Preventing School Violence 1

Preventing School Violence:

A Practical Guide to Comprehensive Planning

Russ Skiba, Kimberly Boone, Angela Fontanini, Tony Wu, Allison Strassell
Indiana University

Reece Peterson
University of Nebraska-Lincoln

2000

Indiana Education Policy Center

Smith Center for Research in Education
Suite 170, 2805 E. Tenth Street
Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47401-2698

The contents of this publication were developed in part under grant #H325N990009 from the
Office of Special Education Programs, Department of Education. However those contents do not
necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and no endorsement by the
Federal Government should be assumed.
 Preventing School Violence 2

Preventing School Violence:

A Practical Guide to Comprehensive Planning

In the last three years, incidents of dramatic and shocking violence have left teachers and

students shaken, and nervous about the potential for violence at their own school. A rash of

copycat threats in school districts throughout the state of Indiana, and the seeming normalcy of

many of the shooters, has led to the inevitable but uncomfortable conclusion that serious

violence could erupt anywhere, at any time.

These concerns lead to an increasing focus on preventing school violence. Should we

implement prevention programs to improve school climate and teach students civility? Can we

identify early warning signs before the eruption of violence? Is it necessary to rely on zero

tolerance and increased use of suspension and expulsion in the face of school disruption, or are

there other options? How can schools be prepared to cope with an event of school violence or

crisis?

The message of this is that we can develop a variety of school-based programs that can

significantly reduce the threat of serious violence and disruption. An effective technology of

school safety begins with knowledge and understanding. The purpose of this paper is to outline

the current state of knowledge of school violence prevention. First, how can data about school

violence contribute to an understanding of how it might be prevented? Second, what types of

strategies for violence prevention have been most effective, and how can they be implemented?

What Do We Know About School Violence?

Overall, youth violence in the United States has increased at an alarming rate in the last

fifteen years. Homicide has become the second leading cause of death for persons aged 15 to 24,
 Preventing School Violence 3

and the leading cause of death for African-Americans in this age group. Between 1985 and 1994,

annual arrest rates for weapons carrying for youth under 18 years of age increased 104%.1

Yet little of the violence reported for children and youth occurs in school; nor does

national data show that the problem is getting worse.2 Less than one percent of homicides and

suicides among schoolchildren in the period from 1992 to 1994 were school-associated. With a

school homicide rate of less than one in a million, the chances of violent death among juveniles

are almost 40 times as great out of school as in school. While shocking and senseless shootings

give the impression of dramatic increases in school-related violence, national surveys

consistently find that school violence has stayed essentially stable or even decreased slightly

over time (see Appendix C for a listing of websites of some national reports on school violence).

Unfortunately, not all schools are equally safe. National level data suggests that middle

and high schools, especially larger schools, are more at-risk for serious violence. Moreover,

students in urban schools serving predominantly lower SES minority children remain twice as

likely to be victims of violence as students in suburban, town, or rural areas. In addressing the

tragic incidents that have occurred recently in suburban and rural schools, it is critical that the

more ongoing and severe problems of lower SES urban schools and students not be forgotten or

ignored.

Thus, data on school violence data seem to fly in the face of teacher, student, and public

opinion that school violence is extremely serious and getting worse. But while school shootings

involving multiple victims are still extremely rare from a statistical standpoint, statistics are

hardly reassuring, as long as the possibility exists that it could happen in our school, to our

children. It is probably healthier that we seek to develop effective programs to prevent any

1
For the sake of readability, references will be listed in footnote fashion at the end of the paper.
 Preventing School Violence 4

death on school grounds than that we become accustomed to increasingly horrific levels of

violence in our nation's schools.

Data on school violence may also lead to a surprising conclusion about the importance of

day-to-day discipline. In one study of rural educators, a majority of teachers and administrators

agreed that violence was worsening at their school.3 But the behaviors they reported as

escalating were not drugs, gangs, and weapons offenses, but rather behaviors indicating

incivility--rumors and peer escalation of violent events, verbal intimidation and threats, pushing

and shoving, and sexual harrassment. Similarly, national surveys report that schools with fewer

disciplinary problems in general also report fewer incidents of serious crime.

These findings have tremendously important implications, for they say that what we do in

our schools on a day to day basis in terms of discipline may be related to serious crime and

violence. By implementing comprehensive programs that improve overall school climate and

reduce minor disruption, schools may be able to reduce the risk of more serious violent incidents.

Assumptions of School Violence Prevention

This data on the relationship between “minor” discipline and incivility and serious

violence provides the basis for one of the core assumptions of effective school violence

prevention. Since day-to-day disruption and serious violence are in some way related, schools

must do all they can on a day-to-day basis to reduce the risk that minor incidents and disruptions

will escalate into serious, life-threatening violence. In particular, this module rests upon three

assumptions or principles.

Violence is Preventable. Serious and dramatic incidents of violence seem frighteningly

unpredictable, raising concerns about whether violence is indeed preventable. But prevention

can make a difference. As an analogy, it is impossible to predict with certainty who will develop
 Preventing School Violence 5

lung cancer, but on average, quitting smoking dramatically reduces the risk of lung cancer. In

the same way, there is no guarantee that schools with the most comprehensive programs will be

free of violence. But on average, schools that implement more components of violence

prevention will see fewer incidents of disruption, and probably lower their chances of serious

violence.

There is No Single Quick-Fix. In the wake of the Columbine tragedy, some schools in

Indiana and around the nation have turned to metal detectors, or tough zero tolerance

suspensions and expulsions, in the hope that a single strategy can protect schools from violence.

Unfortunately, there is little or no data that any single strategy can keep our schools safe. Rather,

the most effective programs are comprehensive, applying an array of strategies to promote a safe

school climate and respond to disruption.

Effective Prevention Requires Ongoing Planning and Commitment. School shootings

throughout the country have provided a striking reminder that “it can happen here.” There can

be no room for complacency in maintaining the safety of our schools. Rather, effective

programs promoting school safety requires ongoing planning, commitment, and collaboration on

the part of school staff, parents, and community members. If it takes a whole village to raise a

child, it takes a commitment on the part of all villagers to planned coordination to ensure the

safety of that child.

A Comprehensive Model of School Violence Prevention

Nationally recognized researchers in the field of school violence have begun to look at

what works and what doesn’t in deterring school violence. Consistently, programs that

effectively cut violence are proactive rather than reactive; involve families, students and the

community; and include multiple components that can effectively address the complexity of
 Preventing School Violence 6

school disruption and violence. 4 Indeed, preventive programs, such as bullying prevention, peer

mediation, or anger management, have far more data available to support their effectiveness than

do technology-based fixes such as metal detectors or video surveillance cameras.5

Comprehensive prevention can be highly effective in a surprisingly short period of time.

In one inner-city school with rates of dropout approaching 70%-80% among minority youth,

consultants worked with teachers, helping them increase their rates of praise and reframe

classroom rules to be more positive. In one year, school suspensions dropped by 35%, and over

the course of the three-year project, school dropout decreased by almost 40%.6

Recently, a comprehensive model of preventive discipline has begun to emerge as the

model most likely to successfully address the complexity of emotional and behavioral problems

in schools 7 The approach, grounded in the belief that there is no single solution to school

violence, prescribes intervention at three levels: I. Creating a Safe and Responsive School

Climate, II. Early Identification and Intervention, and III. Effective Responses to Disruption and

Crisis. Each of these three components is described below, along with model strategies in each

area.

I. CREATING A SAFE AND RESPONSIVE SCHOOL CLIMATE

In order to promote a safe and responsive climate for all students, primary prevention

efforts, such as conflict resolution or improved classroom management, are implemented school-

wide. As the old adage “A rising tide lifts all boats” suggests, such efforts can be beneficial for

both the general student population, and for those students more at-risk of violence. Such

programs include violence prevention and conflict resolution curricula, peer mediation programs,

and improved classroom behavior management.

 Preventing School Violence 7

Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention Curricula. In the face of pervasive

violence in our schools and society, many schools have begun to consider making violence

prevention and conflict resolution part of their curricula. Such programs rely on ongoing

instruction and discussion to change the perceptions, attitudes, and skills of students. A number

of these curricula have become available since the mid 1980’s, including conflict resolution,

violence prevention, and social problem solving curricula (see Resource List). These curricular

approaches are typically integrated into a broader program, often including components such as

peer mediation, cooperative learning, schoolwide behavior management programs, or anger

management.

A number of conflict resolution or violence curricula have documented promising

changes in student attitude and behavior. Whole school efforts, like the Resolving Conflict

Creatively Program have shown a number of positive outcomes, including teacher reports of

decreases in physical violence and increased student cooperation, and lowered suspension and

dropout rates. Consistency and commitment are highly important; students appear to show

favorable outcomes in direct relationship to how often the curriculum is taught.8

Increasing the chances of success for conflict resolution/violence prevention curricula

requires attention to a number of planning and training issues. First, since there are only a

limited number of curricula, it is important to carefully examine each curriculum to make sure it

meets the needs of students in our district: Is the material appropriate for students in our type of

geographic area? Is the material and presentation style age-appropriate? Second, conflict

resolution and violence prevention curricula require teachers to implement a variety of

instructional approaches, including modeling, discussion, videotape and roleplay. Before

implementation, staff should understand the time and effort involved, and be trained adequately
 Preventing School Violence 8

in the proposed curriculum, in order to ensure commitment to a level of instruction that will be

effective in changing student attitudes and behavior.

Peer Mediation. In peer mediation, a cadre of student mediators are taught an interest-

based negotiation procedure, along with communication and problem-solving strategies, to help

peers settle disagreement without confrontation or violence. Students come to mediation

voluntarily, and are guided by peer mediators to move from blaming each other to devising

solutions acceptable to all parties. While some peer mediation programs mediate only in

informal situations, such as the playground, others bring peer mediators into the classroom to

help resolve student disputes. Peer mediation is most often implemented as part of a broader

conflict resolution program.

A wide variety of studies have found peer mediation to be a promising strategy for

improving school climate over time.9 The use of peer mediation can substantially change how

students approach and settle conflicts: students involved in peer mediation often express a

greater willingness to help friends avoid fights and solve problems, and are less likely to believe

that certain individuals deserve to be “beaten up.” There is also evidence that implementing peer

mediation programs can be associated with fewer fights, fewer office referrals, and a decreased

rate of school suspension. Finally, for the mediators themselves, learning the mediation process

has been shown to increase self-esteem, and even improve academic achievement.

Yet peer mediation is a complex undertaking; success in implementing peer mediation

depends in large part on the adequacy of planning, training, and monitoring of the program. A

number of logistical decisions must be made before beginning a peer mediation program: Which

students will be eligible to be mediators, and how will they be chosen?; where and when will

mediation occur? To deal with these and other logistical issues it is probably necessary that there
 Preventing School Violence 9

be a facilitator or school team assigned responsibility for planning and implementation. In

addition, training student mediators in the assumptions and processes of peer mediation is

critical; it has been estimated that initial training of peer mediators requires at least a 12-15 hour

commitment. Finally, even after peer mediation has been established, ongoing monitoring of the

program is essential. Thus, successful programs include ongoing weekly or bi-weekly meetings

with student mediators to provide ongoing training, and ensure that mediators continue to be

enthusiastic and effective. With adequate attention to the details of planning, training, and

follow-up, and implemented as part of a broader school-wide program of violence prevention,

peer mediation appears to be a promising tool that can help teach students methods to settle their

conflicts without resorting to violence.

Improved Classroom Behavior Management. While some incidents of serious violence

seem to “come out of nowhere,” most incidents of school violence or serious disruption start as

less serious behavior that accelerate to the point of requiring attention. Many aggressive or

disruptive behaviors spiraling out of control might have been de-escalated by early and

appropriate responses at the classroom level.

Thirty years of study have resulted in a well-documented knowledge base regarding what

works to prevent escalation of misbehavior at the classroom level.10 In the last ten years, a

number of programs have become available integrating those findings into accessible and user-

friendly classroom management packages(see Resource List). While the programs differ in their

emphases, all tend to focus to some degree on the following principles of effective classroom

management:

1. Multiple options: Effective classrooms rely on an array of strategies (see Table 1 for
examples), that use both classroom structure (e.g., organized layout of desks to facilitate
movement, well-paced lessons), and management responses (e.g., praising appropriate
behavior) to maintain an effective learning environment.
 Preventing School Violence 10

2. Emphasize the positive: As noted above, making classroom and school environments more
positive and welcoming can be a powerful intervention to increase student connectedness.
3. Teach responsibility: The goal of classroom behavior management strategies is not simply to
control student behavior, but rather to help them move toward the development of self-
control and responsibility. Thus any classroom management strategy might be viewed as
much as instruction in social interaction, as control of misbehavior.
4. Non-emotionality: It is difficult for any of us to maintain a sense of calm in the face of
aggression and disruption; yet angry or emotional responses on the part of teachers or
administrators simply feed a cycle of escalation. Effective classroom management packages
provide a system of responses that help school personnel decelerate rather than accelerate
emotional conflict.
5. Consistency: Classroom management is really about teaching students what is and is not an
appropriate way to behave in the school and classroom. Students learn those lessons best if
classroom management procedures are consistent both within and across classrooms.
6. Early responses: Ignoring misbehavior gives students the message that posted rules are not
really in effect. While it is not necessary to treat any infraction severely, it is necessary to let
students know, through consequences appropriately geared to infractions, that the rules of the
school and classroom do have meaning and will be enforced.

School-wide classroom behavior management programs have been effective in

decreasing suspension, expulsion, and dropout, reducing teacher burnout, and improving student

on-task behavior and academic achievement. Effective classroom management programs require

commitment and perseverance, however. Student misbehavior may escalate with the

introduction of a new system, as students “test the limits.” Yet most teachers and schools find

that the additional time needed to prevent or de-escalate classroom disruption is more than made

up by the savings in time of lower office referrals and overall improvements in school climate.

Bullying Prevention. The fact that many of the school shooters of the last three years

had in fact been persecuted or picked on by their peers highlights the importance of attending to

bullying in schools. Bullying is prevalent in schools—almost one-third of elementary students,

and about 10% of secondary students report being bullied. Yet studies have found that school

personnel commonly underestimate the extent of bullying present in their school compared to

students; students are also often concerned that no action will be taken if they do report

bullying.11
 Preventing School Violence 11

Individual level interventions do not appear to be sufficient to bring bullying under

control. Rather, a whole school effort may be necessary, including interventions at the school,

class, and individual levels. First, such programs raise the awareness of teachers, parents, and

students about bullying through discussion, programs, and even videos. Second, school and

classroom policies against bullying that are enforced send a clear message that bullying is not

acceptable behavior. Increasing adult supervision in areas where monitoring is low appears to be

effective, since the majority of bullying incidents occur in these areas. Finally, individual

interventions such as assertiveness training for victims or counseling for both bullies and their

victims appears to resolve a large percentage of such incidents.12

The difficulty in implementing effective programs to deter harassment and persecution is

not one of knowledge; there are abundant studies that have shown that schools with a

commitment to bullying prevention are able to reduce its occurrence. Rather the problem may be

one of awareness and attitude. For bullying prevention to take hold, students, parents, and

teachers need to come to an awareness that victimization of some students by others is a serious

issue that needs to be addressed. With such awareness, and a school and community

commitment, such multi-component approaches appear to be able to both reduce bullying and

improve school climate.

II. EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND EARLY INTERVENTION OF STUDENTS AT-RISK FOR VIOLENCE

In most of the multiple victim school shootings of recent years, signs of trouble were

available that were to some extent overlooked. These incidents provide a wakeup call

concerning the critical importance of procedures for detecting early warning signs of violence,

and providing assistance to students who may be at-risk for violence. In an era where threats of

violence among students have become almost commonplace, teachers and administrators need to
 Preventing School Violence 12

be aware of the early warning signs of violence, and school procedures must be in place to

respond to threats. Just as important, however, are school-wide screening procedures and

mentoring or counseling programs that enable schools to identify and provide support to

alienated or at-risk youth.

Early Warning Signs. Extensive research has identified a number of warning signs for

violence and disruption that may assist schools in knowing which students need support, and

when to take action. In the wake of the Springfield, Oregon school shooting in 1998, the White

House directed the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to develop a guide to schools and

communities, entitled Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools.13

Such signs may or may not indicate a serious problem—they do not necessarily mean that
a child is prone to violence toward self or others. Rather, early warning signs provide us
with the impetus to check out our concerns and address the child’s needs. Early warning
signs allow us to act responsibly by getting help for the child before problems escalate.
(Early Warning, Timely Response, p. 6)

The early warning signs included in that guide are presented in Table 2. These signs include

some acting-out and disruptive behaviors that typically receive the most attention in school

attention. But it is also important to note that a number of the warning signs identify students

who are socially withdrawn, isolated and rejected, and may themselves have been picked on,

bullied, or persecuted. Most of the school shootings of the last three years have in fact been

perpetrated by such withdrawn and alienated youth.

While an increased awareness of risk factors for violence can be helpful to schools and

families, several important cautions must be borne in mind. First, it is important that the warning

signs not be used as a rationale for punishment or exclusion, or to label or stereotype students.

Rather, the intent is to get early help to a child at-risk for disruptive or violent behavior. Further,

it is important to understand the complexity of children’s behavior and development. Since

 Preventing School Violence 13

students at-risk for serious aggression or violence typically exhibit more than one warning sign,

it is important not to overreact to any single incident or behavior. Finally, warning signs should

always be understood within an appropriate developmental context and with common sense.

What is a warning sign at one grade level may be more typical of students at another age.

Carrying a knife to school is indeed a serious infraction and banned by the Gun-Free Schools

Act; but it is unclear whether suspending or expelling students for articles such as nailfiles makes

an important contribution to school safety. Early warning signs are most helpful if they are

interpreted as part of a serious pattern that may worsen over time, and used to provide support

for students as early as possible.

Responding to Threat. In the wake of nationally publicized school shootings, schools

have become sadly familiar with threats of violence. A survey of Indiana school superintendents

in June of 1999 found 136 copycat bomb threats in the state in the six weeks after the Columbine

shooting. These data are a striking reminder that there are many emotionally at-risk students in

our schools who might go to great extremes to make their needs known. In such a climate,

schools must be prepared with clear policies that outline roles and actions in response to threats

of school violence.

Such a plan should be available and well-publicized well in advance of threats, and

should include attention to both a chain of communication, and actions to be taken. Building- or

district-specific policies will vary, but should at the very least include the following components:

Reporting of threats by students: Students need to understand that it is in their best

interest to report threats to adults. In order to ensure that there is always someone that
students trust, a variety of options (e.g., favorite teacher, guidance counselor, coach,
parent, administrator) should be offered with whom students can share their concerns.
Students may need some guidance and discussion concerning what constitutes a
reportable threat or warning sign, and must be assured they will be protected from
retribution for their report.
 Preventing School Violence 14

Taking threats seriously: School and community dialogue should emphasize that parents
and teachers cannot afford to dismiss certain reports, but need to pass all reports along to
school administration, and perhaps local law enforcement. Students may feel they are
putting themselves at some risk by reporting; if there is no response to a serious report,
both reporters and their peers will be less likely to communicate future incidents.

Pre-planned responses: The time to decide what action to take in response to a threat is
well in advance, not in the chaotic time after a threat. School psychologists or local
mental health centers might be called upon to conduct a threat assessment. In some cases,
suspension or expulsion may be conditional: that is, the return to school of a student
making a serious threat is conditioned on the completion of a risk or threat assessment.
Whatever the policy, it should be planned, written, and communicated to all staff in
advance, to avoid panic in a threat situation.

Relationships with local law enforcement and mental health agencies: Some threats,
especially those involving possession of a firearm, require contact with local law
enforcement officials. In all cases, however, a well-established relationship with the
local police department and mental health agencies that allows clear and open
communication regarding any threat is extremely helpful. Who will make the report, and
to whom? Further information on collaboration of education, law enforcement, and
mental health agencies is presented below, in the section on Crisis Intervention.

In summary, threats against students, teachers, or school property must be taken seriously.

Students must know that they are safe making reports, those reports must be acted upon, and

policies and procedures must be planned and communicated to all staff well in advance of

threats.

Risk Assessment and School-Wide Screening. When early or imminent warning signs

or threats are detected, team-based procedures should be in place to assess the seriousness of

those signs or threats. Guides for implementing early warning signs recommend a core

consultation team that includes mental health professionals. The school psychologist or other

members of the team can evaluate the seriousness of behavioral or emotional warning signs

through interviews with the student, consultation with those who know the child, and

standardized measures of emotional and behavioral functioning. In evaluating early warning

signs, collaboration with teachers, staff, and parents is important, especially in developing
 Preventing School Violence 15

appropriate intervention strategies. In the case of imminent warning signs or threats, more

expedited decisions may require a smaller group of decision-makers; but even here, close

communication with community mental health, child service agencies, law enforcement and

parents will yield more appropriate and well-considered decisions.

The sheer number of threats made against schools may also argue for a more proactive

approach to the early identification of students. Commercially-available school-wide screening

measures (e.g. Systematic Screening for Behavioral Disorders14 ) may provide schools a

valuable tool for early identification of students in need, and another method for identifying at-

risk students before they escalate into disruption or violence. These systems use a variety of

rankings, ratings, and observation to identify students with emotional and behavioral needs who

may need intervention or support.

Finally, some schools are beginning to consider using school disciplinary code violations

as an index to better identify and support students in need of behavioral or emotional assistance.

In this type of system, a certain number or type of disciplinary infractions might be considered a

flag that would trigger a team consultation or the development of an individual plan. One major

advantage of this approach is that it uses data already available at most schools. In addition, the

use of documented incidents may put schools and school teams on firmer legal footing.15

Early Intervention: Mentoring and Counseling. In using early warning signs or

screening procedures, identification is only half the battle; there must also be programs in place

that can help reconnect students identified as at-risk for violence. Both mentoring and

counseling can provide structures that allow us to rebuild important connections

In mentoring, a supportive one-to-one relationship is structured between an adult or older

peer to provide support and guidance for an at-risk student. The mentor and the child typically
 Preventing School Violence 16

meet one to two times a week, and engage in a variety of activities including tutoring, discussion,

field trips, or community service; as important as any activity, however, is the opportunity for the

at-risk student to develop a trusting relationship with an adult. The most comprehensive

program of mentoring is the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America program; national evaluations

of that program have shown it to be a highly promising program for addressing issues of school

violence. A number of other school- or community-based program have shown that such

programs can decrease students’ violent attitudes, raise self-esteem and career aspirations, and

improve social skills and academic achievement.16

A number of components have been found to be key in developing an effective mentoring

program. Clearly, there can be no effective mentoring without quality mentors: the selection of

committed and responsible mentors must be assured, as well as training for working with

students who may be difficult to work with. Mentoring requires a long-term commitment; some

programs have reported that a relationship of at least a year must be in place before significant

changes can be observed. Ongoing meetings among mentors can provide support and evaluation,

assisting mentors in solving problems that may arise. Finally, although solely school-based

mentoring programs are possible, involving both parents and the community in mentoring

appears to increase the success of the program.

A closely related intervention, counseling, has been widely recommended during the

national discussion on school violence. Yet the success of counseling appears to be highly

variable, depending upon the type of problem being addressed. For students experiencing

depression, cognitive-behavioral group counseling approaches have been shown to be quite

effective over a relatively short time period. For students with acting-out or antisocial behavior,
 Preventing School Violence 17

counseling is unlikely to be effective, and placing such students together in a group counseling

situation may in fact make the problem worse.17

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing schools in the implementation of effective

counseling programs is to ensure that there are mental health professionals with sufficient time

available to engage in counseling. If school psychologists are engaged primarily in assessment

activities, and school counselors in guidance functions, these professionals will simply not have

time to develop effective counseling relationships with at-risk students. For counseling to be an

effective component in school violence prevention, additional time must be found for mental

health professionals to engage in counseling. This might be accomplished either by hiring

additional psychologists, counselors, or school social workers, or by re-allocating time of

existing personnel so that mental health professionals are able to spend a greater proportion of

their effort in developing preventive mental health programs.

III. EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SCHOOL DISRUPTION OR CRISIS

Despite our best efforts, it is likely that there will always be some level of disruption and

perhaps even violence requiring an appropriate response. Schools that are safe and responsive

have plans and procedures in place to deal with violent and disruptive behaviors that do occur.

Over-reliance on suspension and expulsion is replaced by an extensive array of options that can

be matched to the severity of the offense. In particular, well-prepared schools and districts have

in place crisis intervention plans that detail the roles and procedures used to respond to crisis

events.

Is Zero Tolerance an Effective Response? Recent national events, such as the two year

expulsion of eight students for fighting in Decatur, Illinois, have thrust zero tolerance school

discipline policies into the national spotlight. Zero tolerance has gained wide popularity among
 Preventing School Violence 18

politicians and many administrators for its promise of a no-nonsense solution to a difficult

problem.

Yet the application of zero tolerance policies have created controversy at the state and

national level.18 Some districts supporting a zero tolerance approach have reported initial

increases in weapons confiscated. Yet at the same time, strict application of zero tolerance has

led to numerous cases of suspension or expulsion for everything from paper clips to organic

cough drops, Midol, or homework completion.

The zero tolerance approach has also led to increases in the use of school suspension and

expulsion; unfortunately, there is no evidence that suspension and expulsion are effective in

changing student behavior or improving school safety. Despite a widespread perception that

suspension and expulsion are reserved for serious incidents, those consequences are often used

indiscriminately; in 1997-98, only about 4% of the suspensions and expulsions in Indiana were

in response to serious disruptions. Moreover, exclusionary approaches tend to be used

inconsistently: one researcher concluded that students wishing to reduce their rates of suspension

would do better changing schools than improving their behavior or attitudes. Of serious concern

is the racial and economic bias that often seems to accompany the use of suspension and

expulsion: African-Americans have typically been found to be suspended at a rate two to three

times that of other students, and are sometimes punished more severely for less severe behavior.

Finally, while there is little data on the short-term effectiveness of suspension, in the long term, it

is associated with higher rates of school dropout.

The message of zero tolerance is politically appealing, giving parents and communities

the perception that schools are being tough on crime. While there are doubtless situations in

which removing a child from school is necessary for that child or others’ safety, at present we
 Preventing School Violence 19

have no evidence that punishment and exclusion can in and of themselves solve problems of

school violence, or teach students alternatives to violence.

Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion: An Array of Disciplinary Options. If we are to

break the cycle of violence in American society, we must begin to look beyond a program of

stiffer consequences to an array of effective responses geared toward the seriousness of the

offense. A number of such alternative responses might be made available:

In-school disciplinary alternatives: Saturday school or in-school suspension keep

students in school while being disciplined. The effectiveness of in-school suspension

seems to depend on its implementation; programs with a well-trained supervisor that

require students to continue their academic assignments are more likely to be effective.

Restitution: Restitution involves “setting things right” and is typically geared to the

nature of the offense. Thus, vandals might be expected to clean up the vandalism, or

perhaps even participate in a project to improve the physical environment.

Anger management: Aggressive students often lack self-control in social situations,

perceiving the actions of others to be more hostile than they really are. Anger

management classes or programs help aggressive students change their perceptions and

learn alternative behaviors in conflict situations.

Individual behavior plans: In functional assessment, school psychologists or special

education consultants use interviews, checklists, and observation to better understand the

reasons for disruptive behavior, and develop a specific plan to address the behaviors of

concern. Under the most recent revision of special education law, schools are responsible

for conducting functional behavioral assessments and developing individual behavior

plans for special education students in danger of a change in placement as a result of their
 Preventing School Violence 20

behavior. While required for some special education students, the technology of

functional assessment and individual behavior plans may provide a useful tool as well for

dealing with the most difficult and problematic youngsters, whether disabled or non-

disabled.

Alternative disciplinary methods: To shift the burden of discipline from

administrators, some schools have developed alternative strategies or procedures for

determining or assigning disciplinary consequences. Teen court uses a panel of students

to hear disciplinary infractions and assign consequences. In restorative justice, students

who have harmed another student are forced to face their victim and confront their action,

with the goal being to engage in actions that restore a sense of justice.

Alternative settings: Some students problems may be so severe as to require an

alternative setting in which to continue their education for some period of time. Well-

planned and coordinated alternative schools may meet the needs of some students.

Referral to special education may also provide some students with the more structured

environment that they require.

Community team approaches: The problems of disruptive and violent youth are often

highly complex, cutting across school, family, and the community. Thus, for the most

severe cases, it is critical that child serving agencies—education, mental health, welfare,

and law enforcement—act in concert. Recently, interagency approaches such as

wraparound teams have become more widely used, increasing the communication and

collaboration of child-serving agencies, and allowing them to develop comprehensive

community-based plans for disruptive youth and their families.

 Preventing School Violence 21

It may well be that suspension and expulsion are often overused because there is simply no other

alternative available. Developing an array of options for dealing with disruptive or violent

behavior may reduce the need for suspension and expulsion, while at the same time keeping

more students present and engaged in school.

Crisis Intervention and Management. Watching many schools and districts be

overwhelmed by the tragedies played out in living rooms throughout America in the last two

years has led many administrators to wonder how their own school and district would react in the

face of a crisis or strategy. The overwhelming conclusion reached by those who have lived

through such a situation, and those who consider such possibilities carefully, is that planning is

better than panic. All personnel and agencies must be prepared to respond in the face of crisis,

must communicate that knowledge to all stakeholders, and must be prepared to deal with the

aftermath of tragedy. In recent school firearm incidents at the national level, quick thinking by

well-trained school safety coordinators may have prevented serious tragedy or loss of life.20

Three important components of planning for and responding to crisis should be kept in mind.

First, a well-developed crisis intervention plan is essential. The plan must specify the

members and roles of the crisis response team, and describe training and communication. All

staff must know all codes signaling emergencies, and be clear about what course of action to take

in response to each type of announcement. Communication systems should be checked

beforehand to ensure that all staff will receive notice of emergency announcements. Contacts

with local law enforcement and mental health, the process by which those contacts must be

made, and the roles of each agency during the crisis must all be pre-identified. Since crisis

events can also spark rumor and misinformation, the plan should specify how facts about the

incident will be gathered and reported. A well-developed plan must also specify actions to
 Preventing School Violence 22

manage the media; where will they be stationed? who will speak with the media? how will

students and parents be protected from unnecessary intrusions. Teams and individuals planning

crisis response are encouraged to consult the Resource List for available resources 19 to assist in

developing procedures and forms for their crisis plan.

Just as importantly, the plan must be communicated: even the best of plans provide no

protection if they simply languish on a shelf. All plans must be action plans that include a

schedule of staff training, plans for communication with parents, and a schedule of ongoing

meetings and communication among responsible community agencies. It is important to resolve

the question of drill as part of the planning process; while some may argue that drills in crisis

management seem to simply alarm students, others note that practice vastly decreases the

likelihood of panic. What is important, however, is that the school safety team come to a

considered decision on school crisis drills that reflects the needs of the school and community.

Communication of the plan to students is another area requiring careful consideration. Revealing

all communication codes obviously reduces their effectiveness in an emergency; on the other

extreme, failing to have adequately communicated crisis plans to students may leave them

confused and panicky in an emergency.

Finally, a crisis plan is not complete without planning for the aftermath of a crisis. An

adequate plan takes into account the highly-charged nature of crisis, and plans for mental health

services to meet the needs of victims, their families, and their friends. Which school mental

health professionals (e.g., school psychologists, school counselors, school social workers) or

community mental health agencies will be responsible for grief or trauma counseling? How will

counseling be made available to students, staff, or parents? How will the facts of the situation be

communicated to parents and the community? Crisis planning resources typically provide
 Preventing School Violence 23

sample forms for communicating about a crisis event; having letters, procedures, and sample

press notices pre-planned and on file will make it more likely that communication about a crisis

event will be thoughtful and compassionate, not inflammatory.

Conclusion: Zero Tolerance vs. Early Response

Heart-wrenching tragedies in schools across our nation, and numerous copy-cat threats in

the wake of those incidents, have taught two important lessons in preventing school violence.

First, it can happen here. School violence is not restricted by economic or geographic status; all

schools and communities are vulnerable, and all must be prepared. Second, there is no quick-fix

solution for school violence. Politically popular zero tolerance approaches may in the short term

give parents and communities the impression of a “no-nonsense” response to violence, but there

is little or no evidence that those strategies have improved student behavior or made schools

safer.

In place of zero tolerance, school communities might well consider an “early response”

policy toward violence. Like zero tolerance, an early response strategy assumes that early

intervention for school disruption is crucial; ignored or unattended, minor disruption may well

escalate into serious violence. Yet an early response approach emphasizes proactive and

appropriate intervention, not exclusion and punishment. As can be noted in Table 3, while zero

tolerance seeks to isolate and remove troublemakers after the occurrence of violence or

disruption, early response seeks to decrease the possibility of violence by creating a positive

school climate, and by reconnecting those students who are most at-risk for committing violent

acts.

Developing safe and responsive schools requires the close collaboration of schools,

agencies, parents, and students themselves. For too long, we have expected school personnel
 Preventing School Violence 24

alone to solve problems of disruption and violence in the school. Yet the most difficult

problems, and the most difficult students, are far too complex for any one agency to manage

successfully. Rather, strong and effective connections must be forged between schools, mental

health agencies, law enforcement, and social welfare agencies to address the multiple needs of

students at-risk of violence. Similarly, involving parents in all stages of planning and response to

school violence will vastly increase the resources available to schools, and increase the

consistency of our interventions across home and school. Finally, it is critical that students be

provided with opportunities to contribute to dialogue and planning for safe schools. Student

perspectives on conflict and violence are often far different than the perspectives held by school

personnel; if students are expected to assist in the identification of their potentially violent peers,

it will probably be important to listen to their views on how to ensure their involvement.

Our nation’s schools have made exemplary progress in preparing our students

academically to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Yet the best instructional systems will

be for naught if we cannot ensure our children’s safety, or teach them how to live and work

together civilly. The development of safe and responsive schools requires a comprehensive and

long-term planning process, an array of effective strategies, and a partnership of school, family,

and community. Unfortunately, there is no way to guarantee that a school will not experience

serious disruption or violence, even with an extensive plan. Yet in the face of deadly violence

that could threaten our school and community at any time, we have little choice but to put our

best energy into preventive planning that can increase the probability that our children will attend

schools that are safe and violence-free.

 Preventing School Violence 25

References

1 Centers for Disease Control National Center for Injury Control and Prevention (1996). Ten
leading causes of death, United States, 1996. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1997).
Uniform crime reports for the United States, 1996. Washington, D. C.: US Department of
Justice.

2 Reports of levels and trends in school violence may be found in a number of national reports,
for example: Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and
discipline problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97. (NCES 98-030). Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; see also Chandler,
K. A., Chapman, C. D., Rand, M. R., & Taylor, B. M. (1998). Students' reports of school
crime: 1989 and 1995 (NCES Report 98-241). Washington, D.C.: U. S. Departments of
Education and Justice.

3 Peterson, G. J., Beekley, C. Z., Speaker, K. M. & Pietrzak, D. (1996). An examination of

violence in three rural school districts. Rural Educator, 19 (3), 25-32.

4 Elliott, D. S., Hamburg, B. A., & Williams, K. R. (1998). Violence in American schools: A
New Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gottfredson, D. (1997). School-
based crime prevention. In L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Ruter, &
S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report
to the United States Congress (pp. 1-74). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs.

5 Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to
safe schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372-382.

6 Meyer, G. R., Mitchell, L.K., Clementi,T., & Clement-Robertson, E., (1993). A dropout
prevention program for at-risk high school students: Emphasizing consulting to promote
positive climates. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 135-146.

7 American Psychological Association (1993). Violence and youth: Psychology's response.

Washington, D.C.: Author. Dwyer, K., Osher, D., and Warger, C. (1998). Early warning,
Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools. Washington, DC: US Department of
Education. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker,
D., Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns
among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4),
194-209.

8 Tolan, P., & Guerra, N. (1994). What works in reducing adolescent violence: An empirical
review of the field. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence.
 Preventing School Violence 26

9 For an excellent review of peer mediation programs, see Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.
(1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary
schools: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 66, 459-506.

10 Black, Susan. (1994). Throw away the hickory stick.. Executive Educator. 16 (4), 44-47.
Gettinger,-Maribeth (1988). Methods of proactive classroom management. School
Psychology Review,17, 227-242.

11 Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of
Educational Research, 92, 86-99. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know
and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

12 Elsea, M., & Smith, P. K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in
primary schools. Educational Research, 40, 203-218.

13 Dwyer, K., Osher, D., and Warger, C. (1998). Early warning, Timely Response: A Guide to
Safe Schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

14 Walker, H.M., & Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders
(SSBD): User’s guide and administration manual (2nd Ed.). Longmont, CA: Sopris West.

15 James, B. (1999, December). School safety and the law. Presented at the Orientation
Meeting of the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy, Indianapolis, IN. In his
comments, Dr. James noted that use of "known offender" status will likely be a more
defensible approach for early identification if districts are forced to defend their procedures
legally.

16 Sharon F. Mihalic and Jennifer K. Grotpeter (1997) Blueprints For Violence Prevention:
Book Two--Big Brothers/ Big Sisters of America. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral
Science. See also Terry J. (1999). The positive effects of mentoring economically
disadvantaged students. Professional School Counseling.

17 Reynolds, W. M. (1991). Psychological intervention for depression in children and

adolescents (pp. 649-684). In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions
for Achievement and Behavior Problems. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.

18 For a review of the history and application of zero tolerance policies, see Skiba, R. J., &
Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372-382.

19 American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress. (1999). A practical guide for crisis
response in our schools. Commack, NY: Author.
 Preventing School Violence 27

20 In recent events in Cleveland, Ohio and Miami, Florida, school staff and safety coordinators,
acting on their training were able to intervene quickly in a weapons situation, preventing
serious harm to students.
 Preventing School Violence 29

TABLE 1. STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTING BEHAVIORAL ESCALATION a

Prevention

• Lively and interesting activities

• Make rules and procedures clear
• Meaningful tasks
• Variety
• Humor and enthusiasm

Nonverbal Cues
• Make eye contact
• Proximity (moving close to a student)
• Light hand on shoulder

Praising Correct Behavior Incompatible with Misbehavior

• "Catch 'em being good"

Praising Other Students

• Ignore misbehavior
• Praise the behavior you're hoping for
• Praise others whose behavior changes

Verbal Reminders

• Give reminders immediately after misbehavior

• State what students should do
• Focus on the behavior not the student

Repeated Reminders

• Response to "testing"
• "Broken record strategy"
• Avoid argument

Applying Consequences

• Remove from activity, lose privilege

• Mildly unpleasant, short in duration, immediate
• Certainty more important than severity
• Followthrough, then let it go

a Adapted from Slavin, R. E. (1994). Educational Pschology: Theory and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 Preventing School Violence 30

Table 2. Early Warning Signs Listed in Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe
Schools

Sign Description

Social withdrawal Gradual or complete withdrawal from social contacts, stemming from
feelings of depression, rejection, persecution, unworthiness, and lack of
confidence
Excessive feelings of In some cases, feelings of isolation and lack of friends are a risk factor for
isolation and being alone aggression and violence.
Excessive feelings of Children who are troubled often are isolated from their peers, without
rejection. support, may be at-risk for expressing their emotional distress in violence.
Being a victim of violence Victims of violence-including physical or sexual abuse--are sometimes at
risk of themselves of becoming violent toward themselves or others
Feelings of being picked Being picked on, teased, bullied, ridiculed, and humiliated may cause a
on and persecuted. child to withdraw socially, and without adequate support, to eventually
vent these feelings through aggression or violence.
Low school interest; poor When a low achiever feels frustrated, unworthy, chastised, and denigrated,
academic performance. acting out and aggressive behaviors may occur.
Expression of violence in An overrepresentation of violence in writings and drawings directed at
writings and drawings specific individuals (family members, peers, teachers) over time.
Uncontrolled anger Anger that is expressed frequently and intensely in response to minor
irritants may signal potential violent behavior toward self or others.
Impulsive and chronic Some mildly aggressive behaviors such as hitting and bullying common in
hitting, intimidating, early childhood may, if left unattended, escalate into more serious
bullying. behaviors
History of discipline Chronic behavior and disciplinary problems in school and at home may
problems suggest unmet emotional needs, setting the stage for the child to violate
norms and rules, defy authority, disengage from school, and engage in
aggressive behaviors with other children and adults.
Past history of violent and Unless provided with support and counseling, a youth with a history of
aggressive behavior. aggressive and violent behavior directed toward other individuals. Youth
with an early pattern of frequent antisocial behavior across multiple
settings are particularly at risk.
Intolerance for Intense prejudice based on racial, ethnic, religious, language, gender,
differences, and sexual orientation or physical appearance; membership in hate groups or a
prejudicial attitudes. willingness to victimize those with disabilities or health problems.
Drug use and alcohol use. Drug use and alcohol use reduces self-control and exposes children and
youth to violence, either as perpetrators, as victims, or both.
Affiliation with gangs. Gangs that support anti-social values and behaviors--including extortion,
intimidation, and acts of violence toward other students—cause fear and
stress among other students.
Serious threats of violence. One of the most reliable indicators of a dangerous act toward self or
others is a detailed and specific threat to use violence. Steps must be
taken to understand the nature of these threats and to prevent them from
being carried out.
 Preventing School Violence 31

Table 3. Zero Tolerance vs. Early Response School

Discipline

Zero Tolerance Early Response

Timing Respond only after Attempt to respond to each misbehavior

disruptive behavior or early in the sequence. Implement
violence has occurred preventive strategies to reduce the
likelihood of disruption and violence.
Response Severe response to both Appropriate response geared to the
major and minor seriousness of the incident.
misbehavior
Purpose Reassert authority, punish Teach alternatives to violent and
aggressive responses; appropriate degree
of
Outcome Confrontation, exclusion Decelerate disruptive behavior; reject
inappropriate behavior not behaver;
attempt to keep at-risk students invested
in education
Scope Reactive: Attempting to re- Comprehensive and preventive; building a
establish order safe school climate

Strategies Exclusion, school security Wide range of strategies in three areas:

technology, punishment creating climate, early identification,
effective responses
Effectiveness Little data available on Some to good data, depending on the
school security. Negative specific strategy used. More data
findings on suspension and needed.
expulsion.
 Preventing School Violence 32

Representative National Surveys of Disruption and Violence in Public Schools a

(NOTE: While not cited specifically, I think this could be a valuable sidebar for readers)

! National Center for Educational Statistics. Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public
Schools, 1996-1997.
In one of the more comprehensive recent surveys on school violence, the NCES surveyed a nationally
representative sample of 1,234 school principals or disciplinarians at the elementary, middle, and high
school level on crime and disciplinary problems. The report discusses the most prevalent issues of
crime and discipline, as well as the most typical responses reported by respondents.

! Annual Report on School Safety: October, 1998.

A joint publication of the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, the Annual Report on School
Safety summarizes a number of previous studies, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the Survey
Research Center of the University of Michigan. In addition to summarizing statistics on school violence,
the report includes extensive information on collaborative approaches, model programs, and resources
for preventing school violence.

! National Center for Educational Statistics. Students' Reports of School Crime: 1989 and 1995.
A collaboration of the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice, this report compares
nationally representative surveys of approximately 10,000 students between the ages of 12 and 19 for
the years 1989 and 1995. The data were drawn from the 1995 School Crime Supplement (SCS), part of
the National Crime Victimization Survey. Respondents were asked about crimes that had occurred on
school grounds during the six months previous to the interview.

! Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School-Associated Deaths in the United States, 1992
to 1994. (Kachur et al., 1996).
This study, a collaboration of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program, and the National Institutes of Justice, was published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association. The authors located and studied published reports of 105 school-associated violent
deaths from 1992-1994, then followed up with police reports, medical examiners' records, and
interviews with police and school officials, to provide an epidemiological picture across the cases.

! Justice Policy Institute. School House Hype: School Shootings and the Real Risks Kids Face in
America.
This report summarizes data from a number of sources to "provide a comprehensive picture of crime
and shootings in school as compared to non-school violence." By placing the recent school shootings in
context, the report argues that an overemphasis on multiple victim school shootings has resulted in a
"tragic misdirection of attention and resources." The report recommends expanding after-hours school
programs, restricting mass gun sales, and beginning a national discussion on the broader context of
school violence.
______________________________________________________________________________
a
These are not intended to be a comprehensive listing of the many school violence and disruption surveys currently
available, but rather those sources used in this chapter. A more complete listing of these and other resources may be found
in Appendix A, and in the references.