----

##  Profiling Students for Violence. ERIC Digest Number 139.                     

In the aftermath of the flurry of shootings and other incidents of              violence that have erupted in our nation's schools during the past              few years, teachers and administrators are desperately seeking                  reliable ways of foretelling which students may be at serious risk              of crossing over the invisible line into violence. Although there is            no crystal ball that can predict with certainty an individual                   student's future potential for violence, school officials are                   intensifying their efforts to identify potentially dangerous                    students. 
Student profiling is one controversial approach to                  violence prevention that many administrators are contemplating in               their quest to keep schools safe. While some perceive profiling as a            promising tool, others view it as an ill-conceived response to the              issue of school violence that will do more harm than good. This                 Digest defines profiling, discusses issues raised by profiling                  students for violence, and describes additional strategies for                  reducing the risk of violence in schools. WHAT IS STUDENT                     PROFILING?Student profiling is a term used to refer to a process            in which checklists of behaviors and personal characteristics                   associated with youth who have perpetrated violence are used to try             to gauge an individual student's potential for acting out in a                  violent manner in the future. If a large number of items on the list            appear to be true for a particular student, the assumption is that              the student is at higher risk for committing violence. 
As Fey and             others (2000) state, "In inductive profiling, the profiler looks for            patterns in the available data and infers possible outcomes-in the              case of schools, possible acts of violence committed by students who            fit the pattern. The strategy is used to predict behavior and                   apprehend potential offenders before they commit a crime" [emphasis             in original]. SHOULD SCHOOL PERSONNEL ATTEMPT TO PREDICT STUDENT              BEHAVIOR?One central issue surrounding the prospect of profiling            students for violence is whether school personnel should attempt to             make predictions about an individual student's propensity for future            violence, a task that has been elusive even for trained                         mental-health professionals. 
U.S. Education Secretary Richard W.              Riley opposes use of behavioral profiling by schools to identify                potentially violent students. Riley contends a better way to enhance            school safety is for teachers and administrators to create a caring             environment that promotes a sense of connection among students and              between students and staff (Kenneth Cooper 2000). Riley also points             out that research conducted at the University of Oregon's Institute             on Violence and Destructive Behavior indicates that when schools                promote compassion, discipline, and peaceful conflict resolution                they can prevent 80 percent of violent behavior (Cooper). 
Joe                 Morrison, school director at North Allegheny, one of Pittsburgh's               largest suburban school districts, states, "This is a business we               shouldn't even consider getting into" (McKay 1999). He believes                 students could be unfairly labeled and information placed in their              school files could haunt them for the remainder of their educational            careers (McKay). 
The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment                      Perspective (O'Toole 2000), a report recently released by the FBI,              provides a model for assessing the seriousness of threats and                   offering intervention. The report states that "at this time, there              is no research that has identified traits and characteristics that              can reliably distinguish school shooters from other students" and               asserts that developing a profile "may sound like a reasonable                  preventive measure, but in practice trying to draw up a catalogue               or 'checklist' of warning signs to detect a potential school shooter            can be shortsighted, even dangerous." 
However, Mary Leiker,                   superintendent of the Kentwood, Michigan, Public Schools, which has             implemented a program to assess students for violence, has a                    different perspective. She notes, "Profiling isn't something most of            us think we're going to do. But.... 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" (LaFee 2000). 
Many              of those in support of profiling students for violence are convinced            keeping schools safe is so critical that measures perceived as                  extreme are warranted. Some administrators are concerned that if                violence visits their school they could confront legal action-as                well as tremendous personal guilt-if they haven't done everything in            their power to try to create a safe school environment. However,                electing to engage in profiling also raises an array of legal and               ethical issues for schools. IS PROFILING RELIABLE?A critical              issue to be examined is whether profiling students for violence is a            reliable process. That is, can profiling accurately predict a                   student's potential for perpetrating violence? 
According to Lois              Flaherty, a child and adolescent psychologist and spokesperson for              the American Psychological Association, the verdict is still out.               She states, "I don't think we have any data to show whether it is               effective or not. And the lack of research is just one of many                  issues here" (LaFee). 
FBI agent Terry Royster argues that                     teachers, who observe and interact with students on a daily basis               over time, are more reliable sources of information about which                 students are most troubled and in need of help. He says, "What I                stress is to really forget the school shooter behavioral assessments            and go into the classroom. Every teacher can tell you who's likely              to cause trouble" (LaFee). 
Another complicating factor is that                there is not a single list of behavioral "warning signs" about which            consensus exists among professionals. Rather, there are several                 lists, each developed by different educational and mental-health                related organizations. When items on one list of "warning signs" are            compared with items on another, there is often only low to moderate             overlap (Fey and others). 
In other words, even the issue of what              variables may be indicators of future violence remains at least                 partially unresolved. Therefore, an initial challenge facing schools            that opt to engage in student profiling is deciding which list of               guidelines to use as the standard against which to assess                       youth. 
Also, some warning-sign lists, like the one included in the            Department of Education publication Early Warning, Timely                       Response (1998), were never intended to be used for profiling                   purposes. However, despite a strong caution to this effect contained            within the publication itself, in some cases this message has gone              unheeded, which disturbs Kevin Dwyer, one of the authors ("Profiling            Students May Cause More Harm" 1999). WHAT QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS              ARE RAISED BY STUDENT PROFILING?A decision about profiling                  should not be made lightly. Its implications for both students and              schools are far-reaching and should be given due                                consideration. 
One caveat is that although certain behavioral                 patterns or characteristics tend to be more prevalent among youth               who commit violent acts, many youth may display these behaviors or              characteristics-or fit the "profile"-yet never become violent. As               LaFee states, "Descriptions of moody, angry, confrontational and low            self-esteem can be used to describe almost any teenager at some                 point." 
Fey and others also point out that "school authorities                could face legal action, as well as negative media attention, once a            student is wrongfully identified as being at risk for committing                violence." 
Another concern is expressed by Hill Walker, codirector            of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior at the                    University of Oregon, who notes that efforts to gauge students'                 propensity for future violence inevitably result in both false                  positives and false negatives ("Profiling Students May Cause More               Harm"). Walker believes "the potential of abuse is as great as the              potential of violence. " 
Other issues that remain unresolved are              noted by Flattery: "There's the question of who is doing the                    identifying of students and the evaluation. What happens with the               results? Will they be used to single kids out for further                       stigmatization and isolation? What are the civil liberties                      concerns?" (LaFee). 
Fey and others underscore the fact                        that "stereotyping, discrimination, and the wrongful identification             of potential perpetrators are ethically unjustified, even if the                intention is to protect children from harm." As they also point out,            implementing profiling alters a school's culture and climate,                   and "touches at the very core of what schools should and will look              like" (Fey and others). 
Another significant issue, raised by Pam              Riley, executive director of the Center for the Prevention of School            Violence, is that even if school personnel are able to accurately               identify troubled students through profiling, most don't know what              to do next (LaFee). Should school personnel just attempt to keep a              close eye on the student? Can or should they require                            students/families to obtain mental health services? Move the student            to an alternative educational placement? Expel the student? WHAT              OTHER OPTIONS CAN SCHOOLS EMPLOY TO PREVENT VIOLENCE?Youth                  violence is an extremely complex issue, and it will take a concerted            effort by many sectors of society to make headway in addressing the             problem. Fortunately, some promising paths to pursue are at                     hand. 
Elias and colleagues contend that schools can play a major              role in preventing violence by choosing to invest in social and                 emotional learning as well as academic learning. They believe the               mission of schools must include teaching students "to engage in                 thoughtful decision making, understand signs of one's own and                   others' feelings, listen accurately, remember what we hear and                  learn, communicate effectively, [and] respect differences."                     Assisting students to develop competence in such social and                     emotional skills will not only reduce interpersonal violence but                will also foster a caring and cooperative environment that supports             academic learning. 
Engaging in what is sometimes referred to as               incident profiling (as opposed to student profiling) can also aid               schools in their quest to reduce violence and other behavioral                  incidents (LaFee). Incident profiling entails reviewing                         office-referral data to learn such things as the primary reasons                students are sent to the office or suspended, locations in the                  school building where problems tend to occur (such as lunch room,               hallways), whether incidents are clustered around certain segments              of the school day, and so forth. Office-referral data are maintained            by most schools but rarely reviewed and analyzed. The data can often            reveal trends and shed light on adjustments that are needed in the              school setting (for example, placing more teachers in the hallways              to better monitor the between-class transition time if most                     incidents in a particular school are happening during these                     periods). 
Functional assessments are another tool schools can use             to address problem behavior at an individual level rather than a                schoolwide level. In a functional assessment, data concerning                   factors that may be influencing a particular student's problematic              behavior are collected through direct observation. The purpose of               the assessment is to identify variables that trigger the behavior               and factors that help to maintain it, form hypotheses about the                 purpose the behavior is serving for the individual, and ultimately              to formulate a behavior-support plan to teach and promote desired               behaviors to replace the problem behavior (Sprague and others                   1998). 
Michael Greene, executive director of The Violence                     Institute, says, "First and foremost school officials, whether                  administrators or teachers or whoever, have to listen to students in            a non-judgmental manner. Often, that's all a child needs-someone to             talk to. And that requires only minimal training" (LaFee). 
In a               time when communities across the country are clamoring for evidence             that school leaders are doing everything in their power to prevent              further episodes of school violence, administrators must carefully              consider the potential risks as well as the possible benefits                   associated with anything being touted as a tool to make schools                 safer. RESOURCESCooper, Kenneth J. "Riley Rejects Schools'                Profiling of Potentially Violent Students. The Washington Post                  Online (April 29, 2000): A11. 
Dwyer, Kevin; David Osher; and                  Cynthia Warger. Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe                 Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998.                    http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/earlywrn.html 
Elias, Maurice             J.; Linda Lantieri, Janet Patti; Herbert J. Walberg; and Joseph E.              Zins. "Violence Is Preventable." Education Week (May 19, 1999):                 45-49. 
Fey, Gil-Patricia; J. Ron Nelson; and Maura L.                         Roberts. "The Perils of Profiling." The School Administrator 57,                2 (February 2000): 12-16. 
Goodman, Steven. " The Power of                     Listening." Education Week (December 1, 1999). 
LaFee,                         Scott. "Profiling Bad Apples." The School Administrator 57,                     2 (February 2000): 6-11. 
McKay, Gretchen. "Can 'Profiling' Prevent            School Violence?" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (October 27,                          1999). (Online Post-Gazette) 
O'Toole, Mary Ellen. The School                  Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective. Washington, DC: Federal               Bureau of Investigation, September 2000. 46 pages. 
"Profiling                 Students May Cause More Harm." School Violence Alert 5, 10 (October             1999) 1, 4. 
Sprague, Jeffrey; George Sugai; and Hill                          Walker. "Antisocial Behavior in Schools." In Handbook of Child                  Behavior Therapy, edited by Watson and Gresham. New York: Plenum                Press, 1998. 
Walker, Hill M., and Janet Eaton-Walker. "Key                    Questions About School Safety: Critical Issues and Recommended                  Solutions." NASSP Bulletin 84, 614 (March 2000): 46-55. 
Wise,                 B.J. "Vaccinating Children Against Violence." Principal 79,                     1 (September 1999): 14-15, 17, 20. ----- 
A Product of the ERIC                Clearinghouse on Educational Management College of Education,                   University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon  97403-5207 
This publication              was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research               and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No.               ED-99-C0-0011.  The ideas and opinions expressed in this Digest do              not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, ED, or               the Clearinghouse. This Digest is in the public domain and may be               freely reproduced. The text of this Digest may be viewed                        electronically at http://eric.uoregon.edu EA 030 481.                        **Title:** Profiling Students for Violence. ERIC Digest Number 139.                     **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 5207 University of                Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5207. Tel: 800-438-8841 (Toll Free). For               full text: http://eric.uoregon.edu.                                          **Descriptors:** Antisocial Behavior,  Early Intervention, Educational                           Administration, Elementary Secondary Education,  Prevention,                     Profiles, School Security,  Student Behavior,  Violence                     **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]