The following diagram illustrates the concentric nature of this investigation. However, while looking at the diagram, one should note that the two outer rings (safe schools and safe communities) are not examined in this review. This literature search is discussing only behavioural rules, norms and the application of sanctions or policy-oriented preventive or remedial measures.

This categorization of approaches is similar to that used by Day et al (1995), where their typology included four categories: response/sanction, behavioural, identification/prevention and community. Similarly, Gottfredson (1998) organized school-based interventions into two categories: environment change strategies and individual change strategies. Coben et al (1994) categorized school violence prevention efforts in four categories: educational, environmental-technological, regulatory and combined.

Zero-Tolerance or Discretionary Decision-Making

The choice to introduce a zero-tolerance approach is usually targeted at significantly harmful behaviours within the school (National Center on Education Statistics, 1998). This review will assess the rationale for assigning predetermined sanctions for these behaviours, the implications of this new approach on the fairness of procedures used to implement this approach, the immediate impact of the zero-tolerance choice on all students and the offending students as well as the long-term impact on the safety of the community.

This review sought to determine if research had answered these questions.

Do the trends or statistical evidence in levels of unacceptable or inappropriate behaviours in Canadian schools indicate that traditional approaches to school discipline/student conduct need to be modified? Are there more or less incidents, serious incidents, suspensions or expulsions? What is the current level of use of zero-tolerance in Canada and elsewhere?

Is there any evidence suggesting that giving discretionary authority to school principals or school authorities results in too lenient or inconsistent sanctions?

Does the predetermination of consequences/sanctions for selected unacceptable behaviours result in more effect in:

a)       improving the safety/school climate for all students either in removing the students causing problems or acting as a deterrent (immediate output)?

b)       correcting the behaviours of offending students (immediate output)?

c)       enhancing the overall safety of the community (long-term outcome)?

Is there evidence suggesting that some unacceptable behaviours are better suited to a zero-tolerance (non-discretionary) approach?

Does the introduction of predetermined consequences/sanctions abrogate the rights of alleged offenders? (Right to due process, natural justice, punishment to fit the crime, individual case, etc.)

Is there evidence suggesting that predetermination of consequences results in the application of inappropriate sanctions for some students or in some cases?

The Effect of a Sanctions Approach

A school can impose a variety of sanctions to correct behaviours of offending students, act as a deterrent to others, improve the safety and discipline of all students and help to maintain an ordered learning environment. Again, this review sought to locate research that reported on these three effects for the following sanctions:

Does the sanction improve the school climate for all students? (output)       

Does the sanction correct the behaviours of the offending students? (output)

Does the sanction enhance the overall safety of the community? (outcome)

The sanctions to be examined are:

• reporting misbehaviour to parents

• additional assignment of school work

• detentions

• restitution to victims/restorative justice measures

• mandatory service to school or the community

• in-school suspensions

• short-term suspensions (5 days or less)

• long-term suspension (to end of term or year)

• transfer to a different regular school/class

• placement in an alternate class in same school

• placement in an alternate school

• sending to bootcamp/challenge program

• expulsion from regular school/placement in institution with alternate education

Prior to looking for evidence of the effect of these sanctions, we looked for research evidence and professional consensus on how these sanctions should be developed and implemented. Specific questions relating to these implementation issues are:

What support/involvement is required from parents/guardians/caregivers? How can this support be encouraged?

What support is needed from teachers”

What support/involvement is required from police? law enforcement? the courts?

What support/involvement is required from other publicly funded agencies?

What support/involvement is beneficial from community volunteers or organizations?

What support is required from senior school administrators and school trustees?

Are there good examples of effective use of sanctions in Canada? elsewhere?

 The Effect of Behavioural Expectations (School Discipline/Student Conduct Rules)

Once again, this review sought to identify research that suggested three types of effects that might be attributed to the use of school discipline/student conduct rules:

        Do the rules improve the school climate for all students? (output)

        Do the rules correct the behaviours of offending students? (output)

        Do the rules enhance the overall safety of the community? (outcome)

Prior to discussing the potential effects of school discipline/student conduct policies, we sought to identify research that told us:

        What topics should be covered in such policies?

        How should these school discipline/student conduct policies be developed and implemented?

        Are “good” school discipline/student conduct policies in place in most schools in Canada? elsewhere?

What professional skills/practices are needed among teachers and school administrators to implement these policies effectively? Are the    most appropriate roles of classroom teacher, guidance counselor, social worker, school psychologist, school principal clearly defined?

Are there adaptations of such policies for sub-populations of students? (students with emotional or behavioural disorders, others)

What support is required from senior school administrators and school trustees?

What involvement is needed from teachers outside of their classrooms?

What support/involvement is required from parents/guardians/caregivers? How can this support be encouraged?

What support/involvement is required from students? How can this be encouraged?

Are there good examples and models of “good” school rules in Canada? elsewhere?

The Effect of Positive School Climate

In this final section, this review examines how various preventive programs and rehabilitation interventions can maintain a positive school climate. Comprehensive preventive programs aimed at improving the school climate (such as Effective Behaviour Support, Peaceful Schools or Anti-Bullying Programs) are considered. We also examined specific prevention activities such as improving classroom management/teaching, police protocols, school security measures, school uniforms, truancy prevention, early identification and referral procedures. Interventions aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating offending students are also considered, including individual education plans, crisis intervention/aftermath procedures and coordinated case management.

Again, this review sought research evidence indicating that these comprehensive or singular prevention or intervention programs had an impact on three levels:

improving the safety of all students (output)

correcting the behaviours of offending students (output)

enhancing the safety of the community (outcome).

As well, this review sought research to indicate that policy-makers and/or practitioners had developed agreements on how these programs and services should be implemented. Specific questions in this regard include:

Is there agreement on what constitutes a positive behaviour support program such as EBS or Peaceful Schools?

Is the use of these positive school climate approaches widespread in Canadian schools? elsewhere?

Are there professional norms, backed by research, on good practices in implementing the specific prevention or intervention strategies mentioned above?

What support is required from senior school administrators and school trustees?

What support/involvement is required from students? How can this be encouraged?

What support is needed from teachers?

What support/involvement is required from parents? How can this be encouraged?

What support/involvement is required from police and the youth court?

What support/involvement is required from other publicly funded agencies?

What support/involvement is beneficial from community organizations?

Introduction

The disciplining of our children is inextricably linked to the basic values we hold as human beings. Those values will guide us in the writing of our laws and in the codes of conduct that we establish in schools. This basic truth has been explained well in the research (Leonard, 1999; McCarthy, 1997). Consequently, it is appropriate that we begin this review with a short discussion of the conceptualization of discipline for children.

The Canadian Paediatric Society (1996) has presented a positive, healthy view of discipline which was often supported in the research reviewed for this project. Slee (1997) has presented the theories underlying professional approaches to discipline and behaviour management that show punitive approaches to discipline are self-limiting in their effect on children and youth. Fox (1987) tells us how a thoughtful approach, that stays focused on long-term goals and the mutuality of the process, can help us to avoid that punitive and short-term approach.

The National Crime Prevention Council (1995) has taken this positive philosophy in its paper, Clear Limits and Real Opportunities: The Keys to Preventing Youth Crime.   MacDonald (1997, 1998, 1999) in her study of junior high schools in Alberta, argues against “chasing the storm clouds: and, instead, seeing discipline as an opportunity to teach social skills rather than punish wrongdoers. She also shows, in a practical way, how the conceptualization of discipline and violence influences the behaviour of school principals, one of the key influencers in the school process.

The importance of conceptualizing discipline in a positive way is underlined by some of the research located in this review. Differing perceptions and multiple realities may cause conflict and confusion in schools and homes over discipline. There are a variety of perspectives about parenting and schooling that will influence the development of school discipline plans (Wyness, 1996). As well, our conceptualization of the problem of school violence is critical. Teachers and administrators  tend to conceptualize the problem of unacceptable behaviour in schools as a community problem (Pietrzak et al, 1998).

Other studies (Sewell & Chamellin, 1997;  MacDonald and Da Costas, 1996) report that there are some significant differences in the perceptions held by students, teachers and administrators about school violence. While educators, parents and others may see the levels of violence in school as disturbing, students may have come to see such behaviour as “normal” and, consequently, be unwilling to report the majority of incidents for fear of reprisals or being outside the prevailing norms. (MacDonald, 1997a).

Situated within this potentially murky, muddled and multiple set of conceptions and perspectives, this review has found that the term “zero-tolerance” has unfortunately become a confusing piece of rhetoric. Gabor (1995) and Thompson (1994) have commented on this lack of clarity. Many Canadians understand the term to be “no tolerance for unacceptable behaviours”, accompanied by an assurance that there will be a consequence for each infraction.

However, recently in Canada, and often in the United States, the term “zero-tolerance” has come to mean there will be a predetermined, automatic consequence for serious infractions, with no discretion on the nature of the punishment. It is this latter definition that is discussed in this review. There is widespread consensus that the first definition should be followed. The second definition is the subject of controversy which this review will explore

In beginning this review, we reread a publication of the American Association of School Administrators (Brodinsky, 1980) published two decades ago. The contents of that manual offer an interesting insight. We note that several of those 1980 topics that are still with us today, including school board policy, school codes of conduct, student handbooks, student-parent-teacher training, curricula to support rules, in school suspensions and suspension/expulsion. However, instead of the problem behaviour of vandalism and smoking we now talk of violence, weapons, gangs, and drugs/alcohol. We also note the growing trend in Canada and the U.S. that provincial/territorial or state governments are stipulating what will be in student codes of conduct. Two decades ago, this was left to school boards and schools.

We conclude these introductory remarks with this thought. School policy will not be enough. There is a remarkable consensus in the materials reviewed that zero-tolerance, sanctions, a student code, school discipline or even efforts to improve the school climate are, by themselves, insufficient to ensure that a school is safe and caring. Instruction to develop student skills, beliefs and knowledge is required. Social support, in the form of peer programs, parent action and community policing programs is needed for schools. Efforts to situate the school within a safe and caring community need to be made. Without these things, school rules will be insufficient to protect children.

As well, as we begin this discussion, we need to be careful that we do not fall into these traps identified by Horner et al (2000). These six strategies will all likely lead to problems.

• getting tough is enough

• focusing on the different

• looking for a quick fix

• finding one powerful trick

• believing someone else has the solution

• believing more is better

Hopefully, this preliminary review will help us avoid those traps, to the benefit of students, educators and parents.

That leads us to our final introduction note. In reviewing the research measuring the effect of sanctions, codes of conduct and prevention/intervention strategies, we sought to identify research that reported on three types of effects; on the safety of all students, on the behaviour of offending students and on the overall safety of the community.

Gottfredson (1998) has noted that researchers are now trying to measure these direct and indirect effects through studying delinquent and violent behaviour in schools, withdrawal from school, the prevalence of conduct problems in the community and the prevalence of low self-esteem among individual youth. In other words, if we are going to use a comprehensive approach to preventing school violence, we should be using comprehensive measurement tools.

Key Findings

There is considerable confusion over the term “zero-tolerance”. It should be discarded in future policy discussions. We suggest using  “automatic suspensions for serious offenses”

There is little evidence that the prevalence of anti-social behaviour is increasing or decreasing in schools. There is no regular, reliable data collection in Canada. However, public and professional perceptions indicate a concern, to the extent that policy-makers are responding with new legislation or policy directives. Immediate research on the prevalence of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviours in schools is needed.

There is little evidence that a non-discretionary approach to serious offences is more or less effective than a discretionary one. The number of serious offences that occur in schools is very small and the solutions to them are multidisciplinary in nature.

There is little evidence about the efficacy of the sanctions most often used by schools to respond to minor offences with the exception of extensive research on alternatives to suspension and expulsion. Only one study was found (Education Testing Service, 1999) and it did include students who had dropped out of school. More research on lighter sanctions is required.

More research on the implementation of in-school suspensions is required to determine the barriers to its use. This strategy has been recommended for decades and we still do not have data on the prevalence of its use.

There is no regular, reliable data on the sanctions, policies and prevention/intervention programs used in Canadian schools.

Several provinces/territories, states and other countries have recently revised or introduced legislation or regulations to require schools to establish codes of conduct, programs to maintain a positive school climate or to ensure the management of students with behaviour disorders

There appears to be a significant gap in the supervision of hallways and playgrounds at school. Little research has been done on what strategies are most effective. In particular, measures to ensure an active staff response to minor incidents and ways to encourage students to report their concerns are required.

Proven promising programs have been developed and are being implemented in many schools that deliver school-wide effective behaviour support to all students, promote peace or prevent violence or bullying through school-wide approaches or that deliver positive behaviour support to students with special needs.

We need studies of parent, student, teacher and administrator attitudes/beliefs and practices relating to school discipline. This investigation should differentiate between serious and non serious offenses.

Research is needed on how effective partnerships can be formed among students, parents, educators and police. As well, their specific roles need to be clarified and evaluated for effectiveness.

Research into differentiated policy choices among schools experiencing dramatically different levels of violence needs to be done.

The roles of different levels of authority and their appropriate scope of action in school discipline needs to guide our analysis. This research needs to also examine the corresponding levels of authority in police and youth justice sectors. 

A.             Zero-Tolerance: An Answer? A Distraction? An Understandable but Misdirected Reaction?

This examination of the potential value of “zero-tolerance approach”, where there are automatic suspensions or expulsions for serious student infractions such as physical assault, use of weapons, drugs or threats, will examine six related questions.

Is there evidence that the level of unacceptable behaviours in schools is increasing? A related question will also be asked: Has there been an increased number of suspensions or expulsions?

Is there evidence that administrator/school discretion has been too lenient or inconsistent?

Does the automatic suspension or expulsion of students lead to safety for all students, correcting the behaviour of offending students and/or greater safety in the community?

Is there evidence that some behaviours are better suited to a zero-tolerance (automatic) response?

Does the application of automatic suspensions/expulsions result in the abrogation of student rights?

Is there evidence that the application of zero-tolerance policies lead to unintended or inappropriate sanctions?

The next section of the paper will address the efficacy of various sanctions. However, it should be noted that there is considerable evidence showing that suspensions/expulsions from school are ineffective in changing the behaviour of young offenders, unless they are accompanied by long-term, appropriate and intensive services to the student and family as well as appropriate well-resourced alternative education programs.

Are Inappropriate and Unacceptable Behaviours Increasing in Schools?

There are no regular, reliable and national surveys of the prevalence of serious or non-serious offenses in schools (Shannon & McCall, 1999). The proportion of youth charged with crimes under the criminal code declined from 26% in 1992 to 20% in 1997. Fifteen per cent of those crimes occurred on school property (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2000). However, these data do not capture other less serious forms of aggression.

A small number of Canadian research studies have some data on in less serious school aggression. In B.C. (McCreary, 1998), students reported that, between 1992-1998, there was no change in the proportion who had been involved in fights (42% of boys, 18% of girls).

The Auditor-General of B.C. (2000), in its survey of teachers, reported that a number of aggressive behaviours had increased among elementary and secondary students, including: (These behaviours were reported as occurring “often”)

    In Alberta, Gomes et al (2000) reported these prevalences of aggression at school:

An international study done for Health Canada (Health Canada, 1999) found that 56% of boys and 40% of girls in grades 6 and 8 admitted that they has bullied someone that year. As well, 43% of boys and 35% of girls said that they had been victims of bullying.

The John Howard Society (1998) has summarized various reports on youth crime. Once again, the downward trend in youth crime generally was reported.

The above reports should be a source of concern. There are levels of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviours in schools that need to be addressed.

However, it should be noted that serious crimes such as weapons or gangs have not increased in Canadian schools. Skiba & Peterson (1999), found a similar pattern when comparing U.S. schools between 1990-1991 and 1996-1997 - serious crime rates in schools either stayed the same or declined.

Canadian elementary schools were seen to be safe in an analysis of the first cycle data of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Frank & Lipps, 1997). This report showed that 98% of students are not truant. Only 28% were disciplined for verbal conflict, 11% for fighting and 5% for harassment. Ninety-five per cent (95%) of school pupils in those elementary schools said they have never had to deal with drugs, staff assault, weapons or theft.

Gabor (1995) in his surveys and focus groups with educators, police and youth, reported that they collectively perceived that most offenses were committed by a small minority of students (between 1% and 10%). Day (1995) found similar educator concerns.

An American analysis (Education testing Service, 1999), using the data from the 1998 National Education Longitudinal Survey (NELS) found that students were “bipolar” in their attitudes towards a range of behaviours. Relatively large proportions of students (29%) felt it was “ok” to commit some minor offenses but only 3% said it was ok to bring a weapon to school. Only 5% of students in that survey had ever been suspended from school.

This is not to say that the public and professionals are not concerned. Gabor (1995) reported on the sharp increase in the coverage of youth crimes in the Canadian media. This review identified a number of similar references in the years after Gabor’s report (Education Monitor, 1998; Canadian Press, 1998; Calgary Herald, 2000; Cloud 1999; Leschart, 1999). In 1993, an Environics Poll reported that violence was the top concern for schools (MacDougall, 1993).

Dalton (2000), in discussing the contradiction between declining youth crime and increase concern about school violence, suggests that the increased concern may be due to several factors, including; new laws requiring automatic suspensions/expulsions, the media reports, pressure from human rights legislation, increased awareness of civil liability and less lenient attitudes towards bullying.

Governments have responded to increased concern with new laws and regulations requiring schools to establish zero-tolerance policies, school codes of conduct, school-wide plans to prevent violence and special measures to ensure that students with behavioural disorders are managed properly. This has occurred in the UK (Department for Education and Employment, 1999) and across the U.S. (Education Commission of the States, 1998). The legal responses have included automatic suspension/expulsion for serious offenses, mandatory school codes, mandatory school safety plans, notification of student records, gang prevention, firearms prohibition and alternative education.

In the U.S., approximately three-quarters of schools have automatic expulsion policies for serious offenses (94% for firearms, 91% for other weapons, 88% for drugs, 79% for violence and 79% for tobacco use). The Education Testing Service Study (1999) showed that American school administrators were likely to follow these policies immediately for serious offenses, but were more likely to be lenient with first offenses for less serious infractions.

In Canada, Oppenheimer & Zeigler (1990) found that suspensions were used less frequently in Toronto schools than their American counterparts, but more often than British schools. Day & Golench (1997) reported from their 1995 survey that most Canadian schools saw suspension and expulsion within a more preventive approach. The first zero-tolerance (i.e. automatic suspension for serious offense) appeared in Canada in 1993 (MacDonald, 1996).

Recent changes to provincial/territorial guidelines and policy support documents have been made in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. In Quebec, the Superior Council of Education, an advisory committee to the Minister is preparing a submission.

Does professional discretion in the application of discipline result in overly-lenient or inconsistent sanctions?

Gabor (1995) reported from his surveys and focus groups that police officers, educators and students were increasingly concerned with school discipline problems. They favoured consequences that were consistent, predictable yet flexible. They also favoured the protection of the majority, if necessary, over the rights of the minority causing the problems. He also reported that all three groups felt that sanctions were not preventing the “hard core” from misbehaving in schools. The reasons for this were: youth offender laws, family breakdown, erosion of the school’s authority, peer pressure, violence in the media and poor rule enforcement.

In British Columbia, the Auditor-General (2000) reported that appropriate student codes of conduct had been developed by all schools and school districts. However, adherence to those codes varied significantly. Expectations and consequences need to be made clearer. Students need to be encouraged to report their concerns. School staff need to consistently follow-up to make it clear that the codes will be enforced. For example, the survey done for that report noted that BC secondary school codes were “mostly” supported, enforced or understood by only 77% of school administrators, 41% of staff, 33% of parents and 69% of students.

MacDonald (1997), in her study of five schools in Alberta, noted that students were not satisfied with the responses from school staff to violence and misbehaviour. One small exploratory study (O’Brien, 1998) asked teachers why they did not intervene with unruly students in hallways (but did so effectively in their classes). The reasons were: too busy, not knowing students, viewing misconduct as typical and lack of support from administration or other teachers.

Do Automatic Suspension/Expulsions for Serious Offenses Work?

The introduction of automatic suspensions/expulsions for serious offenses in schools has generated considerable debate in Canada and elsewhere. Lipsett (1999), originally from the Scarborough School Board that introduced the first zero-tolerance policy, reported that the implementation of the policy was accompanied by 50% reductions in the average number of serious incidents reported by schools. (She also noted that early data showed an increase in the number of reports of less serious crimes such as verbal threats.

The Education Testing Service (1999) analysis of longitudinal data shows that schools with more severe penalties had few incidents of serious infractions. This was true, on average, but unpacking the data, the study showed that severe penalties were correlated with fewer serious incidents in urban and public schools. That study also found that schools with zero-tolerance policies had more incidents of a less serious nature. (Again, please note that school dropouts were not in this sample.) The National Center on Education Statistics (1998) also reported that schools with lower rates of crime were less likely to use zero-tolerance policies.

Skiba & Peterson (1999) use that NCES data to show that the use of zero-tolerance policies has not made those schools safer, despite being in place for four years. They are still less safe than the schools without zero-tolerance policies.

A survey done in the U.K. for the Youth Justice Board (Market and Opinion Research International, 2000) reminds us that we need to measure the impact of zero-tolerance policies in the community as well as the school. That survey showed that 72% of students who had been expelled from school admitted that they had committed serious offenses, including vandalism (69%), shoplifting (60%), carrying a weapon (51%) and buying drugs (54%).  In contrast, 72% of students who were in school had committed no offense.

Skiba & Peterson (1999) point out that suspending a student is one way that schools “push out” students from schools. These troubled students are more likely to find more trouble in the streets. Other studies, to be discussed later in this review, show that zero-tolerance policies increase the number of students who are suspended or expelled from school.

Finally, we need to return to our earlier point about the efficacy of suspensions/expulsions that are not accompanied by alternate education, intensive and multiple services and other supports. Without these services, zero-tolerance policies can only shift the problem from the school to the community.

Gabor (1995) called for some sort of “middle ground” in resolving the zero-tolerance vs. discretion option. He suggested identifying automatic sanctions well in advance and stipulating clearly when the police would be notified. He also suggested that school staff should always conduct the initial investigation, unless there was an immediate threat to safety.

Findings:

• There is not sufficient evidence to say that automatic suspension for serious offenses is a serious deterrent to school violence.

• Automatic use of suspensions/expulsions requires that additional resources be made available to other agencies and families to support youth who are expelled from school.

Evidence Suggesting That Some Behaviours Should Lead to Automatic Suspension/Expulsion

There appears to be a policy consensus among the proponents of zero-tolerance policies that they should only apply to serious offenses like weapons, drugs and assault. However, this search found no research showing that this automatic sanction approach was effective for any specific behaviour or crime.

Finding

• There is no research-based evidence to suggest that automatic sanctions are more effective in deterring any particular misbehaviour.

Zero-Tolerance and the Rights of Students

A review of several reports and articles available in the databases searched for this review were analyzed for this section. However, no search was done on legal databases. There may be jurisprudence being established on zero-tolerance laws, but this methodology did not locate any.

There is a sizable and stable set of knowledge and case law that has been established in Canada regarding student rights and school discipline. The introduction and implications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Dennis, 1996; Harte & McDonald 1996) has initiated analysis and discussion. As well, corporal punishment (Rettig, 2000; Obrien & Pietersema, 2000) and the Young Offenders Act (Jaffe & Baker, 1999) have both prompted legal and other advice. However, these sources did not include any references to zero-tolerance.

Recent Canadian case law (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 1999; Education Law Reporter, 1999, 1998; Green, 1990, Edulaw, 1996) has sought to clarify the rights of students. However, these reviews did not refer to zero-tolerance.

Rohr (1998) and Keel (1999) have outlined the steps that should be taken and criteria to be met when a student is suspended from school. Timelines, appeals and procedures were all discussed. Zero-tolerance was not discussed.

A limited number of American sources (Beyer, 1997; Antonucci, 1994; Beyer, nd; U.S. Department of Education, 1996) were reviewed in this search. Only Antonucci (1994) referred to zero-tolerance and the reference was brief. He discussed the liability of a principal who does not suspend a student when authorized to do so. He also referred briefly to the automatic suspension for carrying a firearm. Schwartz (1997) has noted that the U.S. Courts have been divided in their decisions about student rights under searches and seizures.

An non-authored website was identified in this search (www.tso4u.com/lphs_expell) that lead us to several media articles on abuses to student rights. That website had a link related to case law, but unfortunately the website is no longer functioning.

Zero-Tolerance and Inappropriate Sanctions

A number of media reports were identified in this search that indicate that zero-tolerance policies are causing inappropriate sanctions for some students. A boy in York, PA was suspended for possession of nail clippers (National Post, 2000). Students who “high five” each other in Fall River, NS will be suspended (Smithson, 2000). One Cape Breton school board suspended 2000 students in 1998-1999 (Canadian Press, 2000). A review by Education Week (Portner, 1997) reported that, as a consequence, zero-tolerance policies were getting a second look. A USA Today report (Cauchon, 1999) reviewed those stories and reported that zero-tolerance policies were inflexible and ineffective.

On a more scholarly note, Curwin & Mendler (1999) and  Skiba & Peterson (1999) have made similar complaints about zero-tolerance policies. Skiba & Peterson (1999) have documented several examples of inappropriate sanctions being applied.

The Connecticut State Comptrollers Officer (Commins, 1998) has expressed concern that zero-tolerance policies have increased the number of expelled or suspended students and that the policy may be counterproductive. The rate of suspensions in that state quadrupled between 93-94 and 96-97. As well, these students were not being provided with alternative education or support services.

Other reports (Civil Rights Project, 2000; Keleher, 2000) indicate that zero-tolerance policies and suspensions may disfavour minority students. Also, the Australian Drug Foundation (1998) has stated that zero-tolerance policies in their schools have interfered with their “harm reduction” approach to reducing drug abuse.

Jay (1997) in a study of 59 student codes in the U.S. found that the wording was often not clear, particularly with terms such as foul language. In some zero-tolerance policies, the interpretation of terms such as “weapons or objects used as weapons”, “threats” or “harassment” may be subject to interpretation. Some reports indicate that some principals may chose to err on the cautious side under pressure of liability claims and suspend students for inappropriate reasons. Training may be effective in eliminating these subjective interpretations, but no evidence to that effect was located in our search.

Findings

• There appears to be little change or even declines in the number of serious youth crimes, in schools or in the community, in Canada and elsewhere. Automatic expulsions for these offenses, which are not increasing, may not be necessary. However, less serious offenses may be increasing and appropriate remedies need to be developed or implemented.

• Increased public and professional concerns about the levels of unacceptable behaviours in schools may be due to a number of factors, not only media reports. These concerns should be addressed in public policy. These concerns are primarily aimed at less serious, but apparently increasing levels of student misbehaviour.

• Zero-tolerance policies are only one of several policy options being exercised by governments in several countries. Provincial/territorial responses in Canada indicate that different choices are being made in different jurisdictions. (See analysis in this project.)

• No case law or legal advice was identified that indicated the rights of students were being abrogated under zero-tolerance policies. However, from a lay person’s perspective, it seems that natural justice principles imply that each case should be judged on its own merits, including assigning a punishment commensurate with the offense and individual circumstances.

• There may be inconsistencies in the application of school discipline in respect to non-serious offenses. (These are not addressed by automatic expulsion for serious infractions.) More attention needs to be paid to ensuring an active, adult presence in the school and in encouraging students to report their concerns. Consistent and visible follow-up is also required.

• Zero-tolerance policies are resulting in inappropriate sanctions for some students. (There were no sources identified in this search showing that these errors could be rectified in the appeals process.)

B              Sanctions and Deterrence

This section of this review addresses the effective uses of various school-based sanctions. Again, we were seeking to identify information on the effect of these sanctions on all students, on offending students and on community safety in general.

We searched for research evidence on how to best engage the partners in the sanction process. These partners include the students, parents/guardians/caregivers, the police, health/social/employment agencies, community organizations and the senior administrator/school trustees of school boards. Very few sources were identified under these headings so we have consolidated them under the school discipline/behavioural expectations section of this review.

The following sanctions were the subjects of our investigation:

• reporting misbehaviour to parents

• additional assignment of school work

• detentions

• restitution to victims

• service to the school or community

• in-school suspensions

• short-term suspensions (less than 5 days)

• long-term suspension

• transfer to another regular class or school

• placement in an alternate class in the same school

• placement in an alternate school

• placement in a temporary challenge program (boot camp/widerness camp)

• permanent expulsion and delivery of alternate education/incarceration in institution.

We begin this section with a general outlook at these sanctions, how they can and are being implanted and any general evidence that a sanctions focused approach can be effective.

Effectiveness and Use of Sanctions Approach

Oppenheimer & Zeigler (1990) reviewed several options in the use of sanctions. Like most others, they focused on the use of alternatives to suspension. However, there has been little research that has differentiated the types of sanctions to be able to describe their impact (Educational Testing Service, 1999). For example, we need to know if light sanctions, such as detentions or additional assignments, are able to deter students from more serious misbehaviour. Also, are there ways to apply light or medium strength sanctions that are more effective in deterring misbehaviour?

The Education Testing Service (1999) analysis of the 1988 National Education Longitudinal Survey is the only analysis of this type identified in our search for this review. They analyze student attitudes towards a range of offenses as well as the different types of sanctions used by schools in the U.S.

They found that sizable minorities of American students felt it was “sometimes ok” or “often ok” that students misbehaved in these ways:

• cutting classes (29%)

• copying homework (29%)

• talking back to a teacher (16%)

• disobeying rules (16%)

• cutting class (16%)

• cheating on tests (11%)

• making sexist remarks (9%)

• making racist remarks (5%)

• having a physical fight (8%)

They also found that American students were far less tolerant of serious misbehaviour in school; Only 3% found it “sometimes or often ok” to bring a weapon to school, 2% to destroy school property, 2% to drink, 1% to sue drugs at school, 1% to abuse teachers.

This analysis suggests that policy and program responses might be better if they strongly differentiated between serious and non-serious offenses.

A B.C. document was cited in the review by the Auditor-General of BC (2000) that presented misbehaviours as a continuum, ranging from disrespect to pushing and fighting to gangs or hate crimes. However, participants at a national meeting on safe schools (Shannon & McCall, 2000) were not comfortable in using that continuum in a joint statement. Research needs to determine if violence is a step-by-step continuum or if there is a direct pathway to serious offenses.

The Education Testing Service (1999) also described the sanctions and discipline policies used by American schools. They found that schools that used preventive policies such as hall passes were associated with lower levels of non-serious offenses. However, these policies did not have any impact on serious offenses or drug use. Here are their findings.

Common Discipline Policies and Sanction in U.S. Schools

Note:

This chart also shows that in-school suspensions were rarely used as sanctions, despite decades of researchers and experts promoting its use. Research is needed to determine if this policy is widely used. If it is not, then research should also describe the barrier to its use and how they can be overcome.

Findings

• Research on student, teacher, parent and administrator attitudes/beliefs about a range of offenses, sanctions and discipline policies should be conducted.

• Research should be conducted into the prevalence of use of in-school suspensions. If this highly recommended strategy is not widely used, then the research should identify the barriers to its use.

• Research into the differentiation of policy/program responses to non-serious and serious offenses should be done.

• Research into the relationship between the characteristics of the school- (urban, suburban, rural, SES, etc.) and the appropriateness of sanctions and specific school rules should be conducted.

Research on the Effects of Specific Sanctions

We now attempt to analyze the behavioural impact of specific sanctions.

Little Research on Impact of Light Sanctions

This search did not locate any research on several forms of lighter sanctions; the ones used most often by schools. (The concepts of detention, transfer for discipline, additional assignments, community service for sanctions were not even found in the ERIC Thesaurus of search terms.)

This absence of research needs to be addressed quickly if schools are to be enlightened about how these strategies can be used effectively. Strategies for which we did not locate any research are:

• reporting misbehaviour to parents

• detentions

• restitutional service to school or community

• transfer to another regular class or school

Restitution is Effective

Gottfredson et al (1996) reviewed several school and community-based restitution programs and concluded that this approach was effective in correcting the behaviours of young offenders.

In-School Suspensions/Alternatives to Suspensions

This approach has been well discussed in the research literature. For example, 20 years ago, an American guide on school discipline (Brodinsky, 1980) referred to in-school suspension as “the top alternative of the 1970s”.

Day et al (1995) cite several sources that describe the value of in-school suspensions or alternatives to suspension/expulsion (Aleem & Moles, 1993; Ontario Ministry of Education, 1994). Sheets (1996) has classified in-school suspension under four categories; punitive, problem-solving, academic and individual. He suggests that ISS programs can modify student behaviour, protect the learning environment and protect the community.

Guindon (1992), in a review of the literature, reports that in-school suspension programs can be effective if they are accompanied by counseling, parental involvement, shared decision-making and continued academics. The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (nd) suggests that ISS programs include guidance support, planning for reintegration and opportunities to build new skills. A review done for the Leon County School Board (nd) in Florida, has a similar list of important elements for success, including; a philosophy of clearly stated rules, adequate resources, continuous program and intake monitoring, a student stay of at least 10 days, referrals for serious offenses only, a coordinator, full support from the principal and parent involvement from the start.

Many case studies of successful ISS programs were identified in this search. Canadian examples were found in Calgary (Jones, 1985), Abitibi (Polyvalente de la Forêt, nd), Etobicoke (Zammit, 1999), Kingston (Kingston Police, nd) and North York (North York General Hospital, nd). A new federal program in the U.S. is awarding $10 million for demonstration projects that provide alternatives to suspension. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1995) has also identified several promising programs.

Short-Term Suspensions (less than 5 days)

Gabor (1995) cited research studies that indicated that short-term suspensions can be effective if students agree to stipulated conditions and if parents are involved. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1995) review of research indicates that short-term suspensions are not an effective deterrent to student misbehaviour.

Long-Term Suspensions (until the end of year or term)

Several reviews of the research (Day et al, 1995; Oppenheimer & Zeigler, 1990) have reported that long-term suspensions are not effective in correcting student misbehaviour. O’Reilly & Sargent (1994) report that suspensions can protect the rights of other students, provide a consequence, act as a deterrent and communicate seriousness to the parents. However, suspensions do not provide a way for the offending student to change their behaviour, may jeopardize the student’s academic progress and may jeopardize the community as the expelled youth roams the neighbourhood.

Gabor (1995) reported that Canadian educators and police saw long-term suspensions and expulsions as a last resort. A survey of head teachers in Scotland (Munn et al, 1997) found similar views to those of Canadians.

Placement in an Alternate Class in the Same School

Gottfredson (1998), in a comprehensive review of school violence prevention strategies, suggests that reorganizing classes and regrouping students into alternate classes or “schools within schools” is a promising practice, although the research evidence on their effect is somewhat mixed.

Schwartz (1997) says these programs can be effective as long as their goal is to return the student to regular class as soon as possible.  Cortez & Montecel (1999) reviewed such alternate classes in Texas and found them to be “dumping grounds” for undesirable students. They also found that students were not provided additional support once they were placed in these classes.

Royer (1996) has described several successful examples of these classes and “schools of the second chance”.

Placement in an Alternate School

Several reviews of alternate schools were located in this search. Most of these sources indicate that alternate schools for troubled youth can be effective if they are adequately supported.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1996) describes the characteristics of effective programs. They include: lower staff-student ratio, strong leadership, carefully selected and trained staff, a shared vision, district-wide support, innovative presentation of course content, good relations with other parts of the school system as well as other agencies, links to local workplaces and intensive counseling and monitoring.

The Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory (1995) has identified similar characteristics of the effective alternate schools, including a student choice to be involved, a focus on the whole student, caring relationships, an expanded role for the teacher into caregiving, a sense of community, high expectations of students, small size, relative autonomy, comprehensive program, counseling, safe environment, separation from traditional schooling, links to agency services. The Center for Prevention of School violence (1999) has a similar list of eight “lessons”.

Gottfredson (1998) examined the various types of alternative programs funded by the Justice Department of the U.S. She concluded that the program content and goals were too varied to form a conclusion about the effectiveness of alternative schools. Cox (19965), in a meta-analysis of these programs, found that they can improved academic and social skills but had little impact on delinquency.

Lipsey and Wilson (1997) synthesized the results of 117 studies of juvenile offender programs where the young offender was treated outside of an institutional setting. Alternate schools were often a big part of these programs. On average, these programs reduced recidivism by 50% if they included counseling, multisystemic therapy, training programs, parent training, were longer than 25 weeks, were implemented faithfully and used mental health professionals rather than juvenile justice personnel.

Temporary Challenge Programs (boot camps, wilderness camps)

All of the reviews and meta-analyses of boot camps and wilderness camps indicate that the temporary “shock treatment” approach is ineffective in correcting youth behaviours. Sherman et al (1998) in their review of effective crime prevention programs for the National Institute of Justice, report that boot camps are not effective in changing the behaviours of young offenders. They cite several studies including Cowles et al (1995), Cronin (1994), Henggeler & Shoenwald (1994) and Mackenzie & Souryal (1994). Gabor (1995) reported that Canadian police and educators did not view boot camps as effective. A 1997 report from the John Howard Society of Alberta reached the same conclusions after reviewing the literature and discussing examples in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. Zachoriah (1996) also reviewed boot camps and found them to be ineffective.

Lipsey & Wilson (1997) reviewed wilderness camps as part of their meta-analysis of young offender programs and found them to be ineffective. Similar findings were reported on wilderness camps from other reviews (Stiffman et al, 1996; Greenwood, 1986; Mulvey et al, 1993).

Expulsion from School/Educational Delivery in an Institutional Setting

Most of the evaluations of residential programs that delivered high quality alternative educational programs as part of the treatment program for young offenders were positive.

Garrett (1985), Greenwood (1986) and Mulvey et at (1993) found that residential programs that focused on academic and vocational outcomes were successful with young offenders. The U.S. Department of Education (1999) found that residential programs can reduce court appearances and eliminate continual suspensions from school. Effective programs provide anger and impulse control training, psychological counseling, effective academic and remedial instruction, vocational training, active family involvement, guidance and ongoing support when the student returns to regular school. Cornell (1999) suggests that such programs can be effective with young offenders.

Lipsey & Wilson (1997), in a meta-analysis of 83 studies of residential treatment and education of young offenders found that recidivism rates were reduced by 12% on average. They suggest this is cost effective. However, they also report that they found that several programs that are currently widely used  in the U.S. were not effective.

Stiffman et al (1996), after reviewing several programs, suggest that institutional programs are not effective with young offenders.

Fitzsimmons (1998), in reviewing several programs funded by the U.S. Office of Special Education, suggests that it is in the interest of the entire community when these troubled students are served well with appropriate programs.

C.             Behavioural Expectations (school discipline/student conduct policies)

This section discusses the use of school discipline policies, student conduct rules or school codes of behaviour. Once again, we are looking for immediate outputs in regards to a safer school for all students an din correcting or deterring the behaviour of offending students. We are also looking for the long-term outcomes of a safer community.

Little research was identified in this search in regard to the effective participation of students, teachers and administrators and parents, as well as other partners such as police, school district staff, other agencies in regards to zero-tolerance, sanctions, school discipline/codes or promoting positive school climates. Consequently, we have consolidated what we found on these items in this section.

We begin the section with a general outlook at discipline rules/codes, reporting on research on how they can be effective, what should be included and how they can be and are being implemented. We also look for policies that have been adapted to meet the needs of students with behavioural disorders and students who are at high risk of offending.

We then review the roles of each of the partners in the process of discipline/codes of conduct; students, parents, teachers and school administrators, school district administrators/trustees, police officers, other agencies, community-based voluntary organizations, education ministries, justice ministries and other ministries. We also discuss their respective roles in zero-tolerance, sanctions and maintaining a positive school climate.

General Advice on School Discipline/Codes of Conduct

There is a consensus among those that have reviewed school discipline/codes of conduct (Day et al, 1995; Gottfredson et al, 1996; Sherman et al, 1998; Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, 1998; Gushee, 1984) that school policies that set reasonable, clearly understood, actively enforced behavioural expectations, for students and staff can be effective in protecting the safety of all students as well as in correcting the behaviours of offending students.

Larson (1998) suggests that these codes or discipline policies be “judicious” in their approach, with students actively engaged in discussing their righ