Although there can be no dispute that schools must do all that can be done to ensure the safety of learning environments, controversy has arisen about the use of zero tolerance policies and procedures to achieve those aims. In response to that controversy, and to assess the extent to which current practice benefits students and schools, the American Psychological Association convened a task force to evaluate the evidence and to make appropriate recommendations regarding zero tolerance policies and practices. An extensive review of the literature found that, despite a 20-year history of implementation, there are surprisingly few data that could directly test the assumptions of a zero tolerance approach to school discipline, and the data that are available tend to contradict those assumptions. Moreover, zero tolerance policies may negatively affect the relationship of education with juvenile justice and appear to conflict to some degree with current best knowledge concerning adolescent development. To address the needs of schools for discipline that can maintain school safety while maximizing student opportunity to learn, the report offers recommendations for both reforming zero tolerance where its implementation is necessary and for alternative practice to replace zero tolerance where a more appropriate approach is indicated.

/pdf/are-zero-tolerance-policies-effective-in-the-schools-an-59go5sbxdo.pdf

Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations

This publication results from on ongoing collaboration between the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education. Its goals are to determine whether it could have been known that incidents of targeted violence at schools were being planned and whether anything could have been done to prevent them from occurring. Results from the Secret Service's Exceptional Case Study Project (ECSP) are used to organize planning. This report describes the Safe School Initiative, defines "targeted" school violence, and discusses the prevalence of school violence in American schools. The methodology of this study, sources of information, and an analysis of survey responses are also discussed. Incidents of targeted school violence are characterized, including characteristics of the-attacker, conceptualization of the attack, and signaling, advancing, and resolving the attack. Implications of study findings and the use of threat assessment as a strategy to prevent school violence are presented. Appendix A lists incidents of targeted school violence by state; Appendix B lists these incidents by year; and Appendix C is a list of resources. Contact information follows the appendices. (Contains 13 references and 2 Web site resources.) (RT) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. mmmumppm..00WASWItSIIM-1114e-e. %i THE FINAL REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE. SAFE SCHOOL INITIATIVE: IMPLICATIONS. FOR THE PREVENTION OF SCHOOL ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES ONITEDSTATES SEC! ET, SEIIVICE 31, N D ONITED STATES DEM FITO4 INT OF EDOCATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 'This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. WASHINCT'ON, D.C. May 2002 2 BEST COPY AVA1 BLE ge)

/pdf/the-final-report-and-findings-of-the-safe-school-initiative-50801lnyiv.pdf

The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States

Because there is little or no evidence of the efficacy of zero tolerance, schools and school districts need to explore preventive alternatives.

/pdf/zero-tolerance-zero-evidence-an-analysis-of-school-4bfe3ia93w.pdf

Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice. Policy Research Report.

Dramatic incidents of school violence have thrust school discipline to the forefront of public consciousness. Despite a dramatic increase in the use of zero tolerance procedures and policies, there is little evidence demonstrating that these procedures have increased school safety or improved student behavior. Moreover, a punitive disciplinary climate may make any attempt to include more students with behavioral problems a cause for conflict between general and special educators. A preventive, early response disciplinary model increases the range of effective options for addressing violence and disruption across both general and special education. Ultimately, the effectiveness of any disciplinary system may be judged by the extent to which it teaches students to solve interpersonal and intrapersonal problems without resorting to disruption or violence.

School Discipline at a Crossroads: From Zero Tolerance to Early Response:

Seriousness of purpose in seeking to avert the tragedy of school violence does not necessarily demand rigid adherence to harsh and extreme measures. There are alternatives to politically facile get-tough strategies, the authors point out. THE 1997-98 school year was a shocking and frightening one, filled with reports of seemingly random violence in communities heretofore immune to such incidents. In the wake of these tragedies, we can expect to hear renewed calls for increasingly severe penalties for any kind of school disruption, a stance that has led to the widespread adoption of so-called zero tolerance discipline policies. Already many districts have decreed that making any sort of threat will result in automatic expulsion. Some have gone as far as to suggest that principals be armed in order to deter - or perhaps outshoot - students who bring firearms to school. Such an approach is extreme, to say the least, and is unlikely to be implemented. Yet it is simply the far end of a continuum of responses to what has become the largely unquestioned assumption that school violence is accelerating at an alarming rate and that increasingly draconian disciplinary measures are not only justified but necessary to guarantee school safety. Before we continue down a path that may well turn school principals into town marshals and cafeterias into free-fire zones, however, we would do well to examine more closely the track record of zero tolerance. What is "zero tolerance"? What is the nature of the school violence that has brought us to this point? How well does the approach address the serious issues of school safety toward which it has been aimed? The Origins of Zero Tolerance The term "zero tolerance" - referring to policies that punish all offenses severely, no matter how minor - grew out of state and federal drug enforcement policies in the 1980s. The first use of the term recorded in the Lexis-Nexis national newspaper database was in 1983, when the Navy reassigned 40 submarine crew members for suspected drug abuse. In 1986 zero tolerance was picked up and used by a U.S. attorney in San Diego as the title of a program developed to impound seacraft carrying any amount of drugs. By February 1988 the program had received national attention, and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese authorized customs officials to seize the boats, automobiles, and passports of anyone crossing the border with even trace amounts of drugs and to charge those individuals in federal court. Zero tolerance took hold quickly and within months was being applied to issues as diverse as environmental pollution, trespassing, skateboarding, racial intolerance, homelessness, sexual harassment, and boom boxes. From the outset, the harsh punishments meted out under zero tolerance drug policies engendered considerable controversy. Private citizens whose cars, boats, and even bicycles were impounded for sometimes minute amounts of drugs complained bitterly, and the American Civil Liberties Union considered filing suit against the program. By 1990 the U.S. Customs Service quietly discontinued its initial zero tolerance program after strict applications of the rule resulted in the seizure of two research vessels on which a small amount of marijuana was found. Yet just as the early zero tolerance drug programs in the community were being phased out, the concept was beginning to catch on in the public schools. In late 1989 school districts in Orange County, California, and Louisville, Kentucky, promulgated zero tolerance policies that called for expulsion for possession of drugs or participation in gang-related activity. In New York, Donald Batista, superintendent of the Yonkers public schools, proposed a sweeping zero tolerance program as a way of taking action against students who caused school disruption. With its restricted school access, ban on hats, immediate suspension for any school disruption, and increased use of law enforcement, the program contained many of the elements that have come to characterize zero tolerance approaches in the past decade. …

The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools?.

Early warning Signs Establish caring and supportive relationship with children and youth. Get to know needs, feelings, attitudes, and behavior patterns of students. Review school records for patterns of behaviors or sudden changes in behavior. Do No Harm: The early warning signs should not be used as rationale to isolate, exclude, or punish a child. Understand violence and aggression within a context: Many factors can contribute to aggressive behavior. Some children may act out if stress becomes too great, if they lack positive coping skills, and if they have learned to react with aggression. Avoid Stereotyping: It is important to be aware of false cuesincluding race, socioeconomic status, cognitive or academic ability, or physical appearance. In fact, such stereotypes can unfairly harm children, especially when the school community acts upon them. View warning signs within a developmental context. Children at different levels of development have varying social and emotional capabilities. Understand that children typically exhibit multiple warning signs. Research confirms that most children who are troubled/high potential show multiple early warning signs. Thus, it is important not to overreact to single signs, words or actions.

/pdf/early-warning-timely-response-a-guide-to-safe-schools-49qgfu5k1h.pdf

D. Osher

Papers

Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools.