Sign in or 
- EasyEdit
- Edit tags
-
(what's this?What are these tools?
People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
) - Report page
Share this
Alternatives to Suspending Students (EE)
This initial or rough draft of a summary (formatted in an encyclopedia entry format) has been started by the International School Health Network from a previous Canadian project. Visitors to and members of this wiki-based web site are welcome to edit the draft (using the Easy Edit" tool found at the top of the page or to comment on the draft by using the "thread" tool found at the bottom of the page. (All previous versions of this page are automatically saved by the system, so don't hesitate to edit this page). Eventually, when time and resources permit, this initial draft will be formatted in accordance with the outline for encyclopedia entries used in this knowledge exchange program for health,safety, educational and social development interventions.
This page discusses the use of alternatives to school suspensions. Readers should also go to our pages on school/agency substance abuse policies. Related pages are also found in our Schoool Health Effectiveness wiki discuss overall school discipline policies and whole school approaches to improve the social environment/climate/ethos of the school.
What students, teachers and administrators say and do (i.e. their attitude and behaviours or behavioural intentions) in regard to substance use and abuse come together to form a school’s norms on the disapproval/acceptability of different forms of substance use. A school’s norms are the product of many influences including parents, the broader community and the informal and formal messages presented in school.
A clear association between school norms and substance use levels in schools has been found in the U.S. A nationally representative study found that in grades 8, 10, and 12, the probability of using cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana was higher in schools where the norms reflected a greater tolerance for use of that substance, controlling for their own disapproval and for student and school demographic characteristics. [i] The effect of school norms on one’s own substance use was found to be greatest for Grade 8 students.
School drug policies are an important mechanism available to schools to address substance use issues and to influence a school’s norms and culture. The content of policies is important but so is how they are developed, communicated and enforced.[ii] Evans-Whipp and colleagues (2004) recently reviewed the international literature on school drug policies and reported only a few studies of their impact, most of which were focused on tobacco policy.[iii]
Most of the current knowledge on school drug policies is from the United States. The majority of U.S. schools have written policies prohibiting alcohol and other drug use. Although variation exists, when violations occur, the tendency in U.S. schools is towards punishment rather than remediation.[iv] Two-thirds of schools responding to a national survey reported that they “always or almost always” suspend a student for an alcohol or illegal drug use violation. However, many schools also take at least one remedial action in these instances. Referral to a school counsellor, suspension from school and encouragement to participate in a student assistance program are frequent responses; for illegal drug use violations referral to the legal authorities is a typical response.[v]
Since the Evans-Whipp review, a collaborative, longitudinal research project, the International Youth Development Study, has begun examining school drug policy in Victoria, Australia, and Washington State in the United States and has reported findings. Australia and the U.S. were selected due to the differences in their policies in relation to antisocial behaviour and substance use. About 3,000 students in either Gr. 5, 7 or 9 participated in each state, and students reported similar levels of anti-social behaviour in both locales.
Both states reported a range of alternatives to out-of-school suspensions. These included in-school suspensions (student sits outside the Principal’s office or in the office area with work to complete), time out in off-site “teaching units” for periods of time, withdrawal of privileges (e.g., school camp, school excursions), writing a contract stating the terms under which the student can remain at school (e.g., attend counselling, anger management training), and recommending that a student move to another school for a new start to keep the student connected to school.
The study found that, controlling for other factors, U.S. males were much more likely to receive a punitive response (i.e. suspension or arrest) from their anti-social behaviour, and importantly, that school suspensions significantly increased the likelihood of antisocial behaviour 12 months later. The authors speculated on why school suspension increased antisocial behaviour in this sample, suggesting the following possibilities:
This page discusses the use of alternatives to school suspensions. Readers should also go to our pages on school/agency substance abuse policies. Related pages are also found in our Schoool Health Effectiveness wiki discuss overall school discipline policies and whole school approaches to improve the social environment/climate/ethos of the school.
What students, teachers and administrators say and do (i.e. their attitude and behaviours or behavioural intentions) in regard to substance use and abuse come together to form a school’s norms on the disapproval/acceptability of different forms of substance use. A school’s norms are the product of many influences including parents, the broader community and the informal and formal messages presented in school.
A clear association between school norms and substance use levels in schools has been found in the U.S. A nationally representative study found that in grades 8, 10, and 12, the probability of using cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana was higher in schools where the norms reflected a greater tolerance for use of that substance, controlling for their own disapproval and for student and school demographic characteristics. [i] The effect of school norms on one’s own substance use was found to be greatest for Grade 8 students.
School drug policies are an important mechanism available to schools to address substance use issues and to influence a school’s norms and culture. The content of policies is important but so is how they are developed, communicated and enforced.[ii] Evans-Whipp and colleagues (2004) recently reviewed the international literature on school drug policies and reported only a few studies of their impact, most of which were focused on tobacco policy.[iii]
Most of the current knowledge on school drug policies is from the United States. The majority of U.S. schools have written policies prohibiting alcohol and other drug use. Although variation exists, when violations occur, the tendency in U.S. schools is towards punishment rather than remediation.[iv] Two-thirds of schools responding to a national survey reported that they “always or almost always” suspend a student for an alcohol or illegal drug use violation. However, many schools also take at least one remedial action in these instances. Referral to a school counsellor, suspension from school and encouragement to participate in a student assistance program are frequent responses; for illegal drug use violations referral to the legal authorities is a typical response.[v]
Since the Evans-Whipp review, a collaborative, longitudinal research project, the International Youth Development Study, has begun examining school drug policy in Victoria, Australia, and Washington State in the United States and has reported findings. Australia and the U.S. were selected due to the differences in their policies in relation to antisocial behaviour and substance use. About 3,000 students in either Gr. 5, 7 or 9 participated in each state, and students reported similar levels of anti-social behaviour in both locales.
Both states reported a range of alternatives to out-of-school suspensions. These included in-school suspensions (student sits outside the Principal’s office or in the office area with work to complete), time out in off-site “teaching units” for periods of time, withdrawal of privileges (e.g., school camp, school excursions), writing a contract stating the terms under which the student can remain at school (e.g., attend counselling, anger management training), and recommending that a student move to another school for a new start to keep the student connected to school.
The study found that, controlling for other factors, U.S. males were much more likely to receive a punitive response (i.e. suspension or arrest) from their anti-social behaviour, and importantly, that school suspensions significantly increased the likelihood of antisocial behaviour 12 months later. The authors speculated on why school suspension increased antisocial behaviour in this sample, suggesting the following possibilities:
- students who experience suspension may rebel by engaging in further antisocial behaviour;
- suspending students from school may disconnect them from a positive social environment and increase their exposure to other risk factors for antisocial behaviour (e.g., failure to complete schooling);
- students who have been suspended from school may also experience a negative stigma within the school community;
- suspending students may increase contact with other at-risk young people, for example, by providing the opportunity for those suspended to meet together while excluded from school.
[i] Kumar, R., O’Malley, P.M., Johnston, L.D., Schulenberg, J.E., & Bachman, J.G. (2002). Effects of school-level norms on student substance use. Prevention Science, 3(2).
[ii] Toumbourou, J.W., Rowland, B., Jefferies, A., Butler, H., & Bond, L. (2004). Preventing drug-related harm through school re-organisation and behavior management [Prevention research evaluation report No. 12]. Melbourne, Australia: Australia Drug Foundation. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/downloads/Prevention_Research_Quarterly/PRQ_04Nov_Early_intervention_in_schools.pdf
[iii] Evans-Whipp, T., Beyers, J., Lloyd, S., Lafazia, A., Toumbourou, J., Arthur, M., & Catalano, R. (2004). A review of school drug policies and their impact on youth substance use. Health Promotion International, 19(2), 227-234.
[iv] Toumbourou, J.W., Rowland, B., Jefferies, A., Butler, H., & Bond, L. (2004). Preventing drug-related harm through school re-organisation and behavior management [Prevention research evaluation report No. 12]. Melbourne, Australia: Australia Drug Foundation. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/downloads/Prevention_Research_Quarterly/PRQ_04Nov_Early_intervention_in_schools.pdf
[v] Small, M.L., Jones, S.E., Barrios, L.C., Crossett, L.S., Dahlberg, L.L., & Albuquerque, M.S. (2001). School policy and environment: Results from the school health policies and programs study 2000. Journal of School Health, 71(7), 325-334.
[vi] Hemphill, S., Toumbourou, J., Herrenkohl, T., McMorris, B., & Catalano, R. (2006). The effect of school suspensions and arrests on subsequent adolescent antisocial behavior in Australia and the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), 736-744.
dmccall |
Latest page update: made by dmccall
, Jan 26 2010, 10:49 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Rename
- dmccall
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
