1

MANAGING CONDUCT: A COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS OF SAFE SCHOOLS POLICIES IN TORONTO, CANADA AND BUFFALO, USA Sue Winton Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, University at Buffalo State University of New York, New York, USA Available online: 14 Jun 2011

To cite this article: Sue Winton (2011): Managing conduct: a comparative policy analysis of safe schools policies in Toronto, Canada and Buffalo, USA, Comparative Education, 47:2, 247263

s012TCDOm03aoCr.01.iywm1 gE015lS0ioipD-0nun8r0a0ae t00r&ao2lWAa/6 nn0At 8dFi@i13vnr 5r10(Ftetab5ip5o rcnu4rEa0nlicf0endn0fi8csut6a)i8lc8/so.1a.s.2t3egi06dom10un1-0.5458460 (8o8nline)

Public school districts in Buffalo, USA and Toronto, Canada reviewed their safe schools policies in 2008. Revised Codes of Conduct are compared to earlier versions and each other, and a conceptual policy web is used to understand how local, state/provincial, national, and international influences affect local safe school policies. The comparison demonstrates that while influenced by international beliefs about unsafe schools and youth violence, affected by local social, economic, and historical contexts, and constrained by state/provincial and federal policies, local school districts are nevertheless able to exercise some agency. The study also highlights the importance of Ontarios Human Rights Commission as a policy actor, and suggests zero tolerance for non-serious incidents may be practised in Buffalo schools. This finding and the continued practice of excluding students from schools in both districts as a discipline approach casts doubt on the sincerity of governments commitments to evidencebased policy in education at all levels. Contributions of the conceptual policy web for policy analysis are discussed.
1

The year 2008 was a busy one for safe schools policy in Buffalo, New York, USA and Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Public school districts in these geographical neighbours reviewed their policies and released new Codes of Conduct. The reviews provided an opportunity for both Buffalo Public Schools (BPS) and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) to respond to critical incidents, unfavourable media coverage of the districts responses to these events, changes in legislation (Ontario), and increasing concerns about popular get tough approaches to maintain safe schools. In a recent special issue of Comparative Education, Larsen (2008) attributes the growth of safe schools policies across the USA and Canada, especially those adopting a zero tolerance approach, to discourses of fear and insecurity pervasive in North America. The purpose of this paper is to compare TDSB and BPSs safe school policies in order to understand how local, state/provincial, national, and international influences affect safe school policies at the local level. A conceptual policy web [adapted from Joshee and Johnson (2005)] is used to identify and highlight these influences. The comparison demonstrates that while influenced by international beliefs about unsafe schools and growing youth violence, affected by local socioeconomic and demographic contexts, and constrained by state/provincial and federal policies, local school districts are nevertheless able to exercise some agency. The study also highlights the importance of Ontarios Human Rights Commission as a policy actor in Ontario, and raises questions about the practice of zero tolerance in BPS. This practice, and that of excluding students from school in both school districts, casts doubt on the sincerity of governments commitments to evidence-based policy in education at all levels in both nations.

Safe schools Safe schools policies are ubiquitous across Canada and the United States. While maintaining safety in schools has always been a priority for schools, increased attention has been given to safety as public perceptions of schools as unsafe have strengthened over the past few decades. Shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech in the USA and at Dawson College at C.W. Jefferys in Canada, contribute to
2

these perceptions despite considerable evidence that schools are one of the safest places for children and that violence in schools is actually decreasing (Skiba et al. 2006; Larsen 2008).

There are many approaches to creating and maintaining safety in schools. Many policies designed to keep schools safe adopt a zero tolerance approach to misbehaviour. Zero tolerance approaches require that all offenders be punished uniformly and require students committing certain acts to be suspended or expelled without consideration of the factors surrounding their actions (Kajs 2006; Skiba et al. 2006). Proponents of zero tolerance approaches argue that removing dangerous students makes schools safer for the students who remain. There is, however, little evidence that zero tolerance increases school safety (Skiba 2000; Kajs 2006; Skiba et al. 2006). A second rationale for zero tolerance is that it will deter misbehaviour in schools; again, there is little evidence to support this claim (Kajs 2006; Skiba et al. 2006). On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that zero tolerance approaches have serious, long-term consequences for students who are excluded from school (Skiba et al. 2006). These students suffer academically, have trouble reentering school, have poor relationships with teachers, and develop negative attitudes towards adults in the school system (Cassidy 2005; Kajs 2006; Brown 2007). Furthermore, zero tolerance policies have a disproportionate impact on racial minority students, students with special needs, poor students, and academically failing, White students (Bhattacharjee 2003; Casella 2003; Daniel and Bondy 2008). As Casella (2003) notes, [a]pplying the policy consistently does not mean that all students get the same punishment (2003, 881).

Critics of zero tolerance policies advocate the use of preventative programmes, early and on-going supports and interventions, and a range of disciplinary actions to address student misbehaviour as alternative approaches to promoting and maintaining safe schools. Violence prevention strategies and supports include mentoring and tutoring programmes; peer mediation; conflict resolution programmes; character education; opportunities for students to take on leadership roles and express their views;
3

more time for counsellors to get to know students; parent meetings; verbal reminders; reviews of expectations; work assignments with a learning component; detentions; threat assessments; and voluntary service to the school community (Casella 2003; Skiba et al. 2006; Roher 2008).

These violence prevention strategies and supports may be part of a progressive discipline approach to promoting safe schools and building relationships (Roher 2008). In addition, progressive discipline also involves responding to misbehaviour in ways that are developmentally appropriate, supportive, and corrective rather than punitive. Within a progressive discipline approach, disciplinary responses will vary in light of mitigating factors considered by school administrators. Possible mitigating factors include the circumstances of the behaviour; the students age, grade, attitude, socio-emotional maturity and resiliency level; the severity and nature of the behaviour; and the impact of the behaviour on the school climate (Kajs 2006; Roher 2008). While suspensions and expulsions remain options in a progressive discipline approach, they are used only in exceptional cases rather than as a usual or required response. Disciplinary strategies that may be considered before exclusion from school include restorative justice where students repair the damage caused by their actions and victims participate in the process; in-school suspension that includes community service and/or academic work; contracts between students, parents, and school staff; or problem-solving plans developed by students and accompanied by regular meetings with an adult to check in on the progress of solving the problem (Casella 2003). There are many options for addressing student misconduct in ways that are equitable, respectful, developmentally appropriate, and keep kids in school. The American Psychological Associations Zero Tolerance Task Force concludes: The accumulated evidence points to a clear need for a change in how zero tolerance policies are applied and toward the need for a set of alternative practices. It is time to make the shifts in policy, practice, and research to implement policies that can keep schools safe and preserve the opportunity to learn for all students. (Skiba et al. 2006, 1415)

Theoretical approach and analysis Safe schools policies involve much more than directives for action to prevent school violence or punish disruptive students. My conception of policy draws on Bowe, Ball and Golds (1992) policy cycle and Vidovichs (2007) modified policy cycle. Bowe, Ball and Gold (1992) propose a policy cycle comprised of three contexts in which policy is (re)interpreted: the contexts of influence; text production; and practice. In the context of influence, interest groups struggle over the construction of formal policy. Key concepts and policy lexicon are developed, and the definitions and purposes of education are debated. Actors include government, politicians, media, committees, and grassroots organisations. In addition to individuals and groups, historical, social, economic, and political influences are also important. The state plays a central role in education policy, and while the degree to which it limits local agency is debatable, the state nevertheless must be considered in an analysis of a policys context of influence. Texts representing policy decisions are produced in the context of policy text production.

The texts are contradictory and inconsistent, and different texts must be read together (Bowe, Ball and Gold 1992). Again, government-produced texts are important and must be considered in addition to texts from other sources. The third context, the context of practice, is the area that policy decisions intend to influence and includes their anticipated and unanticipated effects.

Vidovich (2007) proposes a hybridised policy cycle in response to critiques of Bowe, Ball and Golds (1992) policy cycle and in an attempt to bring together modernist and post-modernist perspectives on policy. First, the hybridised policy cycle gives greater emphasis to the constraints of national policies on local actors than does Bowe, Ball and Golds (1992) policy cycle. Vidovich views policy as state-centred but not state controlled and maintains that there is room for local agency. Second, the hybridised policy cycle attempts to clearly highlight the links between policy contexts within and between different levels (local, state/provincial, federal) to recognise that each context continually influences the others (although the relative degree of influence varies). Third, the hybridised policy cycle extends the boundaries of policy
5

beyond the national level to incorporate international influences strengthened and intensified by globalisation. Finally, Vidovich embeds the contexts of text production and practice at each level within the context of influence rather than envisioning the context of influence as separate from the others.

Policy cycles do not exist independently from other cycles. Instead, they are connected across space, time, discourses, and fields of policy activity. To understand the relationships between policy cycles I adopt and adapt Joshee and Johnsons (2005) metaphor of a policy web. Joshee and Johnson (2005) use the metaphor of a policy web to understand how policies are connected to one another. They describe the web as a powerful image to think about and map multicultural education policies (Joshee and Johnson 2005, 55). Based on a spiders web, the rings of Joshee and Johnsons (2005) web represent the different levels where policies are made including the local, state/provincial, and federal levels. The linear, but not necessarily straight, threads that connect the rings represent the idea that different levels of policy-making may share an area of focus but are not necessarily complementary. The points where the threads meet the rings represent policy texts that have been constructed as a result of historical struggles. The open spaces between the threads represent the spaces for interpretation, reinterpretation, and resistance to policies thereby contributing to various discourses in the policy field. Like Bowe, Ball and Golds (1992) policy cycle, Joshee and Johnsons web recognises the complexity of policy, the diversity and multiplicity of policy actors, and the opportunities for policies to be interpreted and enacted in countless ways. Similarly, like Bowe, Ball and Gold (1992) and Vidovich (2007), Joshee and Johnsons web recognises connections, however inconsistent, between levels of policy making and policy texts.

I also find the notion of a policy web helpful to conceptualise how policies are related. Rather than envisioning the points where the rings and threads cross as discrete policy texts like Joshee and Johnson (2005) however, I instead think of these points as policy cycles. Thus, not only are policy texts connected to texts at different levels, but the three contexts of a policy are connected to contexts of influence, text
6

production, and practice in other cycles within and across different levels as well. A simplification of the case of character education in Ontario provides an illustrative example. Character education is the explicit attempt by schools to teach values to students (Winton 2008b). In 2006, Ontario introduced its new character education policy, the Character Development Initiative (Ontario Ministry of Education 2006). Its official policy texts are connected to the context of practice of schools and districts across the province by designating some of their initiatives as models, mandating character education programmes in all schools, and collecting annual reports of district character-related activities (Ontario Ministry of Education 2006, 2008; Glaze 2008). Prior to launching the Character Development Initiative, individuals from school districts who had played key roles in introducing district-level policies joined the provinces context of practice and designed the provincial policys texts and practices. Once formally introduced, school district character education texts were rewritten or introduced in response to Ontarios texts, as were new programmes in their contexts of practice. Activities in Ontarios context of practice, such as the Character Education Symposium, reinforced the traditional approach to character education adopted by some districts and promoted this approach to others. Concerns about school safety, student achievement, and citizenship exist in the contexts of influence of both districts and the province of Ontario (Winton 2008a).

Vidovichs hybridised policy cycle (2007) suggests that policy webs are embedded in international influences both inside and outside the field of education. These influences include dominant belief systems, policy trends, policies, organisations, events, natural disasters, and practices at the international level. Ontarios character education web, for example, reflects neoconservative commitments to traditional values and reemerged at the same time as similar policies were introduced around the world. In this comparative study I envision two webs embedded in international influences. I consider the relationships between local, state/provincial, and national policy cycles within each national web in order to understand how they affect the safe schools policies of the TDSB, Ontario, and Canada and of BPS, New York State, and the USA. The analysis involved multiple stages and was guided by questions suggested by
7

the policy webs described above. First, I focused on the local level and asked: What are the local texts, influences, and practices between 2000 and 2008 that impacted TDSBs and BPSs safe school policies? The 2001 and 2008 Codes of Conduct from BPS (2001, 2008) and TDSBs A Safe Learning Environment [outlining the TDSBs Code of Conduct (Toronto District School Board 2002)] and the 2008 Code of Conduct (Toronto District School Board 2008a) were analysed to determine the behaviours leading to suspension and expulsion. References to a zero tolerance approach or the consideration of mitigating factors were highlighted. Any disciplinary practices proposed or mandated in addition to suspension and expulsion by each district were also identified. The findings from the content analysis of each districts texts were compared. The first comparison was between TDSB and BPSs 2008 Codes to identify differences in current school district policies. Second, findings from the content analysis of the 2001 and 2002 texts were compared with those of 2008 Codes within each district to determine what is new or different in the revised Codes for each district.

The context of practice of each districts safe schools policy was also studied. Data on suspension and expulsion rates for each district were obtained from the publically available websites of the two districts, the New York State Education Department, and the Ontario Ministry of Education. Documents include the New York State Report Card (New York State Education Department 2009b), the New York State District Report Card for Buffalo City Schools District (New York State Education Department 2009a), Percentage of Students Expelled: Toronto DSB and Province of Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Education 2009a), Percentage of Students Suspended: Toronto DSB and Province of Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Education 2009b), Number and Rate of Student Suspensions for 20072008 (Toronto District School Board 2008b), and Number and Rate of Student Suspensions, 20062007 to 20072008 Comparison (Toronto District School Board 2008c).

Buffalo and Torontos social, economic, and demographic contexts were also examined to understand how these contexts may have influenced the districts safe schools policies, differences between the two districts 2008 policies, and changes
8

within each district between 2001 and 2008. Demographic and socioeconomic data were obtained from census records; municipal, state/provincial and federal websites and reports; media articles; scholarly research; and public reports.

In addition to local influences, I asked What are the texts, influences, and practices in Ontario and New York between 2000 and 2008 that impacted TDSBs and BPSs safe school policies? Data sources drawn upon to answer these questions include state/provincial and federal websites and reports; media articles; scholarly research; and public reports. The same questions were asked of national policies and international trends inside and outside education. Again, I examined data obtained from government websites, media reports, and scholarly research. I compared my findings from each national web to understand differences between the safe schools policies of the TDSB and BPS.

Schools reflect and respond to the characteristics cultural, demographics, and socioeconomic of the constituencies they serve (Noguera 2003, 33). Thus, I begin the description of my findings below by describing the social and economic contexts of Buffalo and Toronto. Next, I discuss state/provincial and federal safe schools policies and legislation that set the parameters for the school districts safe schools policies. I also highlight international trends in education that likely affect the districts as well. Then, I present the findings of the analyses of the 2008 Codes of Conduct and the context of practice of BPS and TDSB. I raise questions about the high suspension rates in BPSs context of practice. I also highlight important changes to TDSBs 2008 Code of Conduct and suggest that these changes can be largely attributed to activities in TDSBs context of practice leading to complaints filed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the TDSB and Ontarios Ministry of Education. Finally, I show how changes in BPSs 2008 Code of Conduct respond to events in the districts context of practice.

10

The cities and their schools Toronto and Buffalo have much in common and are geographical neighbours. On a sunny day and with a smooth border crossing, the drive between the two cities takes less than two hours. Their professional hockey teams are rivals, and fans from both cities make the trip down the Queen Elizabeth Highway to cheer on the Sabres or the Leafs. The Buffalo Bills, Buffalos professional sports team, began playing a series of home games in Torontos major sports venue in 2009. Cross-border shopping is common as well, and many Torontonians heading to the USA fly out of Buffalos airport to take advantage of less expensive domestic airfares.

Both cities schools are urban schools. While there is variation between schools within any city, urban schools typically operate in high population density; serve large numbers of students; exist in areas marked by profound income disparity; have higher rates of ethnic, racial, and religious diversity; have higher immigrant populations; and are characterised by linguistic diversity (Kincheloe 2004).

Toronto and its public schools demonstrate these characteristics. Torontos population is 2.48 million, and the TDSB enrols 260,000 elementary and secondary students (City of Toronto 2009; Toronto District School Board n.d.). The TDSB was created in 1998 following the amalgamation of seven individual school districts. It is the largest school district in Canada and one of the largest in North America. Some 47% of Torontos population are visible minorities (City of Toronto 2009); 12% of its residents are South Asian, 11.4% are Chinese, 8.4% are Black, 4.1% are Filipino, and 2.6% are Latin American. The percentage of visible minorities has grown rapidly since 1996 (31.8%) and continues to grow. Much of Torontos ethnic and culturally diversity can be attributed to immigration. Between 2001 and 2006, Toronto received more than 260,000 immigrants, one-quarter of the total number of immigrants to Canada during that time period (City of Toronto 2009). Of Torontos residents, 47% speak a first language other than English or French with the top first-languages being Chinese, Italian, Punjabi, Tagalog/Pilipino, and Portuguese (City of Toronto 2009).

10

11

TDSBs schools reflect the citys racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity: 53% of students speak a language other than English as their first language; more than 30% of students were born outside Canada; 10% of students have been in Canada for less than three years; and over 80 languages are represented in schools (Toronto District School Board n.d.). One third of students in grades 712 identify their racial background as White, 20% as East Asian, 19% as South Asian, and 12% as Black (Toronto District School Board 2007). Other racial backgrounds include Aboriginal, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Middle Eastern, and Mixed (Toronto District School Board 2007).

The city of Buffalo is also racially and culturally diverse, but much less so than Toronto. Just over half its residents are White (52.2%), and African Americans are the citys largest visible minority (39.1%). Almost 9% of residents are Hispanic or Latino. Only 5% of Buffalos residents in 20062008 were born outside the USA and 78% were born in New York state.

With 33,712 students in 20072008, BPS is much smaller than TDSB (New York State Education Department 2009a). Like the TDSB, BPS has an ethnically diverse student population: 25% of students are White, 57% are Black or African American, and 15% are Hispanic or Latino (New York State Education Department 2009a). Other racial and ethnic origins include American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (New York State Education Department 2009a). Eight percent are considered to be limited English proficient (New York State Education Department 2009a).

Thus, there are about the same proportion of visible minorities in Toronto and Buffalo. However, the histories of visible minorities in the cities are considerably different. Whereas many of Torontos visible minorities are immigrants, Buffalos sizable African American community can be traced to the Great Migration of Blacks from the South in the first half of the twentieth century (Thomas 1985, 579). Upon their arrival these migrants formed a new underclass in the city and faced discriminatory
11

12

treatment and racism (Thomas 1985). Schools adopted policies and practices that aimed to socialise Black students into accepting their positions as members of an underclass and maintaining the status quo. This was accomplished in part by the use of mental testing to track students and the development of special schools and programmes including adjustment schools which were designed to establish poor children and those from large families as workers and citizens of good character. Thus, Buffalo has a history of differential treatment of poor and Black students.

The transformation of Buffalo continues. In 1990, its population was 328,123, but it was just under 271,000 in 2008 (US Census Bureau n.d.). Buffalo (and its surrounding areas) was once a manufacturing centre. Many factories closed in the late 1970s and early 1980s which resulted in a 61% decline in manufacturing jobs and a 60% increase in non-manufacturing jobs from 1970 to 2005; 17.1% of these jobs were lost during 20012005 (The Regional Institute 2008). Today, manufacturing in Metro Buffalo now only makes up 10% of its workforce but produces 19% of the regions economy. The citys population decline and demographic shifts are common across American cities. US cities have been transformed since World War II when they began to decline in importance as economic, political and commercial centers (Noguera 2003, 23). The transformation of American cities is attributed to the rise of suburban living in the 1950s with the construction of highways, malls, and affordable housing; movement of jobs to these new suburbs; the deindustrialisation and globalisation of the US economy; court-ordered bussing and desegregation of housing and public education; movement of African Americans and other minorities into cities; and the movement of many white residents out of urban centres (Noguera 2003). By the 1980s, most US cities were disproportionately poor and non-White and held little political or economic power.

Almost one quarter of families in Buffalo today live below the poverty line. The citys poverty rate is nearly double that of the national average (almost triple for families living in poverty US Census) and it has a lower median income (The Regional
12

13

Institute 2006). Children are the largest age group of people living in poverty (36%). Hispanics and Black residents of Buffalo are the poorest groups in the city: 43% and 33% respectively live below the poverty line whereas 17% of non-Hispanic Whites live below this level (The Regional Institute 2006). Some 80% of students in BPS qualify for free or reduced lunch (New York State Education Department 2009a). As is common in other American cities, there are extreme economic differences within the city and between the city and its suburbs.

Income disparities across Torontos 140 neighbourhoods are also evident. The median income in Toronto decreased by 10% between 1990 and 2005, but the percentage of households with more than $100,000 in annual income rose between 2000 and 2005 from 18% to 21.4% (Matthews 2008). Across the city, 20.6% of families are considered low income, and the incidence of low income families is rising in Toronto (Matthews 2008). The citys incidence of low income is double that of Canada, Ontario and Torontos suburbs (Matthews 2008). Torontos higher incidence is attributed to its popularity as a destination for new immigrants and its high number of senior citizens and tenants (Matthews 2008).

Both school districts operate within state/provincial and federal legal and policy frameworks. Public education in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction, and while federal policies affect public education, provinces retain primary control. Ontarios Education Act (1990) directs education in the province. In the USA, states are responsible for providing education; however, federal legislation and funding have a major impact on states education policies. Important federal laws in the context of influence of states safe schools policies are the Guns Free Schools Act (1994) and No Child Left Behind Act (2001). The Guns Free Schools Act mandates a one-year suspension for students who bring weapons to school. Individual states determine what is considered a weapon, however. No Child Left Behind requires that states report violent incidents in schools and create systems that enable parents to use this information to choose schools for their children. States set criteria and label schools that fit it as persistently dangerous. Parents of children in a persistently dangerous school may transfer their
13

14

children to other schools in the district including charter schools. State/provincial and federal policies are influenced by belief systems and trends at the international level. International influences include fear of differences and the Other; desire for control and predictability; a focus on increasing accountability; emphasis on evidence-based policy-making; and a standards-based, one size fits all approach to education (Slavin 2002; Apple 2006). Many of these influences arise from globalisation, public choice theory, new managerialism, institutional economics, and neoliberal and neoconservative belief systems (Ball 1998; Slavin 2002; Larsen 2008).

Expectations and misconduct Both BPS and TDSB have Codes of Conduct that outline expectations for behaviour and consequences for failing to meet these expectations. Both Codes begin with general expectations for student behaviour emphasising respect, responsibility, selfdiscipline, courtesy, and following established rules and the Code of Conduct. BPSs Code identifies eight types of conduct violations that will lead to various disciplinary measures: (1) disorderly conduct; (2) insubordinate conduct; (3) disruptive conduct; (4) violent or threatening conduct; (5) conduct that endangers the safety, health, morals, or welfare of others; (6) misconduct on transit to and from school; (7) academic misconduct; (8) instigate or encourage another person to violate the BPS Code of Conduct.

A number of specific examples are provided for each type of conduct violation. A dress code and rules for pagers, cell phones, two-way radios, and other electronic devices with wireless communication capabilities are also included in the BPS Code. TDSBs Code of Conduct lists far fewer prohibited behaviours with the exception of those that will or may lead to suspension and/or possible expulsion. Otherwise, only very general parameters for other types of prohibited behaviour are stated [e.g.
14

15

actions that jeopardize the well-being or physical safety of any person in a school or other District facility shall not be condoned (Toronto District School Board 2008a, 3)]. However, schools are directed to define acceptable and unacceptable behaviour for the members of their communities in local Codes of Conduct.

Suspensions and expulsion Possible suspension Both district codes indicate suspension as a possible consequence of certain acts of misconduct. TDSBs (2008a) Code identifies 16 locally-identified behaviours that may lead to suspension: (1) wilful destruction of school property; vandalism causing damage to school or District property; or property located on school or District premises; (2) use of profane or improper language; (3) use of tobacco; (4) theft; (5) aid/incite harmful behaviour; (6) physical assault; (7) being under the influence of illegal drugs; (8) sexual harassment; (9) racial harassment; (10) fighting; (11) possession or misuse of any harmful substances; (12) hate-motivated violence; (13) extortion; (14) distribution of hate material; (15) inappropriate use of electronic communications/media; (16) an act considered by the principal to be a breach of the Districts Code of Conduct (Toronto District School Board 2008a, 910). TDSBs (2008a) Code also lists an additional six behaviours that may lead to suspension mandated by Ontario legislation:
15

16

(1) Uttering a threat to inflict serious bodily harm on another person. (2) Possessing alcohol or illegal drugs. (3) Being under the influence of alcohol. (4) Swearing at a teacher or at another person in a position of authority. (5) Committing an act of vandalism that causes extensive damage to school property at the pupils school or to property located on the premises of the pupils school. (6) Bullying (Toronto District School Board 2008a).

Principals can suspend for a minimum of one day and up to a maximum of 20 days. A suspended student cannot attend school or engage in school-related activities. As discussed above, BPSs (2008) Code includes seven categories of misconduct. Suspension is a possible response to any of these prohibited acts; however, a variety of types of suspensions are possible. Suspension types include suspension from transportation, athletic participation, co-curricular activities; in-school suspension; teacher removal from class; and short- or long-term suspension from school. The Code (Buffalo Public Schools 2008, 16) states that suspensions may be imposed upon students who are insubordinate, disorderly, violent or disruptive, or whose conduct otherwise endangers the safety, morals, health or welfare of others. Students suspended for more than five days, including those recommended for permanent suspension from school, are entitled to a fair hearing with a District Superintendent (or designate) and have the right to appeal the Superintendents decision to the district.

Mandatory suspension Suspension is mandatory for certain infractions in both districts, and many of the behaviours leading to suspension are the same in BPS and TDSB. For example, both districts will suspend students for using or bringing a weapon, making threats with a weapon, possessing explosive substances, and inflicting bodily harm on another individual. Differences between districts also exist. TDSBs Code explicitly states that a student will be suspended for trafficking in illegal drugs or weapons, committing
16

17

robbery, giving alcohol to a minor and committing an act considered by the principal to be a serious breach of the Districts or schools Code of Conduct (Toronto District School Board 2008a, 10). Of the behaviours that will lead to suspension in TDSB, seven are legislated by the provincial government. Only the possession of explosive substances and violating the district or schools Code of Conduct are particular to TDSB. Importantly, behaviours that require automatic suspensions will be followed by an investigation by the principal within five days of the suspension and may lead to expulsion (Toronto District School Board 2008a). Should a principal recommend expulsion, an expulsion hearing must be held by the TDSB. These expulsion procedures are legislated by provincial law. In addition to recommending that students be expelled, results of the principals investigation may also lead to the reduction, confirmation, or expunging of the suspension.

BPS mandates suspensions for violent students, disruptive students, and students possessing a weapon at school. These mandates are driven by state and federal legislation. A violent student is defined as a pupil under the age of 21 who attempts or commits an act of violence upon a school employee, student or person lawfully on school property or at a school function; possesses, displays, or threatens to use a weapon while on school property or at a school function; knowingly and intentionally damages or destroys school district property or the personal property of any school employee or person lawfully on school property or at a school function. Violent students who commit a prohibited act other than bringing a weapon to school will be suspended for a minimum of five days.

BPSs code also includes the suspension of disruptive students as required by NYS law and the one-year suspension of students who bring weapons to school as required by the Guns Free Schools Act (1994). BPS does not include any additional, locallyidentified, infractions leading to mandatory suspension. Finally, BPSs Code includes permanent suspensions of students under extraordinary circumstances including conduct which poses a life-threatening or other serious danger to the safety and wellbeing of other persons (2008, 18). Possession of a weapon, alcohol, or illegal
17

18

substances may lead to permanent suspension as well.

Both the TDSB and BPS require that mitigating circumstances be considered when determining penalties for infractions and/or the length and appropriateness of suspensions or expulsions. The circumstances identified by BPS and TDSB are similar and include the students age; the nature of the offence (including its impact on others); the circumstances which led to the offence; the students prior disciplinary record; the effectiveness of other forms of discipline, including, in the case of TDSB, the use of progressive discipline; information from parents, teachers and/or others, as appropriate; and other extenuating circumstances (Buffalo Public Schools 2008; Toronto District School Board 2008a).

Zero tolerance? Neither Code of Conduct advocates a zero tolerance approach. While allowing and sometimes mandating suspensions, both districts require that mitigating circumstances be considered when determining the length and appropriateness of suspensions. Even the US federal requirement of a one-year suspension for students who bring a weapon to school can be modified by a District Superintendent after considering mitigating factors. Neither Code mandates expulsion.

Codes of Conduct and other policy texts are only part of a zero tolerance policy, however. Policy includes not only what is written down but also the practice of teachers, administrators, and students within schools (Bowe, Ball and Gold 1992). Zero tolerance may be evident in practice even if it is absent in policy texts. Twenty percent of BPS students were suspended during the 20062007 school year (New York State Education Department 2009a). This was four times the rate for the state of New York and almost three times the national rate (National Center for Education Statistics 2009; New York State Education Department 2009b). While high, BPSs high suspension rates are not surprising given its high proportion of Black and low income students. Research consistently demonstrates that African American students and the poor are excluded from school more than their White or
18

19

more affluent peers (Skiba et al. 2006; National Center for Education Statistics 2009). The TDSB, on the other hand, suspended 3.33% of students in 20072008 and consistently has a lower rate of suspension than the province of Ontario [3.64% compared to 5.37% in 20062007 respectively (Ontario Ministry of Education 2009b)]. Expulsion rates are typically higher in TDSB than the provincial rate, but the difference is quite small (Ontario Ministry of Education 2009a). TDSB expelled 0.10% of students in 20062007 (Ontario Ministry of Education 2009a). BPSs suspension rate is almost four times the rate of TDSB.

BPSs high suspension rate raises questions about whether zero tolerance is practised in the district despite its absence in the Code of Conduct. Indeed, as I discuss below, this is what Ontarios Human Rights Commission alleged occurred in the TDSB (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2005b).

Whats new in 2008 TDSBs Code of Conduct underwent a number of changes in 2008. Important changes include the removal of mandatory expulsions and new requirements for consideration of mitigating factors when considering the length and appropriateness of suspensions. These changes did not occur only in TDSB, however; they are the result of revisions to Ontario legislation that followed a settlement between Ontarios Human Rights Commission and Ontarios Ministry of Education. The TDSB played an important role in events leading to these legislative changes.

In 2005, Ontarios Human Rights Commission (OHRC), an independent statutory body, [that] provides leadership for the promotion, protection and advancement of human rights, and builds partnerships across the human rights system (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2009), filed complaints against the TDSB and Ontarios Ministry of Education alleging that the application of the Safe Schools Act and related school discipline policies [were] having a disproportional impact on racialized students and students with disabilities (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2005b).
19

20

This charge was based on interviews with Black community members in the Greater Toronto Area, internal government documents, and research findings that racial minority students (especially Black students) in high school are more likely to perceive discriminatory treatment from teachers than White students (Ruck and Wortley 2002; Bhattacharjee 2003).

At the time, Ontarios Safe Schools Act adopted what many considered to be a zero tolerance approach to school discipline for specified infractions in all publicly funded schools. However, the policy cannot be characterised as strictly zero tolerance as it did allow for some circumstances in which suspensions or expulsions were not mandatory (Bhattacharjee 2003; Daniel and Bondy 2008). These circumstances included those in which the student was not able to control his/her behaviour, the student was not able to understand the foreseeable consequences of his/her behaviour, or if the students continuing presence in the school did not create an unacceptable risk to the safety of any person in the school. Ontario administrators interpreted the policy and applied zero tolerance differently across and within Ontario school districts (Bhattacharjee 2003).

Settlements between the OHRC and TDSB and OHRC and the Ministry of Education were eventually reached (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2005a, 2007), and the Ontario Ministry of Education brought forward Bill 212 to amend the Education Act (1990). The proposed amendments reflect the terms of settlement between the OHRC and the Ministry including consideration of a broader range of mitigating factors when determining suspension and expulsion (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2007; Roher 2007). Bill 212 passed in 2007 and the new legislation came into effect on 1 February 2008.

TDSBs 2008 Code of Conduct reflects these legislative changes as well as others initiated by the district. The TDSB removed three behaviours leading to possible suspension in its new Code: persistent truancy; conduct injurious to the moral tone of the school or the mental or physical well-being of others; habitual neglect of duty
20

21

(Toronto District School Board 2002). Bullying, which was once a district-identified infraction, is now identified by provincial legislation as an act that may lead to suspension and so listed in TDSBs 2008 Code. Of the acts leading to mandatory suspension and possible expulsion in 2008, all but An act considered by the principal to be a serious breach of the Districts Code of Conduct (Toronto District School Board 2008a, 14), were acts that would lead to mandatory expulsion in 2002 (Toronto District School Board 2002).

BPSs 2008 Code of Conduct appears unchanged, but an amendment was made in October 2008 (McNeil 2008). The change is related to student use of cell phones. A clause was changed from Students will be disciplined for their actions as deemed necessary by the building principal to students will be disciplined for their action pursuant to District of Education policy and education law by the building superintendent (McNeil 2008). This change reflects the public outcry over a students sevenweek suspension for using a cell phone and the perceived inappropriate conduct of the school principal in assigning this suspension (Simon 2008). BPS also made changes to its district suspension procedures following the incident (Simon 2008); these changes are not readily available at the time of writing.

Conclusions TDSBs 2008 Code of Conduct suggests that the district and the province of Ontario are moving away from official endorsements of zero tolerance approaches to school safety. The extent to which these changes reflect local and provincial responses to evidence that zero tolerance policies are ineffective at promoting safer schools but unfairly punish minoritised students and students with disabilities or to the cases brought against them by Ontarios Human Rights Commission is unknown. While the Safe Schools Act was up for review in 2005 anyway, the OHRCs complaint against the TDSB and Ontarios Ministry of Education and the terms of the parties eventual settlements played key roles in determining the nature of the legislative changes (Roher 2007).

21

22

BPSs 2008 Code of Conduct does not endorse a zero tolerance approach nor have earlier versions of this text. BPS has advocated a progressive approach to managing misbehaviour since 2001 and yet 20% of BPS students were suspended in the 2006 2007 school year (New York State Education Department 2009a). These high rates of suspension suggest that zero tolerance may be practised or, alternatively, that progressive discipline is ineffective. It is notable that none of BPSs schools appear on New Yorks lists of persistently dangerous schools (New York State Education Department 2007, 2008). This suggests that students are being suspended for less serious or nonviolent offences. While research on zero tolerance policies in other jurisdictions has found that most suspensions are for less serious types of behaviour, African American students in particular receive more discipline referrals and more serious consequences for nonviolent and subjective offences than their peers (Skiba, Michael and Nardo 2000; Fenning and Rose 2007). Skiba, Michael and Nardo (2000) attribute these findings to systematic racial discrimination originating at the classroom level (2000, 16). Research also consistently finds that a disproportionate number of students disciplined in American schools are male, Black, poor and identified as low achievers or developmentally disabled (Skiba 2000; Skiba et al. 2006; Fenning and Rose 2007). BPS serves a high proportion of low income and African American students which helps to explain why its suspension rates are so high.

What is interesting about safe schools policies at all levels in both countries is their continued support of suspension and expulsion as disciplinary measures despite evidence that these practices do not improve school safety nor do they help excluded students academically, socially, emotionally, or behaviourally (Brown 2007). Exclusion does, however, punish students (Casella 2003; Brown 2007). They provide symbolic responses and offer reassurance to citizens afraid and convinced that schools are unsafe despite lack of confirming evidence (Noguera 2003). Politicians and education officials benefit from the publics perception that they are taking serious action to make schools safe and punish offenders.

Adopting the conceptual policy web I describe helps highlight how demographic
22

23

and economic factors, historical practices, national trends, organisations outside education, and official policies influence safe schools policies in TDSB and BPS. TDSBs 2008 Code of Conduct is connected to revised safe schools policy texts at the provincial level and to the Ontario Human Rights Commissions complaints against Ontario and the TDSB in their contexts of practice. Perceptions of TDSBs discriminatory application of its zero tolerance policy in its context of practice also contributed to major changes in provincial legislation. BPSs policy texts are connected to those at the state and federal levels including the Guns Free Schools Act (1994) and No Child Left Behind (2001). In BPSs context of practice, high suspension rates reflect the district schools relationship to their students socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (i.e. many students are Black and poor students). Further, both TDSB and BPS exist within an international context characterised by fear and desire for greater control (Larsen 2008).

Relationships between local and provincial/state and federal policies in safe schools policy webs impact and suggest possibilities for action at the local level. For example, BPS cannot get rid of mandatory suspensions without changes to state and federal laws. District officials can, however, exercise local control over the length of suspensions for students bringing a weapon to school by taking mitigating circumstances into account. Similarly, states mediate local and federal policies by defining the meaning of a weapon and by setting criteria for persistently dangerous schools. While the policy web comprised of policy cycles embedded in international influences does not resolve the complexity of policy relationships, it helps identify how policies are related to one another. This conceptual web also highlights possible relationships between policies that might otherwise be missed if an analyst focused on texts, practices, or influences alone or if the relationships were not obvious. Findings from these analyses can identify individuals, issues, organisations, texts, practices, and ideas that are important across different policy fields. This knowledge may provide information that can be used to support or challenge particular policies. For example, the OHRCs involvement in Ontario and TDSBs safe schools policies demonstrates that it is an important actor in Ontarios safe school policy spiral. This finding suggests
23

24

that a similar body in New York State might also play such a role in investigating, and perhaps challenging, state and local safe schools policies. The states Division of Human Rights appears particularly well suited for this work as its mission is to enforce New Yorks Human Rights law prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, credit, places of public accommodations, and non-sectarian educational institutions, based on age, race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, military status, and other specified classes (New York State Division of Human Rights 2007). Thus, while the policy web does not eliminate the complexity of policy relationships, it recognises and interrogates them to better understand current policies as well as the challenges and possibilities for policy change.

Notes on contributor Sue Winton is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University at Buffalo State University of New York. Her research examines the implications of educational policy for critical democracy. She is a former elementary school teacher and has taught in Mexico, Canada, and the USA.

References Apple, M.W. 2006. Educating the right way: Markets, standards, God and inequality. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Ball, S.J. 1998. Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education 34, no. 2: 119136. Bhattacharjee, K. 2003. Ontario Safe Schools Act: School discipline and discrimination. http:// www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/discussion_consultation/SafeSchoolsConsultRepENG (accessed 1 December 2009). Bowe, R., S.J. Ball, and A. Gold. 1992. Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London and New York: Routledge. Brown, T.M. 2007. Lost and turned out: Academic, social, and emotional experiences of students excluded from school. Urban Education 42, no. 5: 432455. Buffalo Public Schools (BPS). 2001. Summary of code of conduct for students and parents.
24

25

http://www.slaght.net/Buffalo-Code-of-Conduct.pdf (accessed 7 August 2009). Buffalo Public Schools (BPS). 2008. Code of conduct. www.buffaloschools.org (accessed 11 November 2008). Casella, R. 2003. Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record 105, no. 5: 872892. Cassidy, W. 2005. From zero tolerance to a culture of care. Education Canada 45, no. 3: 4042. City of Toronto. 2009. Torontos racial diversity. http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity. htm (accessed 14 January 2010). Daniel, Y., and K. Bondy. 2008. Safe schools and zero tolerance: Policy, program and practice in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 70. http:// www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/. Education Act RSO. 1990. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_ 90e02_e.htm (accessed 10 February 2009). Fenning, P., and J. Rose. 2007. Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education 42, no. 6: 536559. Glaze, A.E. 2008. Memorandum: Update: The Character Development Initiative. http:// www.ldao.ca/documents/SEAC/CharacterDevelopment%20memo%20Apr%2008.pdf (accessed 9 September 2009). Guns Free Schools Act. 1994. Pub. L.No. 89-10. 20 U.S.C. 8921. Joshee, R., and L. Johnson. 2005. Multicultural education in the United States and Canada: The importance of national policies. In International handbook of educational policy, ed. N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood and D. Livingstone, 5374. Great Britain: Springer. Kajs, L.T. 2006. Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An alternative approach to zero tolerance. Educational Research Quarterly 29, no. 4: 1428. Kincheloe, J.L. 2004. Why a book on urban education? In 19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city, ed. J.L. Kincheloe. New York: Peter Lang. Larsen, M. 2008. North American insecurities, fears and anxieties: Educational implications. Comparative Education 44, no. 3: 265278. Matthews, N. 2008. Briefing note: Release of the 2006 Census data on income and shelter costs. http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/2006_income_and_shelter_costs_briefing
25

26

note.pdf (accessed 12 January 2010). McNeil, H. 2008. Buffalo schools try to clarify cell phone policy. The Buffalo News. www.buffalonews.com. National Center for Education Statistics. 2009. The condition of education 2009. http:// nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/pdf/28_2009.pdf (accessed 11 February 2010). New York State Division of Human Rights. 2007. Mission statement. http://www.dhr.state. ny.us (accessed 13 August 2009). New York State Education Department. 2007. 27 Schools named as persistently dangerous under NCLB. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov (accessed 17 August 2009). New York State Education Department. 2008. Persistently dangerous schools 200809. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov (accessed 17 August 2009). New York State Education Department. 2009a. The New York States districts report card: Buffalo City School District. https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb-rc/2008/6d/AOR-2008140600010000.pdf (accessed 29 July 2009). New York State Education Department. 2009b. The New York State report card. https:// www.nystart.gov/publicweb-external/2008statewideAOR.pdf (accessed 15 January 2010). No Child Left Behind Act. 2001. 20 U.S.C. 6319. Noguera, P.A. 2003. City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of American education. New York: Teachers College Press. Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). 2005a. Backgrounder Human rights settlement reached with Toronto District School Board. www.ohrc.on.ca (accessed 7 August 2009). Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). 2005b. Commission to investigate application of safe schools legislation and policies. www.ohrc.on.ca (accessed 7 August 2009). Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). 2007. Terms of settlement. www.ohrc.on.ca (accessed 7 August 2009). Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). 2009. About the commission. www.ohrc.on.ca (accessed 7 February 2009). Ontario Ministry of Education. 2006. Finding common ground: Character development in Ontario schools, K-12 discussion paper. Toronto, Ontario: Government of Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education. 2008. Character development in Action, K-12: Successful
26

27

practices in Ontario schools. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/character. html (accessed 20 February 2009). Ontario Ministry of Education. 2009a. Percentage of students expelled: Toronto DSB and Province of Ontario. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/safeschools/pdfs/tdsb-exp.pdf (accessed 15 January 2010). Ontario Ministry of Education. 2009b. Percentage of students suspended: Toronto DSB and Province of Ontario. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/safeschools/pdfs/tcdsb-susp.pdf (accessed 15 January 2010). Roher, E.M. 2007. Will the new Safe Schools legislation make schools safer? Education Law Journal 17, no. 2: 203221. Roher, E.M. 2008. Progressive discipline: Totally rethinking safe schools. Principal Connections 11, no. 3: 1819. Ruck, M.D., and S. Wortley. 2002. Racial and ethnic minority high school students perceptions of school disciplinary practices: A look at some Canadian findings. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 31, no. 3: 185. Simon, P. 2008. Suspension procedures revamped for Buffalo schools in wake of McKinley controversy. The Buffalo News. www.buffalonews.com. Skiba, R. 2000. Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. Policy Research Report. Indiana Education Policy Center. Skiba, R., R.S. Michael, and A.C. Nardo. 2000. The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. http://www.indiana.edu/ safeschl/ cod.pdf (accessed 25 January 2010). Skiba, R., C.R. Reynolds, S. Graham, P. Sheras, J.C. Conoley, and E. Garcia-Vazquez. 2006. Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. A Report by the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. Slavin, R.E. 2002. Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher 31, no. 7: 1528. The Regional Institute. 2006. Poverty: A state of extremes. Policy Brief. http://www.regionalinstitute. buffalo.edu/includes/UserDownloads/Poverty_10_06.pdf.
27

28

The Regional Institute. 2008. Grasping the new economy. Policy Brief. http://www.regionalinstitute. buffalo.edu/research/series.cfm?ID=63&Series=13. Thomas, W.B. 1985. Schooling as a political instrument of social control: School response to Black migrant youth in Buffalo, New York, 19171940. Teachers College Record 86: 579592. Toronto District School Board (TDSB). 2002. A safe learning environment. http://www. tdsb.on.ca (accessed 25 January 2010). Toronto District School Board (TDSB). 2007. 2006 Student census, grades 712: System overview. http://www.tdsb.on.ca (accessed 29 July 2009). Toronto District School Board (TDSB). 2008a. Code of conduct. http://www.tdsb.on.ca (accessed 2 May 2009). Toronto District School Board (TDSB). 2008b. Number and rate of student suspensions for 20072008. http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/parents/safe_schools/docs/2%20-% 20All%20Schools%20by%20Ward%20-%20Suspensions%20-%202007-08%20%20Final%20Revised%20(3).pdf. Toronto District School Board (TDSB). 2008c. Number and rate of student suspensions, 20062007 to 20072008 comparison. http://www.tdsb.on.ca (accessed 29 July 2009). Toronto District School Board (TDSB). n.d. Facts and figures about the TDSB. http:// www.tdsb.on.ca/communications/tdsbfacts.html (accessed 15 January 2010). US Census Bureau. n.d. Buffalo city, New York. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_ event=Search&_name=buffalo&_state=04000US36&_county=buffalo&_cityTo wn=buffalo&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph (accessed 14 January 2010). Vidovich, L. 2007. Removing policy from its pedestal: Some theoretical framings and practical possibilities. Educational Review 59, no. 3: 285295. Winton, S. 2008a. The appeal(s) of character education in threatening times: Caring and critical democratic responses. Comparative Education 44, no. 3: 305316. Winton, S. 2008b. Character education: Implications for democracy. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies 1, no. 1. http://journals.sfu.ca/iccps/index.php/childhoods/index.

28