Should They Stay or Should They Go?: A Look at Zero-Tolerance Policies in Schools

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.

The term “zero tolerance” emerged from the get-tough rhetoric surrounding the war on drugs (McNeal, 2016). In the 1990’s, the term moved to into the educational vernacular due to a mass fear of violence in schools, particularly in reference to firearms. The Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, solidified the implementation of these get-tough policies (McNeal, 2016) and by 1998, the rehabilitative behavioral processes on most campuses across the country were replaced with zero tolerance policies (Rodríguez, 2017). Although they were implemented to combat school violence, school related deaths, despite the perception, have actually decreased since the 1990s (Welch & Payne, 2010). However, zero tolerance policies are still becoming more and more prevalent in schools. These policies have

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).

Another issue with zero tolerance policies is the immediate one year suspension for students who bring a weapon to school. This policy started with the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 (Boccanfuso and Kuhfeld). The zero tolerance policy for weapons immediately punishes any and all students found to have a weapon in their possession. Many schools have also punished students for pretend weapons, such as a bubble gun, or an Eagle Scout who had a pocket knife in his possession (Newcomb)(Lott). There is a huge difference between a student having a pocket knife in his car or a gun in his hand, but zero policies are meant to punish all students the same at the discretion of a school official (Boccanfuso). The kindergartener who was originally issued a 10 day suspension for what the school deemed a terrorist threat had only told a friend that they should shoot each other with her bubble gun. The bubble gun was not even in her possession. After undergoing a psychological evaluation it was determined that the student was not a threat and her suspension was shortened to

After the Columbine massacre, schools have truly put their foot down on student threats and bullying by enforcing zero-tolerance policies that punish any violation of a rule, regardless of ignorance, accidents or other circumstances.("9 Ways School Has Changed Since Columbine." Criminal Justice Degrees Guide. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2017.) Students, staff, parents and other school visitors who are in possession of a weapon or drug are punished. zero-tolerance has lead to many criticisms and overreactions by school districts, such as student expulsions for bringing nail clippers or a knife to cut a cake to school.("9 Ways School Has Changed Since Columbine." Criminal Justice Degrees Guide. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct.

Students are being handcuffed, arrested and expelled for possession of a butter knife or water gun, punishment that disproportionately targets African-American students, students being alienated and never returning to school after being suspended or expelled are all byproducts of the zero tolerance policies adopted by their school district. School administrators have abandoned common sense due to their adherence to zero tolerance policies by applying the same discipline to students that are guilty of minor offenses and non-violent rules violations, or just poor judgment as they due to

In the article Zero Tolerance Laws Are Unfair the author talks about a girl who gave an ibuprofen to her friend and was suspended for “dealing drugs”. Zero-tolerance policies are to blame. Zero-tolerance policies started to become mainstream in the mid-1990’s in an effort to get students who brought either drugs, guns or alcohol to school suspended or expelled. “A zero tolerance policy is a school or district policy that 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” (Mental Health America). Since the 1990’s however, these policies have grown broader and broader to include non-violent offences, such as a student talking back to an administrator or a baseball player bringing a baseball bat to school. How is it fair that someone who gives a friend an ibuprofen receives the same punishment as someone dealing illicit drugs? School administrations need to bring their zero-tolerance back to what is federally required and lose all of the add-ons, because as zero-tolerance policies have grown to encompass the unnecessary, it is especially harmful to disabled students, students of color, and at-risk students. The growing number of suspensions and expulsions, which mean more time out of school, make it harder for those kids to graduate.

Schools are institutions where acquisition of knowledge is fostered in a nurturing milieu. In 1994, when Congress passed “The Gun-Free Schools Act”, also known as the “Zero Tolerance Policy” by many, it was intended to provide students and educators with a safe environment conducive to learning. Nonetheless, “the real result of these policies is not safer schools, but significant adverse effects, such as severe disruption of students’ academic progress in ways that have lasting negative consequences” (Juvenile Law Center, 2014). However, over the past 25 years, opponents of the Zero Tolerance policy has decried it as a “school-to-prison pipeline believing that it does more harm than good.

"Zero tolerance" policies are the new theme in fighting weapons and drugs in schools. These policies behind the pressure of President Clinton have been enacted in 47 states. The idea is to encourage states to get tough on youth that threaten their own safety and the safety of others. Some of the more popular measures with these policies include installing metal detectors at school entrances, the use of armed security guards to patrol and monitor students, and the automatic removal of students who break rules regarding weapons and drugs. According to the Department of Education, school districts that have enacted these policies are showing improvements in these areas. For example, Dade county public school officials seized only 110 guns in the past year from 193 the previous year after enacting a zero tolerance policy.

Zero Tolerance Policies grew momentum after the Columbine school shooting in 1999. The Columbine school shooting was when two students went on a shooting rampage, injuring 24, and killing 13 students and school faculty including themselves at their school. Before the Columbine incident, In 1994, federal legislation passed a law that required any school to expel students who carried or were found in possession of a gun while on school grounds or they would lose federal funding. Zero tolerance policy in

Most school districts these days have initiated Zero Tolerance Policies against a variety of different substances, items, and actions. These include anything from drugs and alcohol to weapons and bullying. In this specific incident a New Jersey School District’s Zero Tolerance Policy derailed a third grade classroom party and traumatized a nine year old boy. In May, the school along with the local police and the county prosecution office agreed that incidents would now be turned over to the police. The Superintendent of the New Jersey School District estimated that police officers may have been called in about five times per day to handle issues in the school of just under two thousand students (Platoff, 2016). At the end of the school year,

In school zero-tolerance policies are intended to eliminate behaviors deemed as intolerable, such as violence, bullying, or having a weapon. But these policies are useless and unneeded because they cannot be used until after the damage has been done. Often times the intolerable behavior becomes more prevalent when the types of policies are put into place.

The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.

Once clearly defined, enforcing the zero tolerance policies can be relatively easy for the offenses related to illegal drugs and alcohol. These are serious threats to school safety and using common sense when applying the policies against such offenses should help. Violence on the other hand is more difficult to define at schools because it can take many forms. Under the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, in order for school