Zero Tolerance Policies

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.

A trend has developed in our society in recent decades. This concerning trend shows that African American youth are finding their way into the criminal justice system at a much higher rate than their peers. This trend starts in schools where students as young as fifth graders are being suspended from school for minor issues. Police officers are being used more and more to handle situations in the schools rather than teachers. Does this kind of discipline really help students of color or does it have the opposite effect? When taken out of school for disciplinary reasons, African American student’s behaviors do not improve but criminal activity is more likely. School

On or about July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff, Scott Siegel, was involved in an accident on the playground, which resulted in injury to the Plaintiff. One substitute teacher was supervising all eighty children on the playground. The substitute teacher, Defendant, Andrew Rafter, noticed the Plaintiff and friends spinning too fast on a merry-go-round and told them to slow down and get off. He then turned his back to the boys to tend to other students and that is when the accident occurred and Scott injured his leg. Scott’s father wants compensation from the school board due to lack of supervision during the playground activities. Defendant parties are a public entity so they may be immune from suit.

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.

This study examines the effect zero-tolerance policies have on minority girls in public and private school districts. The zero-tolerance policies intended to protect students, faculty, and staff have unintended negative consequences due to overuse or abuse of the policies. According to the literature, some schools use the policy as social control over minor incidents as a reason to expel or suspend students unnecessarily. Many causes of the overuse stem from federal funding needed for things such as academic performances. The purpose of this research is to bridge the gap in knowledge and show how strict zero-tolerance policies can have unintentional life-changing consequences. This is important because some incidents can be handled at the school

With these harsh zero tolerance policies in place stories like that of Nathan Entingh, a ten-year-old at Devonshire Alternative Elementary School, have become popularized in social media. Entingh was as at school when officials suspended him for his hand being in the shape of a gun. The school officials declared his hand a “level 2 lookalike gun” and proceeded with their decision to suspend the 10 year-old (Jonsson). This response by the school officials is not uncommon for schools with zero tolerance policies. Although the 10 year-old was purely participating in imaginative games, he was met with real-life consequences. This level of overreaction does not have place in a college, an environment in which students are treated as adults. If college students are treated as adults then they should not have to endure over-policing that is even too strict for young children. Another story quite like that of Nathan Entingh’s is the story of a Maryland student who was suspended for chewing his

There are many advantages of having the zero tolerance policy in schools such as students having a better reason to learn. If students realize that when they do something wrong and they get punished it ruins their grades and lowers their academic level from missing so much school from suspension or missing a certain class because of in school suspension. It also helps them in the future, it allows them to understand how important it is following the rules and shows that they get punished for not following rules. Students learn to take responsibilities for their actions because in the future if you get into trouble the law enforcement or your boss is not gonna listen to your excuses on why you did something. It also helps as long as you don't

Fields and Emshwiller authors of “Policing the Halls: For More Teens, Arrests Replace School Discipline” report “In 2012 92,000 students were subject to school-related arrests” (Fields and Emshwiller A.1). Zero tolerance policies are a strict set of rules that certain school districts are starting to follow regarding weapons, drugs and more. These policies are relating to an extreme amount of juvenile arrests. Some argue that these rules are too strict because teens and kids are getting unreasonable charges. Another issue people have against this policy is that the principal and other school administrators are not involved with punishments. Some schools believe this policy is

One example given by "Zero Tolerance Does More Harm Then Good" is Rachel Kiel's story. She found a marijuana cigarette and showed it to her friends. She was later caught and arrested. During all this she was then suspended under Thornton Fractional North High School zero tolerance policy. She was later tested for drug use which she tested negative for. On top of that she was an honor student with no history of trouble and even doubts she'll go back. This is

Additionally, there was no scrutiny towards the financial firms in Lower Manhattan in the city as they bend and broke the rules. It was clear that the zero tolerance policy was only targeting the average citizens while Wall Street benefited from the policy created while engaging in criminal offenses. The working theory towards firms was that their individual liberty were beneficial when used collectively while for an average individual their liberty were corrosive when used together. Therefore, the need to target the young, poor and homeless proved highly beneficial to law enforcers. It was not until the market collapsed taking Wall Street with it and dragged the nation in a deep recession that it has yet to fully recover from; law enforcement

The Open Door policy is an policy that allows open ports in a county to any other countries that is under the policy. It protected countries to easy trade with each other and relations between different countries were formed. The person that made the Open Door policy was U.S. Secretary of State John Hay and he sent the policy to Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Russia. This policy shape how America created foreign policy in East Asia. But not all the countries John Hay sent policy like this. Germany, France, and Russia were against the policy because they would not have benefited from it. Great Britain, Japan, and the U.S. supported the policy because them benefited from it. This policy helped started trade with China.

Zero tolerance policies mandate were initially aimed at making schools safe. Zero tolerance laws require the use of police sanction which include arrest for certain types of crimes. Normally, domestic violence crimes, gun-related crimes, and particular drug crimes which fit into the category.

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 term “zero tolerance” has been interpreted and used widely in public debate. For this reason there are arguments as to whether it is beneficial to incorporate zero tolerance policing into justice systems globally. The term “Zero Tolerance Policing” is ambiguous. To some, it suggests aggressive law enforcement under which no anti-social behaviours will be tolerated. To others, it refers to a policing strategy carefully designed to combat the crime problems of a specific locality (Australian Institute of Criminology 1999, 1). The purpose of this report is to provide a critical analysis of both the strengths and the weaknesses that the zero tolerance policing model has. This is done by presenting the strengths – targeting

     There are many disciplinary actions that have been used and are still in use in order to deal with problems in the school system today. However, it seems that zero tolerance is now the most widely used and most controversial policy that has came into effect. Zero tolerance means absolutely no mercy for students when accused of doing something wrong. This policy leaves no room at all for error. These cases are not judged for their individual qualities. They are all treated the same regardless of the circumstances.