Surname : First Name :

PRE-QUALIFYING / POST-QUALIFYING / POST GRADUATE ASSIGNMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT

PaP 02

Please read the statement of Original Authorship and Confidentiality before completing this form (see below).
Statement of Original Authorship and Confidentiality Please check the following statements are true, and write yes in each box to confirm: The material contained in this assignment is my own work. Where the work of others has been drawn upon (e.g. books, articles, unpublished papers, videos, audio recordings electronic publications on disk or the internet) it has been properly acknowledged according to appropriate academic conventions. I have read and understood the Universitys statement on Plagiarism, Syndication and Cheating as contained in my Course Handbook, I have read and understood the Schools statement on confidentiality in my Course Handbook and this assignment has been amended where necessary to comply with the Schools requirements. YES

YES YES

STUDENT NUMBER PERSONAL TUTOR MODULE NAME MODULE NUMBER MODULE LEADER COURSE NAME YEAR OF STUDY ASSIGNMENT TITLE

12044323

Substance Misuse P45003 David Foxcroft Substance Misuse 2012

Please put x where appropriate: First Submission HAND-IN DATE:

FIRST ASSESSOR SECOND ASSESSOR (if used): MODERATOR (if appropriate): FINAL AGREED MARK AND GRADE LATE WITHOUT AGREED EXTENSION
Date Date Date

Re-sit

%
NO

Resit

Fail

LATE WITH AGREED EXTENSION

Sent in sample to External Examiner: YES

(please put x as appropriate)

OVERALL COMMENTS: This assignment is organised and presented in an appropriate academic style. Referencing and cross referencing is also precise. Moreover, the study reflects knowledge on a highly specialized domain as school policies of drug abuse are and the writer is fully conscious on the limitations this may undermine. It is believed that key studies are incorporated into the study and tries to highlight the gap in effectively coping with illicit drug use in schools. In addition, a variety of perspectives and findings of research is developed and a well-developed framework on the challenges induced by the application of zero tolerance policies are analysed. Different results from studies are clearly mentioned whereas similarities are used as the basis to develop the current assignment. The complexity of the topic is dealt by defining different policies and outcomes of their efficiency in different countries/continents where they are applied.

STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT FORM

Please reflect on your learning under each of the following headings Submit together with your coursework.

PRESENTATION AND PRODUCT

KNOWLEDGE BASE AND PERCEPTION

DIVERSITY

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

CREATIVITY

EVIDENCE OF LEARNING

WHAT HAVE I LEARNT DURING THIS MODULE

WHAT FUTURE LEARNING NEEDS DO I HAVE AND HOW MIGHT I ACHIEVE THEM

Total Number of Words: 2508

The suggested question for the assignment is A critical analysis on the effectiveness of zero tolerance school discipline policies in the U.S.A

The components of the current assignment are the drug use policy in the U.S.A and in specific the implementation of zero tolerance policies as a noneffective way to reduce illicit drug use in school settlements. A critical analysis will focus on the current zero tolerance school discipline policies in

the U.S.A, will compare the effectiveness of US policies against other policies implemented in other countries, will try to elucidate the main weak points of those policies and to make recommendations to improve their application.

Education nowadays is often misinterpreted as being an equal to accumulating skills and facts, whereas, health is simply described as the contrary situation of illness (WHO 1995). Instead, education is a prerequisite for health and both education and health are strictly related and cannot be divided (WHO 1986). This strong link between them is a reason that could explain why health promotion programs lanced in school settlements could more efficiently influence students since those programs target the most crucial developmental stages of their life and there the most prone to modifications (Evans-Whipp et al 2004, WHO 1995). However, schools do not remain intact from the environment and the problems of the society; they are seriously affected by illicit student drug exposure (Ross et al 1995), since its illicit drug consumption initiates mostly coincides in adolescence (Millman and Botvin 1983). A standard definition of drugs would be a chemical substance that, when taken into the body alters the structure and functioning of the body in some way, excluding those nutrients considered to be related to normal functioning (Levinthal 2012). What school policies usually try in is to secure a drug-free learning environment (Yamagushi et al 2003) via discriminating and attributing different interventions to the processes of possessing, using and supplying drugs (Murphy 2000). Although those policies should be applied in all schools this still remains unrealized in some parts of the world.

From a historic point of view and according to the Monitoring the Future Study (Johnston et al 2001), adolescent drug consumption gave rise in early 1990s up to 1997 (Muck et al 2001). More specifically, in the U.S.A illicit drug use among youth is the highest in the industrialized world (Johnston et al 2001), a phenomenon that urged society to set drug abuse as one of the most crucial issues for the public schools to deal with (Ross et al 1995). There are three main considerations of the addiction issue in America and are illustrated in three views; the Colonial or Moralist view which considers drug use as an illegal act (zero tolerance policy) and therefore it should be dealt with as a crime and be followed by penal sanctions; the temperance view according which drugs are addictive substances and policies should focus on the root of addiction (smugglers and dealers) to efficiently manage the problem and thirdly, the disease concept where drug addiction is viewed as a disease and drug policy should mostly set treatment and rehabilitation as the center of the efforts against this phenomenon (Rosenberger 1996).

Drug policy is influenced by societies but also can affect societies (Chilea and Chilea 2011). Although the implementation of a reasonable policy with logical and achievable goals would be the desired outcome, the prevailing Colonial or Moralist view in the U.S. society invokes high moral principles and proposes a fight between good and evil with the ultimate goal being the complete elimination of drugs from our societies (Guzman 2003). This prohibitionist predominance perceives the drug issue as a war or crime or threat and permits no tolerance for less severe perceptions that fall between the acceptance of a crime, by using drugs, or its total rejection, by denying

drug consumption (Guzman 2003). As a consequence, nowadays prevailing anti-narcotic policies are firmly rooted in prejudices and remain almost irrelevant to what the current reality is (Cardoso et al. 2009).

In the U.S. almost 90% of schools adopt zero tolerance approaches for substance misuse (Yamagushy et al 2003, Brown 2001) under the scope of minimizing drug use prevalence (Caulkins and Reuter, 1997). As mentioned above, Zero tolerance reflects those policies that adopt a severe punitive approach regardless of the severity of offence in their effort to deal with problems of safety and discipline in school communities (Hanson 2005, Skiba and Peterson 1999). Punishment and penal sanctions are those aspects that better represent this approach which is known as punitive drug prohibition approach or moral/criminal justice model (Evans-Whipp et al 2004, Aoyagi 1997). Aspects of the policies aiming at the implementation of these policies can entail education against drug use (e.g., "Just Say No" curricula), testing for drug consumption, metal detectors, closed circuit cameras systems in school settlements, sniff dogs and penal sanctions (expulsion, suspension and referral to law enforcement agencies) (Evans-Whipp et al 2004, Yamagushi et al 2003, Brown 2001). But, those policies measures have increased financial demands and as a consequence, most of the financial means in the US against drug use are channeled into interdiction and eradication efforts which have yielded several concerns over the advantages and disadvantages of controlling and punishing students (McKeganey 2005). In addition, in countries/continents where other policies are implemented as Australia and Europe are, priority is attributed at education, prevention,

referral and intervention (Murphy 2000). They have adopted the harm minimization approach and in those continents there has been noted a decreased association with illicit drug use and decreased correlation of social detachment with substance use in relation to the punitive policies adopted by the U.S. government (Beyers et al 2004).

Unfortunately, there is a growing piece of evidence clearly showing that due to its long history of failure, drug education remains highly controversial in the U.S. (Guzman 2003, Sycamnias 2000).Although zero tolerance initial aim was the improvement of society, these policies heterogeneous in nature have in contrary led to a dramatic increase in suspensions and expulsions (Hanson 2005, Insley 2001, Essex 2001). Serious concerns are raised by leading psychologists, as James Comer and Alvin Poussaint are, that relate those policies with unhealthy childhood development, contradicting the belief of certain school administrators that the aim of just reducing the number of expulsions could be seen as a positive aspect of zero tolerance (Insley, 2001). Moreover, the fact that the Constitution in the U.S. does not consider the right to education as fundamental one exacerbates the phenomenon of deprivation from alternative educational opportunities to those students suspended and expelled and in the meanwhile growing feelings of alienation increases the possibility to drop out of school (Insley 2001, Brown 2001). The implications of leaving school are numerous but the most severe of them can be the potential criminalization of students since once a student is left unsupervised, the possibility of misbehavior or the integration to gangs and

crime acts can raise serious concerns (Insley 2001, Sycamnias 2000, Ashford, 2000). Moreover, application of such policies brings conflicts at school administrators, teachers and counsellors too (Pentz et al 1997), since suspending and expulsing students are believed to be inefficient ways to prevent them from illicit drug consumption (Hallfors and Van Dorn 2002). Finally, those policies can induce feelings of fear or shame in students having as a consequence to fail to engage with educators because simply by discussing drug issues but not getting involved in students cognitive and emotional development is of minor contribution to the prevention of drug use (Brown, 2001).

Zero tolerance school discipline policies have clearly brought inequalities and have violated students rights (Hanson, 2005). This is the result of those policies that do not take under serious consideration the target populations of concern in order to apply prevention programs, that fail to weight the severity of the developmental stage of the person enrolled in a program or the severity of the offense, the students history, the duration of the program as well as the role of the person realizing the program (e.g., teacher, law enforcement officer, peer) (Essex 2001, Sycamnias 2000). Finally, sociology and psychology have demonstrated that children, just as adults are, are more prone to listening, understanding and respecting experiences or advice if educators and parents have the willingness to listen to them and get involved in discussions (Sycamnias 2000). Therefore, an alternative education which aims at bringing a balance between safety environment and the legal rights of

students under supervision or punished with a long term expulsion, could minimize the unwanted outcomes of zero tolerance policies (Essex 2001).

Education needs to be more interactive and the goal of decreasing drug consumption via the educational system should be one of the guiding principles of minimizing drug consumption in the society (Cardoso et al 2009). Modern educational needs on drug education shall ensure that young people can incarnate all drug use impacts, prepare for living in a society that consumes drugs and finally are capable of developing those abilities that could reduce harm caused by drugs in their personal lives ad can effectively minimize or manage stress without getting involved with drugs (Sycamnias 2000). In addition, the belief that younger students should be considered as less of a priority for schools, because they are more manageable without formal policies, needs to be reoriented towards enforcing those policies that target all age classes irrespective of what educators may believe (EvansWhipp et al 2004, Ashford 2000). Therefore, different prevention and intervention strategies could offer better solutions for dealing with drugs at school than zero-tolerance expulsion and alternative schools based on prevention and planning could help children towards this direction (Cardoso et al 2009, Ashford 2000, Skiba and Peterson 1999).

Due to the fact that substance abuse problems do not easily give rise using simple prevention strategies, prevention efforts need to match the severity of the problem, to provide continuous focus on the solution and to amplify the

level of communication and cooperation on the administrative level (Sycamnias 2000). Drug prevention education programs and long-term planning could be divided into information programs where by giving information on substance use the desirable results can be expected, affective programs where enhancing students own communication skills increases their self-esteem and social skills or influence programs in which learning the way to refuse substances is of primary importance (Brown 2001). In addition, and according to Greenberg (2003), prevention in schools should also entail mentoring, self-control, counseling and social competency instruction along with establishing behavioral expectations and discipline management interventions.

Initial efforts in adolescent treatment had as basis adult models that failed to incarnate the needs of adolescents. Recently, however, substance abuse intervention models specifically designed for adolescents have been developed and evaluated (Wagner, Brown, Monti, Myers, & Waldron, 1999; Muck et al. 2001). In all behavioral approaches, irrespective of whether called behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), substance abuse is perceived as a learned behavior susceptible to alterations via applying behavior modification interventions (Miller & Hester, 1989). In particular, cognitive-behavioral techniques attempt to alter behavior via altering the way of thinking (Muck et al 2001).The desired outcome of such approaches would be to enable adolescents unlearn drug use and learn alternative ways to cope with their lives by establishing behavior support

teams, consistent and individualized response to disruptive students and emergency and crisis planning (Miller & Hester, 1989).

Application of specific skills leads to testing new behaviors in low-risk situations and applying them in more demanding real-life incidences (Muck et al 2001). They vary according to the followed program and can include drug and alcohol refusal skills, resisting drug pressure, communication skills, problem-solving skills, anger management, relaxation training, social network development, leisure time management and homework assignments (Muck et al 2001). Finally, behavioral contracting is another technique during which the student and the counselor explicitly define to arrange a set of behaviors to be altered on a weekly basis and weekly goals to be achieved by the adolescent as well as the criteria and time limitations. As each goal is reached, the adolescent feels and becomes more reinforced (Muck et al 2001).

Schools rarely use the most effective strategies despite the fact that modern school-based prevention programs could delay or hinder drug use initiation (Ennett and Burritt 2000, Hansen and McNeal 1999). In reality school-based drug prevention programs appear to reveal contradictory results in improving student health outcomes. There are several studies that show that interventions for handling aggressive behavior and therefore ameliorating early stage drug use are regarded as being successful (Faggiano et al 2005, Lochman and Lenhart 1993). In addition, self-control or social competency programming using cognitivebehavioral and behavioral instructional methods

in a consistent manner are considered as effective in reducing dropout and nonattendance, substance use or conduct problems (Greenberg 2003), whereas, programs teaching social and coping skills have lower efficiency in reducing drug use compared to normal instructional activities in class (Faggiano et al 2005). Moreover, programs that simply convey didactic information about drugs and their effects were found to be the least efficient (Faggiano et al 2005). Despite the fact that in general the most effective programs are very interactive and attribute special attention to comprehensive life skills or refusal skills (Tobler et al 2000, Tobler and Stratton 1997). A rigorous study on group school counseling, however, yielded cautionary and contradictory findings in the effectiveness of group counseling that finally led to increased drug use (Gottfredson 1986). This and other study findings have led researchers to caution against the positive contribution of some policies.

In order to change policies and practice, prevention should be accustomed to the mission and focused on the target population. Since financial means strongly influence the application of all these policies, linking prevention to the cost effectiveness of proposed interventions would be an important suggestion (Halfors and Van Dorn 2002). School-based prevention coordinators could support improved prevention by gaining access to information about effective prevention programs for high-risk youth and they could also open new ways to research in school settlements for prevention scientists (Hallfors and Van Dorn 2002). On the other hand, prevention scientists must acknowledge school priorities and show the capacity to apprehend the school needs, timelines and scarce financial means while

teachers could give their support to prevention efforts by documenting truancy and allowing evaluation activities, such as school surveys are, to be conducted in their classrooms or in addition to become an active part of the strict implementation of effective prevention programs while being capable of communicating their advice to prevention scientists about how these programs could be improved (Hallfors and Van Dorn 2002).

Unfortunately, a shift from zero-tolerance to these types of prevention policies which are consistent with the cultural role of schools and the needs of students and do not burden drug education with fantastic objectives are not likely to occur anytime soon. Such strategies take time to develop and even more time to implement. But it is clear that much more research is needed to determine if zero-tolerance is a truly effective strategy for keeping our schools safe from those who would inflict weapons-related violence on others (Ashford 2000).

REFERENCES Aoyagi MT (1997) Beyond punitive prohibition: Liberalizing the dialogue on international drug policy. International law and politics. 37(3), 555-610. Ashford RW (2000) Can Zero-Tolerance Keep Our Schools Safe? The popularity of zero tolerance may have less to do with its effects than with its get-tough image. Principal. 80 (2), 28-30.

Beyers JM, Toumbourou JW, Catalano RF, Arthur MW and Hawkins JD (2004) A cross-national comparison of risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use: the United States and Australia. Journal of Adolescent Health. 35 (1), 316. Brown JH (2001) Youth, drugs and resilience education. Journal of drug education. 31(1), 83-122. Cardoso FH, Gaviria C and ZedilloE (2009) The War On Drugs Is A Failure. The Wall Street Journal. 23rd February. Avaiable at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535114271444981.html (accessed 10/12/2012). Caulkins JP and Reuter P (1997) Setting goals for drug policy: Harm reduction or use reduction? Addiction. 92(9), 1143-1150. Ennett ST, Burritt SC. Estimation of the effectiveness of current practice in school substance use prevention programming through application of metaanalysis findings. Paper pre- sented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Montreal, Quebec, June 13, 2000.] Hallfors D and Van Dorn RA (2002) Strengthening the Role of Two Key Institutions in the Prevention of Adolescent Substance Abuse. Journal of Adolescent Health..30(1),1728. Hanson AL (2005) Have Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies Turned into a Nightmare? The American Dreams Promise of Equal Educational Opportunity, UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy. 9(2), 289-379. Essex NL (2001). School uniforms: Guidelines for principals. Principal. 80 (3), 38-39.

Evans-Whipp T, Beyers JM, Lloyd S, Lafazia AN, Toumbourou JW, Arthur MW and Catalano RF (2004) A review of school drug policies and their impact on youth substance use. Health Promotion International. 19 (2), 227-234. Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning Gottfredson DC (1986) An empirical test of school-based environmental and individual interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behavior. Criminology. 24 (4),705731. Greenberg MT, Weissberg RP, OBrien MU, Zins JE, Fredericks L, Resnik H and Elias MJ (2003) Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning. American Psychologist. 58 (6-7), 466474. Guzmn SB (2003) A Constructivist Approach to the U. S. War on Drugs(PhD thesis). Department of Political Science: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Hallfors D and VanDorn RA (2002) Strengthening the role of two key institutions in the prevention of adolescent substance abuse. Journal of Adolescence Health. 30(1),1728. Hansen WB and McNeal RB (1999) Drug education practice: results of an observational study. Journal of Health Education Research. 14(1),8597. Insley AC (2001) Suspending and Expelling Children from Educational Opportunity: Time to Reevaluate Zero Tolerance Policies, The American University Law Review. 50(4),1039-1079. Johnston LD, OMalley PM and Bachman JG(2001) Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2000. Volume I: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 01-4924). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Levinthal CF (2012) Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice (3rd edition). Pearson Education.

Lochman JE and Lenhart LA (1993) Anger coping intervention for aggressive children: conceptual models and outcome effects. Clinical Psychological Review. 13(8), 785805. McKeganey N (2005) Random drug testing of schoolchildren: A shot in the arm or a shot in the foot for drug prevention? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Millman RB and Botvin GJ (1983) Substance use, misuse, and dependence. In Levine MD, Carey WB, Crocker AC and Gross RT (Eds) (1983) Developmental-behavioral pediatrics. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders. Muck R, Zempolich KA, Titus JC, Fishman M, Godley MD and Schwebel R (2001) An overview of the effectiveness of adolescent substance abuse treatment models. Youth and Society. 33(2),143-168. Murphy CA (2000) Drug policy in schools: Department of Social Studies: University of Dublin, Trinity College. Pentz MS, Sussman S and Newman T (1997) The conict between least harm and no-use tobacco policy for youth: ethical and policy implications. Addiction. 92(9), 116573. Rosenberger LR (1996) Americas Drug War Debacle. In Sharp EB (Eds) (1994) The Dilemma of Drug Policy in the United States. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers. Ross JG, Einhaus KE, Hohenemser LK, Greene BZ, Kann L and Gold RS (1995) School health policies prohibiting tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use and violence. The Journal of School Health. 65 (8), 333-338. Skiba R and Peterson R (1999) The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools? The Phi Delta Kappan. 80 (5), 372-376 and 381-382.

Sycamnias E (2000) Strategic Drug Control "Concepts & Direction For Planners". Available at: http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc80.html (accessed 22/12/2012). Tobler NS and Stratton HH (1997) Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention. 18 (1), 71128. Tobler NS, Roona MR and Ochshorn P (2000) School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention. 20(4),275336. World Health Organization (1995) Promoting health through schools. Available at: www.who.int/school...health/.../85.pdf (accessed 12/12/2012). World Health Organization (1986) The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November. Yamaguchi R, Johnston LD and OMalley PM (2003) Relationship between student illicit drug use and school drug-testing policies. Journal of School Health. 73 (4), 159-164.