Essay on Zero Tolerance in Schools

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,

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.

This study examines the effect zero-tolerance policies have on minority girls in public and private school districts. The zero-tolerance policies intended to protect students, faculty, and staff have unintended negative consequences due to overuse or abuse of the policies. According to the literature, some schools use the policy as social control over minor incidents as a reason to expel or suspend students unnecessarily. Many causes of the overuse stem from federal funding needed for things such as academic performances. The purpose of this research is to bridge the gap in knowledge and show how strict zero-tolerance policies can have unintentional life-changing consequences. This is important because some incidents can be handled at the school

These principals were asked to list what they considered serious or moderate problems in their schools. The most frequently cited problems at all levels were the less violent behaviors such as tardiness (40%), absenteeism (25%), and physical conflicts between students (21%). The NCES report found that violent crimes occurred at an annual rate of only 53 per 100,000 students. The critical incidents that are typically the focus of school safety debates were reported to be at least "a moderate problem”: drug use (9%), gangs (5%), possession of weapons (2%), and physical abuse of teachers (2%). The continued use of this of this policy is mainly due to the perception of violence in schools continually being exacerbated by extended media coverage when isolated events of school violence occur according to Martinez

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.

Traditional schools have heavily relied on traditional disciplinary practices, specifically zero tolerance policies in an attempt to control student behavior while creating a safe environment for students and staff. However, according to the American Psychological Association’s Zero Tolerance task Force Report (2008), zero tolerance policies have not achieved the intended goal of creating an effective school discipline

Fields and Emshwiller authors of “Policing the Halls: For More Teens, Arrests Replace School Discipline” report “In 2012 92,000 students were subject to school-related arrests” (Fields and Emshwiller A.1). Zero tolerance policies are a strict set of rules that certain school districts are starting to follow regarding weapons, drugs and more. These policies are relating to an extreme amount of juvenile arrests. Some argue that these rules are too strict because teens and kids are getting unreasonable charges. Another issue people have against this policy is that the principal and other school administrators are not involved with punishments. Some schools believe this policy is

The zero tolerance policy has no place in the school system because it has damaged students academically by being directly related to the dropout rate, discriminating against the minority groups, and stripping away students right to privacy and speech. As shown in this article, many students have been affected by this policy. The zero tolerance policy neglects to address the students who are struggling in school. If a student is suspended from school, their is a likely chance he or she will not receive academic help after the fact. This may cause students to become unmotivated and dropout. Furthermore, many of the other complaints about this policy is it is unfair to the minority groups and the students with learning disabilities because they

Each student would be evaluated based on their record, where and when the incident occurred, and what the circumstances were surrounding the incident. If a student was relatively good kid with no past disciplinary action history, the school management was much more likely to have a punishment that actually taught him or her something. But times changed and education environment in public schools also changed considerably in recent years. Zero tolerance policies are concerning issues that are thought to be extremely dangerous in today’s society. The three main focuses of these policies are incidences of violence, illegal drugs, and alcohol. Zero tolerance treats children as if they were adults and takes away the ‘innocence of a child’ philosophy. This strategy could be extremely safe to the lives of the good students and everything happens by treating all offenses dealing with the aforementioned issues as well as all students equally whether the student has had a flawless record or not.

Since the late 1980s, American school systems have been focused on using zero tolerance policies to remove supposed threats to schools from the education system. Zero tolerance policies present a large problem; they remove due process from the discipline process and by doing so violates the rights to a fair trial. Is this the purpose of the education system in America to punish students and potentially ruin futures or to nurture and improve the potential of students’ lives? While zero tolerance policies do treat all offenders as equal at the time of the infraction, it often fails to examine the full picture. My thesis is that zero tolerance policies in school punish many innocent people who were left with no other option than to defend themselves or give up their lives.

School violence, in recent history, seems to have taken the United States by storm. Be it a shooting, such as the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, the inappropriate relationships between teacher and student, such as Stephanie Figueroa whom initiated one such relationship with her 11-year-old karate student, or the multiple fights we see on social media that take place in schools. With each passing week, we see a new story that falls in one of these categories. Today, we look at the types of, causes of and how to prevent violence in what should be a safe place and second home for our youth.

During the past decade, school safety has been at the forefront of many school districts safety polices and plans. With recent high profile school shootings, the question school districts continue to ask is how do we keep our schools safe? Administrators face heavy scrutiny when weighing approaches to school safety and student discipline. Likewise, school employees have the right to work in safe environments devoid of life-threatening behaviors (Fenning and Bohanon, 2006; Skiba and Rausch, 2006). America’s founding fathers understood the importance of a public school education. They believed educating its citizens would allow them the opportunity to learn new skills while becoming successful and productive people in society. However, our founding fathers did not predict the severe behavior changes our schools face in educating disruptive and dangerous students. America’s school districts are charged with providing solutions for disruptive and dangerous students (Fenning and Bohanon, 2006; Skiba and Rausch, 2006). School officials must address these issues with research-based interventions and collaborative resources that provide a safe learning environment for all stakeholders (Elliott and Mihalic, 2004; Schoenwald and Hoagwood, 2001). Boards of education continue to support school efforts to rethink best practices for disciplinary alternative middle schools (DAMS). Many school districts focus on research-based interventions and resources that manage aggression and

School violence has increased dramatically over the years and it is an important topic that should be discussed with teachers, peers, and parents. I believe that schools do a decent job addressing this topic to their students, but they could still do better to help decrease this issue. Even though I feel relatively safe within my school, there are a few concerns that arise with the climate of safety at my school. The outdoor campus of my school decreases its safety because people can easily enter the campus from almost any area. However, I do not feel threatened in any way at my school. I think that school life reflects the attitudes of society at large because the environment in which the students are brought up in affect how they behave in school. For example, if a student has violent parents, then the student will most likely also

The role of zero tolerance has a broad impact on student life. The zero-tolerance policy began in the late 1980s in schools with the power to expel any students (Beger 2002). Before, teachers and school authority used to handle the situation and provide punishment. Today, schools accepted the SRO programs to control misconduct and illegal acts on school property. The reason behind the increase of use SROs approach is due to the drug issue, violent, and shooting at schools. 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).

Policies, at micro, mezzo, and macro levels, affect our schools and students every day and constitute the foundation of educational standards in North American schools; to say that students are unaffected on a micro level would be dismissive, ignorant, and narrow minded. Additionally, disregarding existing policies and practices in educational institutions and their potential interactions and effects with new policies and practices would be a grievous oversight in the decision-making process. Zero tolerance in schools was initially defined as “consistently enforced suspension and expulsion policies in response to weapons, drugs and violent acts in the school setting” (NASP, 2001); if anything, maintaining the safety or well-being of its students is a responsibility of the school and school district and a honorable goal to set. However, these policies have been broadened to include any rule infraction, more or less, regardless of mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances. With a broad policy like zero tolerance in schools comes a broad range of intended and unintended consequences; these consequences can be positive, negative, and possibly even affect the policy’s actual or perceived effectiveness.