LGB teachers, Prevention of violence",
author = "Ton Mooij",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0886260515585527",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "3413--3442",
journal = "Journal of Interpersonal Violence",
issn = "0886-2605",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "20",

}

School indicators of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of Dutch LGB versus non-LGB secondary students and staff, 2006 - 2010. / Mooij, Ton.

In: Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 31, No. 20, 01.12.2016, p. 3413-3442.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - School indicators of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of Dutch LGB versus non-LGB secondary students and staff, 2006 - 2010.

AU - Mooij, Ton

PY - 2016/12/1

Y1 - 2016/12/1

N2 - Gender and sexual orientation are expressed in heterosexual, lesbian (L), gay (G), bisexual (B), transgender (T), or queer (Q) interests and behavior. Compared with heterosexual persons, LGBTQ persons seem to experience more antisocial behavior including negative discrimination and violence. To assess differences in LGBTQ related discrimination in schools the question for this research is: Do the degrees of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of LGBTQ students and staff in a school differ from those of non-LGBTQ students and staff in the same school? Secondary analysis was carried out on data from a Dutch national digital monitor survey on safety in secondary schools. In 2006, 2008, and 2010, participation amounted to 570 schools, 18,300 teaching and support staff, and 216,000 students. Four indicators were constructed at the school level: two Mokken Scale means assessing severity of violence experienced and two Alpha Scale means assessing feeling unsafe. Analysis of mean differences showed that LGB students experienced more violence and felt less safe than non-LGB students; LGB staff felt less safe in school than non-LGB staff. When LGB students experienced more violence at school than non-LGB students, LGB students also felt less safe than non-LGB students for all three years. No such relationships existed for LGB staff, or between LGB staff and LGB students. No significant relationships were found between the four LGB school indicators and contextual school variables. The outcomes and uniqueness of the study are discussed. Limitations are the use of secondary data and the operationalization of LGBTQ. Recommendations are made to improve assessment and promote prosocial behavior of students and staff in schools to reduce LGBTQ discrimination and violence.

AB - Gender and sexual orientation are expressed in heterosexual, lesbian (L), gay (G), bisexual (B), transgender (T), or queer (Q) interests and behavior. Compared with heterosexual persons, LGBTQ persons seem to experience more antisocial behavior including negative discrimination and violence. To assess differences in LGBTQ related discrimination in schools the question for this research is: Do the degrees of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of LGBTQ students and staff in a school differ from those of non-LGBTQ students and staff in the same school? Secondary analysis was carried out on data from a Dutch national digital monitor survey on safety in secondary schools. In 2006, 2008, and 2010, participation amounted to 570 schools, 18,300 teaching and support staff, and 216,000 students. Four indicators were constructed at the school level: two Mokken Scale means assessing severity of violence experienced and two Alpha Scale means assessing feeling unsafe. Analysis of mean differences showed that LGB students experienced more violence and felt less safe than non-LGB students; LGB staff felt less safe in school than non-LGB staff. When LGB students experienced more violence at school than non-LGB students, LGB students also felt less safe than non-LGB students for all three years. No such relationships existed for LGB staff, or between LGB staff and LGB students. No significant relationships were found between the four LGB school indicators and contextual school variables. The outcomes and uniqueness of the study are discussed. Limitations are the use of secondary data and the operationalization of LGBTQ. Recommendations are made to improve assessment and promote prosocial behavior of students and staff in schools to reduce LGBTQ discrimination and violence.

KW - School violence

KW - LGB issues

KW - School indicators

KW - LGB students

KW - LGB teachers

KW - Prevention of violence

U2 - 10.1177/0886260515585527

DO - 10.1177/0886260515585527

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 3413

EP - 3442

JO - Journal of Interpersonal Violence

JF - Journal of Interpersonal Violence

SN - 0886-2605

IS - 20

ER -