ZERO TOLERANCE
In the late 1980’s and the early 1990’s with the increase in media coverage regarding
violence in schools, policies were implemented to address school campus drugs and violence
issues. As a result, zero tolerance phraseology was included in public school education code in
an attempt to standardize how schools reacted to and applied consequences to specific issues.
Zero tolerance is meant to be applied within specific categories (e.g. drugs, weapons, violence,
sexual harassment, etc.) with the application of a set of predetermined consequences, most often
punitive regardless of the situational context. These prescribed actions were meant to remove
students who created a widespread distraction from the learning environment or created a threat
to other students’ safety.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Despite a 20 year history of implementation, there seems to be limited data to support the idea that zero tolerance had drastically changed the behaviors in the learning environment. Findings also may indicate that zero tolerance policies may conflict with juvenile justice and also may negatively impact the newest research on adolescent development. The American Psychological Association, in 2008, convened a task force to study zero tolerance and to make recommendations for reforming zero tolerance where it is necessary and for replacing when found to be unnecessary and an alternative approach more appropriate. With the ultimate goal of reduction in school violence, the APA task force’s findings made recommendation, though they cited that scant data was available to judge efficacy. At this point, I would like to add that schools, battling budget cuts, struggle to have manpower and expertise dedicated to projects for data collection and analysis.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Despite a 20 year history of implementation, there seems to be limited data to support the idea that zero tolerance had drastically changed the behaviors in the learning environment. Findings also may indicate that zero tolerance policies may conflict with juvenile justice and also may negatively impact the newest research on adolescent development. The American Psychological Association, in 2008, convened a task force to study zero tolerance and to make recommendations for reforming zero tolerance where it is necessary and for replacing when found to be unnecessary and an alternative approach more appropriate. With the ultimate goal of reduction in school violence, the APA task force’s findings made recommendation, though they cited that scant data was available to judge efficacy. At this point, I would like to add that schools, battling budget cuts, struggle to have manpower and expertise dedicated to projects for data collection and analysis.
TASK FORCE FINDINGS
School safety is of utmost importance and disruptions to learning derail the purpose of education. Yet findings, did not support that critical or deadly violence had increased since 1985. Though this may be the case, it could be argued that zero tolerance may not have had the impact of restraining the increase of violence in schools. In fact, studies gave evidence that violence had perhaps slightly decreased. Personally, I think further studies would be needed to decipher whether this is or is not a result of policies in place.
Zero Tolerance was also designed to provide consistency through a provision of mandated punishment for certan offenses. By design, this was to send a clear message to students regarding what would not be tolerated. Consistency is a key ingredient to behavioral intervention. Yet in the absence of rubrics and clear definitions the deviations of implementation are as varied as school personalities themselves. The degree of local school autonomy and governance interprets and applies the laws related to zero tolerance according to each’s value system, thus creating variables of consistency. The rates of suspensions and expulsions vary widely as a result.
With the growth of the charter movement, greater variables have further exacerbated this issue due to the lack of government regulation of charters. California Zero Tolerance Law itself is ambiguous and difficult to interpret, but indicates that the state may supercede the district decision in matters of expulsion if state board deems inappropriate action has been taken. In matters of school expulsion there are two criteria for determining if expulsion is the correct action. First, other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed and second, the nature of the offense creates a danger to self or others. Yet often, schools expand the list stated by the California education code to additional issues and may use them as a quick remedy in the context of limited personnel and large classes. The California Department of Education posts a matrix to be used by administrators in determining grounds of expulsion. Within this matrix, there are absolutes but there are also many opportunities before expulsion for intervention. If indeed, we follow the direction of the research and search for more restorative ways of dealing with student issues then personnel issues have to be addressed. I have often thought that we know what to do but the systems and the way school is structured may make it prohibitive. As I have often looked at the top heavy administration costs, I think a better use of funds would be to partner a veteran, mentor teacher with a new teacher. This partnership could solve a multiplicity of issues including providing a person readily available at the ground level, where it matters most, to intervene and monitor strategies with student behaviors to resolve issues before they escalate. This would also provide modeling for new teachers to learn conflict resolution skills, as well as provide older teachers with the most current strategies as a way of constantly retooling them.
School safety is of utmost importance and disruptions to learning derail the purpose of education. Yet findings, did not support that critical or deadly violence had increased since 1985. Though this may be the case, it could be argued that zero tolerance may not have had the impact of restraining the increase of violence in schools. In fact, studies gave evidence that violence had perhaps slightly decreased. Personally, I think further studies would be needed to decipher whether this is or is not a result of policies in place.
Zero Tolerance was also designed to provide consistency through a provision of mandated punishment for certan offenses. By design, this was to send a clear message to students regarding what would not be tolerated. Consistency is a key ingredient to behavioral intervention. Yet in the absence of rubrics and clear definitions the deviations of implementation are as varied as school personalities themselves. The degree of local school autonomy and governance interprets and applies the laws related to zero tolerance according to each’s value system, thus creating variables of consistency. The rates of suspensions and expulsions vary widely as a result.
With the growth of the charter movement, greater variables have further exacerbated this issue due to the lack of government regulation of charters. California Zero Tolerance Law itself is ambiguous and difficult to interpret, but indicates that the state may supercede the district decision in matters of expulsion if state board deems inappropriate action has been taken. In matters of school expulsion there are two criteria for determining if expulsion is the correct action. First, other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed and second, the nature of the offense creates a danger to self or others. Yet often, schools expand the list stated by the California education code to additional issues and may use them as a quick remedy in the context of limited personnel and large classes. The California Department of Education posts a matrix to be used by administrators in determining grounds of expulsion. Within this matrix, there are absolutes but there are also many opportunities before expulsion for intervention. If indeed, we follow the direction of the research and search for more restorative ways of dealing with student issues then personnel issues have to be addressed. I have often thought that we know what to do but the systems and the way school is structured may make it prohibitive. As I have often looked at the top heavy administration costs, I think a better use of funds would be to partner a veteran, mentor teacher with a new teacher. This partnership could solve a multiplicity of issues including providing a person readily available at the ground level, where it matters most, to intervene and monitor strategies with student behaviors to resolve issues before they escalate. This would also provide modeling for new teachers to learn conflict resolution skills, as well as provide older teachers with the most current strategies as a way of constantly retooling them.
The APA findings questioned whether student expulsions improved school climate and
made it more conducive to those who remained and whether zero tolerance had a deterrent
effect. The evidence seemed to support that schools that had higher rates had less positive school
environments. Though this may be true, there are school climates able to clearly communicate
both: a tough approach to discipline and a caring environment. In these cases, I do not believe
the evidence would support the findings. Regarding the deterrent effect for future actions, my experience with “at risks” students is that often when they do have a negative experience, they
have great difficulty recovering and altering negative patterns. In these cases, without the
presence of a strong support system, an expulsion or expulsions most likely would lead to higher
drop out rates.
The task force also questioned whether parents supported the implementation of zero
tolerance policies. APA cited that data was mixed and inconclusive. It seems fair to me to say
that overall the school community would support the zero tolerance policy in favor of safe
learning environments, but a community could react if an administrative action was deemed
harsh or reactionary as it involved a specific student; feeling that such action could represent a
punitive and unfair environment that could negatively affect their child at some point in their
education.
Students of color and disability are also an area of concern. Part of the appeal of zero tolerance was to level the playing field for all ethnic groups and would be fairer to those traditionally overrepresented. Suspension and expulsions seem to continue to overrepresent Latino and African American students. Disciplinary disproportionality for disabled students is still inconclusive. There is a greater justification for using all resources available before suspension or expulsion of a student with an IEP, as to give all indication of accomodations and modifications to student’s best advantage.
Recent neuroscientific studies support the idea that the adolescent brain is less developed than we once thought. Students are likely to take greater risks and to fail to reason consequences in advance. Often, our schools do not account for the developmental challenges of students and do not structure the school according to the needs of students of this age for the unique challenges of adolescence: close peer relationships, autonomy, support from adults in addition to parents, empowerment. Studies indicate that a greater awareness of this would create a system of greater problem solving before reaching the suspension/expulsion stage.
Students of color and disability are also an area of concern. Part of the appeal of zero tolerance was to level the playing field for all ethnic groups and would be fairer to those traditionally overrepresented. Suspension and expulsions seem to continue to overrepresent Latino and African American students. Disciplinary disproportionality for disabled students is still inconclusive. There is a greater justification for using all resources available before suspension or expulsion of a student with an IEP, as to give all indication of accomodations and modifications to student’s best advantage.
Recent neuroscientific studies support the idea that the adolescent brain is less developed than we once thought. Students are likely to take greater risks and to fail to reason consequences in advance. Often, our schools do not account for the developmental challenges of students and do not structure the school according to the needs of students of this age for the unique challenges of adolescence: close peer relationships, autonomy, support from adults in addition to parents, empowerment. Studies indicate that a greater awareness of this would create a system of greater problem solving before reaching the suspension/expulsion stage.
How does zero tolerance affect the school to prison pipeline (practice of involving law
enforcement)? It is questionable, whether the increasing use of law enforcement involvement has
allowed for the full respect of students’ constitutional rights. In addition, in the past, profiling or
comparing behaviors to violent behaviors of past students has been used as a predictor of future
outcomes. Data does not seem to support the idea that profiling for predictability is helpful, but
rather supports that best practices include threat assessment of the learning community as a better
course of action in offsetting violence. Threat assessment allows the implemention of proactive
strategies through social-emotional climate studies to determine school safety. Action plans
suggest ideas like assessing the emotional climate, emphasizing the importance of listening,
making sure the student has at least one adult at school that is supportive or significant to them,
taking a stance against the code of silence, finding and teaching effective strategies against
bullying, empowering students by involving them in planning, creating, and sustaining a school
culture of safety and respect, creating smaller groups in a larger environment, and engaging all
stakeholders in the process of safekeeping the local community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to these controversial findings, many state legislators are calling for a modification of the the zero tolerance laws and the APA offers suggestions that include restorative justice, bullying prevention, and threat assessment. It is suggested that schools need to implement these programs comprehensively in order for them to be effective. The APA does not call for repeal of the law but does propose reform to meet the goal of ensuring safe schools while maximizing learning opportunity. Some of the recommendations are to apply policies with greater flexibility. Teachers (or those closest in relationship should be the first contact to parents or caregivers). Regular and continuous contact about less serious behavior or even positive interactions, will produce benefit. Teachers should be taught how to de-escalate issues and schools should define together all infractions and train staff to handle these infractions. Careful data collection of behaviors is imperative to determine efficacy of procedures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to these controversial findings, many state legislators are calling for a modification of the the zero tolerance laws and the APA offers suggestions that include restorative justice, bullying prevention, and threat assessment. It is suggested that schools need to implement these programs comprehensively in order for them to be effective. The APA does not call for repeal of the law but does propose reform to meet the goal of ensuring safe schools while maximizing learning opportunity. Some of the recommendations are to apply policies with greater flexibility. Teachers (or those closest in relationship should be the first contact to parents or caregivers). Regular and continuous contact about less serious behavior or even positive interactions, will produce benefit. Teachers should be taught how to de-escalate issues and schools should define together all infractions and train staff to handle these infractions. Careful data collection of behaviors is imperative to determine efficacy of procedures.
Zero tolerance should be reserved for the most serious and disruptive behaviors,
replacing the one-size-fits-all strategies. Police officers who work with schools should be trained
in the developmental stages of adolescence and should respond with that in mind. Along with
the recommendations above, research strategies will be needed in the future determine efficacy.
A recommendation for more studies to determine the linkage between schools and the juvenile justice system. Does the likelihood of contact with the juvenile justice system increase with student disciplinary removal? Cost-benefit analyses are also suggested to determine the benefits of zero tolerance against the cost in terms of dropout, juvenile incarceration, and student alienation. Policy changes recommended provide for legislative initiatives to encourage school districts to provide alternatives, resources, training, and funding to reform the current policies.
PERSONAL COMMENTS
As with any reform, I think it is important to move forward with wisdom. Though the research is compelling, and I agree with it, the shift must come in increments. Parents need the assurance that the objective is still a safe and disruption free learning environment. As they are reassured, progress can be made toward more restorative justice avenues to deal with issues that are less severe. The school climate will need time to make the paradigm shift to a less punitive system. Not every teacher is interested in the social-emotional component of learning, nor do they embrace the holistic approach necessary to implement restorative justice. For many teachers, it takes policy change for the door to open for implementation. Also school administrators will need to give more focus on teacher training and staff cohesiveness to employ the comprehensive approach needed for reform.
A recommendation for more studies to determine the linkage between schools and the juvenile justice system. Does the likelihood of contact with the juvenile justice system increase with student disciplinary removal? Cost-benefit analyses are also suggested to determine the benefits of zero tolerance against the cost in terms of dropout, juvenile incarceration, and student alienation. Policy changes recommended provide for legislative initiatives to encourage school districts to provide alternatives, resources, training, and funding to reform the current policies.
PERSONAL COMMENTS
As with any reform, I think it is important to move forward with wisdom. Though the research is compelling, and I agree with it, the shift must come in increments. Parents need the assurance that the objective is still a safe and disruption free learning environment. As they are reassured, progress can be made toward more restorative justice avenues to deal with issues that are less severe. The school climate will need time to make the paradigm shift to a less punitive system. Not every teacher is interested in the social-emotional component of learning, nor do they embrace the holistic approach necessary to implement restorative justice. For many teachers, it takes policy change for the door to open for implementation. Also school administrators will need to give more focus on teacher training and staff cohesiveness to employ the comprehensive approach needed for reform.
Along with the ideas proposed by the APA task force, issues will need to be addressed
that will reallocate funding for programs and staffing. Currently, many programs are being
managed by staff who have not been or are not currently practitioners. This gap creates an
inefficiency that could be altered by restructuring. As previously mentioned, the best strategy for
implementing a caring climate is to develop the first line of interaction more completely between
the student and the classroom teacher. One way of providing a richer relationship is to partner
teachers so that there is enough flexibility to address social-emotional issues as part of learning,
not as a disruption to learning. These new ideas for reform has positive implications for
research-based restorative justice programs like Discipline That Restores. Increasing prevention
strategies will decrease intervention.
In conclusion, zero tolerance is on the threshold of reform as data does not conclusively support its success. As we look to the future, hopefully, we can implement restorative justice ideas within the framework of this reform at both the prevention and intervention stages of student behavior and learning. Through continued dialogue with educators, coupled with legislative ideas that continue to use the term, restorative justice, the ideas for change will begin to take root in our school environments.
In conclusion, zero tolerance is on the threshold of reform as data does not conclusively support its success. As we look to the future, hopefully, we can implement restorative justice ideas within the framework of this reform at both the prevention and intervention stages of student behavior and learning. Through continued dialogue with educators, coupled with legislative ideas that continue to use the term, restorative justice, the ideas for change will begin to take root in our school environments.
Rhonda Hearnsberger (2012).Zero tolerance. Mediation and the Law (Graduate Studies Paper).
No comments:
Post a Comment