| This research examined the implementation of a K-2 school violence intervention program, I Can Problem Solve (ICPS), in Camden and Passaic New Jersey (2002-2005). Archived data from the Camden and Passaic studies were used with permission from the Violence Institute (of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, UMDNJ). Analyses were conducted of the possible usefulness, application and shortcomings of ICPS as well as other violence prevention programs.;Through examination of school violence, the researcher studied the affects of the environment, heredity, and exposure to violence, societal pressures, and even classroom conditions (e.g., class size) as possible sources of violent behavior in youth. Various attempts to reduce school violence were also observed, including specific measures to define, categorize and report on violent behavior in New Jersey schools.;In the first year of the Camden study (2003-2004), mean improvements were reported in 3 behavior rating categories---positive, aggressive and miscellaneous activities---using the Mann-Whitney U test (when evaluating 2 independent groups, in this case the instruction and the comparison groups). In the second year (2004-2005), there were no significant differences between the 2 groups. In the Passaic study, ANOVA (analysis of variance) showed mean changes (between the pre- and post-behavior rating means) in years 1 and 2 (2002-2003, and 2003-2004). Independent sample t-tests (which also show mean changes between pre- and post-behavior ratings) in year 3 (2004-2005) revealed no significant differences between instruction and comparison groups. In both school districts, it appeared that the instruction was initially promising, but results were not sustained in the last year of each study. The available data was inconsistent, incomplete, and misaligned. It is also possible that there was a lack of concern over accuracy or even implementation of ICPS by the staff members of each district.;Recommendations included using school violence prevention programs that have scientific-based research behind them; better precision and consistency in reporting; parental involvement in education; smaller classes; and a less fatalistic outlook from school leaders. |
