Zero Tolerance Policy In School

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”

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.

Everyday students of color are denied their right to a full education due to schools’ harsh disciplinary actions, such as out of school suspension and expulsions. Schools have a responsibility to keep students safe and provide a disciplined learning environment. There is no argument against this, however the methods utilized to provide a safe climate defy this common sense. More specifically, zero tolerance policies, which require students to be punished consistently and severely in a punitive nature. Zero tolerance policies arose in school systems during the 1990s when the justice system was “getting tough” on crime as a tactic to control drug abuse. According the Public Agenda removing students from school is supposed to create a better

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.

(Skager 6). These sorts of policies actually help students instead of punishing them, which is a great benefit to all students, schools, and communities. Zero tolerance policies can cause students to lose respect for teachers and all adults, and make them more likely to continue to use drugs and be involved in disruptive behavior (Mongan and Walker 234).

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

We watched videos and read articles about the problems in the school system and the suspension rates. The first two video was about students being suspended and having their education taken away because of the zero tolerance policy. The zero tolerance policy is a school or district policy that mandates predetermination consequences or punishments for specific offences that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of behavior.

In school zero-tolerance policies are intended to eliminate behaviors deemed as intolerable, such as violence, bullying, or having a weapon. But these policies are useless and unneeded because they cannot be used until after the damage has been done. Often times the intolerable behavior becomes more prevalent when the types of policies are put into place.

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

First introduced and promoted into schools in the 1980s to stop drug use and and violent behavior, zero-tolerance policies were not as successful as most would have thought them to be. After being so heavily enforced in schools, the APA’s study showed that not only did it increase bad behavior and violence, the zero-tolerance policies also increased the dropout rate in schools. The report also showed that the policies did not create a safer environment, nor did they discipline children in a more effective

“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.

As an assistant principal I do not comment. As a principal it is important that I provide the news station with the school’s zero tolerance bullying policy. It is vital that the local community know that the school system takes proper procedures to combat bullying in the school. Proper due process is also important here, it is important that all parties are aware of the charges that have been brought against them.

Is there a zero tolerance policy at this school? On what? The teacher answered with “Yes, there is zero tolerance on illegal substance and weapons, and depending on the teacher there will be zero tolerance for assignments, plagiarism, and behavior.” Why is zero tolerance being used in your school? The teacher answered with “we should act professionally towards our academic standing so that the students should learn to be more responsible for their actions in the future” Can a zero tolerance policy lead to safe schools? Why or Why not? The teacher answered with “yes, school regulations are there to protect both students and teachers” Do you implement zero tolerance in your classroom? Why or Why not? The teacher answered with “It can help with

Zero tolerance has become the latest contemporary educational issue for the Christian school leader. Zero tolerance policies mandate predetermined consequences for specific offenses. According to a government study, more than three quarters of all U.S. schools reported having zero tolerance policies (Holloway, 2002). Systematic guidelines of enforcing zero tolerance require educational leaders to impose a predetermined punishment, regardless of individual culpability or extenuating circumstances (Gorman & Pauken, 2003). Ethical decision making and the opportunity to apply Biblical principles have taken a back seat to reactive discipline by school leaders. Societal expectations have forced proactive educational