Zero Tolerance Policies

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”

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

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.

However, not all theories this subject offers can be applied with a sociological standpoint due to the psychological effects a student undergoes experiencing a harsh policy. Literature provided in support constantly reminds the community about the disparities, the gender factors, minorities, socioeconomic levels, and the ever-growing barriers. Recently, research is further exclaiming the crisis America’s public education system is undergoing. It is becoming apparent how the rise of suspensions and expulsions in middle schools, further affects the future decisions a student makes (Losen, Skiba 2010); further in, the role reversal from being a student to becoming criminal/prisoner. Hence, the research is pure. It further examines and exclaims the damage, zero-tolerance policies have in the education system and students; further on, the penetration into the criminal justice system. Overall, there is a deficit on the in-depth explanations why and what are the internal/external factors that continuously push a student to fail, and further on becoming a number in the criminal justice

“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 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

This study explores zero tolerance policies and school discipline to better understand its effect in to bring awareness to an issue that may help in dismantling this pipeline. Particularly looking at those school divisions within Virginia that have disciplined students by expelling them or placing them on long-term suspension, since these

Many schools have adopted a “zero-tolerance” policy with the hopes that this policy will ban or stop those behaviors and actions that are unprincipled. While some infractions require after-school detention or in-school suspensions other infractions cause long or short-term suspension. In this summary due process will

Many individuals question if the zero-tolerance policy – that is instigated in an abundant number of schools—is too much harsh? Is the extreme discipline absurd? Is there another efficient way to punish minor misbehavior in schools? These questions revolve around the policy that many national schools implement, but what exactly is zero-tolerance?

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.

Gladwell stated in, “No Mercy” (2006), “this is the age of zero tolerance.” Zero tolerance policies, which are regulations for specific issues such as weapons, drugs, cheating and alcohol, are adopted by many schools and workplaces today. According to a government study, more than three quarters of the schools in America use zero policy to restrict students from misconduct. However, statistics show that there is no evidence proving that bad behaviors get deterred or prevented after the application of zero tolerance policy. This is especially true for young adults since they are more likely to misbehave. In this paper, I argue that the use of discretion is crucial to maintain fairness and each violation

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.

In my personal experience, I have discovered that the Zero Tolerance policy exhibits discrimination. According to Curran (2016), the zero policy is an approach that comes in the about in obligatory removal of any students who aims one or more indicates offenses. The plan addresses a substantial systemic issue and the actuality that schools abandon the obligation to teach the most stimulating understudies. One of the essential reactions of zero tolerance is that such arrangements do not generate impartial results for all learners and the late research has displayed significant gaps in disciplinary rates by race (Curran, 2016). There is an advancing quantity of youth denied instructive, opportunity within this policy. As stated by Curran (2016),

Over the past two decades the US schools have faced serious occurrences of violence. Accordingly, the prevention of school disruption and violence has evolved into an essential and crucial consideration. Beyond the avoidance of toxic violence, it is commonly agreed that on one hand teachers are not able to teach and on the other hand students are not able to learn in an educational institution portrayed by disturbance. A national survey conducted in 2004 declared that parents and educators of secondary and high schools had almost mutual view regarding the necessity of having adequate school discipline and student behavior in order to succeed (Public agenda, 2004). Certainly, schools as educational institutions have the right and responsibility to create an inclusive, effective, and safe learning climate. Nonetheless, there is a tremendous controversy regarding the approaches in keeping inclusive and safe school environment. Instead of traditional ways of dealing with misbehaviour on a case by case basis, analyzing the conditions of each situation, and the repercussions for the overall safety of the school environment, almost each school district in the USA now applies zero tolerance policy that extremely restrict discretion in particular cases, involve law authorities, and designate students from school (Skiba et.al, 2006). These policies generally require out-of-school suspension or expulsion on the first offense for a

The zero tolerance policy is one that doesn’t help kids, it hurts them to a certain degree. The policy states that if a student disobeys a school rule to a certain extent (the bar of that extent is low) then he or she will be suspended or even expelled. This policy is supposed to be put in effect no matter the severity or seriousness of the rule they are breaking. One downside to this policy is when a student