University of Virginia professor Dewey Cornell finds that careful assessment and measured action is a more effective response to school violence than a one- size- fits- all, zero- tolerance approach
OUR SCIENCE BUREAU New Delhi
Automatic expulsion of students who threaten or commit acts of school violence may be politically popular, but research raises questions about the policys effectiveness.
University of Virginia professor Dewey Cornell finds that careful assessment and measured action is a more effective response to school violence than a one- size- fits- all, zero- tolerance approach.
Cornell says the study reveals students in schools that used a strategy to evaluate the seriousness of school violence, instead of automatic expulsion, are more likely to receive more appropriate responses for their actions, such as mental health counseling or parent conferences. The students also are less likely to receive long- term suspensions or Although threat assessment is a widely recommended practice to prevent school violence – as well as workplace violence – according to Cornell, ” to my knowledge, it is the first randomized, controlled trial of threat assessment of any kind,” he adds.
Cornells research, published in the March issue of School Psychology Review, tested his Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines, which offer a roadmap for school professionals to evaluate the seriousness of threats of violence made in schools.
Threat assessment According to Cornell, director of the Virginia Youth Violence Project, severe acts of violence in school are relatively rare, but threats of violence are much more common and pose a serious problem for schools in the United States.
The widely used practice of automatic suspension increases the risk for academic failure and does not seem to improve student behavior, Cornell adds.
Threat assessment can actually help identify underlying problems, such as bullying or conflicts in friendships and romantic relationships, Cornell notes. In other cases, there are disputes with teachers, learning problems or other difficulties that need attention.
The study was conducted in 40 elementary, middle, and high schools in Newport News, Virginia. Schools that received staff training in threat assessment showed large changes in staff understanding of the risk of student violence as well as changes in their attitudes toward zero tolerance and the use of suspension.
The schools were then followed for one school year.
During this time, school authorities identified 201 students as making a threat of violence. Those students who were in schools using the Virginia Guidelines were four times more likely to receive counseling services and 2.5 times more likely to have a parent conference to resolve the problem or conflict associated with the students threat.
Students in the control group- in schools that had only a zero- tolerance policy, with automatic suspensionswere almost three times more likely to receive a long- term suspension and seven times more likely to be placed in an alternative school than students in schools using the Virginia Guidelines.
Risk and reward But does keeping troublesome students in school jeopardize othersalt39 safety? ” Certainly there are a small number of students who are more safely educated in an alternative setting,” Cornell says, ” but there is no evidence to indicate that a policy of keeping most students in school impairs the safety of others. ” Schools that use zero tolerance are not safer schools. The guidelines permit short- term suspensions for safety purposes in clearly specified cases, but almost all students are able to return to school.” Cornell says these guidelines are now being used in more than 1,000 Virginia schools as well as schools across the U. S. and in several other countries.
