Zero-Tolerance: The Refusal To Accept Antisocial Behavior

Based on the research, the context of “zero tolerance” policies has been examined. Furthermore, this study identifies whether these policies have essentially created effective solutions or merely increased problems for institutions and children.

Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces corruption and racist treatment because the individual officers are not given the scope to decide their actions on a case by case basis. Their response is set and therefore cannot be changed by a personal whim. It also reduces the kind of gung-ho policing that is increasingly common. It takes officers out of their cars and places them back into the community where they have contact with individuals. Chases and shootouts actually become less common under zero tolerance (Dennis, page 37)

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.

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”

Previously, principals were thought to have too much discretion when deciding disciplinary actions for students (American University Radio, 2017). Now, zero tolerance policies do not allow for discretion at all. There is a protocol that teachers and administrators must follow regardless of individual circumstance. Students may receive several consequences that include: in school suspension, out of school suspension, expulsion, and/or arrest depending on the offense.

Rebecca London, a research professor at UC Santa Cruz, explains about how the zero tolerance policy plays a critical role in developing the school-to-prison pipeline. The zero tolerance policy was implemented in 1990 in hopes to reduce the amount of criminal related activity in schools (London 2017). Because of the policy, many minor or small infringement of the school rules criminalized at-risk students. For example, students were punished heavily for carrying nail clippers, having over the counter medications, and even cutting the lunch line (London 2017). Students who partake in any of the examples or anything similar will be suspended or face tougher consequences than normal discipline actions compared to a privileged school. By punishing

After the Columbine massacre, schools have truly put their foot down on student threats and bullying by enforcing zero-tolerance policies that punish any violation of a rule, regardless of ignorance, accidents or other circumstances.("9 Ways School Has Changed Since Columbine." Criminal Justice Degrees Guide. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2017.) Students, staff, parents and other school visitors who are in possession of a weapon or drug are punished. zero-tolerance has lead to many criticisms and overreactions by school districts, such as student expulsions for bringing nail clippers or a knife to cut a cake to school.("9 Ways School Has Changed Since Columbine." Criminal Justice Degrees Guide. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct.

Zero tolerance policing holds that strict non-discretionary law enforcement that is tough on crime, specifically minor offenses will decrease more serious crime. This policing style is closely related

People in favor of zero tolerance policy support it for various reasons. With zero tolerance policies in place, school security programs are often more wide-ranging and have many preventative measures built into them (Walker, 2009). Additionally, parents report that they feel better about their child’s safety because the policy calls for all behavior to comply with the policy and if it does not, then those students are removed (Walker, 2009). Another advantage to zero tolerance policies is that if schools lack metal detectors, there is no apparent difference in the level of violence when zero tolerance policies are in place (Walker, 2009). When implementing zero tolerance policies, schools anticipate to decrease the number of offenses not only by excluding students via either suspension or expulsion. The focus of zero tolerance policies is the notion that “strong enforcement can act as a deterrent to other potentially disruptive students” (Skiba, 2014). Expulsions and long-term suspensions are strong reactions to the above offenses, especially to miniscule incidents, and they send direct messages when used (Skiba, 2014). Supporters hope that these strong messages will drive out violence, weapons, drugs, alcohol, and sexual harassment (Skiba,

“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 definition of zero tolerance is “ . . . a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances . . .” Although, the policy has been known to draw attention to many schools because of the severe punishments that some students are apprehending when they misbehave or break school policies. The policy has been known to be unreasonable is several cases across the nation.

In order to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of ZTP as a model of policing, this report reframes these terms into a cost/benefit analysis based on societal impact. Put simply, do the benefits of ZTP outweigh its costs to society, in particular to the fair application of justice and upholding of individual citizens rights?

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