Zero Tolerance In 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.

Zero tolerance started as a way to keep guns out of schools until the staff at school started to use it as a way to report and punish non serious offences (Heitzeg, 2009).

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.

The premise of this paper is to discuss the definition, background, and negative aspects concerning zero-tolerance policies in high school education. The use of reports, mental development research, and examples will provide sufficient evidence that zero tolerance policies are ineffective and creates more harm than good for high school students. To address the need for attention, alternative recommendations will provide positive results if adopted and implemented correctly in school districts.

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).

Sometimes, the SROs programs have negative impacts on student’s life. Before, student misconduct was held by the teachers, but now it is controlled by the law enforcement in school (Beger 2002). For example, “five students were suspended and charged with crime for tossing peanuts at each other on a school bus” (Beger 2002:123). Schools have accepted the strict and high-security measures to protect students, but would result in diminishing the rights of students (Beger 2002). Students are searched without suspicion, especially the minority communities (Beger 2002). The unreasonable searches diminish the rights of students, which protect them from unreasonable search under the Charter of Rights and Freedom. It is clear that police in schools may impact negatively if the police officers conduct an unreasonable search based on class, racism, and gender. The result of zero tolerance in school leads more students’ school-to-prison pipeline, which results in more youth in prison. The zero-tolerance policy accepted in school to expel any students who involved in any illegal or misconduct behavior (Beger 2002). However, if the students feel that the police in schools and rules of school are fair and just, then eventually students will follow the rules and provide safer school surroundings (Beger 2002:127). Because the main reason of SRO is to prevent the drug issue, violence, shooting, threat, and maintaining law in school.

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.

Who hasn’t heard of the Columbine shooting, where in the spring of 1999 in Littleton, Colorado over a dozen people where killed and many others were wounded at the hands of two students? Or even more recently, who does not know about the Virginia Tech massacre where a single student killed thirty-two people and wounded over twenty more? University of Texas, California State University, San Diego State University, the list of school violence is long and heart-breaking. Students and teachers have lost their lives by the dozens to gunmen that carried a grudge for some reason or another. These are extreme cases, for sure, and there is without a doubt a need for discipline in schools every where. However, zero-tolerance policies are not the

Absolutely, zero tolerance policies can violate student rights! The 1969, Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District set the precedent on First and Fourth Amendment rights. It was decided, “that students in school are still “persons” under the Constitution and are therefore possessed of fundamental rights that the state must respect.” Although schools are responsible for preserving the learning environment, student rights must be respected in the process.

“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.

With the number of mass school shootings and incidents of violence in schools that have been reported since April 20, 1999; the public is crying out for stricter laws to help protect our children. In direct response to the Columbine High School shooting, schools across the country adopted a variety of “safety” measures that included mandatory uniforms to prevent the wearing of gang colors and allowing faculty to more readily identify intruders, installation of metal detectors and security cameras, ID badges to be worn at all times, and the increased presence of armed guards on campuses. While these measures are all intended to protect our children the fact that we are still experiencing violence in our

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.

With the many recent tragic school shootings, people are asking questions regarding if their children are under enough protection while they are at school. One of the biggest debate questions is: should schools have armed guards at the front entrance? This question has been answered by many people by giving their specific opinion. The question of armed guards in front of school has also been addressed on talk shows and to political leaders for their opinion. The answers that are given are either for having armed guards, or against armed guards standing in front of schools. Armed guard should not be posted at schools because it increases uncertainty and risk of student safety.