7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

1/18

PaP 02

Please read the statement of Original Authorship and Confidentiality beforecompleting this form (see below).

Statement of Original Authorship and ConfidentialityPlease 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 thework of others has been drawn upon (e.g. books, articles, unpublishedpapers, videos, audio recordings electronic publications on disk or theinternet) it has been properly acknowledged according to appropriate

academic conventions.

YES

I have read and understood the Universitys statement on Plagiarism,Syndication and Cheating as contained in my Course Handbook,

YES

I have read and understood the Schools statement on confidentiality inmy Course Handbook and this assignment has been amended wherenecessary to comply with the Schools requirements.

YES

STUDENT NUMBER12044323

PERSONAL TUTOR

MODULE NAMESubstance Misuse

MODULE NUMBERP45003

MODULE LEADERDavid Foxcroft

COURSE NAMESubstance Misuse

YEAR OF STUDY2012

ASSIGNMENT TITLE

PRE-QUALIFYING / POST-QUALIFYING / POST GRADUATEASSIGNMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Surname :

First Name :

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

2/18

Please put x where appropriate:

First Submission Re-sit

HAND-IN DATE:

FIRST ASSESSOR Date

SECOND ASSESSOR (if used): Date

MODERATOR (if appropriate): Date

FINAL AGREED MARK AND GRADE % Resit Fail

LATE WITHOUT AGREED EXTENSION LATE WITH AGREED EXTENSION

Sent in sample to External Examiner: YES NO (please put x as appropriate)

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

3/18

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 headingsSubmit together with your coursework.

PRESENTATION ANDPRODUCT

KNOWLEDGEBASE AND PERCEPTION

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

4/18

DIVERSITY

CRITICAL ANALYSIS ANDJUDGEMENT

CREATIVITY

EVIDENCE OF LEARNING

WHAT HAVE I LEARNTDURING THIS MODULE

WHAT FUTURELEARNING NEEDS DOI HAVE AND HOWMIGHT I ACHIEVETHEM

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 non-

effective way to reduce illicit drug use in school settlements. A critical

analysis will focus on the current zero tolerance school discipline policies in

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

5/18

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.

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

6/18

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

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

7/18

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,

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

8/18

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

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

9/18

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

10/18

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 (Evans-

Whipp 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

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

11/18

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

12/18

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

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

13/18

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

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

14/18

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.

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

15/18

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 meta-

analysis 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.

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

16/18

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.

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

17/18

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 conflict 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.

7/28/2019 12044323_P45003_Assignment 2

18/18

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.