Zero Tolerance Policy

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 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).

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.

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).

From the beginning, the zero tolerance policies have been reactionary policies to problems that have other root causes that cannot be solved by criminalizing every action that falls outside of the law, and by mandating punishment for all school violations regardless of the situation or circumstance, schools systems have created larger educational problems than they have solved in their reaction to some very unfortunate school shootings.

A social reformer, a civil philanthropist, and a judge by the name of James(Jim) Gray, strongly believes that no matter how loose or strict prosecutors are on drug offenders the war on drugs is going to continue until the United States can realize that the only way to solve the drug addiction problem in America is to realize that we must rehabilitate and treat drug offenders and addicts in order to prevent and eliminate drug related violence and crime(Gray, J. P. 2011. pp. 19-20). Judge Gray continues on to state that we must see and treat drug users as human beings, which according to judge Gray most Americans do not do this. Judge Gray stated that the zero tolerance policy that we have here in the United States allows little to no room

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”

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

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.

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?

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 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.

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)

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.