Your search found 263200 results.

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Crime; Career Centers; Violence; State Legislation; Public Policy; Student Behavior; Weapons; School Safety; Federal Legislation; Compliance (Legal); Reports; Trend Analysis; Suspension; Expulsion; Discipline; Alcohol Abuse; Smoking; Drug Abuse; Rehabilitation; Special Schools; Technical Education; Nontraditional Education; Geographic Location

Abstract:
The "Code of Virginia" (Section 22.1-279.3:1) requires school divisions statewide to submit data to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) on incidents of discipline, crime, and violence (DCV). School divisions began reporting such data in 1991. This annual report focuses primarily on DCV data submitted for school year 2010-2011, with selected comparisons to prior years. DCV data are used also to complete federal reports required by the "Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994" ("GFSA," Sec. 14061) and the "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" ("IDEA"). "GFSA" requires annual reporting of the number of students suspended or expelled statewide for possessing or bringing firearms on school property; "IDEA" contains requirements for reporting disciplinary actions involving students with disabilities. This report is organized into six major sections: (1) Background; (2) Incidents Reported in 2010-2011; (3) Disciplinary Outcomes; (4) Violations Reported as Part of the "Gun-Free Schools Act" Requirements; (5) Regional Data; and (6) Regional Centers and Programs. Section I provides background information about statutory requirements for reporting discipline, crime, and violence (DCV) data, the reporting process and procedures, how DCV data are used, limitations of the data, and sources of additional related information. Section II focuses on statewide incident data for 2010-2011, with selected comparisons to previous years. Included is an overview of all incidents reported and examinations of incidents against students, incidents against staff, and weapons incidents. Numerous tables and charts provide detailed information on incidents reported. Section III focuses on disciplinary outcomes in 2010-2011. Included are an overview of all disciplinary outcomes and examinations of offenses resulting in short-term suspensions (1-10 days), in long-term suspensions (11-364 days), in expulsions (365 days), and in modified expulsions. Disciplinary outcomes for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug-related offenses and for weapons-related offenses are also reported. Section IV focuses on firearm incidents that were reported by the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) to the U.S. Department of Education (USED) as part of the Gun-Free Schools Act requirements. Section V reports data for each of Virginia's eight superintendents' regions. For each region, there is a demographic profile and a summary of the most frequently reported offenses. Tables summarizing incidents are also included for each region and for school divisions within each region. Section VI reports data for all regional centers and programs throughout Virginia. There are four categories of centers and/or programs. They are as follows: Governor's Schools, Special Education Centers/Programs, Technical and Career Centers, and Alternative Education Centers/Programs. Appended are: (1) Applicable State and Federal Laws; (2) Offenses Required to be Reported 2010-2011; (3) Offense Codes Used to Identify Persistently Dangerous Schools, 2010-2011; (4) Superintendent's Memos COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA; (5) Cross walk for offense code extractions 2010-2011; (6) All Incidents for All Regions by Offense Codes; and (7) Related Documents and Information Resources. (Contains 31 tables and 15 footnotes.) [For "Annual Report: Discipline, Crime, and Violence, School Year 2009-2010," see ED539424.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (844K)

Descriptors:
Student Behavior; School Safety; Juvenile Justice; Zero Tolerance Policy; Suspension; Expulsion; Punishment; Victims of Crime; School Districts; Elementary Secondary Education; Discipline

Abstract:
Over the past decade, many schools have adopted zero-tolerance policies to curtail negative student behavior. Such policies persist although "there is as yet little evidence that the strategies typically associated with zero tolerance contribute to improved student behavior or overall school safety." Suspension and expulsion result in negative outcomes for both schools and students. Much more effective is the use of restorative dispute resolution (RDR)--methods that have been effective for years in juvenile justice. Instead of zero tolerance and authoritarian punishment, restorative practices provide high levels of control and support, which encourage appropriate behavior and place the responsibility for resolution on students themselves. This is done by using a collaborative response to victimization. This article discusses the philosophy underlying RDR, the purpose of RDR, and the principles of RDR. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Discipline; Violence; School Safety; Zero Tolerance Policy; Values Education; Academic Achievement; Educational Improvement; Intervention; At Risk Students; Punishment; Federal Legislation; Bullying; Elementary Secondary Education

Abstract:
In response to highly publicized violent incidents in schools, such as the Columbine High School massacre, school disciplinary policies have become increasingly severe. These policies have been implemented at the school, district, and state levels with the goal of ensuring the safety of students and staff. Many of these policies have one component in common: zero tolerance. While it is clear that protecting the safety of students and staff is one of school leaders' most important responsibilities, it is not clear that zero tolerance policies are succeeding in improving school safety. In fact, some evidence based on nonexperimental studies suggests that these policies actually may have an adverse effect on student academic and behavioral outcomes. The authors developed this brief to explore these issues. The brief does this in two ways: it reviews existing research on the implementation and effects of zero tolerance in the school setting; and it highlights rigorously evaluated, nonpunitive alternatives to zero tolerance that have shown greater promise in improving school safety and student outcomes. Nonpunitive programs that take a largely preventive approach to school discipline have been found to keep students and schools safe by reducing the need for harsh discipline. These programs take many forms, such as targeted behavioral supports for students who are at-risk for violent behavior, character education programs, or positive behavioral interventions and supports that are instituted schoolwide. (Contains 4 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Behavior Disorders; School Personnel; Discipline; Juvenile Justice; Special Education Teachers; Zero Tolerance Policy; Student Behavior; Emotional Disturbances; School Policy; Interdisciplinary Approach; Educational Environment; School Safety

Abstract:
Special educators frequently teach students with a variety of diagnostic labels, including autism and oppositional defiant disorder. Some of these diagnoses point to the presence of challenging behaviors that might be viewed as threatening and disruptive. Teachers working with these students must make daily choices in how they approach such students. Although at times teachers work with these students to develop self-regulatory behaviors, they often risk working against such students by applying strictly punitive measures. Historically, students with disabilities, particularly those with a diagnosis of an emotional or behavior disorder (EBD), have been overrepresented in school disciplinary reports, juvenile justice facilities, and jails; these trends have become more acute with the emergence of zero tolerance. Currently, a majority of teachers within the United States are obligated to follow zero tolerance policies, replete with mandatory consequences for specific behaviors. Unfortunately, zero tolerance policies often require teachers to follow mandatory policies regarding punishment for certain behaviors. How do teachers manage to honor the unique needs of their students while at the same time adhering to uniform school discipline policies? In this article, the problems with zero tolerance policies are addressed, beginning with a brief history of zero tolerance. Then, five principles are proposed and discussed as being potentially helpful to teachers, administrators, and school personnel who must navigate the tensions between policy and practice with regard to classroom discipline. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Evidence; Violence; School Safety; Policy Analysis; School Districts; Foreign Countries; Zero Tolerance Policy; Comparative Analysis; Public Schools; Educational Policy; School Policy; Student Behavior; Theory Practice Relationship; Urban Schools; Student Diversity; Expulsion; Suspension

Abstract:
Public school districts in Buffalo, USA and Toronto, Canada reviewed their safe schools policies in 2008. Revised Codes of Conduct are compared to earlier versions and each other, and a conceptual policy web is used to understand how local, state/provincial, national, and international influences affect local safe school policies. The comparison demonstrates that while influenced by international beliefs about unsafe schools and youth violence, affected by local social, economic, and historical contexts, and constrained by state/provincial and federal policies, local school districts are nevertheless able to exercise some agency. The study also highlights the importance of Ontario's Human Rights Commission as a policy actor, and suggests zero tolerance for non-serious incidents may be practised in Buffalo schools. This finding and the continued practice of excluding students from schools in both districts as a discipline approach casts doubt on the sincerity of governments' commitments to evidence-based policy in education at all levels. Contributions of the conceptual policy web for policy analysis are discussed. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Social Environment; Social Scientists; Foreign Countries; Discipline; Case Studies; Discipline Problems; Correlation; Principals; Student Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; Educational Environment; Educational Assessment; School Surveys; Zero Tolerance Policy; Power Structure; Legal Problems; Cultural Influences; Cultural Differences; Social Control; Dress Codes; Peer Influence

Abstract:
It's a challenge for schools in every country: How to provide the right kind of discipline and create a climate that nurtures learning. This challenge may look different in different countries. A school's disciplinary climate not only is the product of educators' beliefs and actions, students' beliefs and actions, and the interaction of these, but also is shaped by the legal and social context of the country. Yet when they became involved in researching questions of school discipline and the moral authority of teachers, the authors were surprised at the dearth of research comparing various countries' ideas about discipline and typical responses to challenging behaviors. They recently brought together an international group of 18 social scientists to study the relationship between school discipline and student achievement. Their study examined assessment and survey data from 49 countries that participated in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS), with in-depth case studies of Canada, Chile, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. The authors compared these countries in terms of how extensive their schools' discipline challenges are, the national context and organizational structure of their schools, and the way discipline is typically administered in schools. The study also examined the relationship between the level of school discipline problems and the level of student achievement--and found a definite correlation between the two. In this article, the authors explore some of what these case studies reveal and reflect on lessons for U.S. educators. (Contains 1 endnote.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Weapons; Violence; School Personnel; Zero Tolerance Policy; Federal Legislation; Discipline; School Safety; Crime; Campuses; Discipline Policy; School Policy; Punishment; Social Control

Abstract:
With the passing of the Gun Free School Act of 1994, the 1990s bore witness to the birth of zero-tolerance policies. During the remainder of that decade, several school shootings occurred that solidified zero-tolerance in schools across the United States. With the possibility of threats constantly increasing, school personnel having a thorough understanding of these policies is critical. In this article, the authors analyze the theoretical, empirical, and legal underpinnings of zero-tolerance weapons policies, then argue that these policies are theoretically unsound, are empirically unsupported, and fall prey to several legal critiques. Last, the authors offer recommendations for principals and teachers that would address problems with mens rea and show the value of using threat assessment tools. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Expulsion; Dropouts; Educational Change; Best Practices; Staff Development; Correctional Institutions; Zero Tolerance Policy; School Culture; Institutionalized Persons; At Risk Persons; Behavior Problems; Suspension; Educational Environment; Discipline; Communities of Practice; School Community Relationship; Prevention; Problem Solving; Youth Programs; Public Schools

Abstract:
Zero-tolerance policies have created schools that are often intolerant and destructive to children and communities. High rates of suspension and expulsion of students are associated with negative outcomes and school dropout. New approaches to staff development that create positive school communities are essential in stemming the "school-to-prison pipeline." Changing school culture to a system that supports youth development and minimizes the use of punitive, ineffective responses to behavior problems is a challenge. Staff development that involves the school and larger community in a three-tiered staff development system, however, can play an essential role in the transformation of the school. The authors review best practices in staff development in the context of changing school management and discipline practices, and recommend alternatives to ways in which schools respond to chronic and serious violations of the school behavioral code. (Contains 1 table and 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Program Effectiveness; Politics of Education; Zero Tolerance Policy; Student Behavior; Behavior Problems; Discipline; Punishment; School Policy; Expulsion; Minority Group Students; Disproportionate Representation; Suspension; School Safety; Violence; Weapons

Abstract:
What are the positives and negatives of zero tolerance? What should be considered when examining a school's program? Although there are no definitive definitions of zero tolerance, two commonly used ones are as follows: "Zero tolerance means that a school will automatically and severely punish a student for a variety of infractions" (American Bar Association, 2001); and The U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement defined zero tolerance as: "A policy that mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses" (Burk). There are different points-of-view about the value of and impact of zero-tolerance policies. This paper summarizes the most significant findings. (Contains 9 online resources.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (55K)

Descriptors:
Educational Development; Student Behavior; Discipline; School Psychologists; Academic Achievement; School Districts; Zero Tolerance Policy; Educational Environment; School Safety; Intervention; Evidence; Prevention; Behavior Problems; Classroom Techniques; Reading Instruction; Reading Skills; Reading Achievement

Abstract:
Effective discipline is essential to creating safe, supportive learning environments for all students, which is critical to academic achievement. Since the passage of zero tolerance policies in the early 1990s, many school districts have relied on punitive discipline focused on harsh strategies such as using suspension and expulsion as primary disciplinary actions for even minor misconduct. Unfortunately, as school psychologists know, purely punitive discipline is ineffective at best and often even counterproductive, denying students vital learning time and undermining the overall school climate. The good news is that policy makers and school districts are beginning to respond to the growing evidence that punitive discipline does not work, and to take a serious look at alternative approaches. School psychologists are in an ideal position to assist schools in creating safe learning environments by working closely with administrators and staff. They have unique training in children's psychological and educational development as well as behavior management to facilitate the implementation of effective school-wide and targeted positive discipline strategies. Helping one's school establish such a policy may seem overwhelming in the face of the immediate needs of disruptive students; however, getting buy-in from key stakeholders and decision makers can start with some simple, basic steps at the start of the school year. The authors discuss these basic steps. (Contains 2 online resources.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website