Running head: student PERCEPTIONS OF safety 1

Student Perceptions of Safety and Open Campus Lunch Policies

Benjamin D. Hall
Concordia University Texas

Author Note
Dr. Malzahn: I will be happy to receive any and all feedback you think necessary, as I am
looking forward to conducting future research in this area at my current campus.

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

2
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of students with regards to student
safety and open campus lunch policies. This exploratory survey study was completed at a large,
north Texas high school and the participants were in grades 9-12. Taking a wider approach with
this Likert-scaled study helped to determine the perceived student safety in general and across
differing situations. Students reported high levels of safety on and around the campus
community, but reported a lack of teacher presence and a surrounding community that did not
feel quite as safe as the campus. Surveying a controlled sample of students about their safety
perceptions will be an appropriate way to broach additional research related to the actual effects
of open and closed campus lunch policies on student safety. Additionally, future research should
be done to determine if any differences exist between students registered in a specific program
and the rest of the school population.
Keywords: student, safety, perceptions, open campus, closed campus

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

Chapter One: Introduction

Teachers are often told their number one priority should be to ensure student safety at all
times. However, it is hard to imagine how teachers might go about ensuring the safety of
students as said students drive away from campus during their lunch hour. With that often comes
the debate about whether schools should have open or closed campuses during lunch, and
whether one of those policies is more effective in keeping students safe. That is, should students
be allowed to travel off campus to restaurants, convenience and grocery stores, or even to their
homes, for lunch?
This topic is especially interesting when the setting is in a densely populated urban
center, as will be discussed. Within urban centers, schools are typically located in close
proximity to many different food sources including, but not limited to, fast food and other
restaurants, convenience stores, and grocery stores. Close proximity to alternative food sources
can reduce the percentage of students who choose to participate in school lunch programs,
regardless of the socioeconomic make-up of the school or whether it is classified as an open or
closed campus (Mirtcheva & Powell, 2009).
The decreased level of participation in urban centers is perhaps a good topic for a
different study. This study, however, will focus on stakeholder perceptions with regards to open
and closed campus lunch policies and their effects on student safety. Stakeholder perceptions are
important when any institution is considering significant policy changes. In this instance, a
closed campus could have a significantly negative impact on the surrounding business
community, while simultaneously dramatically increasing revenues for the school lunch
program. Additionally, some individual students, not to mention their families, may wish to have

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

more of a say in their diets; they may feel restricted by having to stay on campus and participate
in the school lunch program.
The setting for this study is a large high school, in a densely populated, urban setting, in
north Texas. The research population will be determined by using a stratified random sampling
technique. This will highlight the different subgroups present within the community, including
students, staff, parents, and community members. Additionally, this will help the author make
judgments based on the similarities and difference of perception between the subgroups.
The research question guiding this study is: What is the effect of having an open or
closed campus on student safety? This study will focus on the sub question of how such policies
affect the attitudes and perceptions of students within the aforementioned school community.
Additionally, sub questions on the effects of open and closed campus policies on scheduling,
facilities, and the community will be addressed in subsequent studies.
Definition of Terms
It is of utmost importance that the reader understands several key terms included in this
study and their educational context. The following list of terms is provided for your
convenience.
Open campus. A school where students are prohibited from leaving the grounds during
operating hours without express permission from the administration.
Closed campus. A school where students are permitted to leave the campus at specified
times during operating hours (e.g. lunch).
Stakeholders. All persons associated either directly or indirectly with the school and/or
its community who have a vested interest in the operation of the school.

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

Likert scale. One of the most widely used measurement tools, the Likert scale measures
individual responses along a range or continuum typically from strongly agree to disagree
(Wikimedia, 2016).

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

Chapter Two: Literature Review

While safety is the greatest concern to administrators, teachers, and faculty on any public
school campus, what should be of greatest concern when students leave campus for lunch? At
the center of this exploratory study is student safety and the hypothesis that students are putting
themselves at higher risk of injury, delinquent behavior, and poor dietary decisions at schools
with open-campus lunch policies. As Stone and Runyan (2005) noted, students are involved in
higher rates sometimes close to twice the rate of vehicular crashes when their school has an
open-campus lunch policy. Additionally, the technological revolution has ushered in new
concerns related to teens and multi-tasking while driving. Unlike other traffic crimes, using a
cell phone while driving has not yet garnered the same level of stigma as driving under the
influence of alcohol (Terry & Terry, 2016). Because there are fewer stigmas, more students see
their actions as not having the same level of consequences as other negative behaviors. Aside
from the stigma, Terry and Terry (2016) have also shown that most drivers are not aware of the
severity of negative effects from cell phone use while driving, furthering the case for the
hypothesis made in this study. Assuming there is a direct link between open-campus lunch
policies and student motor vehicle crashes involving injury, it is worth studying possible
alternatives to existing open-campus policies in place at many US high schools.
There are other factors at play when making decisions about open campus lunch policies.
For instance, there are neighborhood contextual issues that must be addressed. How close is the
school to varying sources of food, like fast food restaurants, as well as convenience and grocery
stores? In addition to approximately one third of schools having a fast food restaurant within
comfortable walking distance, the mere presence of fast food sources decreases school lunch
participation by approximately four percent per restaurant (Mirtcheva & Powell, 2009). While

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

some might say close proximity to abundant, cheap food sources is a good thing, it is postulated
here that students should be educated as much about making good dietary choices as they are
about their core academic subjects. The concept of the open-campus lunch does not follow that
model. At the same time, there is stigma attached to participating in school lunch programs,
especially for those students eligible for free and reduced lunch programs. While almost a
quarter of eligible students say stigma is what keeps them from participating in the school lunch
program, Mirtcheva and Powell (2009) also concluded that nearly the same number stated they
would participate in the programs if one or more of their friends did.
This exploratory study will address stakeholder perceptions of safety and how those
perceptions relate to open campus lunch policies. Research by Perumean-Chaney and Sutton
(2013) suggests that students may be afraid of the wrong things while at school. When it comes
to crime, students are more afraid of egregious, but rare, crimes like school shootings, but much
less concerned about crimes more likely to occur on and off campus during school hours. This is
much like the effects of using a cell phone while driving, as noted earlier. As noted by Bosworth,
Ford, and Hernandaz (2011), stakeholders mere perception of a school communitys safety may
be as accurate an indicator of school climate, safety, and academic performance as measures of
disciplinary actions. How stakeholders perceive their environment can have a positive or
negative effect on many common public school performance indicators. Additionally, students
tend to crave rules, order, and structure as part of their school day. Teachers often comment on
how their classes run more smoothly and efficiently when there are structures and consistent
expectations enforced in their classrooms. Not only do teachers notice the difference, students
have been known to comment that they appreciate the consistent enforcement of rules, and the
consistency with which high performing teachers and campuses treat them and their peers. Most

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

notably, students understand when there is equitable treatment of all students on campus
(Bosworth, Ford, & Hernandaz, 2011). As Bosworth, et al (2011), and Whitlock (2006) also
note, students notice and appreciate the positive relationships and feelings of safety imparted by
the presence of teachers throughout the campus during lunch, even though many students hear
and see complaints of apathy by teachers and other building staff. All of this seems to say that
students, teachers, and administrators all prefer a more structured learning environment. Open
campus lunch policies break that mold by allowing students to disperse to unsupervised areas of
campus, and beyond. This points to the hypothesis that open campus lunch policies make
students and schools less safe.
Drawing from numerous different sources, this exploratory study will look at current
perceptions of safety at a large, urban high school in north Texas. This study will add to current
literature by collecting and analyzing data related to those perceptions, and making conclusions
about how large, urban high schools might consider restructuring or eliminating their open
campus lunch programs in the future. Drawing on the wisdom of the Effective School Battery
(Gottfredson, 1984), the Inviting School Safety Survey, and the Invitational Education Model
(Shoffner & Vacc, 1999), this study will conduct an exploratory survey aimed at analyzing data
on safety perceptions from students and other school and community stakeholders. With respect
to open campus lunch policies, this study will focus on building and student safety, peer
victimization, and community perceptions. While the concepts of classroom engagement,
teacher presence and motivation, loneliness, and self-worth are important measures to be studied,
they are not directly related to this discussion and will be omitted from this study (Juvonen,
Nishina, & Graham, 2006).

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

9
Chapter Three: Methods

Research for this report was conducted with students from R. L. Paschal high school in
Fort Worth, Texas. According to the 2014-2015 Texas Academic Performance Report (Texas
Education Agency, 2016), Paschal high school is a large, urban school of approximately 2,600
students, and is classified as a 6A school with at least 2,150 students by the University
Interscholastic League (University Interscholastic League, 2016). Paschal is also the largest high
school in the Fort Worth Independent school district, which educates more than 85,000 students
in early childhood education through twelfth grade. Additionally, with a population of
approximately 800,000, Fort Worth is the countrys 16th largest city according to the latest census
data and estimates from various sources (National League of Cities, 2011).
Participants
The subjects for this study (n=51) were self-selected following a mass email request sent
to a larger sample of students (n=197) enrolled in Paschal high school concert, marching, and
jazz bands, as well as fall and winter color guard ensembles. The emailed survey link included
only a request that subjects consider participation to help the author earn his Masters degree,
and the subjects were not promised any payment or other rewards for their participation. Further,
the subjects were evenly divided with regards to gender, and there was significant representation
from all grades at the school (9-12).
Instrument
As seen in Figure 1, the student survey used was a 36 question multiple choice and Likert
scale instrument. Design and construction of the instrument was based off model questions used
in the Effective School Battery (Gottfredson, 1984), the Inviting School Safety Survey, and the
Invitational Education Model (Shoffner & Vacc, 1999). 50% (n=18) of the questions were

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

10

yes/no, 44% (n=16) of the questions were Likert scale, and the remaining 6% (n=2) were
demographic. The only demographic information participants were asked to provide was gender
and current grade level. Outside of those identifiers, all survey data collected was anonymous.
Procedure
Participants were given a unique web uniform resource locator (URL) that took them to
the survey page on Survey Monkeys website. Once on the site, participants had an unlimited
amount of time to take the survey. Additionally, there were no restrictions put on answers before
the form was submitted. Participants could go back through the document prior to submission to
edit responses as needed. Of the 36 questions, only 2 contained any identifying demographic
information, the other questions were either Likert scale or yes/no. Because there was no paper
version of the survey, to participate in the study participants were required to have access to an
Internet connection on a personal or public computer, tablet, or other mobile device. No other
participation was needed once participants submitted their survey answers.
Data Collection
All data collection for this study was done online through the Survey Monkey (SM)
platform. Upon submission, each of the individual surveys was recorded and placed in a secure
file only accessible by the author. The data was then exported to spreadsheets for further
analysis of trends. While the individual participants remained anonymous, it was still possible to
see each participants completed survey in addition to larger trends identified by SM (Survey
Monkey, 2016).

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

11
Chapter Four: Results

It should again be noted that the survey participants (n=51) were self-selected following a
mass email request sent to a larger sample of students (n=197) enrolled in Paschal high school
concert, marching, and jazz bands, and color guard ensembles. All participants answered each of
the 36 questions on the survey. Of the 51 participants, 54.9% (n=28) were male and 45.1% were
female (n=23), while there were no distinctions provided for transgender or gender nonconforming participants. As shown in Figure 1, the class make-up was as follows: freshmen
13.7% (n=7), sophomores 31.4% (n=16), juniors 27.5% (n=14), and seniors/5+ year 27.5%
(n=14). Future research in this area might consider additional demographic distinctions that
might perceive safety levels differently. This study focused only on gender and class
distinctions.
As a benchmark for the results, the Likert-scaled responses were coded as positive or yes
if respondents answered always or often. All other responses on the Likert-scaled questions
were coded as negative or no. Additionally, the first two questions asked of the participants were
if they felt safe on the general campus and if they felt safe during their specific lunch hour.
Those questions also acted as a benchmark for the rest of the survey responses. Survey
participants overwhelmingly felt safe on their campus (88.2%, n=45), while only 11.8% (n=6)
did not. The numbers were similar during the lunch hours with over 90% feeling safe. At first
glance it does not seem that students have many negative perceptions about their safety during
lunch hour. There was a significant difference during the lunch hour in that 2% (n=1) of the
respondents never felt safe, while no participants answered never on the first benchmark
question. It could then be argued that students may feel slightly less safe during the lunch hour
than during the rest of the school day. The lack of consistent teacher presence and difficulty

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

12

seeking help during the lunch hour seem to support that conclusion. Only 58.8% (n=30) of
students regularly interact with teachers during the lunch hour, and 17.7% (n=9) of respondents
could not easily find help when needed.
Additionally, there are neighborhood contextual factors that contribute to the
respondents decreased perceptions of safety typically felt on and around campus during their
regular school days. While 92.2% (n=47) of the respondents said the community surrounding
campus was generally safe, only 72.5% (n=39) said they would feel comfortable walking off
campus alone. And 13.7% (n=7) of the respondents also reported visible gang activity on or
around the campus.
Classroom attendance following the lunch hour also paints a grimmer picture of student
safety and achievement. More than a quarter of the respondents (27.5%, n=14) reported skipping
class immediately after lunch at least once. Worse still, more than two-thirds of the respondents
(70.6%, n=36) are friends with students who have skipped at least one class immediately
following lunch hour. If 70% of a student population were to skip class at least once following a
lunch period, that would be an epidemic for any school system. Students are not capable of
learning when not physically in the classroom.

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

13
Chapter Five: Discussion

A key finding in this exploratory survey was that students general perceptions of safety
were different than when students were asked about specific situations they had encountered at
lunch hour on school days. While students overwhelmingly felt safe at school and during the
lunch hour, the feeling of safety declined dramatically when students were asked about situations
during lunch hour. Large percentages of students could not consistently seek help from teachers,
or feel comfortable walking off campus alone. Additionally, students reported significant
instances of gang activity on or around campus. Students also reported either having skipped
class or having friends who skipped class immediately following lunch.
While students generally feel safe at school, significant numbers of students face
situations during lunch hour that could be potentially harmful, especially considering the lack of
teacher presence and ability to find help when needed. According to Maslows Hierarchy of
Needs (McLeod, 2014), students need their most basic needs to be met to perform at a high
academic level. If a student is hungry, tired, and physically or emotionally vulnerable, they will
not perform at the same level as a student who is not hungry, is well rested, and situated in a safe
learning environment.
Limitations
This study has several weaknesses that are common when employing electronic surveys
as the only means of data collection. First, the selected population was limited because the
survey was only available to students with either a reliable internet connection or reliable data
service through a mobile phone company. Additionally, the survey was not tested on mobile
devices, and thus it cannot be confirmed that mobile devices had access. Second, security and
anonymity could not be confirmed because the survey was online. Third, the sample used for

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

14

this study was not random because it was a convenience sample. The larger sample of students
who received the survey link were all registered in the same class at Paschal high school (PHS).
The 197 students who were send the link are only 7.5% of the entire student population at PHS.
For future research into this area it is suggested that the entire school population be sent the link
to the survey. Lastly, some of the questions used for the survey were not benchmarked.
Therefore, the validity of each individual question cannot be independently verified.
Conclusion
In large part, students reported high levels of safety on and around the campus
community. Future research would do well to include a larger sample of the school population
and to collect more demographic data to determine if any specific student groups have different
perceptions of safety with regarding the opening campus lunch hour and surrounding
community. Students generally feel safe during open campus lunch, but reported a lack of
teacher presence and a surrounding community that did not feel quite as safe as the campus. The
incidence of reported gang activity is concerning and is worthy of more research that could be
accessed better with a larger population and a truly random sample. More research in this area,
with valid design and implementation, may lead to significantly different results regarding
student perceptions of safety.
Implications
Future research will be done on the campus of Paschal high school to determine if any
differences exist between students registered in the band sponsored programs and the rest of the
school population. Given the results in a convenient, stable, and nonrandom environment, this
study helps to pose the hypothesis that the general student population may view school safety in
a more negative light.

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

15
References

Bosworth, K., Ford, L., & Hernandaz, D. (2011). School climate factors contributing to student
and faculty perceptions of safety in select arizona schools. Journal of School Health.
Gottfredson, G. D. (1984). The effective school battery. College Park: University of Maryland.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2006). Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in
urban middle school. Psychological Science, 393-400.
McLeod, S. (2014). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Retrieved from Simply Psychology:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Mirtcheva, D. M., & Powell, L. M. (2009). Participation in the national school lunch program:
Importance of schoo-level and neighborhood contextual factors. Journal of School
Health, 485-494.
National League of Cities. (2011). The 30 most populous cities. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from
National League of Cities: http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-and-networks/resources/cities101/city-factoids/the-30-most-populous-cities
Perumean-Chaney, S. E., & Sutton, L. M. (2013). Students and perceived school safety: the
impact of school security measures. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 570-588.
Shoffner, M. F., & Vacc, N. A. (1999). Psychometric analysis of the inviting school safety survey.
Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development.
Stone, L. M., & Runyan, C. W. (2005). High school off-campus lunch policies and adolescent
motor vehicle crashes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 5-8.
Survey Monkey. (2016). Student perceptions of safety and open campus lunch policies. Retrieved
April 21, 2016, from Survey Monkey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

16

Terry, C. P., & Terry, D. L. (2016). Distracted driving among college students: perceived risk
versus reality. Current Psychology, 115-120.
Texas Education Agency. (2016). 2014-15 Texas academic performance reports. Retrieved April
10, 2016, from Texas Education Agency:
https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/tapr/2015/index.html
University Interscholastic League. (2016). UIL Allignments. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from
University interscholastic league: http://www.uiltexas.org/alignments
Whitlock, J. L. (2006). Youth perceptions of life at school: contextual correlates of school
connectedness in adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 13-19.
Wikimedia. (2016, March 12). Likert scale. Retrieved from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

17
Figures

4/10/2016

[SURVEY PREVIEW MODE] Student Perceptions of Safety and Open Campus Lunch Policies Survey

StudentPerceptionsofSafetyandOpenCampusLunchPolicies
StudentSurvey

1.Whatisyourgender?
Female
Male
Prefernottoanswer

2.Whatgradeareyouin?
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Fifthyear/Other

3.Doyoufeelsafeoncampus?
Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

4.Doyoufeelsafeduringlunchhour?
Always
Often
Sometimes
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=Ih_2BPDz4S48dkiOptNnWhwgNgxKnmCrCb5HXTEGwNJ9o_3D

1/8

Figure 1. Student survey excerpt. Reprinted from Survey Monkey, by B. D. Hall, 2016,
Retrieved from http://surveymonkey.com. Copyright 2016 by Survey Monkey. Reprinted with
permission.

student PERCEPTIONS OF safety

18

Figure 2. Class breakdown of survey participants. Reprinted from Survey Monkey, by B. D.

Hall, 2016, Retrieved from http://surveymonkey.com. Copyright 2016 by Survey Monkey.
Reprinted with permission.