Zero Tolerance Policies And School Discipline

Proponents of change have noted that the school to prison pipeline has been perpetrated by harsh discipline guidelines and policies placed in schools. Russell J. Skiba, Ph.D., a Professor in Counseling and Educational Psychology at Indiana University, defined Zero Tolerance policies as

The school-to-prison pipeline in the United States is a figure of speech used to describe the increasing patterns of interaction students have with the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems as a consequence of procedures used by many school systems. A specific procedure would be the zero tolerance policies and the use of officers in schools. Currently in today’s American schools many children of color are being unfairly judged and treated by the public school systems zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies have been implemented in schools in the last 20 years that include inserting school resource officers in schools and cracking down on all behavior that any authority figure may deem as a form of bad behavior. The policy is based upon deterring future misbehavior and is central to the philosophy of zero tolerance, and the effect of any punishment on future behavior is what defines effective punishment (Skinner, 1953). Zero tolerance policies causes the school environment to feel more like a prison and ultimately leads to black and Latinos being judged and guided to the prison system. A zero-tolerance policy orders predetermined penalties or punishments for specific wrongdoings.

Zero tolerance policies have been implemented for a variety of reasons and within a broad range of applications. The two most well known however are California’s three-strikes law and the declaration of schools as gun-free zones. California’s three-strikes law was passed in 1994 and is an escalating scale of sentencing. Defendants convicted of a previous felony, or on their “second strike”, would be sentenced to state prison for double the term normally provided for

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”

In an effort to maintain peace, safety and a disciplined environment conducive to effective teaching and learning, many schools have adopted the zero tolerance policy. This philosophy was originally created in the 1990’s as an approach towards drug enforcement to address the rampant use, possession and sales of drugs in schools (Jones, 2013). Today, this policy is used to mandate the application of pre-determined consequences of violation of stated rules. These rules may pertain to a number of issues; drugs, bullying, theft, and corporal punishment.

Zero tolerance has been taken to an extreme level in schools. Zero tolerance should be put into force in schools for the students who intentionally misbehave. There will always be accidents and there should be consequences.There needs to be some consideration taken for the students that do not intentionally get into trouble.

The disproportionate effects of the zero tolerance policy in schools against African American boys and other minority boys have become a focal point in the discussion of the school-to-prison pipeline. The policy was centered on making the school environment safe. Despite its initial intentions, this policy covers more than just weapons and drugs today. Today, this

Educational Psychologist’s “believe that zero tolerance policies have more disadvantages than advantages and simply give the appearance that serious problems are being addressed” (Snowman & McCown, 2015 p. 452). When implementing the zero-tolerance policies everyone has received the same disciplinary action regardless of the intent in violating these regulations. Whether the student acted maliciously or unintentional the punishment was the same. Children are not positively redirected rather they are handed down a punishment to alter the way they conduct themselves. When adults have labeled the undesired behavior and addressed to the class what the adequate result must be, has shown a better way of dealing with this type of situation. Seldomly, teachers have precisely expressed the wanted action that deviated the challenging behavior was another method not used frequently used. There are children who have not enjoyed attending school, which received the punishment of suspension or expulsion and manipulated the system and continued to act out to receive the same outcome. There was no supporting evidence zero tolerance has improved student behavior or decreased school violence. In some cases, the punishment did not fit the infraction. According to these policies and procedures, there is not a grey

In the past legislators sought to protect students in schools by adopting “Zero Tolerance” policies. These policies not only fail to make schools safe or more effective in handling student behavior, they can actually increase the instances of problem behavior and dropout rates (Farberman, 2006). In the past suspensions were given as a last resort measure to let the parties involved know that an infraction was serious. However, today suspensions are often given for less

Zero tolerance policies arguably have a negative impact on all those involved. This paper seeks to examine the reasoning as to why these policies were developed beginning from the effect of the public, from the governmental perspective, and the school system’s perspective. Additionally, the rationalization behind why these policies have remained in place for so long will be considered in relation to the plethora of

Student discipline policies, like zero tolerance, are policies that teachers have to face with their day to day teaching. Teachers are included in the group of professionals that practice this policy at school and are its enforcers. Some schools use zero tolerance as their primary strategy for dealing with so called ‘troubled’ students. There are consequences for teachers and students when zero tolerance is one of the primary strategies for dealing with violence and classroom disruptions. An unfortunate consequence of this practice is the authority of teachers becomes unclear in conflict with the principles of democracy. The zero tolerance policies cause teachers to be seen as the “bad guys” and their authority is conceived in negative ways. Zero tolerance is based partly in a particular philosophy that relies on the efficacy of exclusion. “The rationale underpinning the practice of zero tolerance allows teachers to believe that the same punishment translates into the same consequence for all students,” which goes against how I want to practice as a teacher (Robbins). Teachers should see each student as an individual that is special and worth time and effort to help learn and

Secondly, zero-tolerance policies are hugely problematic for educational sytem. For one thing, they strengthen the link between schools and prisons and perpetuate the school-to-prison pipeline by providing a direct route from schools to the juvenile justice system. In the article facts about prison to pipeline authors Teske and Huff states that “ zero tolerance policies that remove students who do not pose a serious threat to safety may very well be increasing the risk of negative outcomes for the students; especially if remove in handcuffs, as well as the school and community.”. zero-tolerance policies in schools truly serve no one. They do not make schools safer. They do not improve the educational environment. They do not prevent or deter

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 policies were enacted with the intent of decreasing the level of violence that was occurring within our nation’s schools. The policy required that schools pursued expulsion and suspension based upon severity of the offense committed by the student. Studies have been conducted to ascertain the effectiveness, or not, of the policy and the ramifications it has had across the educational community. In deciphering the effectiveness of the policy, it is pertinent to analyze the consistency of how policy mandates are implemented, what alternatives to education are provided (if any), and a review of any disparities that revolved as a result. It is also important to consider what changes could be applied that would heighten the learning potential for students who fall prey to ramifications of the policy.

“During the last twenty years, schools across the nation have dropped their values for suspending and expelling students. The subsequent trends in punitive policy enforcement are conspicuous in a great number of states. “The national number of suspensions has increased from approximately 1.7 million in 1974 to more than 3.3 million in 2006. More recently, during the 2009–2010 school year, a reported 3,081,240.55 children were suspended at least once. With reference to expulsions nationally, in 2006 the Department of Education projected that approximately 102,077 students are expelled from their learning environments annually (Rodriguez, 2013).” Moreover, when students are suspended, or expelled, they are more likely to repeat a grade, drop out, or become involved with the juvenile system.