Quote of the Day

	Safe and responsive schools have plans and procedures in place to deal with violent and disruptive behaviors. Over-reliance on suspension and expulsion should be replaced by an extensive array of options that match the severity of the offense. Well-prepared schools also formulate crisis intervention plans that detail the roles and procedures used to respond to crisis events. Zero tolerance has gained popularity as a no-nonsense solution to a difficult problem. The application of zero-tolerance policies has created controversy, however. Some districts supporting a zero-tolerance approach have reported initial increases in the number of confiscated weapons. But strict application of zero tolerance has led to numerous cases of suspension or expulsion for possession of everything from paper clips to organic cough drops (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). The zero-tolerance approach has also led to increases in the use of school suspension and expulsion. There is no evidence that suspension and expulsion are effective in changing student behavior or improving school safety. Despite zero-tolerance policies, these 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 (Wu, Pink, Cram, & Moles, 1982). Of serious concern is the racial and economic bias that often seems to accompany suspension and expulsion: African-Americans have been found to be suspended at a rate two to three times that of other students (Children’s Defense Fund, 1975; Costenbader & Mark-son, 1998; Thornton & Trent, 1988) and punished more severely for less severe behavior. Finally, while there are few data on the short-term effectiveness of suspension, in the long term, it is associated with higher rates of school dropout (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986). While there are situations in which removing a child from school is necessary for that child or others’ safety, at present we have no evidence that punishment and exclusion can solve problems of school violence or teach students alternatives to violence. Alternatives to suspension and expulsion. We must look beyond a program of stiffer consequences to an array of effective responses geared toward the seriousness of the offense. Alternative responses include the following: In-school disciplinary alternatives—Saturday school or in-school suspension keep students in school while they are being disciplined. Programs with a well-trained supervisor who requires students to continue their academic assignments are more likely to be effective. Restitution—Restitution involves "setting things right" and is geared to the nature of the offense. For example, vandals might be expected to clean up the vandalism. Anger management—Anger management classes or programs help 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 that are of concern. Alternative disciplinary methods—Some schools have developed alterative strategies or procedures for disciplinary consequences. For example, "Teen Court" uses a panel of students to hear disciplinary infractions and assign consequences. Alternative settings—Some students’ issues may be so severe that they require alternative placement. Community team approaches—For the most severe cases of disruptive and violent youth, it is critical that child-serving agencies act in concert using such interagency approaches as wraparound teams. Crisis intervention and management. Planning is better than panic. All personnel and agencies should be prepared to respond in the face of crisis, communicate that knowledge to all stakeholders, and deal with the aftermath of tragedy. Three important components of planning for and responding to crisis should be kept in mind. Develop a crisis intervention plan—The plan must specify the members and roles of the crisis response team and describe training and communication of all involved, including staff; law enforcement and mental health agencies, and the media. Make certain all plans are action plans—All plans should include a schedule of staff training, plans for communication with parents, and a schedule of ongoing meetings and communication among responsible community agencies. Include an aftermath plan—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.
	RUSSELL SKIBA et al. Skiba, R.; Peterson, R.L.; Boone, K. and Fontanini, A. (2000). Preventing school violence with comprehensive planning. Reaching Today’s Youth. Vol. 5. No. 1. p. 61