In the present research, attention is concentrated on secondary analyses of large-scale Internet-based monitoring on school safety with respect to Dutch secondary pupils (cf. Mooij, in press; Mooij, De Wit, & Polman, 2008). In a first research step, the theoretically relevant characteristics and variables will be ordered to facilite adequate empirical research and analysis. A second research step will be confined to the empirical method used and the research outcomes. The corresponding research questions are formulated as:

a) which risk and promotive characteristics and variables should be integrated in a theoretical model to assess and predict a pupil’s feelings of safety at school, in the school surroundings, and at home;

b) which risk and promotive characteristics and variables result from a large-scale empirical check of this model with respect to secondary pupils and their different contexts?

In the theoretical model I organise seven types of characteristics and variables at individual pupil level. The first four types specify characteristics and variables which are individually based and have to be assessed with each pupil. These are personal characteristics, family related variables, school related problematic behaviours, and perceived school measures to improve safety. The fifth type specifies the school context of each pupil and refers to variables assessed with the teachers and other staff of the pupil’s school. In the same vein, the sixth type characterises the school leadership of the pupil’s school and is assessed with the school management. Finally, the seventh type can be called ‘demographic variables’ and refers to different bureaucratic characteristics of the pupil’s environment.

The seven types of characteristics and variables will be theoretically elaborated and empirically checked  with respect to their predictive relationships regarding feelings of safety concerning three different situations: at the pupil’s school, in the school surroundings, and at the pupil’s home.

Alschuler, A. S. (1980). School discipline: a socially lite¬rate solution. New York: McGraw-Hill. American Psychological Association. (1993). Violence and youth: psychology’s response. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Arbeitsgruppe Schulforschung. (1980). Leistung und Ver¬sagen [Achievement and failure]. Munich, Germany: Juventa. Bayh, B. (1975). Our nation’s schools - a report card: “A” in school violence and vandalism. Washington: US Government Printing Office. Beauvais, C., & Jenson, J. (2002). Social Cohesion: Updating the state of the research. CPRN Discussion Paper. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Retrieved 12 December 2007 from http://www.cprn.com/documents/12949_en.pdf. Mooij, T. (2006). Theoretical and methodological significance of Information and Communication Technology in educational practice. European Educational Research Journal, 5(2), 77-79. Mooij, T. (in press). Differences in pupil characteristics and motives in being a victim, perpetrator, and witness of violence in secondary education. Research Papers in Education. Mooij, T., & De Wit, W. (2009). Definities van incidenten in het onderwijs. Advies [Defining violence incidents in education. Advice]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud Universiteit, ITS. Mooij, T., De Wit, W., & Polman, H. (2008). Sociale veiligheid in het Voortgezet (Speciaal) Onderwijs 2006 – 2008: Eindrapport [Social safety in secondary (special) education 2006–2008: Final report]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud Universiteit, ITS.