Zero Tolerance Policies

Out of school suspensions (OSS) are often enforced with the assumption that students receiving the suspension are less likely to repeat the problem behavior in the future. However, this has been proven to be false. Suspending a student for engaging in a certain behavior does not in fact serve as a deterrent from the behavior but as a deterrent from attending school instead. In actuality, receiving just a single suspension can increase the probability of a student experiencing academic failure, school dropout, and involvement in the juvenile justice system. Knowing this, some educators still believe that for many students, suspension can serve as an effective lesson. One of the greatest concerns that educators and administrators face is the matter of classroom management. It is part of their job to ensure a safe, productive and supportive classroom allowing students to learn and grow to their greatest potential. Though there are several strategies gauged towards managing a classroom, the most severe offences often lead to either in or out of school suspension. Some of the largest concerns faced with out of school suspensions is that they are often ineptly applied, used unfairly against students of color and seemingly ineffective at producing better behavior. Also known as exclusionary discipline, the majority of offenses that led to OSS have not been centered around violence but instead emphasised issues of classroom insubordination and defiance. In some rather extreme cases

Zero-tolerance policies developed to prevent drug abuse and violence in school in 1990 in the U.S. Even if those behaviors or small things minor offenses were done by accident or unconsciously, students get prosecuted and sent into the juvenile justice system as a punishment. Schools create disciplines for suspending and expelling students when they break certain rules. For example, if a student brings a weapon to school, including items that may not hurt anyone like nail clippers and toy guns, if a student has drugs, including medications or alcohol on campus, if a student says anything that someone could get as a threat, if a student does not obey teacher’s instruction, if a student fights with other students, the student would be given punishment with no choice. After adopting this policy, the number of school suspensions and dismissals increased, and the number of students who send into the prison also increased as well. Therefore, the school to prison pipeline became an issue in the education system.

Some discipline issues that teachers and administrators face are; do we set the same rules for all students, and should the students with special needs have the same consequences as general education students. Students with emotional disabilities often have difficulties with behavior in the following areas: work refusal, outburst (real or perceived persecution). I believe each situation needs to evaluated to determine the consequence of each student. Discipline decisions and actions can vary, such as, if a special needs student is out of class due to discipline issues then the teacher should make sure it is documented for the time they are removed from the classroom, if they are out for more than ten days an ARD meeting needs to be scheduled to look at changes that need to be made and a plan of action needs to take place to help the student be more successful. Some techniques that can be used are, involve all of the students in the

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).

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.

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

In all grades of education, from kindergarten to college, there is a form of discipline known as a zero tolerance policy. While the exact wording is different from school to school, basically a zero tolerance policy means that a student is immediately suspended, asked to attend an alternative school, or expelled if they are suspected or caught doing certain things. These policies are in place to hopefully deter students from doing drugs or being violent, but the ethics behind them are questionable. Some research has shown that these policies may not even work, and other forms of discipline would be better suited to help students. The three main activities that result in the zero tolerance policy are being caught with drugs or alcohol,

According to Wilson (2014), “zero tolerance refers to strict, uncompromising, automatic punishment to eliminate undesirable behavior.” There is a link between the criminalization of youth and zero tolerance policies (Wilson, 2014). Zero tolerance policies have been associated with the term “school-to-prison pipeline and are found in schools across the nation. These policies lead to school failure and exclusion which in turn result in bad life outcomes and mass incarceration of boys and young men of color (Wilson, 2015). “Superpredators” became the label for juveniles during the late 80’s and early 90’s because there was a rise in high-profile violent and drug-related crimes. Boot camps became popular during this period

According to Black (2015), “Approximately three million students per year have been excluded from school and deprived of their statutory and constitutional rights to education.” (p.81). The zero-tolerance policy was made in efforts to protect all students' safety and to maintain an effective learning environment that is free from drug, weapons, violence, and school disruption. However, Black’s research indicated that, as implemented, zero tolerance policies are related to a number of negative consequences and are ineffective in the long run (2015). Besides students receiving harsh discipline for minor infractions in school, the crucial downfall of the policy is the increasing rates of school dropout and juvenile prison admissions. Where do

One factor that has led to discrepancies is the use of zero-tolerance policies in schools. Zero-tolerance policies picked up traction in the 1990’s and focused on the possession and use of drugs and weapons on school property. (Noll, Clashing Views on Controversial Education issues p.309) The Guns Free School Act of 1994 placed a one-year expulsion and referral to the juvenile court system for any student caught on campus with a weapon. (same as above) The debate on zero-tolerance has been centered on whether the policy has reduced violence in schools and if the policy is being used for the severest of offenses. In a 2014 address, Arne Duncan, then U.S. Secretary of Education, stated as many as 95 percent of school suspensions were for nonviolent

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.

Students with emotional and behavioral disorder (EBD) exhibit various characteristics relevant to their identified diagnosis. The primary characteristic of students with EBD is problem behaviors are displayed at school, home, community, and other social settings. These problem behaviors are described professionally as externalizing and internalizing behaviors that students with EBD often engage in regularly. Externalizing behaviors are described as acting-out behaviors that are aggressive and/or disruptive that is observable as behaviors directed towards others. Internalizing behaviors are behaviors that are construed as acting-in behaviors such as anxiety, fearfulness, withdrawal, and other indications of an individual's mood or internal