Zero evidence for zero tolerance

Zero evidence for zero tolerance: Indiana University study finds no support for harsh discipline in schools

Can the use of zero tolerance in school discipline improve student behavior or lead to safer schools? Probably not, concludes a report released by the Indiana Education Policy Center at the Indiana University School of Education.

The report, "Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice," is a review of the use of zero tolerance by schools for certain student behaviors. Zero Tolerance, as a school disciplinary guide, dates its inception in the 1980s. Since that time, schools have experimented with the concept by including a wide variety of behaviors as "untolerant." Peraps no other disciplinary concept has at first gained such widespread support only later to be the focus of the wrath of so many of those same supporters. The parent is quick to applaud "zero tolerance" for drinking by high school athletes until it is his child caught with a beer in hand. Suddenly, the "zero tolerance" policy threatens to take away the potential college athletic scholarship! As educators, many of us have been between this proverbial "rock and hard place."

Interestingly, the Indiana University study finds no credible evidence that "zero tolerance" works. Specifically, the reasearchers began the study with the assumption that removing students from school has in fact made a contribution to school safety.

The report finds that although the use of suspension and expulsion for non-dangerous behavior places an increasing number of students at risk for being removed from school, those risks are in no way justified by the results of zero tolerance.

"Zero tolerance is a political response, not an educationally sound solution," said IU Professor Russell Skiba, director of the Safe and Responsive Schools Project in the IU School of Education and author of the report. "It sounds impressive to say that we're taking a tough stand against misbehavior, but the data say it simply hasn't been effective in improving student behavior or ensuring school safety."

"Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence" is available on the Indiana Education Policy Center's Web site (http://ceep.indiana.edu/) or the Safe and Responsive Schools Project's Web site (http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/publication.html).

Among the report's findings:

• Suspension and expulsion are not reserved for serious misbehavior, and in fact are often used in response to minor misbehavior or attendance-related issues.

• Minority students, especially African-American students, are consistently overexposed to suspension and expulsion, despite a lack of evidence that those students act out more.
• Zero tolerance is used so inconsistently across schools and school districts that some researchers have concluded that students wishing to lower their chances of being suspended should change schools rather than change their behavior.
• High rates of recidivism suggest that zero tolerance is not effective in changing student behavior.
• The use of zero tolerance may increase school dropout. For example, students who have been suspended are more likely to drop out by 10th grade.

Schools that use harsh and punitive discipline risk a number of negative student reactions, including anger, aggression and even severe emotional reactions. In particular, the report suggests that suspension and expulsion may actually increase risks of juvenile delinquency by giving at-risk students more time out on the street with other antisocial youth.

"Behavioral psychology teaches us that punishment is only effective if it changes behavior," Skiba said. "Some of these results suggest that suspension and expulsion may act more as a reward than as a punishment for some students."

Published by the Indiana Education Policy Center, a nonpartisan educational research center, the report notes that many school districts have begun to move away from zero tolerance policies and lists a number of implications for educators wishing to make school discipline more effective:

1. Avoid one-size-fits-all punishments. Institute a graduated system of consequences where the punishment fits the offense.
2. Expand the array of options available to schools for dealing with student misbehavior.
3. Implement preventive measures that can improve school climate and reconnect alienated students.

The report concludes that preventive approaches, such as prevention of bullying and improved classroom management, hold greater promise than zero tolerance for improving student behavior and reducing violence.

"We sometimes assume that we need zero tolerance because prevention takes too long to work," Skiba noted. "But our best knowledge suggests that schools are more likely to be able to reduce their chances of violence by putting in place preventive programs that teach students how to solve their problems without resorting to violence."

One phrase from Dr. Skiba bears repeating: we need to "...teach students how to solve their problems..."

Teaching problem-solving skills has been an educational goal for centuries. But teaching those skills in the context of behavior improvement is the one light at the end of the journey toward truly safe schools for all students. The Advantage Press has taken a small step toward that end by making available "Discipline Learning Packets." Student read about rules and set goals for their own behavior in light of those rules.

Discipline packets offer logical consequences for student misbehavior--students work on packets that actually match the school rule they violated. They read professionally prepared materials and answer questions to help them modify their actions. There are even packets to address the attitude behind the misbehavior. Packets are available for students in grades 2-12 along with packets for special education students. Find out more about our Discipline Learning Packets at our website.