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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

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.

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

Zero tolerance was inspired by the U. S. Customs Agency in the 1980s in order to combat the very well organized and flourishing drug trade (Martinez, 2009, p. 155). With the drugs came news reports describing the increase in bloodshed that was a direct result of the illegal industry. As a result, many Americans began to worry about the ramifications of narcotics and violence on schools. That fear seemed justified when a series of random school shootings took place in various communities, towns, and cities across the United States (Triplett, Allen, & Lewis, 2014, p. 353). Media coverage of those tragic events was extremely intense and graphic which resulted in it serving as the impetus for Congress and the Clinton Administration to pass the Gun Free Schools Act in 1994 (Skiba, 2014, p. 28).

In Canada it is impossible to survive without working or having a way in which you are able to provide for yourself and your family. In today’s society everybody is in search of a job that requires minimal effort and includes outstanding benefits and pay. In this current economy it is very challenging since the hiring process is very selective and very prejudice. On top of that there are many additional things that do not allow us to achieve those preferred jobs or professions. Over the next 10 to 15 years, the most important demographic changes that will affect Canadian employers and workers are: an aging workforce, a better educated workforce, and immigration with greater workforce Diversity.

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

Sheaves for Christ is one of many important ministries in the United Pentecostal Church International. The money donated to Sheaves for Christ goes to help with many different life-changing experiences and also changes the lives of many people who depend on this offering for the resources they need. The money you sacrifice does not go in vain. It can go to help with many different ministries around the world, including, helping missionaries carry the gospel to the furthest parts of the world by receiving a vehicle, or helping a child find healing and a future at Tupelo Children’s Mansion or Lighthouse Ranch for Boys. The dollar you donate may be just a dollar to you, but to the missionaries, who are in desperate need of a vehicle, or the child that needs just one more chance, it represents a very precious commodity, hope.

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.

The definition of social determinant of health defined as a condition one are born, live, work or grow in. These factors are shaped by the distribution of money, and resources at global, national, and local level. So with that I do believe that access to health care is a social determinant of health. Even with all the new advance technology and medication that make our lives healthier, or live a longer life, many women who do not receive healthcare because of their lack of education, employment, or other factors that lead them to be uninsured. President Obama new Affordable Care Act will help the uninsured get insurance. The only down fall from the Affordable Care Act is that it will take between now until 2020 to take full effect. With no

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

"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.