Guardians of the hallways? School resource officers and bullying
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose School resource officers (SROs) have become commonplace in schools across the USA. Although their visibility may allow them to function as capable guardians, little research has examined their impact on less serious but more common forms of school violence, like bullying. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between the presence, quantity and roles of SROs and the frequency of bullying. Design/methodology/approach Data come from the nationally representative 2006 School Survey on Crime and Safety. The relationship between SROs and bullying, controlling for other guardians, motivated offenders and school characteristics, was assessed using ordered logistic regression. Separate models were estimated for middle and high schools. Findings There was no association between the presence, quantity or role of SROs and bullying in middle or high schools; however, teacher training was associated with less frequent bullying, especially in middle schools, and the presence of motivated offenders was associated with more frequent bullying. Research limitations/implications Whether SROs reduce school violence is contested; this study found no association between SROs and bullying, a less serious but more common form of school violence. Future research should consider the roles of SROs in schools and the credibility of capable guardians. Practical implications The results caution against continuing to divert educational and social service resources to law enforcement in schools. Continued training for teachers may provide more effective guardianship against bullying. Originality/value This paper contributes to the developing literature on the effect of SROs on less serious but more common forms of school violence, like bullying.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it