Use and Application of the Zero Tolerance Policy in American Schools

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.

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”

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

It is estimated that 3.3 million children annually are expelled or suspended for violent or non violent offenses while attending school school. The majority of the offenses are nonviolent offenses that are handled just as harshly as violent school infractions due to zero tolerance laws. This essay will show how how zero tolerance laws, bad schools and policing in schools is failing millions of minority students and fueling the school to prison pipeline.

In recent years, people everywhere have started to question and criticize zero tolerance policies. People are beginning to realize that zero tolerance policies (as strict as those practiced now) do not belong in universities or colleges. Students do not benefit from these policies and are often hurt by them. This happens through students being punished for minuscule acts, disproportional punishments, and the schools’ obliviousness to the plethora of other less abrasive options available.

There are hundreds if not thousands of students in any given school. The sheer size and magnitude of the student population encompassed in these schools leads to complications of school safety. Zero tolerance is a policy which was brought about enforcing school safety more firmly, and aimed to better protect students. However, the way in which these students are protected is highly debatable, making the zero tolerance ideology very controversial. Exactly which approach is most effective in protecting a student, let alone, thousands? Is strictness more effective than leniency? Overly strict policies aim to protect the majority, however, severally punish those who have to deal with the wrath of zero tolerance, those who violate the rules. Overly lenient policies can lead to dreadful events, however, give students a sense of reason, in turn creating an understanding of what they have done wrong. In the long run which method is most effective in protecting students? These type of questions, along with the excess amount of questionable cases, compose a highly controversial topic.

“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.

Zero tolerance is unfair to students. The policy teaches students that there is only one way and that there cannot be reasons. Multiple students have had there education totally ruined due to an accident. An example can be a Winston 6 six grader who was expelled because he brought a kitchen knife for a science project. The zero tolerance rule shouldn't be enforced at any school it takes advantage of students.

The zero tolerance policy has no place in the school system because it has damaged students academically by being directly related to the dropout rate, discriminating against the minority groups, and stripping away students right to privacy and speech. As shown in this article, many students have been affected by this policy. The zero tolerance policy neglects to address the students who are struggling in school. If a student is suspended from school, their is a likely chance he or she will not receive academic help after the fact. This may cause students to become unmotivated and dropout. Furthermore, many of the other complaints about this policy is it is unfair to the minority groups and the students with learning disabilities because they

“Zero-Tolerance Policy” is one of the top 10 reasons as to why students decide to drop out, due to the suspensions and expulsions (Morin, "The Pros and Cons of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools" Par. 12). The Zero-Tolerance Policy is a policy that, like the name states, has zero-tolerance for anything seen as a threat or anything that sends an inappropriate message towards the community, causing that student to be arrested or expelled. The Zero-Tolerance policy applies to any student, regardless of any health problems and includes any student between the ages of 4-18 (Morin, "The Pros and Cons of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools" par. 27). Teachers and administration say that removing students is necessary for learning, but in doing so, administration hurts the student as well. Some places do not provide alternative places for students to learn, 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

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 is the refusal to accept antisocial behavior, typically by strict and uncompromising application of the law, and in schools it is a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against undesirable behaviors or possession of items. These policies are made to keep protect kids and adults from harm. Zero-tolerance policies only create more problems, and they are well-intended nonsense that cannot be enforced until after the damage is done.

Although zero tolerance policies possess a strong relationship with mass incarceration, many students benefit from disruptive student’s removal from class as they are able to learn without

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

Recent years have seen many students denied the right to educational opportunities- a key cornerstone of any democratic and enlightened nations- under the policies included in the zero tolerance student discipline policies. The zero tolerance concept in schools developed out of the federal drug enforcement laws of the early 1980’s. Within the context of the school, zero tolerance laws are meant to communicate strongly a message that particular behaviors are intolerable by imposing binding and programmed punishments for specific felonies. These punishments most frequent include school exclusion under expulsion and suspension policies. While the main purpose of zero tolerance policy was to create safety and order in school, there have been concerns over the past few years that these policies are actually harming students. In fact research has disclosed that these policies actually lead to disproportionate and harsh disciplines for students of color hence breeding injustice and favoritism. A series of negative consequences associated with zero tolerance couples with its unproven inefficiency in promoting safety and order in school have been studied and addressed in publications by policy analysts, researchers, and public commentators. However, synonymous researches indicate that those schools with comprehensive approaches to safety in school that entails all angles on prevention and intervention continuum can effectively reduce and address violence and