School Based Violence Assessment Report

Using School Violence Index

Name of School: Alamayo Atomsa Secondary School

_______________________________________________
Address: Kuyu Woreda, Gebra Guracha town, North Showa Zone

Assessment No: 1

Participants:

1. Administrative Staff = 3; 2M + 1F
2. Teachers = 4; 2M + 2F
3. Students = 4; 2M + 2F

Facilitators:

1. Ayele Ano; Gebre Gracha Secondary School Principal.

2. Gemechu Bekele; Program Manager, Shalom Humanitarian Development Association

About the School

 Established in 2006EC.
 It is a Government School.
 The school has students from grades 9 to10.
 Its current enrollment is 1023 students.
 Has a total 35 of teachers.
 1. Assessment Objectives
The basic objective of the School Violence Index is to assess the level of school violence
within the secondary schools targeted in the “Safe School Project” of the “Making Change
Happen” Program, run by Initiative Africa (IA), to help develop violence free school
environment. IA is persuaded that measureable decreases in violent and non-violent incidents
in schools can be achieved through an assessment tool that enables the schools to make a rapid
appraisal (a quick ‘health check’) which can identify the problem areas and the extent.
The assessment is primarily done to:
 Build understanding of the complex issues involved in school violence reduction
 Determine strength and weakness of the school regarding addressing school violence
 Recommend ways to improve the effectiveness of the violence reduction programs in
the form of action plan

2. Assessment Scope

The assessment covers the following four dimensions on the target school:
Dimension 1: School Violence Prevention & Reduction Program:
Dimension 2: School Physical Security Improvement:
Dimension 3: School Policies & Rules to Combat Violence:
Dimension 4: Handling School Violence Incidences:
The indicators are given a score, minimum 0 and maximum 4, according to the level of
agreement which refers to the degree to which the indicator is applicable to or practice within
the school, translated into the level of agreement with the indicator.

Score Level of agreement Description: This indicator is…

0 None/not applicable
1 Disagree
2 Tend to disagree
3 Tend to agree
4 Agree
…not applied in our school
…hardly applied in our school
…sometimes applied in our school and occasionally put
into practice
…applied in our school and most of the time put into
practice
…very much applied to our school and always put into
practice
 3. Major Issues Raised During the Discussion
3.1 Dimension 1: School Violence Prevention & Reduction Programs
Key points raised
Indicators Students Teachers Principals &
admin
1.1 School leadership leads violence prevention 2 3 4
programs
1.2 The school has periodic training sessions on 0 1 1
violence prevention
1.3 Teachers are aware of their code of conduct 1 3 4
1.4 Students have sufficient perception of violence 3 3 3
& its types
1.5 There are discussions about violence issues 1 1 2
among school community members
1.6 There are activities that maintain positive 3 4 4
relationships among all school members
1.7 Special programs on violence prevention, health, 2 3 3
safety and security are in place for students
1.8 Local law enforcement bodies are involved in 0 3 3
the violence prevention education
1.9 Parents are involved in the violence prevention 3 3 4
education
1.10 Resources have been allocated to support and 1 2 3
sustain school’s violence prevention programs
Average 1.6 2.6 3.1
(%) (%) (%)

3.1.1 Ratings and analysis

The perception of students about efficacy and effectiveness of the school violence prevention and
reduction programs is far below to their teachers and school administration. Particularly, the
students refuted that the school has no training sessions on violence prevention, and there is no
involvement of law enforcement bodies to control school bullying. Moreover, only meager
resources are allocated for this particular initiative. Of course, students, teachers and school
administration all perceived that there are activities that maintain positive relationships among
all school members, and students have sufficient perception of violence & its types
 3.2Dimension 2: School Physical Security Improvement

Key points raised

Indicators
Students Teachers Principals & admin
2.1 The school has a supervised fencing 4 4 4
2.2 All exterior entrances are monitored 3 4 4
not to allow intruders
2.3 Restrooms are separate for boys & 1 1 2
girls in different direction
2.4 The school monitors the use of the 0 1 2
school compound during afterschool
programs
2.5 The school maintains a smoke-free 4 4 4
environment
2.6 Restricted areas within the school are 3 3 3
properly identified and secured
2.7 Plantings in the school allow visual 2 2 3
surveillance and are not hiding
places
2.8 The school surrounding has no 3 3 2
activities that divert students’
attention
2.9 The local law enforcement patrols 1 3 4
and assures the safety of the school
surrounding
2.10 Students (especially girls) are safe on 0 0 1
the way to and from the school
Average 2.1 2.5 2.9
(%) ( %) (%)

3.2.1Ratings and analysis

Regarding the second dimension/school physical improvement/, the perception of students is lower
than that of teachers which is again less than that of school administration. Students feel that there
 are no or very few local law enforcement patrols and there is risk of rape on the way to school and
back. Students, teachers, and school administration also perceive that there is low frequency and
strength of monitoring about school compound, and there are no separate restrooms which again
increases their victimization/vulnerability to rape in the lavatories.

3.3.Dimension 3: School Policies & Rules to Combat Violence

Key points raised
Indicators Students Teachers Principals &
admin
3.1 The school plan defines violence 3 3 3
behavior/act
The school uses school guideline to 2 3 4
3.2 alleviate disciplinary problems
3.3 The school is committed to apply 1 3 3
basic regulations
3.4 The school involves the whole 0 0 3
school community in its violence
prevention program
3.5 The school periodically evaluates its 0 0 0
violence status
3.6 The school uses regulation to 0 1 1
promotes teachers’ code of conduct
3.7 The school uses an up to date 1 2 2
discipline guideline
3.8 The school adopted the code of 1 2 2
conduct developed by the Ministry
of Education
1.0 1.75 2.25
(%) (%) (%)

3.3.1 Ratings and analysis

As can be observed from the table above, school policies and rules to combat violence is very week.
The students invariably perceive that there is no commitment of the school to apply basic
regulations, no involvement of school community, and no promotion of teachers’ code of conduct.
Of course, the school administration perceives that there are school guidelines to alleviate violence
even though the school does not periodically conduct evaluation of violence status.
 3.4 Dimension 4: Handling School Violence Incidences
Key points raised
Indicators Students Teachers Principal and
admin
4.1 Students know how to report school 1 2 3
based violence
4.2 School based violence are usually 2 4 4
reported to the school
4.3 Perpetuators often identified 3 4 4
4.4 Causes of the violence incidences are 3 3 3
known
4.5 The school has provided specific 1 1 3
support for students who are
victimized
4.6 The school has provided specific 0 0 1
support for students who are
perpetrators
4.7 The school often applied the code of 1 3 3
conduct
4.8 The school has a violence recording 0 0 0
system that differentiates the type of
violence
4.9 The school involved parents in treating 0 0 1
victims of school violence
4.10 The school community is involved in 3 3 3
helping victims of school violence to
recover
4.11 The school distinguished the type of 2 3 3
violence incidents to be reported to
local law enforcement bodies
4.12 Incidents happened were used as 1 1 2
springboard for prevention of violence
Average 1.41 2 2.5
(%) (%) (%)

3.4.1 Ratings and analysis

Students, teachers, and administration perceived in unison that though perpetuators often
identified and causes of the violence incidences are known the school does not involve
parents in treating victims of school violence, and even do not have violence recording
system that differentiates the type of violence, and do not provide specific support for
students who are perpetrators.
 4. Conclusion and Suggestions
There are activities that maintain positive relationships among school members, parents are
moderately involved in the violence prevention program, the school has supervised fencing and
exterior entrance and also maintains a smoke free environment identified restricted areas, it's plan
defines violence behavior or act. The school is using school guidance to alleviate disciplinary
problems.
However, the school has no periodic training sessions on violence prevention, and there are no
regular discussions on violence issues, no separate rest rooms for boys and girls, no monitoring
systems on the use of school compound during after school programs. The students are not at safe
from school to home and back, and the school does not involve the whole school community on its
violence prevention, and also does not evaluate its violence status, does not have regulation to
promote teachers code of conduct and is characterized by absence of discipline guideline even not
adopted code of conduct developed by the ministry of education.
There is no regulation for teachers and even not adopted the national guideline under the ministry
of education to prevent school violence. There is risk of plumping or drenching of school girls on the
way to school and back to home by juveniles. Therefore, the following measures are commended as
means for prevention.
Collaboration of school and police offices and women and children affairs at woreda and ward levels.
Develop school violence prevention awareness materials like brochures, leaflets, newsletters.
Promote micro activism within school communities against school violence.
Develop school clubs and peer to peer support as well as promote engagement of boys.

Average scores for each dimension for Tulu Milki Secondary School.
Dimensions Average score
School Violence prevention &reduction programs 2.43
School physical Security Improvement 2.5
School Polices , Rules and regulations 1.67
Handling School violence incidences 1.97
Average 2.14