Is universal assessment of students a realistic solution to the prevention of school violence

views updated

Is universal assessment of students a realistic solution to the prevention of school violence?

Viewpoint: Yes, to prevent school shootings, which have become a threat to the public health, school psychologists or social workers should evaluate all students for signs of mental instability or a potential for violence.

Viewpoint: No, universal assessment of students is not a realistic solution to the prevention of school violence.

Although juvenile violence declined during the last decade of the twentieth century, a series of school shootings shook the nation. Between 1995 and 2000, students at 12 schools planned and carried out shootings that resulted in the deaths of several students and teachers at each school. In other incidents, shootings resulted in at least one death per school. School shootings occurred in Washington, Alaska, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Oregon, Virginia, Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida, and California. In July 1998, President Bill Clinton said that this series of school shootings had "seared the heart of America."

In response to these shocking acts of violence, school authorities, psychologists, government officials, law enforcement agencies, and criminologists began to explore and debate possible responses to what some news reports called an epidemic of violence threatening all American schools. Critics of the news media argued that school shootings, though a tragedy, did not represent a real public health emergency. Reporters were accused of creating a crisis of fear by labeling a small series of incidents a trend and increasing the potential for copycat crimes. Educators, psychologists, law enforcement agents, and others debated whether the threat of school violence was pervasive enough to justify massive interventions that would affect the climate of American schools and the rights of individual students.

Most studies of the problem of school violence focused on strategies for creating a safer environment and preventing violence at school. Suggestions included stricter gun control policy, increased security, assigning police officers or security guards to patrol schools and their entrances, metal detectors, television monitors, searches of school lockers, telephones in all classrooms, anger-management courses, enriched after-school activities, mentoring, recreational programs, safety drills, suspensions and expulsions, and a zero tolerance policy for students who made threats, carried out any act of violence, or brought weapons to school.

The National Alliance for Safe Schools suggested that if schools were effective in dealing with minor problems, such as disruptive behavior, fighting, bullying, class cutting, and truancy, they might decrease the likelihood of catastrophic events. Some observers argued that external security measures create a false sense of security. Establishing a safe environment at school had to include efforts to monitor and modify the behavior of violence-prone students. One way to focus on students who might present a threat was to have psychologists or social workers evaluate all students for signs of mental instability or a potential for violence.

Forensic psychologists argued that universal assessment would lead to early identification of students who might commit acts of violence at school. Having identified at-risk students, psychologists could send troubled students to appropriate counseling and intervention programs. Such programs would be dedicated to anger management and to teaching alternatives to violent behavior. Denouncing this approach as student profiling, some authorities argued that all students, beginning in kindergarten, should participate in age-appropriate programs that would promote social and cognitive skills, teach problem solving and conflict resolution, enhance self-esteem, and develop positive behavioral attitudes. School programs could be linked to similar programs at the family and community levels.

Mandatory assessment programs raise important civil rights issues of privacy and freedom to choose. Those who support universal assessment of students counter that when the public health is threatened, mandatory interventions, such as vaccinations, can be required, even though certain vaccines may pose some risk to the individual. With methods developed for psychological profiling, which law enforcement agents use to find criminals, psychologists have developed checklists of warning signs that allegedly identify children who may express violent behavior. These programs have been denounced for profiling and stereotyping students on the basis of vague and unproven criteria. Assessment might well lead to a large number of false-positive and miss students who eventually engage in violent acts. Whether or not the tests have any predictive value, the risk of mislabeling and stigmatizing students who fit particular profiles is very real. Critics of universal assessment also argue that universal screening would divert scarce resources from more important school programs.

The most effective approach to school shootings remains a matter of debate, but researchers hope that further studies will provide a better perspective for analyzing school safety issues and focusing the debate on the best way to identify and alleviate the true sources of violence in schools and communities. Although many solutions have been recommended, most observers agree that there are no quick or simple solutions.

—LOIS N. MAGNER

Viewpoint: Yes, to prevent school shootings, which have become a threat to the public health, school psychologists or social workers should evaluate all students for signs of mental instability or a potential for violence.

Making It Mandatory

Whenever regulations are proposed that impinge on an individual's freedom to choose, controversy arises, even when those regulations have a positive outcome. For example, mandatory vaccination against certain childhood diseases before a child can enter the public education system prevents, and in some instances has totally eradicated, serious and fatal infectious diseases (smallpox, for example). Yet some parents believe, because of a small risk of serious adverse reactions to certain vaccines, they should have the right to decide not to have their children vaccinated. Allowing individual decisions in certain cases poses a serious risk to public health. Many children are not vaccinated unless it is mandatory, and unvaccinated children can carry a disease without displaying symptoms and can infect others, spreading the disease and placing the entire community at risk. In an ideal world, mandatory regulation would have no negative effects. In reality, negative effects almost invariably exist. Although we must, as a society, respect each individual's right to choose, we also must respect the greater good of society. This perspective must be applied to the concept of mandatory evaluation of all students to help determine the existence of mental instability and potential for violent behavior that could result in the murder of innocent people.

Why School Shootings Occur and How to Prevent Them

In the wake of students' indiscriminately and brutally shooting teachers and fellow students, officials are scrambling to find ways to prevent—as far as is possible—future incidents. Although the final decade of the twentieth century saw a reduction in juvenile violence, it also saw an increase in school-based violent episodes in which more than one person was killed. According to an article in the journal of the American Association of School Administrators, between 1992 and 1995 only two school shootings resulted in multiple deaths. From late 1995 until February 2000, there were 12 separate incidents. Society reels at the horror and heartache of children murdering their classmates and teachers, and the question "Why?" hangs in the air. In the meantime, law enforcement agencies, policy makers, and school officials struggle with the question "How?" How can further tragedies be prevented? Prevention methods such as metal detectors, searches, police guards, and television monitors in hallways; zero tolerance of students who perpetrate violent acts, make violent threats, or carry weapons to school; anger-management courses; hostage drills; and the like are all part of the effort. Criminologist William Reisman commented in The Memphis Conference: Suggestions for Preventing and Dealing with Student Initiated Violence that metal detectors, videos, and other similar preventive measures only create a false sense of security. According to Reisman, "The problem is the heart and mind of the kid."

Identification and Early Intervention

Many behavioral specialists agree that external approaches fail to reach the root of the problem. These experts feel strongly that children are much less prone to violence if they have strong, nurturing relationships with caring, involved adults from a very early age. A 1993 report by the American Psychological Association Commission on Youth Violence concluded that programs aimed at strengthening family relationships, reducing "detrimental life circumstances" early in a child's life, and incorporating similar programs into the "climate and culture of schools" have the greatest positive effect on violence prevention. The report advocates methods such as promoting social and cognitive skills, teaching alternatives to violent behaviors, self-esteem enhancement programs, problem solving and anger management training, and peer negotiation guidance from kindergarten through high school. According to social worker Joann R. Klein writing for the National Association of Social Workers, children reap great benefits from individual and group programs aimed at teaching and enhancing social and cognitive skills. Klein states that the most effective programs involve children young enough to develop positive social behavioral attitudes before they adopt violent methods of dealing with conflict. In accordance with these philosophies, many schools encourage teachers and students to identify children who are aggressive or who are at risk of failing school. These children are connected with social workers or psychologists. Other programs attempt to identify individuals and families at risk and integrate them with school-based programs consisting of community members, parents, families, and peers.

An article titled "Profiling Students: Schools Try a Controversial New Violence Prevention Tool" on <abcnews.com> noted that in light of the increased number of school shooting deaths, school psychologists are designing checklists of warning signs to help teachers identify children who may be predisposed to violence. Several organizations have developed character checklists to help teachers, social workers, and school psychologists evaluate a student's potential for dangerous behavior. These organizations include the National School Safety Center in Westlake Village, California, The American Psychological Association in conjunction with MTV, and criminologist Reisman, who lists 50 indicators in The Memphis Conference.

Psychological profiling is widely used in law enforcement to help find certain types of criminals. Although historically this method has been avoided as taboo in many public schools, there are signs it is becoming more widely accepted. For example

In September 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Center for the Analyses of Violent Crime in Virginia issued a report listing dozens of risk factors usually found among school shooters. More than 150 educators, health officials, and police officers, many involved in school shootings, studied 18 cases. (The report emphasizes the list is not a profiling tool and that a student displaying more than one trait is not necessarily a shooter.)
Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools, a collaborative effort commissioned by President Clinton between the National Association of School Psychologists, the U.S. Department of Education, and other agencies, was distributed to schools in 1998. It cautions against labeling a child if early warning signs are identified.
In Granite City, Illinois, school staff are required to identify students who fit an at-risk profile. Factors include the student's preference for violence in media and entertainment and his or her writing of essays expressing "anger, frustration and the dark side of life."
Certain school districts in Connecticut and Massachusetts have developed districtwide profiles to identify potentially violent students.

The word profiling carries negative connotation because of past racial bias and abuse by law enforcement agencies. (The FBI, a recognized authority on the use of profiling, prefers to use the term behavioral assessment.) Advocates and opponents alike caution that extreme care is necessary for assessing students. For example, a checklist of early warning signs may be misinterpreted to wrongfully identify some students and cause stereotyping, discrimination, and alienation from teachers and other students. However, well-designed programs used by well-trained authorities can be valid and valuable tools to help identify troubled students and place them in remedial programs.

Stepping Out to Intervene

Peter Blauvelt, president of the National Alliance for Safe Schools in College Park, Maryland, is a strong proponent of behavioral assessment. He agrees these programs have potential for abuse but believes there is potential for abuse in many areas in the education system. In an article in School Administrator, Scott LaFee quotes Blauvelt as follows: "People just have to be careful not to cross the wrong line." Blauvelt, also the former director of school security in Prince George's County, Maryland, which has a student population of 125,000, prefers to call the method he has implemented "incident profiling." By closely monitoring aggressive and disruptive behavior and reporting details such as where and when an incident occurs and who is involved, school officials can more accurately anticipate a serious problem. Blauvelt calls it a preventive management tool. By analyzing the reports, school authorities can determine which children are sent to the office for which types of violations, can compare incidents to determine commonalities among offenders, and can take steps to avoid more serious situations. Blauvelt remarked that most school districts already collect information about school disruptions but feels that few review or use the information to full benefit. "Reasonable educators just need to develop better internal abilities to monitor and assess what's going on," he said.

Once a student is identified as being potentially dangerous, the question remains what happens next. Steve Balen, superintendent of the Granite City, Illinois, Community Unit School District—probably the first to institute a written policy for psychological assessment of potentially violent students—is quoted by LaFee as saying that although checklists are good, creating a vehicle to respond to troubled students is essential. In Balen's program, the profile of a troubled student includes a record of behavior that may lead to armed violence, grade history, past behavior reports, medical records, and pertinent material from outside sources. The report is evaluated by a team composed of a school resource officer or counselor, a social worker, a psychologist, and an administrator. To maintain distance, three members of the team must not be part of the school district. If the team identifies a problem, the child's parents are approached and asked for permission for psychological testing of the child. Test findings can result in the parents' being ordered to pursue remedial treatment of the child. If the parents refuse, the child can be placed in an alternative education program chosen by the school board. Either way, removing the troubled child from school is not the objective—getting the appropriate help is.

Different forms of profiling have been used for decades, not only in law enforcement but also in industry. Many large companies require potential employees to undergo evaluations specifically designed to help determine emotional intelligence, potential for success in business and in life, personality traits, management potential, and the like. Sophisticated technology allows mental health experts to design software programs to evaluate individuals for self-esteem, integrity, achievement and potential for life success, arousal and sensation seeking, sociability, submissiveness, alcohol and drug use, parental attitudes, emotional empathy, and many other traits and tendencies, including violence and aggression. One such program is the Mosaic-2000, which can provide schools with law enforcement assessment capabilities similar to those used to evaluate threats on Supreme Court justices and Hollywood stars. Mosaic-2000 is being field tested in 25 public schools, primarily in the Los Angeles area, with the participation of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. In The Christian Science Monitor, Gail Chaddock quotes promotional material from the firm that designed and is testing the program: "School is the workplace of children … [and] the strategies learned by industries and government should be available to school administrators."

This test program—as do many other evaluation programs already in place—profiles situations rather than individuals. Most individual evaluations are geared toward students who already show significant signs of serious aggression or other antisocial behavior. Mental health and education professionals believe early intervention is the most effective means of curbing violent behavior. Mandatory student evaluation could begin as early as first grade and be conducted once a year, adjusted for age appropriateness, to track each student's emotional and social developmental progress (just as their educational developmental progress is evaluated with tests and examinations). Such a program would facilitate early identification of children with a predisposition to violence or who live in detrimental life situations. Well before violence becomes an integral part of their behavioral patterns, children could be referred to programs that provide the counseling and support necessary to help them become well-adjusted members of society.

Scientifically Unproven but Socially Imperative

The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CPSV), at the University of Colorado, Boulder, has published a position summary pertaining to the issue of behavioral assessment. The document notes that no scientific research has been done to determine the effectiveness of such measures. It states that profiling efforts by law enforcement agencies have not been encouraging but goes on to say, "Despite this, profiling seems to remain popular with law enforcement authorities and educators alike."

Mary Leiker, a school administrator for 25 years and superintendent of Kentwood, Michigan, Public Schools, a district that educates 8,600 students, introduced an assessment program similar to that implemented by Balen. Leiker believes that school administrators in other districts will eventually establish similar programs, regardless of their hesitation, because such programs will be a "social imperative." Scott LaFee quotes Leiker: "Profiling isn't something most of us think we're going to do. But when you think about the top issues of education, creating safety in schools is one of the biggest. Profiling doesn't guarantee absolute safety. There is no 100% accurate predictor, but it can be an effective tool. And the fact is, I have to live with myself. If I, as a superintendent and educator, left one stone unturned in trying to keep children safe, if I lost one child because of it, I don't know how I would cope."

—MARIE L. THOMPSON

Viewpoint: No, universal assessment of students is not a realistic solution to the prevention of school violence.

It is important to remember that although shocking and tragic, school shootings are not the public health epidemic the media would have us believe. In fact, school violence declined in the 1990s, and fewer students carried weapons on school grounds, according to the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Nor are school shootings a new phenomenon. The earliest documented case occurred in 1974, and a total of 40 incidents have been recorded since then.

This is not to say that we should not try to prevent school violence, and not just mass killings such as those in Colorado. We must, however, resist the temptation to apply a "quick fix," and instead look for proven alternatives that improve the school experience for everyone involved. There is no universal solution to problems that stem from human behavior, simply because human behavior, especially among teenagers, is unpredictable.

In "Evaluating Risk for Targeted Violence in Schools," Marisa Reddy and colleagues point out that teens who commit murders are less likely to have a history of mental illness, arrests, or school adjustment problems than are teens who have committed nonviolent crimes. In addition, teens who commit murders are less likely to have a history of violent behavior than are teens who have been convicted of assault. To further complicate matters, teens who commit targeted school violence (a school attack in which the attacker and the target are identifiable before the attack) may be different even from teens who commit other forms of homicide or delinquency. In reality, it is impossible to predict which student may become violent. Even if the purpose of the assessment is to identify immediate risk (rather than to predict future risk), a universal screening program will not be effective and may do more harm than good. Instead of focusing on the entire student population, resources should be available to attend to individuals who are brought to the attention of school professionals.

The Question of Available Resources

Those who call for implementation of a universal assessment program may not realize what resources are needed to follow through and make such a program effective. Finding an assessment tool that is reliable is only the beginning. And if the right tool for assessing risk is found, a system has to be built to handle the assessment and the results.

The mental health professionals who administer assessments have to be trained in correct administration and interpretation. For assessment of an entire student population, we have to find people dedicated only to school assessments and interpretations. School psychologists and counselors are already stretched to the limit and will not be able to shoulder this additional burden. And when the results are obtained, we have to deal with the students who are identified as at risk.

Identifying a student as at risk is only the first step, Joanne McDaniel, director for the Center for Prevention of School Violence in North Carolina, points out. A system is needed for referring students to the appropriate mental health facilities for treatment. The system should ensure students are receiving the help they need, even if their families are unable to foot the bill. Although this is true whenever a student is identified as at risk, a universal assessment program would have some false-positive results. Some students therefore would unnecessarily go through at least the initial steps of the mental health and legal systems. A system would be needed to address the consequences of false-positive results, from purging student records to assisting students in handling the possible emotional and social consequences of false accusation. The resources needed to make universal assessment effective cannot be justified by what we know today about our ability to assess the next perpetrator of school violence.

The Problem of "Prospective Profiling"

Assessing students to find potential perpetrators of violent school crimes can be done, according to some school professionals, through a technique known as prospective profiling. With this technique analysts look at previous perpetrators of a crime, such as school shooting, find commonalities, and attempt to predict what the next perpetrator will look like and how he or she might behave.

Ironically, one of the problems posed by prospective profiling is that students who may pose a danger in the school will not set off any alarms because they do not "fit the profile." In an evaluation of school shootings, the U.S. Secret Service studied 37 incidents in which "the attacker (s) chose the school for a particular purpose (not simply as a site of opportunity)." The researchers used primary sources, including interviews with 10 of the shooters. The report of the results, Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools, issued in October 2000, states: "There is no accurate or useful profile of 'the school shooter'." An FBI report titled The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective reached the same conclusion.

Because the profile is unreliable, and because the incidence of targeted school violence is so low, prospective profiling carries with it a considerable risk of false-positive results. This means a student may fit a profile the school has in mind, such as a loner who wears black and dislikes athletes, but this student will probably never pose a risk to the school. The risk then becomes stigmatization of students, and possible legal action against them, when these students are never a danger in the first place.

Reddy and coworkers point out results from a survey conducted by Time magazine and the Discovery Channel that "indicate that the majority of students polled (60%) disapprove of the use of profiling in schools…. Their concerns and fears are based on the potential for unfair use of profiling against students who are not likely to be violent." Students and parents alike worried that prospective profiling would be used to target students different from most of the other student body, as in race or sexual orientation.

Other Assessment Techniques

To date, no proven tool will give an accurate assessment of the "next school shooter." Checklists often are used by mental health professionals and school officials and faculty to evaluate students brought to their attention for one reason or another. However, no reliable research has established criteria for evaluating a potential perpetrator of school violence. The checklists used today are based on characteristics of violent teens and psychiatric patients. Perpetrators of targeted school violence differ from these groups in several ways.

The psychological tests used to look for mental disorders are of no use in looking for the next school shooter. According to Reddy and coauthors, there is currently no information about the "prevalence, nature, or role" of mental disorders in targeted school violence. No research has proved the current psychological tests for mental disorders useful in identifying a student who may perpetrate targeted school violence.

McDaniel points out that assessment tools may work well in a research environment, but implementing them in the schools changes the conditions for the assessments. The staff is overworked and may not be trained properly, for example. This change in conditions harms the integrity of the assessment tool and may lead to an increased incidence of false-positive findings.

Potential for Abuse in Psychological Assessments

In 1995, elementary school-children in Pittsburgh were subjected to psychological testing without many parents' consent or knowledge. Children five to ten years of age were evaluated with a tool called the Pittsburgh School-Wide Intervention Model (P-SWIM). Funded partially by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, the battery of psychological tests required children to answer questions such as "Have you ever forced someone to have sex?" and "Have you ever tortured an animal?" Even five-year-olds had to answer these questions. Parents were not allowed to see the results of the tests or the interpretations. The incident came to light when parents started to notice marked changes in their children's behavior. Children were displaying stress-related symptoms such as nightmares, bed-wetting, and headaches. The parents filed suit in 1997. The suit was finally settled four years later with a monetary award and a promise to destroy the records pertaining to the test. Supposedly, the testing was conducted to diagnose hyperactivity and other behavior problems in the students.

According to McDaniel, there is no federal policy regulating informed consent in psychological assessment of students. In some areas, simply enrolling in a school implies consent to various assessments that may be performed on the students, and the parents may not be aware of the kind of questions in the assessment. If psychological assessments are to become routine for preventing violence in schools, informed consent of parents and full sharing of the results must become federally mandated. It is too easy to abuse a system in which implied consent for psychological testing is the rule. Assessment records stay in students' files and may follow the students into adulthood, possibly interfering with the pursuit of higher education and a career.

Alternatives to Universal Screening

Although the threat of school violence is not of epidemic proportions, it is important to take steps to minimize this threat as much as possible. Universal screening is clearly not the answer, but what alternatives do we have?

The first step should be a shift in attitude, as Reddy and colleagues point out, from prediction to prevention. The goal should be to prevent school violence, not to predict who may carry out the next attack. To that end, schools should strive to create an environment of trust and support, where communication between students and adults is fostered and encouraged.

The Secret Service noted that an overwhelming majority of school attackers had told at least one peer about their plans. These conversations were rarely reported to adults. One of the implications, according to the Secret Service report, is that schools should strive to decrease the barriers between students and faculty and staff.

In an overwhelming number of incidents, the person who carried out the attack was already on the "radar screen" of a peer or even a school official. Many times, the would-be attacker displayed suicidal tendencies before the attack or had difficulty coping with a recent major event in life. Schools with systems for handling these students in a timely manner are still the exception rather than the rule. Why go through the trouble of assessing the entire student population if we still cannot help those we know to be at risk?

The CSPV launched a national violence prevention program in 1996. Blueprints for Violence Prevention identifies programs around the country that have been scientifically proved to reduce adolescent violence, substance abuse, and delinquency. The programs range from school-based curricula to community-based therapeutic approaches. These programs can be adapted to fit various communities in the United States at relatively low cost and have a proven record of success.

The most reliable tool for identifying students at risk is the classroom teacher. In a school environment that cares and nurtures students, the teachers are sensitive enough to know whether a student's change of behavior is reason for concern. Because "normal" behavior for children is such a wide continuum, it is teachers, not psychologists, who can determine best which student needs help. They should be able to do so not with checklists but through their knowledge of their students as individuals.

The U.S. Department of Education treats violence prevention efforts as a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid is a schoolwide foundation. This foundation is built, in part, on the following principles:

Compassionate, caring, respectful staff who model appropriate behavior, create a climate of emotional support, and are committed to working with all students.
Developmentally appropriate programs for all children to teach and reinforce social and problem-solving skills.
Teachers and staff who are trained to support positive school and classroom behaviors.

This foundation facilitates identification of at-risk students, according to the Department of Education, because it fits the needs (in terms of improving behavior and academic performance) of all but the students who need extra intervention. For those who do need extra intervention, the next step in the pyramid is early intervention. This step, for which mental health professionals are needed, may be anything from brief counseling to long-term therapy. Students who exhibit very severe academic or behavioral problems go to the tip of the pyramid—intense intervention. The system relies on knowledgeable, caring staff—not assessment tools—to identify students with early warning signs. The signs that a student needs help are fairly obvious to a caring teacher. But once a student is identified, the teacher should be able to refer him or her to a facility for helping children. This is where our resources would be much better spent.

"For every problem, there is a solution which is simple, neat, and wrong." H. L. Mencken was not talking about response to school violence. The FBI, however, in The School Shooter, aptly chose this quote in warning about what it characterized as "a knee-jerk reaction, [in which] communities may resort to inflexible, one-size-fits-all policies on preventing or reacting to violence." The call for universal screening of students is exactly such a reaction. It is risky and not useful. Resources to combat targeted school violence are much better spent in establishing community-wide programs equipped to handle and support troubled students. According to McDaniel, research has shown that when they keep education as their mission and priority with safety and security seamlessly integrated into the learning environment, schools are more successful overall, even when operating in a challenging environment. Available resources, therefore, would be much better spent on creating schools that teach rather than schools that police their students. What we need is a system ready to help, not a system that is busy predicting what a student may do.

—ADI R. FERRARA

KEY TERMS

INCIDENT PROFILING:

Recording details of particular types of incidents to determine commonalities.

PROSPECTIVE PROFILING:

A method of creating a profile of the next perpetrator of a particular crime on the basis of analysis of previous perpetrators of the same type of crime.

STUDENT PROFILING:

Similar to criminal profiling and FBI behavioral assessment.

TARGETED VIOLENCE:

A violent attack in which both the attacker and the target are identifiable before the attack. The target may be a person, such as a specific teacher, or a building, such as the school itself. A term coined by the Secret Service.