DOCUMENT RESUME TITLE - ERIC · 2000-08-00. 23p. H325N990009 Indiana Education Policy Center, Smith...

ED 469 537

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

CONTRACTAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 032 073

Skiba, Russell J.

Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School.Disciplinary Practice. Policy Research Report.Indiana Univ., Bloomington. Education Policy Center.Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.; LillyEndowment, Inc., Indianapolis, IN.RR-SRS2

2000-08-0023p.

H325N990009

Indiana Education Policy Center, Smith Research Center, Suite100, 2805 East Tenth Street, Indiana University, Bloomington,IN 47408-2698. Tel: 812-855-1240; Fax: 812-855-0420; e-mail:[email protected] Analyses (070)

EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

Behavior Problems; *Discipline; *Discipline Policy;Elementary Secondary Education; Expulsion; *School Safety;*School Security; Suspension; *Zero Tolerance Policy

Despite the controversies that it has created in schooldistricts throughout the country, zero tolerance continues to be a widelyused response to school disruption and violence. This paper explores thehistory, philosophy, and effectiveness of zero-tolerance school disciplinarystrategies. Growing out of Reagan-Bush-era drug-enforcement policy, zero-tolerance discipline attempts to send a message by punishing both major andminor incidents severely. Analysis of a representative range of zero-tolerance suspensions and expulsions suggests that controversial applicationsof the policy are not idiosyncratic, but may be inherent in zero-tolerancephilosophy. There is as yet little evidence that the strategies typicallyassociated with zero toleranOe contribute to improved student behavior oroverall school safety. Research on the effectiveness of school-securitymeasures is extremely sparse, while data on suspension and expulsion raiseserious concerns about both the equity and effectiveness of school exclusionas an educational intervention. Community reaction has led some districts toadopt alternatives to zero tolerance, stressing a graduated system matchingoffenses and consequences, and preventive strategies, including bullyingprevention, early identification, and improved classroom management. Buildinga research base on these alternatives is critical to assist schools indeveloping more effective, less intrusive methods for school discipline.(Contains 101 references.) (Author/WFA)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence

An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

ByRussell J. Skiba

Indiana Education Policy Center

Policy Research Report #SRS2August, 2000

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

sx-,4->f

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

The contents of this publication were developed in part under grant #H325N990009 from the Office ofSpecial Education Programs, Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily repre-sent the policy of the Department of Education, and no endorsement by the Federal Governmentshould be assumed.

The Indiana Education Policy Center is funded by Lilly Endowment, Inc. and Indiana University to providenonpartisan information, research, and communication on education issues to Indiana policymakers andother education stakeholders to improve education. The views expressed in this Policy Research Report donot necessarily represent the views of Indiana University, the Lilly Endowment, or other supporters of thePolicy Center.

2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Abstra ct

Despite the controversies that it has created in school districts throughout thecountry, zero tolerance continues to be a widely used response to school disrup-tion and violence. This paper explores the history, philosophy, and effectivenessof zero tolerance school disciplinary strategies. Growing out of Reagan-Bush eradrug enforcement policy, zero tolerance discipline attempts to send a message bypunishing both major and minor incidents severely. Analysis of a representativerange of zero tolerance suspensions and expulsions suggests that controversialapplications of the policy are not idiosyncratic, but may be inherent in zero toler-ance philosophy. There is as yet little evidence that the strategies typically associatedwith zero tolerance contribute to improved student behavior or overall school safety.Research on the effectiveness of school security measures is extremely sparse, whiledata on suspension and expulsion raise serious concerns about both the equityand effectiveness of school exclusion as an educational intervention. Communityreaction has led some districts to adopt alternatives to zero tolerance, stressing agraduated system matching offenses and consequences, and preventive strategies,including bullying prevention, early identification, and improved classroom man-agement. Building a research base on these alternatives is critical, in order to assistschools in developing more effective, less intrusive methods for school discipline.

3

ZERO TOLERANCE, ZERO EVIDENCE 1

Ehe Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence:An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice

On September 17, 1999, an intense brawl between students rumored to havebeen members of rival gangs cleared the stands at a football game at Decatur HighSchool in Decatur, Illinois. On October 1, the Decatur School Board accepted arecommendation from its superintendent that seven students, all of them black, beexpelled from the school for two years. The decision sparked a local outcry thatescalated dramatically with the involvement of the Reverend Jesse Jackson andOperation PUSH. Over a thousand protesters marched to the school on November14, and two clays later Rev. Jackson and several of his supporters were arrested.Despite an offer to reduce the expulsions to one year and enroll the students in analternative school, Operation PUSH filed suit against the district on behalf of six ofthe students (the seventh had elected to drop out), alleging procedural impropri-eties, harsh punishments exceeding the offense, and racial bias. On January 11,2000, in a decision posted on the Internet, Judge Robert McLoskey turned back thatsuit on all counts, ruling that the Decatur School Board was well within its rightswhen it expelled the students.

Despite the apparent vindication of the board's actions, the case has opened upan intense national dialogue on the practice of zero tolerance discipline. In manyways, the Decatur case provides a fitting example of the conflicting values andemotions that swirl around the topic. In the wake of Columbine and other shootings,there can be no doubt that schools and school boards have the right, indeed theresponsibility, to take strong action to preserve the safety of students, staff, andparents on school grounds. On the other hand, two-year expulsions for a fistfightwithout weapons when weapons incidents in the same district received less severepunishments raise issues of fairness, and questions about the extent to which ex-treme consequences truly contribute to either school safety or the improvement ofstudent behavior. Videotapes of the event showed clearly that seven students en-gaged in a rolling brawl that cleared the stands and placed innocent bystandersat-risk. Yet the fact that all of those expelled were black, members of a racial groupoverrepresented in suspension and expulsion not only in Decatur, but in cities andtowns across the country, created the appearance of an injustice that could not beignored.

The Decatur incident and similar stories throughout the country reflect the pro-found ambivalence inherent in school disciplinary practice of the last ten years.Ensconced as federal policy, at least one component of a zero tolerance approachis currently in place in over 80% of our nation's schools (Heaviside, Rowand, Wil-liams, & Farris, 1998). Each new outbreak of violence seems to yield a collateralincrease in get-tough discipline. In turn, each new cycle of tougher policy-increaseduse of school security measures and a dramatic surge in school suspensions and

4

expulsions-yields a new round of controversy andcharges of civil rights violations.

This paper explores the history and ever-expand-ing use of zero tolerance in our nation's schools,and the effects and side-effects of the policy. Theanalyses explore the use of school security measuresthat are not mandated, but appear nevertheless tobe part and parcel of the zero tolerance approach toschool safety. In addition, the paper reviews the useof exclusionary discipline strategies-suspension andexpulsion-that are central to zero tolerance policy.The paper concludes with a consideration of evi-dence concerning the effects and side-effects ofcurrent disciplinary practices in the schools. Howwell do such strategies appear to work in changingstudents' behavior or guaranteeing the safety ofschools? Do the positive benefits of such approachesoutweigh the negative side-effects of punishment?

HISTORY, DEFINITION, AND PREVALENCE OF

ZERO TOLERANCE

It is difficult to find a written definition of theterm zero tolerance; certainly the use and meaningof the term have evolved over time. Yet from itsinception in federal drug policy of the 1980's, zerotolerance has been intended primarily as a methodof sending a message that certain behaviors will notbe tolerated, by punishing all offenses severely, nomatter how minor. Zero tolerance first received na-tional attention as the title of a program developedin 1986 by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez in San Diego,impounding seagoing vessels carrying any amountof drugs. U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese high-lighted the program as a national model in 1988,and ordered customs officials to seize the vehiclesand property of anyone crossing the border witheven trace amounts of drugs, and charge those indi-viduals in federal court. The language of zerotolerance seemed to fire the public imagination andwithin months began to be applied to a broad rangeof issues, ranging from environmental pollution andtrespassing to skateboarding, homelessness, andboom boxes.

Frightened by a seemingly overwhelming tide ofviolence, educators in the early 1990's were eager for ano-nonsense response to drugs, gangs, and weapons.Beginning in 1989, school districts in California, New


York, and Kentucky mandated expulsion for drugs,fighting, and gang-related activity. By 1993, zero tol-erance policies had been adopted across the country,often broadened to include not only drugs and weap-ons, but also smoking and school disruption.

This tide swept zero tolerance into national policywhen the Clinton Administration signed the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 into law. The law mandatesa one year calendar expulsion for possession of afirearm, referral of law-violating students to the crimi-nal or juvenile justice system, and the provision thatstate law must authorize the chief administrative of-ficer of each local school district to modify suchexpulsions on a case-by-case basis. Originally, thebill covered only firearms, but more recent amend-ments have broadened the language of the bill toinclude any instrument that may be used as aweapon. The Jefforcls Amendment to the Gun-FreeSchools Act, and more recently the 1997 revisionsof the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,have attempted to bring special education legisla-tion in line with federal zero tolerance policy. It isunclear, however, whether these amendments haveresolved or merely fueled the controversy (see Skiba& Peterson, 2000).

Local school districts have broadened the man-date of zero tolerance beyond the federal mandatesof weapons, to drugs and alcohol (Kumar, 1999),fighting (Petrillo, 1997), threats (Bursuk & Murphy,1999) or swearing (Nancrecle, 1998). Many schoolboards continue to toughen their disciplinary poli-cies; some have begun to experiment with permanentexpulsion from the system for some offenses("Groups critical of no second chances", 1999). Oth-ers have begun to apply school suspensions,expulsions, or transfers to behaviors that occur out-side of school (Seymour, 1999a). There is stillconsiderable variation in local definition of zero tol-erance: while some districts adhere to a zerotolerance philosophy of punishing both major andminor disruptions relatively equally, others have be-gun to define zero tolerance as a graduated system,with severity of consequence scaled in proportionto the seriousness of the offense.

Prevalence of Zero ToleranceSince the passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act,

some form of zero tolerance policy appears to have

5

become the norm in public schools. Defining zerotolerance as a policy that mandates predeterminedconsequences or punishments for specified offenses,'the National Center on Education Statistics report,Violence in America's Public Schools: 1996-1997(Heaviside et al., 1998), found that 94% of all schoolshave zero tolerance policies for weapons or fire-arms, 87% for alcohol, while 79% report mandatorysuspensions or expulsions for violence or tobacco.Less stringent security measures are more widelyused than more stringent measures. Visitor sign-inwas reported in the 1996-97 school year for 96% ofschools, closed campus for most students duringlunch by 80% of schools, controlled access to thebuilding was reported in 53% of schools. Less widelyused measures included the presence of police orlaw enforcement representatives on campus for anhour or more per week (10%), mandatory schooluniforms (3%), random metal detector checks (3%),and daily use of metal detectors (1%).

THE CONTROVERSY OF ZERO TOLERANCE

Zero tolerance policies purposely increase the in-tensity of consequences for all offenders. Yet thepractice of punishing relatively minor incidentsharshly has been consistently controversial. Almostfrom the inception of a national zero tolerance drugpolicy, the harsh punishments meted out for rela-tively minor infractions raised a host of civil rightsconcerns: The American Civil Liberties Union con-sidered filing suit on behalf of those whoseautomobiles, boats, and even bicycles had beenimpounded with trace amounts of marijuana(Hansen, 1988). By 1990, the Customs Service boat


impoundment program was quietly phased out af-ter a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute researchvessel was seized for a marijuana cigarette found ina seaman's cabin.

Similar controversy has attended a host of sus-pensions and expulsions associated with zerotolerance for relatively trivial incidents in school set-tings. Skiba and Peterson (1999) presented some ofthe suspensions and expulsions that received me-dia attention from the passage of the Gun-FreeSchools Act in 1994 until May, 1998, including schoolexpulsions for reasons ranging from paper clips tominor fighting to organic cough drops. This reviewupdates that analysis, looking at cases of suspen-sion or expulsion due to zero tolerance reported inthe national newspapers from May, 1998 to Decem-ber, 1999.2 The number of such cases appears, ifanything, to be increasing, and a thorough descrip-tion of all of those cases is certainly beyond thescope of this paper. The following is a representa-tive sampling of such cases, in the categories ofweapons, drugs, and other offenses.

WeaponsConsideration of zero tolerance tends to focus

on the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 as its drivingforce. Yet, just as state and local zero tolerance poli-cies predated federal law in this area, the followingexamples suggest that local practice often extends zerotolerance considerably beyond federal mandates. 3

October, 1999, Atlanta, Georgia: A 15 year oldSouth Cobb High School sophomore foundwith an unloaded gun in his book bag waspermanently expelled from the school district.

' Note that the definition of zero tolerance used in the NCES study is considerably different than the classic definition of zerotolerance. While the NCES study defines zero tolerance as the presence of any specified punishment for a specified behavior, moretypical definitions have emphasized punishing a range of behaviors, both major and minor, equally severely. It is unclear how manydistricts would still qualify as zero tolerance if that term were limited in usage to those districts emphasizing a more inclusive definitionof zero tolerance.

The search was conducted using the Lexis-Nexus database entering the term zero tolerance under the category Major Newspapers,for dates ranging from May 1, 1998 to December 31, 1999.

3 In the interest of readability, citations of newspaper articles in this section will be presented in footnotes. For each category, sourcesare cited in the order of the incidents presented. For weapons incidents, the sources for each incident are:

Stepp, D. R. (1999, October 12). Cobb expels student for packing gun. Atlanta Constitution, p. 3C.Fitzpatrick, T, Lilly, R., & Houtz, J. (1998, October 6). Schools reverse toy-gun decision: Boy, 11, who was expelled is back at Whitmantoday. Seattle Times, p. Bl.Suspended 7th-grader receives invitation to rocketry workshop. (1999, March 23). Arizona Republic, p. Bl.; see also Gintonio, J. (1999,March 19). Rocket builder's suspension sticks: Boy's dad vows to appeal decision. Arizona Republic, p. A29.Ruth, D. (1999, June 7). Zero tolerance for zero tolerance. Tampa Tribune, p. 2.Neuman, K. (1998, November 12). Deer Lakes apologizes to firefighters for toy ax ban. Pittsburg!) Post-Gazette, p. 3.

6

"That is the standard we have set in the pastfor anyone that has brought a weapon toschool," said the district's associate superinten-dent. "It's extremely serious, dangerous foreverybody involved." The youth was alsocharged in juvenile court with possession of aweapon.

September, 1998, Seattle, Washington: A sixth-grader at Whitman Middle School in Seattle wasexpelled when a squirt gun, painted black andbrown, fell out of his backpack in the lunch-room. Although the expulsion was upheld bya hearing officer, the Seattle School District re-duced the expulsion to a suspension after thefamily's attorney cited state law requiring dis-tricts to provide a lesser punishment where toyweapons were not used with malice or in athreatening manner.

February, 1999, Glendale, Arizona: Seventh-grade David Silverstein, inspired by the movieOctober Sky, brought a homemade rocketmade from a potato chip canister to school.School officials, classifying the rocket as aweapon, suspended him for the remainder ofthe term. Later, David was invited as a specialguest to Space Adventures' Annual RocketryWorkshop in Washington, D. C.

May, 1999, Pensacola, Florida: When a sopho-more loaned her nail clippers with an attachednail file to a friend, a teacher saw and confis-cated the clippers. The girl, aspiring to be adoctor, was given a 10 -clay suspension andthreatened with expulsion. Said the high schoolprincipal, "Life goes on. You learn from yourmistakes. We are recommending expulsion."

November, 1998, Deer Lakes, Pennsylvania: AtCurtisville Elementary School, 5 year old Jor-dan Locke was suspended for wearing a 5-inchplastic ax as part of his firefighter's costume toa Halloween party in his classroom. Afterfirefighters around the country contactedschool officials complaining about the incident,school officials composed an "Open Letter to


Firemen Across the Country" stating that theynever intended to offend firefighters by refer-ring to the ax as a weapon, but defending thezero tolerance policy against weapons as fair.

These incidents underscore two sources of con-troversy inherent in zero tolerance incidents. In thefirst incident, involving a shotgun in a backpack,there can be little doubt of the seriousness of theoffense; as in Decatur, however, it is not the neces-sity of the expulsion, but rather its length that makesthe incident newsworthy. Other incidents appear tocause controversy by defining as a weapon an ob-ject, such as nail clippers or a toy ax, that poses littlereal danger to others. Yet it should be noted thatthis apparent overextension is consistent with thephilosophical intent of zero tolerance, treating bothmajor and minor incidents with severity in order toset an example to others. Indeed, the apparentlengthening of expulsions over time may be relatedto the use of harsh punishment for less severe of-fenses. If a student is expelled for a year for an object(e.g., a nail-file) that is a weapon only through in-terpretation, districts may feel a need to distinguishtruly dangerous incidents by extending punishmenteven further for actual weapons.

DrugsAlthough there is no federal mandate of suspen-

sion or expulsion for drug-related offenses, theapplication of zero tolerance to drugs or alcohol hasbecome quite common (Heaviside et al., 1998). Again,the gravity of the events varies considerably.

June, 1998, Brookline, Massachussetts: Nine se-niors caught with alcohol on a bus going totheir senior prom were barred by the principalfrom attending their graduation, and two werenot allowed to compete in the state baseballplayoffs. Citing tragic accidents caused by al-cohol abuse, Brookline High SchoolHeadmaster Robert Weintraub stated, "Everytime there's a serious incident, a violation ofdrugs, alcohol, or weapons, I have taken a veryhard line, because it's important for kids to get

Drugs and Alcohol citations: Abrahms, S. (1998, June 21). Discipline of 9 seniors is evaluated: Headmaster defends 'zero tolerance'stance. Boston Globe, p. 1.Smith, A. C. (1998, November 14). Court casts doubt on 'zero tolerance' policy. St. Petersburg Tittles, p. 1B.Gross, E.(1998, November 5). Teachers help suspended girl. St. Petersburg Times, p. 113.Student suspended for refusing to see nurse. (1999, February 13). New York Times, p. 116.

7

the message that if they do something that vio-lates some of the fundamental rules we havehere, they will be punished."

June, 1998, Pinellas County, Florida: In theirlast month of school, two high school seniorsskipped school and smoked marijuana withfriends in the morning. School officials weretipped off and expelled the boys upon theirarrival some hours later. A federal appeals courtruled against the district, however, stating that,in the absence of any actual drug test, theschool had not "even a scintilla of evidence"that the two teens were under the influence atschool.

October, 1998, East Lake, Florida: High schoolsenior Jennifer Coonce took a sip of sangria ata luncheon with co-workers as part of a school-sponsored internship. When her parents calledthe high school to complain about minors be-ing served alcohol, the district suspended herfor the remainder of the semester. Jennifer, anhonors student, was offered the opportunityto take her college placement classes at home,over the telephone.

February, 1999, Ewing, New Jersey: When afreshman dozed off in his social studies class,his teacher became suspicious he was usingdrugs and asked him to visit the school nursefor a check of his pulse and blood pressure.When the boy refused, the principal suspendedhim, and refused to readmit him until he hadsubmitted to a drug test. Although the boy sub-mitted to the test, his father considered filing alawsuit challenging the policy.

The range of seriousness of these incidents, ascompared with the relative consistency of punish-ment, may offer some insight into why zero tolerancecreates controversy. A fairly stiff punishment for se-rious drinking or drug abuse at school-sponsoredevents seems fitting, and may well serve to prevent


more serious harm. In contrast, the long-term sus-pension of an honors student for a sip of sangriaseems more likely to turn the offender into the per-ceived victim, as the St. Petersburg Times notes inan editorial:

Zero tolerance policies are inherently unjust andirrational because they conflate harms. Accept-ing a cup of sangria for a good-bye toast ispunished as severely as a student who gets drunkon school property....Bringing a butter knife toschool to cut an apple for lunch carries the sameexpulsion as toting a loaded magnum. Thoseharms are not equivalent, and if they are pun-ished with equal severity, the system looks bothunfair and nonsensical ("Zero Sense", 1998, p.16a).

Strictures against cruel and unusual punishmentare fundamental to our legal system. It may well bethat school punishments greatly out of proportionto the offense arouse controversy by violating basicperceptions of fairness inherent in our system oflaw, even when upheld by the courts.

Other OffensesFinally, zero tolerance has been extended beyond

weapons and drugs to fighting, unauthorized use ofpagers or laser pointers, and sexual harassment(Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Incidents reported in na-tional newspapers since May, 1998 include: 5

February, 1999, Louisville, Kentucky: Two girlsat Bernheim Middle School were expelledwhen they confessed to making a bomb threatthat resulted in the evacuation of the school's430 students. The girls were eligible to re-en-ter the district's public schools in January, 2000,but only after spending a semester in thedistrict's day treatment program.

February, 1999, Fairfax, Virginia: When a ninth -grader wrote a note to a classmate about herteacher stating, "I have a D. I'm grounded....I

Other Offenses: Baldwin, P. (1999, February 24). Bomb threat ousts 2 from school system: It's county's first use of state law.Louisville Courierjournal, p. 1n.Masters, B. A. (1999, February 27). Teen suspended for note about teacher: Fairfax schools overreacted by calling comment a deaththreat, girl's parents say. Washington Post, p. Bl.Henderson, J. (1999, November 4). Halloween essay lands 13-year-old behind bars: Boy released after news media called. HoustonChronicle, p. IA.Berselli, B. (1999, February 28). Student apologizes for remark, returns: Sophomore's parents say 10-day suspension too severe aresponse. Washington Post, p. M3.

S

want to kill that [expletivel....l want to die,"the principal of Lake Braddock SecondarySchool recommended expulsion. While the 15year-old girl and her father claimed the schooloverreacted, the vice chairman of the FairfaxSchool Board defended the action: "People aremore concerned than they were five or 10 yearsago, and with good reason. Teachers have beenattacked. Teachers have been threatened."

November, 1999, Ponder, Texas: When a 13year old wrote a Halloween story for class thatinvolved getting high on Freon, opening fireon a suspected intruder, and finally shootinghis teacher and several classmates, the boy wasordered held in a juvenile detention facility forten days (released after 5 clays). Denton CountyDistrict Attorney noted that the decision wasbased on a review of records indicating thatthe boy had been "a persistent discipline prob-lem for this school, and the administrators therewere legitimately concerned."

February, 1999, Waldorf, Maryland: A WestlakeHigh School sophomore was suspended for10 days when he announced in the school'smorning announcements that his Frenchteacher was not fluent in the language. Thestudent and his parents claimed that the inci-dent was intended as a joke and did not warrantsuch a punishment. School officials, however,deemed the comments a "verbal attack" againstthe teacher.

These cases seem to have at their heart a conflictbetween two fundamental rights: the right of freespeech, and the right of schools to protect studentsand staff from real or perceived harm. An importantlesson of recent school shooting incidents appearsto be that schools may place themselves at risk byignoring serious threats of violence. Indeed, in somerecent cases, schools and school districts may haveaverted serious incidents by swift reaction to ver-balized threats (Garrett, 1999). Yet the furor createdby some of these incidents suggests that there maybe limits on what a school can or should do to pro-tect staff and students. Despite the current emphasison the key use of early warning signs in ensuringschool safety (Dwyer, Osher, & Warger, 1998), it maybe some time before consensus emerges concern-

9


ing what constitutes a threat, and the appropriatelevel of reaction to threats.

SummaryThere is some tendency to assume that these sus-

pensions or expulsions for trivial incidents are simplyidiosyncratic or aberrations that occur in districts char-acterized by an overzealous administration. Yet theubiquity of these "trivial incidents" across time andlocation suggests that the over-extension of schoolsanctions to minor misbehavior is not anomalous,but rather is inherent in the philosophy and appli-cation of zero tolerance. School disciplinary data atboth the district (Skiba et al., 1997) and national(Heaviside et al., 1998) levels have shown that theserious infractions that are the primary target of zerotolerance (e.g., drugs, weapons, gangs) occur rela-tively infrequently. The most frequent disciplinaryevents with which schools wrestle are minor dis-ruptive behaviors such as tardiness, class absence,disrespect, and noncompliance. A broad policy thatseeks to punish both minor and major disciplinaryevents equally will, almost by definition, result inthe punishment of a small percentage of serious in-fractions, and a much larger percentage of relativelyminor misbehavior. We might expect then that the"trivial incidents" connected with zero tolerance willnot abate, but may even accelerate as those policiescontinue to be extended by local districts.

In response, the number of lawsuits filed by par-ents in such incidents also appears to be increasing.The ruling of Judge Robert McLoskey against thedefendants in the Decatur expulsion case is not un-usual; in general, courts have tended to side withschool districts in reviewing such cases, giving rela-tively broad leeway to district administrators in theirinterpretation of school disciplinary policy (Zirkel,1998). Yet the courts have also begun to limit schooldistrict power in certain cases. In a case in Pennsyl-vania involving the expulsion of a 13 year old forusing a Swiss Army knife as a nail-file, the courtruled against a school district's mandatory expul-sion policy because it allowed no exceptions (Lee,1999). In Costa Mesa, California, the 90 clay suspen-sion of a high school senior for a pipe found in hiscar by police officials off campus was overruled incourt, since the action did not allow the student hisdue process right to present his side of the story

(Carney, 1998). Thus far, such decisions appear tobe based primarily on procedural grounds, for vio-lations of district policy or state law, or for a failureto provide opportunities for required clue process.

What seems to differentiate the most visible ofthese cases is the unwillingness on the part of schoolboards and administrators to back down, regardlessof parent or community pressure. Policymalcers inthese high profile incidents often claim that their"hands are tied," that they have little or no room forflexibility in the administration of district policy. Itshould be noted, however, that this intractability rep-resents a local interpretation of zero tolerance thatmay go beyond the federal zero tolerance policy.Indeed, by requiring local districts to have in placea procedure allowing for case-by-case review, theGun-Free Schools Act seems to mandate some de-gree of flexibility in the implementation of zerotolerance.

Reaction to these events leaves communitieshighly divided. On the one hand, proponents of zerotolerance argue that allowing flexibility in theadministration of consequences will reduce the po-tency of school discipline, giving the message topotential violators that schools are "not really seri-ous" about enforcement. Others have countered thatwhen the punishment fails to fit the crime, studentsare learning nothing about justice, and much aboutwhat they must do subvert rules and policies. Butwhile these individual cases highlight the values con-flicts inherent in the zero tolerance debate, a morefundamental question may concern the outcomesand effects of that policy. To what extent have thedisciplinary practices associated with zero toleranceled to increased school safety or improved studentbehavior?

How EFFECTIVE IS ZERO TOLERANCE?

It has been more than ten years since school dis-tricts first began adopting zero tolerance policies,and over five years since the strategy was made na-tional policy by the Gun-Free Schools Act. Giventhe current climate of educational accountability, onewould expect some data to have emerged concern-ing the effects and effectiveness of zero toleranceapproaches. The following sections provide a re-view of available literature for the school securitymeasures often associated with a zero tolerance

10


approach, followed by a similar review of the lit-erature concerning suspension and expulsion.

Effectiveness of School Security MeasuresJudgement concerning the effectiveness of school

security measures may depend to a certain extenton the sources of data being considered. A numberof school districts that have adopted school securitymeasures or comprehensive zero tolerance policieshave testified to the efficacy of such approaches (seee.g., Burke & Herbert, 1996; Holmes & Murrell, 1995;Schreiner, 1996). It should be noted, however, thatthese reports are not objective evaluations, but ratherprogram descriptions, often designed to showcasedistrict efforts. The absence of an outside evaluator,coupled with a lack of information regarding themethodology, typically makes it impossible to judgethe accuracy of these reports.

Aside from school district testimonials, there ap-pear to be very few empirical evaluations of theefficacy of school security measures. In an attemptto review the efficacy of those measures, Skiba andPeterson (in press) conducted an extensive electronicliterature search for published empirical evaluationsof school security measures. Across both the ERICand Psyclnfo data bases, only four data-based evalu-ations of any school security measures werepublished in scholarly journals between 1988 and1999. In contrast, there appears to be a considerablymore extensive data base supporting the use of pre-ventive measures. The same search located 35data-based published articles using the term con-flict resolution, and over 130 journal articles usingthe search term classroom behavior management.

For the present review, that search was updated,adding a search of the Sociological Abstracts andCriminal Justice Abstract data bases from 1988 to1999. The terms metal detector, locker search, sur-veillance or video camera, and school uniforms wereentered for each data base. Finally, the terms zerotolerance and school security were also entered toidentify evaluations that may have cut across strate-gies. Across more than ten years of implementation,a search of four major data bases yielded only sixempirical evaluations across all five categories of se-curity measures. No published empirical evaluationswere located for either locker searches or video sur-veillance cameras.

Among the handful of investigations of schoolsecurity technology, the general quality of the re-porting tended to be insufficient for allow firmconclusions about whether security technology canbe effective. With some notable exceptions (e.g.,Behling, 1994), all the published security technol-ogy studies were brief summaries of aquasi-experimental evaluation, omitting significantdetails about the characteristics of the population,implementation of the intervention, and statisticalanalyses performed. Without such data, there is noway of knowing whether any positive effects re-ported in the study were clue to the security strategiesthemselves, or to characteristics of the schools, stu-dents, or other interventions. With this caveat, a briefreview of the available data in each area of schoolsecurity follows.

Metal Detectors

In the climate of fear created by dramatic inci-dents of school violence, school administrators havebegun a consideration of metal detectors as a methodfor deterring weapon-carrying in schools. There aretwo types of metal detectors: Hand held metal de-tectors used for random sweeps of students, andfixed metal detectors, designed to scan all studentsas they enter school (Mackey, 1997). Advocates ofsuch technology argue that metal detectors may keepweapons out of schools, thus making it less likelythat conflicts will escalate into deadly violence.Opponents of metal detector technology argue thatsuch systems are not cost effective, and that theymay actually fail to prevent incidents, such as theshooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in which the vio-lence is perpetrated outside the building, but onschool grounds.

There appear to be no published investigationsof the efficacy of fixed metal detectors placed inschool entrances, and one of random weekly sweepswith hand-held metal detectors. Ginsberg andLoffredo (1993) compared self-reported rates ofthreats, physical fighting, or weapons-carrying forstudents in schools with and without hand-held metaldetectors in the New York Public Schools. Studentsin schools using hand-held metal detectors reporteda lower likelihood of carrying weapons at school orto and from school. No differences were found be-tween schools with and without metal detectors inthe frequency of reported threats or physical fights.

11


The results should be viewed with caution, how-ever, since few details of the survey or analyses wereprovided in the report, and there were no controlsfor other interventions that may have been imple-mented during the time period of the study.

Locker Search

The literature on educational law has produced afairly substantial dialogue about the circumstancesunder which locker searches are and are not legal(see e.g., Majestic, Blumberg, & Dowling, 1995). Yetthere appear to be no empirical data regardingwhether such searches are effective in either find-ing weapons or in reducing school violence. A searchof the ERIC, Criminal Justice, PsycInfo, and Socio-logical Abstracts data bases produced no publishedevaluative reports on the efficacy of locker searcheseither for identifying weapons or reducing violenceor disruption.

School Surveillance Cameras

Surveillance cameras have been recommended asa method of monitoring whether students are bring-ing weapons with them into school (Felder, 1997),as well as a method for deterring vandalism(Lebowitz, 1997). In the wake of the Columbine HighSchool mass shooting, the presence of video sur-veillance cameras allowed the post-hoc review ofthe grisly details of the shooting, but clearly did notcontribute to the prevention of violence. In orderfor surveillance cameras to be effective, it may wellbe necessary to hire staff to monitor the video re-ceived from those cameras, an additional expensefor those schools choosing to use video cameras. Inthe four data-bases searched, there were no pub-lished evaluations of the use of video surveillancein school settings, with or without the presence ofadditional staff to monitor the video feed.

School Uniforms

The presence of school uniforms has been a fa-vored response of the Clinton Administration in itsapproach to school violence (Smith & Levin, 1997).Advocates of school uniforms argue that school uni-forms reduce problems associated with gangs, bymaking gang clothing nonexistent in schools, whilereducing the fear of students who must travel throughdifferent gang territories (with associated differencesin gang colors) on their way to school (Cohn,1996).Others emphasize the contribution school uniforms

make toward increasing school pride and affiliation,and establishing a calm, businesslike school climate(Loesch, 1995). Finally, it has been suggested thatschool uniforms, especially if the policy is flexiblyimplemented, may prove more affordable to parentsthan the designer clothing often favored by adoles-cent students (Holloman, 1995).

There appears to be somewhat more researchsupport for school uniforms than other security mea-sures. The Long Beach Unified School District hasinformally reported decreases in occurrences of fight-ing, assaults, robberies, vandalism and weaponspossession as a result of its district-wide implemen-tation of a school uniform policy (Cohn, 1996), butthere have also been more formal studies of the ef-fects of school uniforms. Murray (1997) studied theimpact of a district-wide school uniform policy onschool climate in two middle schools in North Caro-lina. He reported higher student ratings of the qualityof school climate in schools with a uniform policyon seven of ten dimensions surveyed.

Support for the hypothesis that school uniformscontribute to a more businesslike school environ-ment was provided in an experimental study byBeh ling (1994). Two hundred and seventy sopho-mores and 20 teachers were asked to rate theirperceptions of behavior, student achievement, andacademic potential of students pictured as wearingdifferent styles of dress. Both students and teacherstended to rate students in uniform, whether formalor more casual, as better behaved, more academi-cally successful, and more likely to succeedacademically. The authors suggest that uniform cloth-ing can induce a halo effect that may induce a morepositive image of school climate. Other survey re-search, however, suggests that teachers, but notstudents, believe that school uniforms have a positiveinfluence on school safety (Sher, 1996; Stanley, 1996).

Thus, the research on school uniforms is some-what stronger than other measures typicallyassociated with a zero tolerance approach, thoughby no means comprehensive. Teachers and admin-istrators clearly believe that uniforms contribute toschool safety by creating a calmer and more busi-nesslike school atmosphere, although it is unclearwhether students share these beliefs. As yet, how-ever, there are insufficient data to assess the extentto which these beliefs will translate into decreasesin school disruption and violence.

12


Overall Effectiveness of School SecurityMeasures

In addition to these reports on specific securitymeasures, there are a limited number of morecomprehensive investigations. These broad scalestudies appear to raise troubling questions aboutthe effectiveness of school security measures.

The most comprehensive data on school secu-rity approaches used as a component of zerotolerance appear to be the National Center on Edu-cation Statistics study of school violence (Heaviside,et al., 1998). The NCES survey asked principals toidentify which of a number of possible componentsof a zero tolerance strategy (e.g., metal detectors,security guards, school uniforms) were employed attheir school. Of schools with no reported crime, only5% of principals reported moderate or stringent se-curity measures; in contrast, 39% of schools withserious violent crimes reported using moderate tostringent security.

More sophisticated analysis of national data-baseshas yielded evidence of a similar relationship be-tween reliance on physical security and increasedrisk of school violence. Mayer and Leone (1999) re-analyzed data from the 1995 School CrimeSupplement to the National Crime Victimization Sur-vey, comprised of 9,854 interviews of students aged12 to 19 throughout the United States. Students wereinterviewed regarding their personal knowledge andexperience with violence, their perceptions of schoolrules, and their fear of being victimized. Results ofstructural modeling analyses suggested that relianceon rules was more effective in reducing school vio-lence than were school security measures. Perceivedenforcement and awareness of school rules was as-sociated with decreased student reports of schoolviolence. In contrast, school security measures,whether person-based or technology-based, wereassociated with increased reports of school violence.Increased reliance on strategies such as securityguards, metal detectors, and locker searches tendedto be associated with greater student experience withviolence, and greater student fear of violence.

From one perspective, the relationships betweenschool violence and increased use of security mea-sures are unsurprising. Unsafe schools might wellbe expected to employ more extreme measures. Yetthese data might also be interpreted as providing no

support for the hypothesis that security measuresincrease school safety: in both of these studies,schools that rely more heavily on school securitymeasures continue to be less safe than those with-out such policies. Together with the notable absenceof data evaluating the effectiveness of any individualsecurity measure, these findings strongly suggest thatthere is as yet no solid evidence that such measurescontribute to a safer school environment. The nextsection turns to a consideration of the data for strat-egies even more central to zero tolerance discipline:suspension and expulsion.

SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION:

THE CORNERSTONE OF ZERO TOLERANCE

The use of school exclusion, suspension and ex-pulsion, is a cornerstone of zero tolerance policy:one-year expulsions are written into federal and stateregulations regarding zero tolerance. Applicationsof zero tolerance have dramatically increased schoolsuspension and expulsion in school districts through-out the country (Civil Rights Project, 1999; Cummins,1998; Seymour, 1999b).

What do we know of the effects and side-effectsof school suspension and expulsion? In contrast tothe paucity of research regarding school security mea-sures, there has been a fairly substantial body ofresearch that has emerged in recent years regardingschool exclusion. In at least one area, the use ofsuspension with minority students, a sizable researchbase has produced consistent findings for over 25years. In general, these data may raise troublingquestions concerning the consistency, fairness, andeffectiveness of school suspension and expulsionas disciplinary tools.

How are Suspension and Expulsion Used?One would expect that suspension and expul-

sion, as more severe consequences, would tend tobe reserved for more serious infractions. Yet zerotolerance policies that seek to punish all behaviorsseverely may to some extent have erased the notionof a graduated set of consequences geared to theseverity of behavior. How frequently are suspen-sion and expulsion used, and in response to whatbehaviors?

While more controversial, school expulsion ap-pears to be used relatively infrequently as compared

13


to other disciplinary options (Sinclair, 1999). In oneof the few studies examining school expulsion,Morrison and D'Incau (1997) reported that expul-sion appears to be reserved for incidents of moderateto high severity, although there is some doubt as towhether students who are expelled are always thosewho are the most troublesome or dangerous. Zerotolerance policies, mandating expulsion for certaintypes of events, have apparently led to the expul-sion of many children and youth who would beconsidered "good students."

Suspension, in contrast, is among the most widelyused disciplinary techniques (Bowclitch, 1993;Mansfield & Farris, 1992; Rose, 1988; Skiba et al.,1997; Uchitelle, Bartz, & Hillman, 1989). In onemidwestern city, one third of all referrals to the of-fice resulted in a one to five clay suspension, and21% of all enrolled students were suspended at leastonce during the school year (Skiba et al., 1997). Sus-pension appears to be used with greater frequencyin urban areas than in suburban or rural areas (Mas-sachusetts Advocacy Center, 1986; Wu et al., 1982).

As might be expected with such high rates of us-age, school suspension is not always reserved forserious or dangerous behaviors. Fights or physicalaggression among students are consistently foundto be among the most common reasons for suspen-sion (Costenbacler & Markson, 1994; Dupper &Bosch, 1996; Imich, 1994; Menacker, Hurwitz, &Weldon, 1994; Skiba et al., 1997). Yet school sus-pension is also commonly used for a number ofrelatively minor offenses, such as disobedience anddisrespect (Bain & MacPherson, 1990; Cooley, 1995;Skiba et al., 1997), attendance problems (Kaeser,1979; Morgan D'Atrio et al., 1996), and general class-room disruption (Imich, 1994; MassachussettsAdvocacy Center, 1986; Morgan D'Atrio et al., 1996).In fact, students are suspended for the most seriousoffenses (drugs, weapons, vandalism, assaults onteachers) relatively infrequently (Bain & MacPherson,1990; Dupper & Bosch, 1996; Kaeser, 1979).

Consistency and Fairness of SchoolDiscipline

Common sense notions of justice demand thatpunishments in school or society be administeredfairly and consistently. While it is not unreasonablethat discipline policies will vary somewhat fromschool to school, in general, it is reasonable to ex-

pect that students will be disciplined in response totheir behavior, not because of idiosyncratic charac-teristics of their school or classroom.

There can be little doubt that certain students areat a much greater risk for office referral and schoolsuspension, and account for a disproportionate shareof disciplinary effort. Wu et al. (1982) reported thatstudents who were suspended were more likely toendorse statements indicating an antisocial attitude.Students who engage in harassment, bullying, or vio-lent behavior appear to be at greater risk of futuredisciplinary action (Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1996).Some students clearly account for a disproportion-ate share of disciplinary effort; in one study in 19middle schools in a large midwestern urban district,6% of students were responsible for 44% of all refer-rals to the office (Skiba et al., 1997).

Yet school disciplinary actions cannot be ac-counted for solely in terms of student behaviors,but are also a function of classroom and school char-acteristics. Skiba et al. (1997) reported that, in onemiddle school, two thirds of all disciplinary referralscame from 25% of the school's teachers. Schoolfactors also strongly influence rates of suspension.In multivariate analyses of factors predicting suspen-sion, Wu and colleagues (1982) found that schoolsuspension rate was associated with a number ofschool and district characteristics, including teacherattitudes, administrative centralization, quality ofschool governance, teacher perception of studentachievement, and racial makeup of the school. To-gether, these school characteristics explained agreater proportion of the variance in school suspen-sion than student attitudes and behavior, promptingthe investigators to conclude:

One could argue from this finding that if stu-dents are interested in reducing their chancesof being suspended, they will be better off bytransferring to a school with a lower suspen-sion rate than by improving their attitudes orreducing their misbehavior (Wu et al., 1982, pp.255-256).

Racial Fairness in School PunishmentsThe suit brought by the Reverend Jesse Jackson

and Operation PUSH on behalf of seven African-American students expelled for two years by theDecatur Public Schools represents the most publi-


cized incident to date involving racialclisproportionality in school discipline. Yet minorityover-representation in school punishments is by nomeans a new issue. Both racial and economic bi-ases in school suspension and expulsion have beenstudied extensively for over 25 years, with highlyconsistent results.

Disproportionality Due to Socioeconomic Status

Studies of school suspension have consistentlydocumented over-representation of low-income stu-dents in the use of that consequence (Brant linger,1991; Skiba et al., 1997; Wu et al., 1982). Brant linger(1991) reported that both high- and low-income ado-lescents felt that disciplinary practices were unfairlyweighted against poor students. While high-incomestudents were more likely to receive more mild andmoderate consequences (e.g., teacher lecture, mov-ing desk), low-income students reported receivingmore severe consequences, sometimes delivered ina less-than-professional manner (e.g., scorned infront of class, made to stand in hall all clay, personalbelongings searched).

Racial Disproportionality in Discipline

Of even greater concern is the overrepresentationof minorities, especially African-American students,in the use of punitive school discipline. In one ofthe earliest statistical studies of minorityoverrepresentation in school discipline, theChildren's Defense Fund (1975), using Office for CivilRights (OCR) data, found rates of suspension forblack students that were between two and threetimes higher than suspension rates for white stu-dents at the elementary, middle, and high schoollevels. While 29 states suspended over 5 percent oftheir total black enrollment, only four states sus-pended over 5 percent of white students.

Since that report, racial disproportionality in theuse of school suspension has been a highly consis-tent finding (Costenbader & Markson, 1994;Glackman et al., 1978; Kaeser, 1979; Lietz & Gre-gory, 1978; Masssachussetts Advocacy Center, 1986;McCarthy & Hoge, 1987; McFadden, Marsh, Price, &Hwang, 1992; Skiba et al., 1997; Taylor & Foster,1986; Thornton & Trent, 1988; Wu et al., 1982). Blackstudents are also exposed more frequently to morepunitive disciplinary strategies, such as corporal pun-ishment (Gregory, 1995; Shaw & Braden, 1990), and

14

receive fewer mild disciplinary sanctions when re-ferred for an infraction (McFadden et al., 1992). In areport on Tennessee schools' zero tolerance policesfor 1997 (Tailor & Detch, 1998), the Tennessee Of-fice of Education Accountability found overrepresen-tation of African American students in zerotolerance-related expulsions in the state's urbanschool systems. In the most recent study of racialclisproportionality in discipline, the Applied ResearchCenter of Oakland, California reported higher thanexpected rates of suspension and expulsion for blackstudents in all 15 major American cities studied (Gor-don, Piana, & Keleher, 2000).

One possible explanation of racial overrepresenta-tion in school suspension is that overuse ofsuspension for black students is not racial bias perse, but is rather a corollary of the documentedclisproportionality in discipline for students fromlower socioeconomic backgrounds. Yet race appearsto make a contribution to disciplinary outcome in-dependent of socioeconomic status. Controlling forsocioeconomic status, Wu et al. (1982) reported thatnonwhite students still received significantly higherrates of suspension than white students in all lo-cales except rural senior high schools.

There is, of course, the possibility that the higherrates of school exclusion and punishment for Afri-can-American students are clue to correspondinglyhigh rates of disruptive behavior. In such a case,clisproportionality in suspension or other punish-ments would not represent racial bias, but a relativelyappropriate response to disproportionate misbehav-ior. Yet investigations of student behavior, race, anddiscipline have found no evidence that African Ameri-cans misbehave at a significantly higher rate(McCarthy & Hoge, 1987; Wu et al., 1982). If any-thing, available research suggests that black studentstend to receive harsher punishments than white stu-dents, and that those harsher consequences may beadministered for less severe offenses (McFadden etal., 1992; Shaw & Braden, 1992). In an analysis ofthe reasons middle school students in one urbandistrict were referred to the office, white studentswere more often referred for vandalism, smoking,endangerment, obscene language, and drugs andalcohol. In contrast, black students were more oftenreferred to the school office for loitering, disrespect,excessive noise, threats, and a catch-all categorycalled conduct interference (Skiba, 1998). Thus, far

15


from engaging in higher levels of disruptive behav-ior, African-American students appear to be at riskfor receiving a range of more severe consequencesfor less serious behavior.

These results are consistent with suggestions thatcultural discontinuities may place African-Americanstudents, especially African-American male adoles-cents, at a disadvantage in many secondary schools.Townsend (2000) suggests that many teachers, es-pecially those of European-American origin, may beunfamiliar and even uncomfortable with the moreactive and boisterous style of interaction that char-acterizes African American males. Fear may also playa role in contributing to over-referral. Teachers whoare prone to accepting stereotypes of adolescent Af-rican-American males as threatening or dangerousmay react more quickly to relatively minor threats toauthority, especially if such fear is paired with a mis-understanding of cultural norms of social interaction.

Whatever the reason, racial disparities in schoolexclusion are not lost on students of color. Sheets(1996) interviewed students and teachers in an ur-ban high school concerning their perceptions ofschool discipline. Both European-American and eth-nically diverse students perceived sources of racismin the application of discipline. But while EuropeanAmerican students perceived racial discrimination indiscipline as unintentional or unconscious, studentsof color saw it as conscious and deliberate, arguingthat teachers often apply classroom rules and guide-lines arbitrarily to exercise control, or to removestudents they dislike. In particular, African Ameri-can students felt that contextual variables, such as alack of respect, differences in communication styles,disinterest on the part of teachers, and "being pur-posefully pushed to the edge where they were expectedand encouraged to be hostile" (Sheets, p. 175) werethe primary causes of many disciplinary conflicts.

Suspension and Expulsion: How Effective?In 1999, the U. S. Department of Education re-

leased its Report on State Implementation of theGun-Free Schools Act: School Year 1997-98 (Sinclair,1999). The report focused on expulsions of studentsin 50 states and territories for bringing a weapon toschool (the report did not include data on expul-sions of students for offenses other than weapons).Of the 3,390 weapons-related expulsions reportedfor the 1997-98 school year, 61% were for handguns,

7% for rifles, and 32% for "other firearms; " the ma-jority of reported expulsions (57%) occurred at thehigh school level. The number of reported expul-sions for weapons showed an apparent decrease,from 5,724 in 1996-97 to 3,930 in 1997-98. The re-port cautions that the decrease may be due todifferences in reporting across the two years, butalso suggests that several states felt that "studentswere getting the message that they were not to bringfirearms to school and that, as a result, fewer studentswere expelled for this offense" (Sinclair, 1999, p. 4).

Even accepting the veracity of the data, how-ever, it remains very much unclear what increasesor decreases in recovered weapons or expulsionsmean in terms of evaluating overall school safety.Reports on zero tolerance programs have cited bothincreases (Crosby, 1994b) and decreases (Barzewski,1997; Ginsberg & Loffreclo, 1993) in weapons con-fiscation and expulsion as evidence of effectiveness.Trends in school expulsion represent an especiallyambiguous measure. Although sometimes cited asevidence that a school or a district is "cracking clown"on disruptive students, increased expulsion withina school or school district may well be indicative ofa negative trend in school safety. Ultimately, increasesor decreases in weapons confiscation or expulsionare meaningful measures of safety only if paired withdirect measures of violence, disruption, or studentmisbehavior.

Unfortunately, there appears to be little evidence,direct or indirect, supporting the effectiveness of sus-pension or expulsion for improving student behavioror contributing to overall school safety. While thereappear to be no investigations that have directly stud-ied the effects of school exclusion on studentbehavior or school safety in general, indirect datasuggest that suspension may be ineffective for thosestudents most often targeted for disciplinary conse-quences. Studies of school suspension haveconsistently found that up to 40% of school suspen-sions are clue to repeat offenders (Bowditch, 1993;Costenbader & Markson, 1994; Massachussetts Ad-vocacy Center, 1986), suggesting that this segmentof the school population is decidedly not "gettingthe message." Indeed, Tobin et al. (1996) found that,for some students, suspension is primarily a predic-tor of further suspension, prompting the authors toconclude that for these students "suspension func-tions as a reinforcer...rather than as a punisher" (p. 91).


Long-term outcomes associated with suspensionappear to be even less reassuring. Analysis of datafrom the national High School and Beyond surveyrevealed that 31% of sophomores who dropped outof school had been suspended, as compared to asuspension rate of only 10% for their peers who hadstayed in school (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock,1986). In a similar re-analysis reported by Wehlageand Rutter (1986), discipline emerged as part of aconstellation of factors, along with poor academicsand low SES, predicting school dropout. Amongthese variables, prior engagement with school disci-pline was among the strongest predictors of dropout.

Indeed, the relationship between school suspen-sion and school dropout may not be entirelyaccidental. Ethnographic field studies of school dis-cipline have noted that disciplinarians in troubledurban schools often view their role in large measureas dealing with persistent "troublemakers" who chal-lenge the institution's authority (Bowditch, 1993)."Over time, as such students develop a reputation,disciplinary contacts afford administrators the op-portunity to rid the school of its most troublesomestudents:

In this high school, the practice of cleansing theschool of 'bad kids' was quite widely acknowl-edged and equally appreciated by administrators,teachers, and counselors. Criticisms of the prac-tice were voiced rarely, quietly, andconfidentially behind closed doors. (Fine, 1986,p. 403)

In such a context, suspension often becomes a"pushout" tool to encourage low-achieving studentsand those viewed as "troublemakers" to leave schoolbefore graduation.

Research from the field of developmental psycho-pathology may shed additional light on therelationship between suspension and school drop-out. Throughout the elementary school years,students at-risk for developing antisocial behaviorexhibit disruptive behavior and social and academicdeficits that leave them increasingly alienated fromteachers and peers (Patterson, 1992). By middleschool, these youngsters become less interested inschool and begin to seek the company of other an-tisocial peers. At the same time, their families oftenfail to monitor their whereabouts, allowing moreunsupervised time on the streets (Ramsey, Walker,

16

Shinn, & O'Neill, 1989). For an adolescent at-risk forantisocial behavior then, it seems unlikely that schoolsuspension will successfully impact behavior. Rather,suspension may simply accelerate the course of de-linquency by providing a troubled youth with littleparental supervision more opportunities to socializewith deviant peers. As one student put it:

When they suspend you, you get in moretrouble, cuz you're out in the street...And that'swhat happened to me once. I got into troubleone clay cause there was a party and they ar-rested everybody in that party...I got in troublemore than I get in trouble at school, because I gotarrested and everything. (Thorson, 1996, p. 9)

In summary, school suspension and expulsion ap-pear to be effective primarily in removing unwantedstudents from school. For troublesome or at-risk stu-dents, the most well-documented outcome ofsuspension appears to be further suspension, andeventually school dropout.

There may well be unanticipated social costs tothis spiral of school exclusion. Research in the fieldof juvenile delinquency suggests that the strengthof the school social bond is an important predictorin explaining delinquency (Jenkins, 1997). From adevelopmental standpoint, one might well questionthe wisdom of school disciplinary strategies that areexpressly intended to break that bond with trouble-some students.

Unintended Consequences of Punishment:Student Behavioral and EmotionalReactions

As noted, student perceptions of the effective-ness of various school disciplinary actions are oftensignificantly at odds with the perceptions of teach-ers and administrators. While school personnel seeschool disruption as primarily a student choice anddiscipline as a reaction to that choice, students, es-pecially at-risk students, often see confrontationalclassroom management or school disciplinary strat-egies as playing a significant role in escalating studentmisbehavior. Gottreclson (1989) reported that stu-dents viewed most disciplinary problems as resultingfrom rules that were unjust or unfairly applied. Inparticular, students who are already at-risk for dis-ruption may see confrontational discipline as achallenge to escalate their behavior. As one student


interviewed by Thorson (1996) while in detentionput it:

I figure if I'm going to get in trouble, I'm gonnaannoy him as much as I can. I'm already goingto get in trouble, he deserve if he gonna keepsingling me out, so I get on his nerves!...If youknow you're already getting in trouble, why shutup?" (p. 6).

Shores, Gunter, & Jack (1993) argue that this counter-reaction to coercive disciplinary or behaviormanagement strategies may be fairly typical, andsuggest that punishment-based approaches toschool discipline may escalate rather than deterschool disruption.

Beyond resentment and counter-coercion amongstudents, there is some evidence that the more in-trusive school security measures, such as stripsearches or the use of undercover agents in schools,have the potential for creating short- or even long-term emotional damage among students. Case studiesof students who had been subjected to such prac-tices suggest that reactions of anger and acting-outare not uncommon. In some cases, extreme schooldisciplinary procedures such as strip search have pro-duced stress symptoms serious enough to warrant adiagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (Hyman &Perone, 1998).

Many of these unintended effects on students maysimply reflect the consistent findings of operant psy-chology that the application of punishment isunpredictable, and unlikely to lead to the learningof new behavior (Council for Exceptional Children,1991; Skinner, 1953). A host of serious side-effectshave been documented in the professional litera-ture on punishment (Axelrod & Apsche, 1983;MacMillan, Forness, & Trumball, 1973; Wood &Braaten, 1983), including escape and counter-aggres-sion, habituation to progressively stifferconsequences, and reinforcement of the punishingagent. Unless carefully monitored and accompaniedby positive consequences or alternative goals, theapplication of harsh consequences appears to be aslikely to lead to escape or counter-aggression as tomeaningful alternative behavior (Axelrod & Apsche,1983). The appropriate application of consequencesat opportune moments is certainly one tool for teach-ing students that actions have consequences in alawful society. Yet it is clear that the school punish-

17

ments that are central to zero tolerance policies havenot been studied enough to determine whether theyyield benefits sufficient to outweigh the well-docu-mented and troubling side-effects of punishmentprocedures.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to note that these analyses are inno way intended as a criticism of school administra-tors faced with complex and serious choices inresponding to school violence. The brutal eventsthat overtook suburban and rural schools in the late'90's have shattered the common belief that schoolviolence is solely an urban problem, confined tobad neighborhoods and dysfunctional families in theinner-city-(Prothrow-Stith & Weissman,1991). Teach-ers, administrators and parents were, in the space ofclays and weeks, forced to the anxiety-charged real-ization that "it can happen here." Unprepared forserious violence, yet under intense pressure to dosomething, it is unsurprising that administratorschoose remedies, such as zero tolerance and secu-rity technology, that they perceive as fast-acting.There are few who would disagree with the propo-sition that schools must take all possible actions todemonstrate their seriousness in deterring violence.Indeed, it is hard to argue with the stated goal ofzero tolerance: to send a message that certain be-haviors are simply not acceptable in school.

It is not the goals of zero tolerance, however, butmore often the methods of its implementation thatcreate controversy in schools and communities.There are few newspaper editorials condemningschools and school boards for expelling a studentwho carried a knife to school for the sole purposeof attacking another student. But the classic zerotolerance strategy of punishing minor or even trivialevents severely, or dramatically extending the lengthof school suspension or expulsion, has led to criesof injustice across the country.

Inevitably, harsher punishments pit proponentsof a strong zero tolerance stance against civil rightsadvocates. It is not surprising that organizations fromboth ends of the political spectrum-the AmericanCivil Liberties Union and the conservative Ruther-ford Institute-have focused on civil rights concernsin defending students caught in the "web of zerotolerance" (Morrison & D'Incau, 1997). Inevitably,


plaintiffs against school districts claim their rightswere violated by standard policies that allow for littleor no flexibility in implementation. Defenders of thepolicies point to the larger threat posed by seriousviolence in our nation's schools, suggesting that civilrights violations may be an unfortunate but necessarycompromise to ensure the safety of school environ-ments.

Unfortunately, however, this latter argument ismade somewhat moot by the almost complete lackof documentation linking zero tolerance with im-proved school safety. Despite more than ten yearsof implementation, there have been only a handfulof studies evaluating the outcomes of security mea-sures. Of these, only school uniform research appearsto have enough support to be considered even prom-ising in contributing to perceptions of safer schoolenvironments. The most extensive studies (Heavisideet al., 1998; Mayer & Leone, 1999) suggest a nega-tive relationship between school security measuresand school safety. At this point in time, there is littleor no evidence supporting assertions that schoolsecurity technology can contribute to the reductionof school violence.

Data on the centerpiece of zero tolerance ap-proaches, suspension and expulsion, are both moreextensive and less supportive. Analysis of schoolreferral data confirms the perceptions of school per-sonnel that a relatively small proportion of studentsmay be responsible for much of the disruption andviolence in a given school. Yet the contribution ofstudent behavior to suspension or expulsion deci-sions is swamped by inconsistencies inadministration at both the classroom and schoollevel. More importantly for at-risk students, the mostconsistently documented outcome of suspension andexpulsion appears to be further suspension and ex-pulsion, and perhaps school dropout. Theserelationships are especially troubling in light of thehighly consistent overuse of punishment for Afri-can-American students, an overrepresentation thatcannot be explained away by behavior or the ef-fects of poverty.

Since the publication of A Nation at Risk (Na-tional Commission on Excellence in Education,1984), accountability of instruction has become anational priority. State minimum competency tests,designed to ensure academic accountability, havebecome almost universal. In such a context, national

is

support for a school disciplinary policy that has pro-vided so little evidence of effectiveness is, at thevery least, surprising. Without accountability datafor evaluating school discipline, there is no assur-ance that the extensive national commitment of timeand resources to zero tolerance strategies has in anyway paid off. Indeed, there is the danger that reli-ance upon the more complex and costly of thesemeasures may drain resources from potentially moreeffective long-term solutions.

Recent public reaction to school safety and schooldisciplinary issues may suggest that the public is nolonger comfortable with a forced choice betweenschool safety and civil rights. In recent media ac-counts, parental and community reaction to zerotolerance appears to fall into two divergent andequally vocal responses. In North Hollywood, Cali-fornia, 500 parents packed the auditorium of GrantHigh School to demand reassurance from the schoolboard concerning the safety of their children in thewake of a lunchroom brawl between Latino andArmenian students (Blankstein, 1999). Meanwhile,in Hartford, Wisconsin, 550 parents and communitymembers crowded a meeting of their school boardto voice their opposition to zero tolerance policiesmandating expulsion for drug and alcohol offenses.Said one parent, "To me, expulsion is not sharingresponsibility. It's getting rid of the problem." (Davis,1999, p. 1). Together, these incidents suggest thatthe community is seeking school disciplinary strate-gies that can ensure school safety without sacrificingcivil rights. In response to these pressures, somedistricts have begun to replace strict one-size-fits-allmodels with more graduated systems of disciplinein which severe consequences are reserved for themost serious offenses, while less serious offensesare met with more moderate responses.

To differentiate the approach from zero tolerance,these graduated response alternatives might well betermed an early response model of school discipline(Skiba & Peterson, 2000). This perspective shareswith zero tolerance the philosophical stance that mi-nor disruption will, if left unattended, predict moreserious disruption and violence. In contrast to zerotolerance, however, an early response model reliesupon a graduated system of consequences that en-courages a more moderate response to less seriousbehavior. The models differ also in their goals. Whilezero tolerance intends to set an example for poten-

19


tial wrongdoers through harsh punishment, the goalof early response is to ensure that minor incidentsare defused before escalating into more serious of-fenses, and in the long-term, to teach all studentsappropriate alternatives to disruption and violencefor resolving personal and interpersonal problems.Toward that end, alternatives to zero tolerance shiftthe temporal locus of disciplinary effort from reac-tion to comprehensive preventive efforts.Professional opinion (APA, 1993; Dwyer et al., 1998;Skiba & Peterson, 2000; Walker et al., 1996) has be-gun to coalesce around a primary prevention modelof school violence prevention emphasizing simulta-neous intervention at each of three levels: creatinga more positive school climate, attending to earlywarning signs, and effectively responding to disrup-tion and violence with a broad array of strategies.

Yet consensus at the level of scholarly discoursein no way guarantees either an immediate or long-term shift in school practice. Faced with a choicebetween established but unproven practice andpromising but emergent interventions for address-ing school violence, many school disciplinarians maybe reluctant to part with the sole tool they are famil-iar with, whether or not that tool is truly effective.Regardless of its actual value in maintaining order,the idea of zero tolerance is powerfully symbolic,reassuring staff, students and the community thatsomething is being done (Noguera, 1995). Untilschool administrators become convinced of the effi-cacy and the feasibility of alternatives to suspensionand expulsion, there is little likelihood that therewill be a wholesale abandonment of exclusionarydiscipline. Research on effective preventive alterna-tives such as bullying prevention, conflict resolution/peer mediation, improved classroom behavior man-agement, and early identification and interventionis thus critical in order to assist schools in develop-ing sound alternatives to exclusionary discipline.

The dilemma of zero tolerance is profound andserious. One can in no way question the motives orsincerity of those who have drawn a battle lineagainst violence in the schools. Yet however well-meaning those policies have been, the pages ofnational newspapers have been littered with thewreckage of young lives changed, perhaps irrevo-cably, by policies whose primary aim is to send amessage to more serious offenders. Nor has it beensubstantiated that the antisocial and violent youth

who are the intended targets of zero tolerance havein any way received its message. The tragic violencethat has befallen both urban and rural schools makesit incumbent upon educators to explore all avail-able means to protect the safety of students andteachers. Yet faced with an almost complete lack ofevidence that zero tolerance is among the strategiescapable of accomplishing that objective, one can onlyhope for the development and application of moreeffective, less intrusive alternatives for preservingthe safety of our nation's schools.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (1993). Violenceand youth: Psychology's response (Vol. 7). Wash-ington, D.C.: Author.

Axelrod, S., & Apsche, J. (1983). The effects of pun-ishment on human behavior. New York: AcademicPress.

Bain, A., & MacPherson, A. (1990). An examinationof the system-wide use of exclusion with disrup-tive students. Australia and New Zealand Journalof Developmental Disabilities, 16, 109-123.

Barzewski, L. (1997, November 18). Weapons atschool on decline: New figures show tough policyworks. Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinal, p. 1A.

Behling, D. (1994). School uniforms and person per-ception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 723-729.

Blankstein, A. (1999, October 26). Parents, schoolofficials talk about violence at Grant High; Hun-dreds pack auditorium at campus where tensionsflared between Armenian and Latino students.Principal vows 'Zero Tolerance' for fighting. LosAngeles Times, p. B2.

Borsuk, A. J., & Murphy, M. B. (1999, April 30). Idleor otherwise, threats bring severe discipline:Where area students once faced a principal, nowthey face the police. MilwaukeeJournal Sentinel,p. 8.

Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers:High school disciplinary procedures and the pro-duction of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493-507.

Brantlinger, E. (1991). Social class distinctions in ado-lescents' reports of problems and punishment inschool. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 36-46.

Burke, E., & Herbert, D. (1996). Zero tolerance

20


policy: Combating violence in schools. NASSP Bul-letin, 80(579), 49-54.

Carney, S. (1998, September 23). Focus: School dis-trict loses on suspension. Los Angeles Time, p.B2.

Children's Defense Fund (1975). School suspensions:Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA: Wash-ington Research Project.

Civil Rights Project. (1999, December). On "Zero Tol-erance" policies: An issue brief (Testimonysubmitted to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Civil RightsProject.

Cohn, C. A. (1996). Mandatory school uniforms. TheSchool Administrator, 2(53), 22-25.

Cooley, S. (1995). Suspensionexpulsion of regularand special education students in Kansas: A re-port to the Kansas State Board of Education.Topeka, KS: Kansas State Board of Education.

Costenbader, V. K., & Markson, S. (1994). Schoolsuspension: A survey of current policies and prac-tices. NASSP Bulletin, 78, 103-107.

Crosby J. (1994, December 18). 'Zero tolerance'makes its mark: Expulsions in Orange Countyschools have tripled since 1990. The OrangeCounty Register, p. Al.

Cummins, C. (1998, June 14). Zero-tolerance actionsmay still spur outrage: New law won't preventschool discipline gaffes. Denver Rocky Mountain,p. 27A.

Council for Exceptional Children (1991). Reducingundesirable behaviors (CEC Mini-Library: Work-ing with Behavioral Disorders).Reston, VA:Council for Exceptional Children.

Davis, A. (1999, November 18). 'Zero tolerance' ig-nites debate in Hartford: Meeting on drug problemdraws hundreds to school; Expulsions are hottopic. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, p. 1.

Dupper, D. R., & Bosch, L. A. (1996). Reasons forschool suspensions: An examination of data fromone school district and recommendations for re-ducing suspensions. Journal_ or a Just and CaringEducation, 2, 140-150.

Dwyer, K., Osher, D., & Warger, C. (1998). Earlywarning, timely response: A guide to safe schools.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, . NI.. & Rock,D. A. (1986). Who drops out of high school andwhy?: Findings from a national study. TeachersCollege Record, 87, 357-73.

Felder, L. I. (1997). Safe and sound. American Schooland University, 69(8), 32-34.

Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop intoand out of public high school. Teachers CollegeRecord, 87, 393-409.

Firestone, D. (1999, August 13). After shootings,nation's schools add to security; Wide array ofmeasures: Legacy of 2 springtime attacks includesnew cameras and a ban on canvas bags. New YorkTimes, p. Al.

Garibaldi, A. M. (1992). Educating and motivatingAfrican American males to succeed. Journal ofNegro Education, 61, 4-11.

Garrett, A. (1999, October 30). City sets example inswiftly handling South High case. Cleveland PlainDealer, p. 8A.

Ginsberg, C. G., & Loffredo, L. (1993). Violence-re-lated attitudes and behaviors of high schoolstudents-New York City, 1992. Morbidity andMortality Weekly Report, 42, 773-777.

Glackman, T., Martin, R., Hyman, I., McDowell, E.,Berv, V., & Spino, P. (1978). Corporal punishment,school suspension, and the civil rights of students:An analysis of Office for Civil Rights school sur-veys. Inequality in Education, 23, 61-65.

Gordon, R., Plana, L. D., & Keleher, T. (2000). Fac-ing the consequences: An examination of racialdiscrimination in U. S. Public Schools. Oakland,CA: Applied Research Center.

Gottfredson, D. G. (1989). Developing effective or-ganizations to reduce school disorder. In 0. C.Moles (ed.), Strategies to reduce student misbe-havior. Washington, D.C.: Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED 311 608).

Gregory, J. F. (1996). The crime of punishment: Ra-cial and gender diparities in the use of corporalpunishment in the U.S. Public Schools. Journalof Negro Education, 64, 454-462.

"Groups critical of no second chances school pro-posal." (1999, January 27). Baltimore Sun, p. 4B.

Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, Public Law 103-382,

2 I


108 Statute 3907, Title 14.

Hansen, M. (1988, June 22). ACLU studies fight ofzero tolerance. Los Angeles Times, p. B3.

Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E.(1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S.Public Schools: 1996-97. (NCES 98-030). Wash-ington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics.

Holloman, L. 0. (1995). Violence and other antiso-cial behaviors in public schools: Can dress codeshelp solve the problem? Journal of Family andConsumer Sciences, 87(2), 33-38.

Holmes, T. R., & Murrell, J. (1995). Schools, disci-pline, and the uniformed police officer. NASSPBulletin, 79(569), 60-64.

Hylton, J. B. (1996). Know-how. American SchoolBoard Journal, 183(4), 45-46.

Hyman, I. A. & Perone, D. C. (1998). The other sideof school violence: Educator policies and prac-tices that may contribute to student misbehavior.journal of School Psychology, 30, 7-27.

Imich, A. J. (1994). Exclusions from school: Currenttrends and issues. Educational Research, 36 (1),3-11.

Jenkins, P. H. (1997). School delinquency and theschool social bond. Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency 34, 337-367.

Kaeser, S. C. (1979). Suspensions in school disci-pline. Education and Urban Society, 11, 465-484.

Kumar, A. (1999, December 28). Suit fights schoolalcohol policy. St. Petersburg Times, p. 3B.

Lebowitz, M. (1997). Smile, vandals-you're on Can-did Camera. School Planning and Management,36(12), 28-29.

Lee, C. J. (1999, January 12). Penn Hills schools loseweapons plea: State court affirms common pleasruling on expulsion. Pittsburgh Post Gazette, p. B-1.

Lietz, J. J., & Gregory, M. K. (1978). Pupil race andsex determinants of office and exceptional edu-cation referrals. Educational Research Quarterly,3(2), 61-66.

Loesch, P. C. (1995). A school uniform program thatworks. Principal, 74, 28, 30.

MacMillan, D. L., Forness, S. R., & Trumball, B. M.(1973). The role of punishment in the classroom.

Exceptional Children, 40, 85-96.

Massachussetts Advocacy Center (1986). The way v out:

Student exclusion practices in Boston MiddleSchools. Boston, MA: Author.

McCarthy, J. D., & Hoge, D. R. (1987). The socialconstruction of school punishment: Racial disad-vantage out of universalistic process. Social Forces,

65, 1101-1120.

McFadden, A. C., Marsh, G. E., Price, B. J., & Hwang,Y. (1992). A study of race and gender bias in thepunishment of handicapped school children. Ur-

ban Review, 24, 239-251.

Mackey, D. (1997). The ethics of new surveillance.Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8, 295-307.

Mansfield, W., & Farris, E. (1992). Office for CivilRights survey redesign: A feasibility study.Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Majestic, A. L., Blumberg, J. A., & Dowling, R. T.(1995). But is it legal? Executive Educator, 17, 31-35.

Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (1999). A structural analy-sis of school violence and disruption: Implicationsfor creating safer schools. Education and Treat-ment of Children, 22, 333-356.

Menacker, J. C., Hurwitz, E., & Weldon, W. (1988).Legislating school discipline: The application ofa systemwide discipline code to schools in a largeurban district. Urban Education, 23, 12-23.

Morgan-D'Atrio, C., Northrup, J., LaFleur, L., & Spera,S. (1996). Toward prescriptive alternatives to sus-pensions: A preliminary evaluation. BehavioralDisorders, 21, 190-200.

Morrison, G. M., & D'Incau, B. (1997). The web ofzero-tolerance: Characteristics of students who arerecommended for expulsion from school. Edu-cation and Treatment of Children, 20, 316-335.

Murray, R. K. (1997). The impact of school uniformson school climate. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 106-112.

Nancrede, S. F. (1998, August 20). School to takefoul mouths to task: Southport High will institutezero-tolerance policy on profanity. IndianapolisStar, p. Al.

National Commission on Excellence in Education(1984). A Nation At Risk: The full account. Cam-bridge, MA: USA Research.


Nelson, J. R. (1996). 'Designing schools to meet theneeds of students who exhibit disruptive behav-ior. Journal of Emotional and BehavioralDisorders, 4, 147-161.

Noguera, P. A. (1995). Preventing and producing vio-lence: A critical analysis of responses to schoolviolence. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 189-212.

Patterson, G. R. (1992). Developmental changes inantisocial behavior. In R. D. Peters, R. J. McMahon,& V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violencethroughout the life span (pp. 52-82). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Petrillo, L. (1997, October 29). Eight-year-old maybe expelled under zero-tolerance code. San Di-ego Union-Tribune, p. B-1.

Prothrow-Stith, D. & Weissman, M. (1991). Deadlyconsequences: How violence is destroying our teen-age population and a plan to begin solving theproblem. New York: Harper-Row.

Ramsey, E., Walker, H. M., Shinn, M., & O'Neill, R. E.(1989). Parent management practices and schooladjustment. School Psychology Review, 18, 513-525.

Rose, T. L. (1988). Current disciplinary practices withhandicapped students: Suspensions and expul-sions. Exceptional Children, 55, 230-239.

Schreiner, M. E. (1996). Bold steps build safe ha-vens. School Business Affairs, 62(11), 44-46.

Seymour, L. (1999a, February 24). Getting too tough?:Schools are expanding their zero-tolerance poli-cies, disciplining and even kicking out studentswho misbehave off-campus. Los Angeles Times,

p. B2.

Seymour, L. (1999b, January 3). Zero-tolerance rulestake toll in Orange County districts. Los AngelesTimes, p. Al.

Shaw, S. R., & Braden, J. P. (1990). Race and genderbias in the administration of corporal punishment.School Psychology Review, 19, 378-383.

Sheets, R. H. (1996). Urban classroom conflict: Stu-dent-teacher perception: Ethnic integrity,solidarity, and resistance. The Urban Review, 28,165-183.

Sher, I. M. (1996, July). An analysis of the impact ofschool uniforms on students' academic perfor-mance and disciplinary behavior. Dissertation

Abstracts International-A: The Humanities andSocial Sciences, 57(1), 166-A.

Shores, R. E, Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Class-room management strategies: Are they settingevents for coercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92-102.

Sinclair, B. (1999). Report on state implementation ofthe Gun-Free Schools Act: School Year 1997-98.Rockville, MD: Westat.

Skiba, R. J. & Peterson, R. L. (2000). School disci-pline: From zero tolerance to early response.Exceptional Children, 66, 335-347.

Skiba, R. J. & Peterson, R. L. (1999). The dark side ofzero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safeschools? Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 372-376, 381-382.

Skiba, R. J. (1998, September). African - Americandisproportionality in school suspension: Where isthe bias and what can we do? Paper presented atthe U.S. Department of Education Office of Spe-cial Education and Rehabilitation Services IDEAInstitute on Discipline Provisions, Kansas City,MO.

Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997).Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary in-tervention in middle schools. Education andTreatment of Children, 20(3), 295-315.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior.New York: Free Press.

Smith, M. S., & Levin, J. (1997). Beyond a legislativeagenda: Education policy approaches of theClinton Administration. Educational Policy, 11,209-226.

Stanley, M. S. (1996). School uniforms and safety.Education and Urban Society, 28, 424-435.

Tailor, H., & Detch, E. R.(1998). Getting tough onkids: A look at zero tolerance. Nashville, TN: Ten-nessee Office of Education Accountability,Comptroller of the Treasury.

Taylor, M.C., & Foster, G. A. (1986). Bad boys andschool suspensions: Public policy implications forblack males. Sociological Inquiry, 56, 498-506.

Thornton, C. H. & Trent, W. (1988). School desegre-gation and suspension in East Baton Rouge Parish:A preliminary report. Journal of Negro Education,57, 482-501.


Thorson, S. (1996). The missing link: Students dis-cuss school discipline. Focus on ExceptionalChildren, 29(3), 1-12.

Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1996). Patterns inmiddle school discipline records. journal of E1770-tional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(2), 82-94.

Toby, J. (1994). The politics of school violence. ThePublic Interest, 776, 34-56.

Townsend, B. (2000). Disproportionate discipline ofAfrican American children and youth: Culturally-responsive strategies for reducing schoolsuspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Chil-dren, 66, 381-391.

Uchitelle, S., Bartz, D., & Hillman, L. (1989). Strate-gies for reducing suspensions. Urban Education,24, 163-176.

Walker, H. M., Homer, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M.,Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., Kaufman, M. J. (1996).Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial be-havior patterns among school-age children andyouth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Dis-orders, 4(4), 194-209.

Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Droppingout: How much do schools contribute to the prob-lem? Teachers College Record, 87, 374-393.

Williams, J. (1989). Reducing the disproportionatelyhigh frequency of disciplinary actions against mi-nority students: An assessment-based policyapproach. Equity and Excellence, 24(2), 31-37.

Wood, F. H., & Braaten, S. (1983). Developing guide-lines for the use of punishing interventions in theschools. Exceptional Education Quarterly, .3(4),

Wu, S. C., Pink, W. T., Crain, R. L., & Moles, 0. (1982).Student suspension: A critical reappraisal. The Ur-ban Review, .14, 245-303.

Zero tolerance drug policy eased. (1988, July 17).Los Angeles Times, p. 19.

Zero sense. (1998, October 31). St. Petersburg Times,p. 16A.

Zirkel, P. A. (1998). The right stuff. Phi Delta Kappan,79(6), 475-476.

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

I

1-.1

Title: Ley- 0 '70 kev 6,,,,csz. 2ex 0 ;AckeAAc_e_

A v. AlA\I

S S eika, yA. Cri

Author(s): 'Cuss sCorporate Source: '-1,463,,v, .E-ctAcitz-kitrY eo C CivV\e'V Publication Date:

A ,Abus 0

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in themonthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,.and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, ifreproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY


Level

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2A

4\0


Level 2A

nCheck here for Level 1 release, permitting Check here for Level 2A release, permitting

reproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other reproduction and dissemination in microfiche and InERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and paper electronic media for ERIC archival collection

copy. subscribers only

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 28 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2B


Level 2B

Check here for Level 2B release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche only

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of eddcators in response to discrete inquiries.

Sign signathere,)

organizationmadress: j u E s,, I -711pleaseg I 1:1 °IAA kk 4?-74cog

Printed Name/PositionfTitle:

(( 7 z- , A---? ssoc fic '-Telephone: AX:

5w2 CS -cVSOE-Mail Address:

0, 3 iv, a eDate:

(over)

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY.INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a docuMent unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Addres:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reprodUction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management1787 Agate Street5207 University of OregonEugene, OR 97403-5207

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility4483-A Forbes BoulevardLanham, Maryland 20706

Telephone: 301-552-4200Toll Free: 800-799-3742

FAX: 301-552-4700e-mail: [email protected]: hftp://ericfacility.org

EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2000)

DOCUMENT RESUME TITLE - ERIC · 2000-08-00. 23p. H325N990009 Indiana Education Policy Center, Smith...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME TITLE - ERIC · 2000-08-00. 23p. H325N990009 Indiana Education Policy Center, Smith...