The Negative Effects Of Zero Tolerance In Schools

The use of police in schools has been on the increase since the shootings at Columbine High school in 1999. However, over the last 10-12 years the increase is due mainly to available government funding. These “Special Police” are now called “School Resource Officers” (SROs). While the proponents of the SRO program believe that the presence of a Police officer represents all that is right and moral and what our children should aspire to be.

Based on the research, the context of “zero tolerance” policies has been examined. Furthermore, this study identifies whether these policies have essentially created effective solutions or merely increased problems for institutions and children.

The School Resource officer program provides the use of trained full-time Police Officers who will work within the educational system. The objectives of the School Recourse Officer Program is to promote and assist schools in providing a safe learning environment which will also improve relationships between law enforcement and the youth of today. The program attempts to promote a better understanding of the Law Enforcement Officers' role in society while educating students, parents, school personnel, and the community on important issues such as gangs, violent crime, drugs, and other related topics. The program also provides a positive role model in the educational system. The Primary focus of this program is

In today's school system, there have been uproars about the student's privacy and safety at the schoolhouse. Some parents feel that their child's safety is more important because of the rules that the school has set forth to maintain a safe environment. Others feel that their child's privacy should be taken seriously because they should be treated more like an adult. In recent news, there has been concerns about the student's safety that cause some to get injured or killed; while, student's privacy has cause the police to get involved. The school system should be concerned as well as, aware about the student’s privacy and safety at their prospective school.

The school to prison pipeline continues to be one of the huge issues in an education system. In 1990s, zero-tolerance policies, which is “a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against undesirable behaviors or possession of items” (“zero”), have been adopted in various education system in the U.S. The purpose of these zero-tolerance policies was to prevent minor crimes that could become serious crimes, such as violation, murder, negligence, terrorism and more. Thus, many students get prosecuted and sent into the juvenile justice system because of this policy. Under this circumstance, schools should accept exception and consider the reason why they broke the rule. Also, students should not be given heavy punishments

The school-to-prison pipeline in the United States is a figure of speech used to describe the increasing patterns of interaction students have with the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems as a consequence of procedures used by many school systems. A specific procedure would be the zero tolerance policies and the use of officers in schools. Currently in today’s American schools many children of color are being unfairly judged and treated by the public school systems zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies have been implemented in schools in the last 20 years that include inserting school resource officers in schools and cracking down on all behavior that any authority figure may deem as a form of bad behavior. The policy is based upon deterring future misbehavior and is central to the philosophy of zero tolerance, and the effect of any punishment on future behavior is what defines effective punishment (Skinner, 1953). Zero tolerance policies causes the school environment to feel more like a prison and ultimately leads to black and Latinos being judged and guided to the prison system. A zero-tolerance policy orders predetermined penalties or punishments for specific wrongdoings.

They are given complete discretion on how they want to implement rules in their district. School safety is one of the main reasons for adopting a zero tolerance of violence policy and educational leaders are focused on handling these types of situations with safety in mind. Moreover, this was the basis for which the nine students were punished. Regardless of the reasons students become involved in negative situations, they may be held responsible and face the consequences of their actions. That is, students may still be disciplined in spite of their motives. In this regard, the zero tolerance of violence policy does not preclude making decisions about student intent and motivation of individual students. Conversely, students are allowed their due process rights, where they are able to dispute any accusations or problems they have with the decisions made against

In the most recent years, the relationship between educational institutions and the juvenile justice system which was once created to protect children, has displayed an ultimatum for minors through “zero tolerance” policies which results in sending individuals through the school to prison to pipeline. Studies have shown that these zero tolerance policies are not beneficial to students or the educational environment that should be guaranteed to children. Opponents argue that the policies promote safety, but through this research it can be concluded the policies actually increase danger. Studies demonstrate the factors that affect the enforcement of these policies which include media, the sociopolitical atmosphere, and the racial disproportionality, yet there are valid solutions for this issue that can be explored.

While researching School Resource officers or law enforcement officers in schools it has been discovered that the research is on the effectiveness of SRO’s is mixed or limited on keeping schools safe (Justice Policy Institute, 2011). There has also been research that was conducted in the last few years that concluded that the safety of schools can be improved without the help of SRO’s and or Law Enforcement’s approach on discipline (Justice Policy Institute, 2011). While reviewing the research of Dewey Correll at the University of Virginia , he suggested that when using highly structured and defined rules that are created to be strict and fairly enforced, while having the support of adults, SRO’s are not necessary

Schools around the nation are contracting polices officer to patrol their schools and students. Police officers are known as School Resource Officer’s (SRO’s) like if given them a different name would matter, instead of being resourceful they are up holding the law in harsh ways. There are many SRO’s in schools and this has led to high number of arrests and criminal charges, instead of keeping a safer environment for the children it is becoming a hunting ground (Schept, Wall, & Brisman). Before when a child did something wrong they were given detention, standards, a parent-meeting or maybe even sent to the office, but now the student are sent to the police officer in their schools. Once they are sent to her/him they are punish in such a different way where they can be expelled, suspense or even taken to jail.

A science teacher in Mississippi asked her students to take a picture with their completed DNA Lego model. John Doe took his picture with a smile and a hand gesture in which his thumb, index, and middle finger was raised. This was enough to earn him an indefinite suspension with a recommendation for expulsion because his school administrators believed he flashed a gang sign although he was simply putting up three fingers to represent his football jersey number. (NPR Isensee, 2014). This kind of criminalization of young people contributes to suspension, dropout, and incarceration, and too often pushes students into what is referred to by many education scholars and activists as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” a term that refers to “the

Zero tolerance policies are the catalyst for the School-to-Prison pipeline. The problem with zero tolerance policies rely on several different factors. Even though, the vision for zero tolerance policies is clear in the sense that safety is a main priority, A ten year study of zero tolerance policies conducted by the American Psychological Association concluded that the use of these overly harsh policies "did not improve school safety." Since these policies are not increasing school safety it is a clear indicator that change in disciplinary methods is necessary. Additionally, these overly harsh policies create racial disparities mainly focused on minorities. The reason for these racial disparities particularly arise from implicit bias. Unfortunately, student of color and minorities are disportionately represented in suspensions, expulsions, and arrests. Exclusionary discipline principles disproportionately lead the youth, particularly minorities, from classrooms to court and prisons. Racial disparities within school’s disciplinary actions is clear when looking at discipline rates. The Civil Rights Data Collection, gathered by the US Department of Education, graphed suspension rates and disparities in a national test sample during 2012. Figure 1 portrays the ratio of white students that constitute for a little more than half of students enrolled in school while black and hispanic students constitute for less than

In the 1980 's , there were "tough on crime" laws and "zero tolerance" programs that were enforced to foster a healthy education environment for children and adolescents; specifically targeting repeat juvenile offenders. As a result, we have learned that instilling laws such as No Child Left Behind and enforcing Zero Tolerance programs in school settings are too rigid and cause more issues than benefits for children, caretakers, and the school systems. When researchers from helping professions analyze this issue from parts of Bronfenbrenner 's ecological approach, we can understand some harmful contributing factors in the relationships between the student, the caregiver, the educators and law enforcers.

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.

Zero tolerance has become the latest contemporary educational issue for the Christian school leader. Zero tolerance policies mandate predetermined consequences for specific offenses. According to a government study, more than three quarters of all U.S. schools reported having zero tolerance policies (Holloway, 2002). Systematic guidelines of enforcing zero tolerance require educational leaders to impose a predetermined punishment, regardless of individual culpability or extenuating circumstances (Gorman & Pauken, 2003). Ethical decision making and the opportunity to apply Biblical principles have taken a back seat to reactive discipline by school leaders. Societal expectations have forced proactive educational