Hoang 1

Preston Hoang

Writing 39C

Lisa Douglass

June 1st, 2013

Advocacy Essay

Under the rules of zero tolerance, students who are caught in possession of a weapon or a

drug are punished with suspension or expulsion for up to a year. This “tough-on-crime” approach

on student behavior developed from the Drug Wars, where numerous adults are arrested

systematically for minor drug usage (Sullivan). In addition, concerns of increasing school

violence encouraged the federal government to pass disciplinary reform laws such as the Gun

Free Schools Act of 1994. Although well-intentioned in its approach, zero tolerance policies

failed to account the resulting discrimination against African American students (“The Dark

Side” 374 – 375). This issue is especially pre-dominant in Texas, given its diverse student body

across a number of campuses (2nd largest school system in the U.S.) (Fabelo et. al 1 – 2). In this

state, African American students are more likely to be placed in alternative education programs

(DAEPs), in-school suspension (ISS), and out of school suspensions (OSS) compared to other

races (Fabelo et. al 36). Yet, African American students “were no more likely … to commit

serious offenses” that would mandate their removal from campus (Fabelo et. al 46). Sociological

factors that contribute to these phenomena include the negative media portrayal of African

Americans and their diverse communication styles (Darensbourg 203).

As a consequence of zero-tolerance policies, African American students from Texas

receive more disciplinary referrals compared to other racial groups. To counter this “tough-on-

crime” approach on student behavior, this paper advocates an increase of statewide funding for

Hoang 2

an approach called PBIS (Positive Behavior and Interventions Support). Descriptively, PBIS is a

sensitive, evidence-based frameworkthat allows school personnel to address “challenging

behaviors and replacethem with pro-social skills” (Cohn). It is the most effective solution

available, given PBIS’ high success rate across other states, and the recent failures of Texan state

laws in handling this particular issue. To highlight the full benefits of my program, the

counterarguments implicitly raised by the Texas Association of School Boards and the Texas

Association of School Administrators should be taken into serious consideration.

As mentioned before, PBIS is an approach that teaches behavioral expectations similar to

how all other core curriculum subjects are taught (“SWPBIS for Beginners”). When applied on a

school-wide basis, this approach is called SWPBIS (i.e. School-wide Positive Behavior Support).

For this program to work, skill trainers recruit a team of ten representative school members (e.g.

administrators and school teachers) for training, usually in a two or three day workshop. The

team then usually outlines three basic behavioral expectations depending on the needs of the

school.To give one example from a particular campus, its expectations are "respect yourself,

respect others, and respect property" ("SWPBIS for Beginners"). After defining the expectations,

the team informs the rest of the school staff to ensure widespread agreement of its choices

("SWPBIS for Beginners"). From there, the team develops lesson plans for these behavioral

expectations and incorporates these principles in non-classroom areas. In summary, students in

this program are encouraged to pursue positive behaviors, rather than to avoid negative

behaviors. This purpose is fulfilled through the systematic coordination of all the school staff

involved.

Given a brief summary of PBIS, it is important to emphasize how much this approach is

endorsed in various groups, and in state legislation. According to the Texas ACLU, addressing

Hoang 3

the discriminatory aspects of zero tolerance requires the “amendment of Texas law to implement

Positive Behavioral Intervention& Supports” (“Common Sense”). This technique is also

endorsed by scientific groups such as the American Psychological Association and by the

Bazelon Center for Health Law (Fowler 46). In terms of Texas legislation, Senate Bill 460 (83R)

encourages teachers to use this technique when helping students with emotional or mental

disorders. House Bill 917 (83R), another such law, requires peace officers to learn this technique

when dealing with conflict resolution among students. In short, these groups endorse this

technique due to its effectiveness.

Because of these endorsements, Maryland was one of the first states to implement a

comprehensive model for PBIS. The Maryland PBIS Initiative is divided into three levels of

coordination: the leadership team, the state management team, and the advisory teams. The

leadership team is responsible for providing coordination and training of PBIS on both the state

and district levels. To be more specific, this team recruits members through a forum, trains both

old and new teams alike through a two day workshop, and hosts events five times a year for

PBIS coaches (Barrett et. al. 106). Serving as the subset of the leadership team, the state

management team organizes finances, troubleshoots problems, and manages public policy

(Barrett et. al. 106 – 107). The advisory team helps to attain political support for the PBIS model

and to aid students who are not benefitting from this approach. By the fall of 2006, 24 school

districts had supported the PBIS initiative; of the 24, five had reached “a critical mass of PBIS

schools” (i.e. districts where 30 – 75% of schools implemented PBIS) (Barrett et. al 107). As a

result of this program, middle school and high school students received 33% and 37% fewer

office disciplinary referrals (ODRs), respectively (Barrett et. al. 111). PBIS training also helps to

Hoang 4

reduce suspension rates "in as short as one year" (Barrett et. al. 111). To sum up, Maryland

schools benefit well from this initiative due to its organizational structure.

While it is important to showcase the statewide success of the Maryland Initiative, PBIS

also works in urban public schools similar to those found in Texas. In one particular case study,

an un-named Chicago high school has a diverse student population comprised of African

Americans (36%), Hispanics (36%), Asian Americans (16%), Caucasians (8%), and Native

Americans (2%). During the 2001 – 2002 school year, this campus had an “86% average daily

attendance, 19% dropout rate, and a 30% mobility rate” (Bohanon et. al. 133). To address this

problem, four students and five adults (e.g. teachers, parents, administration) formed a high

school team in order to develop an action plan. From their meeting, the team established four

school wide expectations (Be Respectful, Be Responsible, Be Academically Engaged, and Be

Caring) and developed teaching methods to reinforce them. The team also planned an

acknowledgement system for all students (Bohanon et. al.137). To give one instance of this idea,

students performing the right actions receive raffling tickets, which are then used in monthly

drawings to win prizes. In another example, the team organized occasional celebrations such as

school wide dances and thewidespread delivery of movie tickets (Bohanon et. al. 138).

The team’s actions overall had a striking effect on the school’s disciplinary rates. After

one school year, rates of serious disobedience of authority dropped from 1.64 students per every

100 students to 0.05 per every 100 students. In addition, referrals for dress code violations

dropped from 26.63 per every 100 students to 8.39 per every 100 students in one school year.

Most importantly, the school experienced a 28% reduction in the amount of office disciplinary

referrals (ODRs) (Bohanon et. al. 140). This case study was important to highlight given that it

had a positive impact across a diverse student population, especially African Americans.

Hoang 5

Given the benefits of PBIS overall, one has to wonder if Texan laws achieve similar

success in reforming disciplinary policies. In 2007, Governor Rick Perry tried to achieve that

particular goal when he signed H.B. 426 (80R) into law. This legislation essentially states that

there should be minimal standards for alternative education programs (DAEPs). To be more

specific, this law is supposed to account for the health and safety of each student, the reports of

student abuse / exploitation, and the student to teacher ratio in this program. H.B. 426 (80R) also

provided behavior management training for teachers and assisted the student’s transition back to

a mainstream campus. In essence, this legislation tried to address the program’s high dropout rate

/ recidivism and its overrepresentation of African Americans. Given the law’s intent, African

American students should be punished less by the mainstream teachers once they are out

alternative education altogether.

There are several flaws with the law’s design. Implementing these minimal standards is

not very cost-effective, given that DAEPs cost the state $232 million (Molls). In addition, the

Texas Education Agency is not “required to monitor or enforce those standards”, even though

they were mandated to developed them in the first place (Fowler 6). Finally, according to Texas

Appleseed, the language of this law is rather minimal, vague, and ambiguous. As a result, this

law has “[failed] to provide meaningful guidance to school districts, and in some

sectionsconflicts with existing law” (“Written Comments”). Although the law itself is well-

intentioned, its inherent limitations have made the implementation ineffective.

Another law that was passed in Texas is called H.B. 603 (79R). This law allows school

administrators and school staff to consider mitigating factors when determining how the student

should be punished. These factors include a student’s disciplinary history, a student’s disability,

and self-defense. One of the substantial strengths of this policy is that it’s one step away from the

Hoang 6

one-size fits all solution that plagues zero tolerance. To give an expert opinion supporting this

view, the American Psychological Association states that “effective disciplinary policies should

define a continuum of possible actions and consequences” (“Are Zero Tolerance” 858). In time,

an advocacy group called Katy Zero Tolerance (under the leadership of Fred Hinks) lobbied for

this policy, which passed through both houses in a unanimous vote (“Katy Zero Tolerance”).

Like H.B. 420 (80R), this particular legislation fails to resolve the disciplinary issue of

zero tolerance. Similar to the previous law, H.B. 603 (79R) only makes consideration of

mitigating factors an option, not a requirement. As a consequence, “it has not changed the way

schools are handling out punishments and has done nothing to remedy the problems that zero

tolerance has [created]” (Molsbee 357 – 358). To give an anecdote on how school districts ignore

this law, administrators from Fort Bend Independent School District expelled one student for

carrying a pocket-knife in a school-sponsored internship. Prior to his expulsion, he had

volunteered at a local hospital, performed as a student athlete, and served as a tutor for younger

children (Molsbee 357). To resume, even if school districts do follow this law, teachers would

still have a hard time factoring “intent” when determining how African American students

should be punished. As mentioned before, there are still cultural barriers between both parties,

such as different communication styles and different parental values. Given this information,

teachers who feel that they are losing control of the classroom often “make rash decisions

leading to increased exclusionary discipline practices” (Darensbourg 202). Through these

reasons, this particular law essentially fails to remediate the Texas disciplinary problem.

While increasing statewide funds for PBIS in Texas may be the most viable solution at

this point, it is important to address the modus operandi and the counterarguments of both

aforementioned groups. To give an overview, The Texas Association of School Boards (TASB)

Hoang 7

and the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA) seek to preserve the interests of the

school district (“About TASB”, “About TASA”). According to Fred Hinks, both groups still

support the zero tolerance policies by lobbying representatives and senators “to restrict reforms

on the disciplinary system in Texas” (Evans et. al).To highlight the actions of the group, school

districts earn money whenever a student is placed under a juvenile justice program (Downing).

At other times, “[they] began creating their own police departments” in order to ticket students

for minor offenses (Bearden). From their past actions, it is highly unlikely that both groups

would be supportive of PBIS.

According to both groups, PBIS may waste school time overall due to the program’s

required commitment. Upon careful research, however, this argument seems to hold no empirical

weight. In one study, researchers performed a cost-benefit analysis of the PBIS approach. To

briefly describe their methodologies, researchers assume that processing a disciplinary and office

referral takes 45 and 10 minutes of an administrator's time, respectively (Scott 23). In addition,

researchers estimate that students lose 20 minutes of instruction time due to office discipline

referrals (ODRs), and six hours of instruction time (one day) due to suspension (Scott 23 – 24).

Using various calculations, they concluded that PBIS implementation saves up to 16

administrative days per year and 80 days of instructor time per year (Scott 25). The former

statistic is especially worth highlighting, given that 83% of school principals claimed in a

national poll that “too much time is spent [dealing] with disruptive students” (“NAESP: Tough

Discipline”). From the information available, the counterargument that PBIS waste time seems to

hold no ground whatsoever.

In addition to the first counterargument, the argument that positive behavior support

reduces intrinsic motivation of the student should also be considered. To explain their argument,

Hoang 8

PBIS helps to maintain good student behavior "only as long as the rewards keep coming"

(Cameron 1). By removing the external motivation, both groups claimed, students lose the

incentive to perform good deeds due to reduced intrinsic motivation.While this argument is

sound in theory, it is not backed up with empirical facts. In a meta-analysis of one hundred

experimental articles, Cameron and Pierce concluded that the “negative effects of reward were

limited and could easily be prevented in applied settings” (Cameron 1). In addition, both

researchers also concluded that that when rewards are associated with performance level, the

intrinsic motivation of the experimental group stays the same or increases compared to the

control group (Cameron 1). Even without considering this empirical data, extrinsic motivation is

still great in providing the initial thrust away from student misbehavior. The intrinsic motivation

usually sets in later once the student realizes that performing good deeds is a virtue in itself

(Robertson 26 – 27). The idea that PBIS reduces intrinsic value seems to have little backing

upon further examination.

In sum, increasing the statewide funding for PBIS will help to alleviate the discriminatory

aspects of zero tolerance in Texas. This approach worked when Maryland implemented a

comprehensive model for PBIS (i.e. the Maryland imitative). In addition, the program also

achieved success when it was applied in urban schools similar to those found in Texas. In

contrast to the successes of PBIS, similar reforms of Texan disciplinary laws failed to produce a

lasting effect due to semantic issues. Incidentally, the counterarguments raised by TASB and

TASA against this program are also addressed (e.g. PBIS wasting school time, PBIS appealing to

extrinsic awards). Although PBIS will not completely overturn the exclusionary policies of zero

tolerance completely, this approach is one step closer to achieving the ideals put forth by Brown

vs. Board of Education. The day when African American students finally receive equal treatment

Hoang 9

in public schools is the moment our society can truly be called “the land of equal opportunity”.

Through your contributions, we can make this ideal a reality.

Source

"Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools?: An Evidentiary Review and

Recommendations."American Psychologist 63.9 (2008): 852-62. Print.

"About TASB."Texas Association of School Boards.N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2013.

"About TASA."Texas Association of School Administration.N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2013.

Barrett, S. B. et. al. "Maryland Statewide PBIS Initiative: Systems, Evaluation, and Next Steps."

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 10.2 (2008): 105-14. Print.

Bearden, Tom. "Harsh Punishment for Misbehavior in Texas Schools."PBS.PBS, n.d. Web. 05

June 2013.

Bohanon, H. "Schoolwide Application of Positive Behavior Support in an Urban High School: A

Case Study."Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 8.3 (2006): 131-45. Print.

Cohn, Andrea M. "Positive Behavioral Supports: Information for Educators." NASP Fact Sheet.

N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2013.

Cameron, Judy. "Pervasive Negative Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation: The Myth

Continues."The Behavior Analyst 24.1 (2001): 1-44. Print.

"Commonsense Solutions."ACLU of Texas.N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2013.

Darensbourg, Alicia. "Overrepresentation of African American Males in Exclusionary

Discipline: The Role of School." Journal of African American Males in Education 1st

ser. 2010.3 (n.d.): 196-211. Print

Downing, Margaret. "KISD Off."Houston Press News.N.p., 30 Sept. 2004. Web. 05 June 2013.

Evans, Eddie.et. al "Open Letter to Those Who Lobby Against Our Efforts." Texas Zero

Hoang 10

Tolerance.N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2013.

Fabelo, Tony et al. Breaking Schools' Rules: A state wide Study of How School Discipline

Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement. Rep. New York: Council

of State Governments Justice Center, 2011. Print.

Fowler, Deborah. Texas' School-to-Prison Pipeline: Dropout to Incarceration. Austin, TX:

Texas Appleseed, 2007. Print.

Molsbee, S. "Zeroing Zero Tolerance: Eliminating Zero Tolerance in Texas Schools." Texas

Tech Law Review 40 (2008): 325-55. Print.

"Katy Zero Tolerance."Katy Zero Tolerance.N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2013.

"NAESP: Tough Discipline Policies a Must for Safe Schools, Say Principals in Nationwide

Poll." PR News Wire. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 June 2013.

Robertson, Ian H. The Winner Effect: The Neuroscience of Success and Failure. New York:

Thomas Dunne, 2012. Print.

Scott, T. M. "Using Staff and Student Time Engaged in Disciplinary Procedures to Evaluate the

Impact of School-Wide PBS."Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 6.1 (2004): 21-

27. Print.

Sullivan, Earnestyne L. A Critical Policy Analysis: The Impact of Zero Tolerance on Out-of-

School Suspensions and Expulsions of Students of Color in The State of Texas By Gender

and School Level. Diss. Texas A&M University, 2007.N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

"SWPBIS for Beginners."Positive Behavioral Interventions & Support.N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June

2013.

Written Comments on Proposed DAEP Standards To 19 TAC, § 103.1201 By The Texas

Education Agency. 22 Aug. 2008. Texas, Austin.

Hoang 11