Schools Should Eliminate the Use of Zero-Tolerance Policies Essay

Zero-tolerance policies developed to prevent drug abuse and violence in school in 1990 in the U.S. Even if those behaviors or small things minor offenses were done by accident or unconsciously, students get prosecuted and sent into the juvenile justice system as a punishment. Schools create disciplines for suspending and expelling students when they break certain rules. For example, if a student brings a weapon to school, including items that may not hurt anyone like nail clippers and toy guns, if a student has drugs, including medications or alcohol on campus, if a student says anything that someone could get as a threat, if a student does not obey teacher’s instruction, if a student fights with other students, the student would be given punishment with no choice. After adopting this policy, the number of school suspensions and dismissals increased, and the number of students who send into the prison also increased as well. Therefore, the school to prison pipeline became an issue in the education system.

Zero tolerance policies arose during the late 1980’s in response to a rising tide of juvenile arrests for violent offenses and the expanding view of youth as dangerous. During this time discipline in educational settings became much more formal and rigid. Discretion was removed from teachers and administrative staff in favor of broadly instituted policies, which often involved law enforcement and arrest. In 1994 Congress passed the Gun-Free Schools Act, which forced states to pass laws mandating expulsion for a minimum of one year for bringing a weapon to school in order to receive federal education funds. By the mid 90’s roughly 80% of schools had adopted zero tolerance policies beyond the federal requirements and in response the federal government began to increase funding for security guards and other school based law enforcement officers and equipment. These changes occurred primarily between 1996 and 2008 and mirrored changes in the juvenile justice system to more closely emulate the adult system.

Zero tolerance started as a way to keep guns out of schools until the staff at school started to use it as a way to report and punish non serious offences (Heitzeg, 2009).

With the creation of the zero tolerance policy, it changed the way student are being disciplined. In the 1990’s, in fear of the increasing crime rate, The United States Congress created a law that allowed public schools to enforce strict disciplinary policies for misbehaving students (Mental Health America). The zero tolerance policy states: “[the policy] mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context”

Often times it’s the student’s needs and the school being unable to meet the student’s needs that lead to the student being disciplined. Kids who are behind academically, and unable to perform at the same level as their peers often act out in frustration or humiliation (Noguera, 2003). Once these students are labelled as difficult, incorrigible, and unteachable they tend to believe these things about themselves and act out more in class which leads to a cycle of discipline that can ultimately lead to permanent expulsion. For some of these students, these continued rule violations lead to run-ins with the police and the criminal justice system. School administrators who are at times frustrated themselves from failed attempts to steer children from a “bad path” don’t realize that in throwing their hands up and giving up on these students, are in a way helping shuttle students from school to the penitentiary (Noguera, 2003).

Previously, principals were thought to have too much discretion when deciding disciplinary actions for students (American University Radio, 2017). Now, zero tolerance policies do not allow for discretion at all. There is a protocol that teachers and administrators must follow regardless of individual circumstance. Students may receive several consequences that include: in school suspension, out of school suspension, expulsion, and/or arrest depending on the offense.

Zero-tolerance policies are school or district mandates that predetermine “consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context” (Position Statement 46: Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools, 2014).

The zero tolerance policies can be best described as, “a philosophy or policy that mandates the application of predetermined consequences, most often severe in nature, that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of behavior, mitigating circumstances or situational context (Graham et al 2008 np)”. There was a rise of the zero tolerance policies that started with the scare of the war on drugs during the 1980s. There was this fear of copious amounts of drugs coming into the schools along with the perceived rise of gang violence occurring in schools. This happened alongside the boom in weapons coming to US, this prompted the federal government to act. Schools in some states started to adopt the language of zero tolerance, which

“Zero-Tolerance Policy” is the leading cause of most disobedient students, the reason why most students drop out of school and the cause of insubordination among students. The Zero-Tolerance Policy is a policy that, like the name states, has zero-tolerance for anything. Anything seen as a threat or anything that sends an inappropriate message towards the community is considered bad and the student could get arrested, suspended and/or expelled. The Zero-Tolerance policy applies to any student, regardless if a student has any health problems and falls to any student between the ages of 4-18. It could also apply to a student who could have the lowest amount of infractions possible. They say that removing students is necessary for learning, but, in doing that, they hurt the student as well. Some places don’t provide alternative places for students to learn at, really taking away their education. If it really ensures a safe and orderly environment for children, then there should be proof. There is no actual proof that it makes students feel safer (Wahl, "School Zero Tolerance Policies Do Harm" par. 1). It alienates the student and makes the student feel as if they are the “odd-one out”. Due to the injustices that this creates, the Zero-Tolerance Policy is ineffective, because it teaches students injustice, lowers students academic rates and minor offences are punished.

Many individuals question if the zero-tolerance policy – that is instigated in an abundant number of schools—is too much harsh? Is the extreme discipline absurd? Is there another efficient way to punish minor misbehavior in schools? These questions revolve around the policy that many national schools implement, but what exactly is zero-tolerance?

The definition of zero tolerance is “ . . . a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances . . .” Although, the policy has been known to draw attention to many schools because of the severe punishments that some students are apprehending when they misbehave or break school policies. The policy has been known to be unreasonable is several cases across the nation.

Educational Psychologist’s “believe that zero tolerance policies have more disadvantages than advantages and simply give the appearance that serious problems are being addressed” (Snowman & McCown, 2015 p. 452). When implementing the zero-tolerance policies everyone has received the same disciplinary action regardless of the intent in violating these regulations. Whether the student acted maliciously or unintentional the punishment was the same. Children are not positively redirected rather they are handed down a punishment to alter the way they conduct themselves. When adults have labeled the undesired behavior and addressed to the class what the adequate result must be, has shown a better way of dealing with this type of situation. Seldomly, teachers have precisely expressed the wanted action that deviated the challenging behavior was another method not used frequently used. There are children who have not enjoyed attending school, which received the punishment of suspension or expulsion and manipulated the system and continued to act out to receive the same outcome. There was no supporting evidence zero tolerance has improved student behavior or decreased school violence. In some cases, the punishment did not fit the infraction. According to these policies and procedures, there is not a grey

Zero tolerance, a concept that first appeared in the early 1980s, helps to ensure that each individual who breaks a stated rule or law receives the same penalty. This prevents subjectivity in determining punishment for individuals (Johns,2009).

Each student would be evaluated based on their record, where and when the incident occurred, and what the circumstances were surrounding the incident. If a student was relatively good kid with no past disciplinary action history, the school management was much more likely to have a punishment that actually taught him or her something. But times changed and education environment in public schools also changed considerably in recent years. Zero tolerance policies are concerning issues that are thought to be extremely dangerous in today’s society. The three main focuses of these policies are incidences of violence, illegal drugs, and alcohol. Zero tolerance treats children as if they were adults and takes away the ‘innocence of a child’ philosophy. This strategy could be extremely safe to the lives of the good students and everything happens by treating all offenses dealing with the aforementioned issues as well as all students equally whether the student has had a flawless record or not.

Some school critics and statisticians have observed that drug-dealing, vandalism, robbery, and murder have replaced gum-chewing, “talking out of turn,” tardiness, and rudeness as the most chronic problems afflicting today’s schools. If the intent of this observation is to shock and rattle the public’s sensibilities, it’s working. Of course, some of us may interpret such suggestions as merely dark, stoic, and cynical—“scare” tactics quite in