Zero Tolerance And Its Contribution On The School And Prison Pipeline

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 that result in sending individuals from school to prison to pipeline. Studies have shown that these 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 that 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

An evolving and highly debated problem that continues to grow in our society, is the gun control epidemic. Gun violence in America is a national epidemic. Many people carelessly take advantage of Gun use and manipulate the tool without much thought to any repercussions. Many lives have been loss due to people legally or illegally obtaining guns and taking matters upon themselves to be executioners in holding other people's lives in their hands. Specifically, ongoing gun violence in schools have become a horrific catastrophe. It is putting student lives at risk, in a place that is supposed to facilitate a certain level of safety for the students. According to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, there was 558 gun incidents in schools

America is the land of opportunities and the land of freedom, where people can carry guns and received free options like free education; Everyone can criticize anything including the government and get away with it. In the article “The School-to-Prison Pipeline” by Los Angeles journalist Marilyn Elias, she elaborates how racial minorities and children with disabilities were disproportionately represented in the school-to-prison pipeline. Elias suggest that teachers were harsher with Minorities and children with disabilities and these children were disproportionately suspended and expelled which increases the likelihood to be a drop out and wind up behind bars. It was mentioned that police on campus has helped to criminalized many students and

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.

There have been many pieces of legislation on the state level and on the congressional level regarding guns on school property. A very polarized piece of legislation was introduced in the Nevada Senate. Nevada Senate Bill 286 was created in response to several violent acts involving school shootings (Taylor, 2008). The bill would have given teachers the right to possess and carry guns on school property regardless if the school is a gun-free zone as long as the teacher possessed proper permits the bill specifically required the teacher to possess a concealed weapon permit along with a proof of completion of a specific firearm training program (“SB286,” n.d.). The bill did not pass in the Nevada Senate, but the bill did help to start the much-needed conversation about the ineffectiveness methods of the prevention of school shootings.

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”

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

As detailed by the American Civil Liberties Union (2013), the circumstances and policies contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline include: 1) failing public schools, in which inadequate resources in public schools create second-rate educational environments, thus decreasing engagement and increase dropout, 2) zero tolerance and other school ‘discipline’ policies impose unnecessarily harsh punishments, which leave students unsupervised and more likely to fall behind in school work, and which most dramatically impact children of color, 3) high-stakes testing creates a less engaging student environment and creates incentives for schools to push out low preforming students, 4) disciplinary alternative education programs for suspended or expelled students lack accountability, quality services, and leave students struggling to return to their regular schools, and 5) despite decreased resources, there has been an increased reliance on police who increase school-based arrests.

When school shootings occur, the individual that brings the weapon to school should be the one punished. However, when the parents irresponsibly leave a firearm unlocked they should face a punishment as well. “68% of 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.

Having gun-free zones around schools is important for the child’s safety and protection physically, mentally, and emotionally. It is quite counter-intuitive for the city and governments to allow for such a repeal. Schools strive to keep a safe learning environment and promote healthy and inviting atmospheres. Allowing individuals to carry guns in schools could increase the number of gun related accidents with involving

There have been several reports on zero tolerance policy, including one from the American Psychological Association, that indicate that these policies fail to reach their goal (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). These reports have concluded that there should be a change in either how zero tolerance policies are applied or enact alternative policies for these offenses (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). The APA along with other reviews are not the only source of shift in opinion about zero tolerance policies (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). The United States Department of Education has even publically shown opposition against these policies recently (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). However, these policies are easier to rely on in the event of a school shooting, violent acts in school, or some other incident (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). It is easier to implement zero tolerance policies during these events because they are already in place and the guidelines are more simple to follow. The guidelines require all offenses result in expulsion or suspension, regardless of the offense or degree of the crime (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). Implementation of these policies also creates an environment of safety in the public’s eyes, which helps increase the school’s approval during the tragic event (Sheras and Bradshaw,

“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.

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.

11% of teens surveyed know that kid bring weapons to school on a regular basis. Some just want to see if they can get away with it. Others want to threaten, hurt, or kill. Kids are also constantly being bullied; kids can be ruthless, because they don't think that their actions could really be affecting someone for the long term. Some schools don't have the money ( only 5% of the schools in the nation have metal detectors) for things like metal detectors and security however they do have the time for discipline. Schools disregard teasing because kids do it all the time; it is considered normal. However children often end up with serious mental conditions; such as anxiety, depression and a feeling of self worthlessness.