The zero tolerance policies can be best described as, “a philosophy or policy that mandates the application of predetermined consequences, most often severe in nature, that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of behavior, mitigating circumstances or situational context (Graham et al 2008 np)”. There was a rise of the zero tolerance policies that started with the scare of the war on drugs during the 1980s. There was this fear of copious amounts of drugs coming into the schools along with the perceived rise of gang violence occurring in schools. This happened alongside the boom in weapons coming to US, this prompted the federal government to act. Schools in some states started to adopt the language of zero tolerance, which …show more content…
This theory manifested its way into the zero-tolerance punishment. They targeted both not so serious and serious offenses, this was a way to basically warn the children that things will not be tolerated. The School Free Gun Act was predicting for many more policies to come. It was supported by the population because of its promise to improve school safety for all students. This piece of legislation at the same time as anti-black rhetoric came to be. In 1995 John Dilulio, a criminologist and political scientist, described the “superpreditor” as, “kids who have absolutely no respect for human life and no sense of the future”, he continues saying that this is the center of the “black inner-city neighborhoods” and that this will inevitably spill to the “upscale central city districts… suburbs and… the rural heartland (Drum 2018, np)”. He continues with saying, “they kill or maim on impulse, without any intelligible motives…the buzz of impulsive violence, the vacant stares and smiles, and the remorseless eyes”, spewing this rhetoric that continues to dehumanize the black body. The racialization of the supercriminal, continued disenfranchisement of black students and other students of color. This only aided the rhetoric of zero tolerance policies in schools, in order to get the “superpreditor” out of schools. another event that aided the …show more content…
Many have researched to see if zero tolerance policies actually work. When looking at these policies we have to recognize the tough decisions made by teachers and school administers when it comes to school violence, but it is important to recognize the gaps that exist within these policies that negatively affect students and their communities. It is true that these policies aim to protect against intra-school violence, but the truth is that these policies often work in major punishment for trivial offences (Skiba and Knesting 2001). The implementation of these policies has become civil rights issues for both sides of the political spectrum, organizations like the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute have both criticized the policies and have defended students who are being negatively affected by this era of discipline. Still, defenders of the policy believe this will still be the one cure all for the growing trend in violence across America. Even though it is a common belief about zero tolerance, it has been around for a couple of decades now and the evidence does not support the common belief. With the question of: do zero tolerance policies make schools safer? The answer is not necessarily. There is this common misconception that booting “problem” students benefit the school. But it has been tested that with the increase of zero tolerance discipline such as suspension and expulsion does
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.
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 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.
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).
In the most recent years, the relationship between educational institutions and the juvenile justice system which was once created to protect children, has displayed an ultimatum for minors through “zero tolerance” policies which results in sending individuals through the school to prison to pipeline. Studies have shown that these zero tolerance policies are not beneficial to students or the educational environment that should be guaranteed to children. Opponents argue that the policies promote safety, but through this research it can be concluded the policies actually increase danger. Studies demonstrate the factors that affect the enforcement of these policies which include media, the sociopolitical atmosphere, and the racial disproportionality, yet there are valid solutions for this issue that can be explored.
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
Zero-tolerance policies are school or district mandates that predetermine “consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context” (Position Statement 46: Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools, 2014).
"Zero tolerance" policies are the new theme in fighting weapons and drugs in schools. These policies behind the pressure of President Clinton have been enacted in 47 states. The idea is to encourage states to get tough on youth that threaten their own safety and the safety of others. Some of the more popular measures with these policies include installing metal detectors at school entrances, the use of armed security guards to patrol and monitor students, and the automatic removal of students who break rules regarding weapons and drugs. According to the Department of Education, school districts that have enacted these policies are showing improvements in these areas. For example, Dade county public school officials seized only 110 guns in the past year from 193 the previous year after enacting a zero tolerance policy.
“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.
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.
School violence has become of the most pressing educational problems in the United States. Gang violence and high profile shootings across the nation cause concern within schools. Communities struggle to understand why these events take place and how they can be prevented. The overwhelming response to solve the issue of violence in schools is the increasing societal pressure to execute zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is driven by the educational philosophy, policies, and practices of school communities. Stakeholders expect schools to be a safe place for staff and for students. Stakeholders assume that a positive classroom environment, safe students, and school enjoyment are conditions necessary to create a positive climate where learning takes place. This assumption can be backed with research. A calm classroom environment, teachers’ management of disruptive behavior, and students’ view of school safety are factors that have been found to directly correlate with student achievement in the classroom (Ma & Willms, 2004). Safety and a feeling of not being threatened during school hours have been found to be important to students’ achievement. Failure to remove a disruptive or an unruly student from school has been found to have a negative impact on achievement and creates a great risk to school staff and students (Garbarino et al., 1992). Teachers cannot teach and students cannot learn in an
Once clearly defined, enforcing the zero tolerance policies can be relatively easy for the offenses related to illegal drugs and alcohol. These are serious threats to school safety and using common sense when applying the policies against such offenses should help. Violence on the other hand is more difficult to define at schools because it can take many forms. Under the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, in order for school
Furthermore, the zero tolerance policies that were put in place was because of the hike in crime that was being committed by juveniles in schools. “Zero tolerance policies ushered in during the 1990’s coincided with the misguided ‘tough-on-juvenile’ policies premised on the now discredited ‘teenage superpredator’ label. These policies resulted in more kids being kicked out of school and into the justice system” (YAP, 2012). Schools thought that by getting rid of the “bad kids” they would be able to have the other kids do well. Many of the “bad kids” were kids that had suffered some sort of trauma. Kids who suffer trauma at an early age learn aggression as a vital response. When schools kick out the kids because of their behavior, without understanding