What are they?

Zero-tolerance policies are well defined rules which are created to be followed unwaveringly. Examples of these rules include: weapon and drug restrictions, fighting, and classroom disruptions. If a student were to break any of these rules, the next step is for the student to be sent to a principal or administrator’s office. There, a punishment is placed on the student. These punishments may include, but are not limited to: detention, ISS (in school suspension), suspension, or even expulsion. The point of a zero-tolerance policy is to deliver swift, concrete, “one size fits all” punishments to prevent a behavior from recurring. Instead, policy-makers, school districts, and faculty should examine the antecedents of behavior and create school rules that use preventative methodologies, because zero-tolerance policies have been repeatedly proven to be ineffectual in schools (APA, 2008, P. 860). However, there is little wonder as to why, considering that zero-tolerance policies began as state legislature to reduce drug crimes in America.

Origin:

Zero-tolerance policies in America were created in order to discourage citizens from engaging in illegal activities. Introduced in America by New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who served from 1959 – 1973, Governor Rockefeller advocated for a change in state policy that would give an automatic minimum jail sentence of 15 years to drug dealers (persons in possession of at least two ounces of heroin, cocaine, or cannabis) and addicts (any persons found with at least four ounces of the same drugs) (Bell, 2015, P. 15). Shortly after Rockefeller’s drug laws were enacted, despite much scrutiny and little to no evidence of success, many states followed suit. Most notably, Michigan created a similar drug policy, called “650 – Lifer”. This policy states that’s any person found to be involved with the “sale, manufacture, or possession of at least 650 grams of cocaine or heroin” would receive a jail sentence of life in prison, without the possibility of parole (Bell, 2015, P. 15). These drug policies may have created zero tolerance policies, but it was not until 1994, under the Clinton administration that these new laws were transferred to the educational setting. The 1994 “Gun Free Schools Act” stipulates that any student found with a firearm on campus, will receive an automatic expulsion of one year (Bell, 2015, P. 16). Zero-tolerance in schools rapidly expanded to include other undesirable behaviors the school administrators wanted to eradicate, which is how zero tolerance policies in schools have evolved into the practices they are today. However, has zero tolerance in schools been effective?

Effectiveness:

Overwhelmingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, zero tolerance policies have been widely ineffective. In fact, according to the American Psychological Association (APA), in a study conducted in 2008, “ultimately, an examination of the evidence shows that zero tolerance policies as implemented have failed to achieve the goals of an effective system of school discipline” (P. 860). Not only are zero tolerance policies ineffective and serve no purpose towards improving school safety, the APA states that these policies are directly in opposition of what is known about child development. Stating that children think through each action before it is done, gives the child too much credit. Children are impulsive and if they could avoid breaking a rule, or a school policy, they would (Greene, 2008). Moreover, each child is different, and each action that is taken, tends to have an antecedent. The punishment should fit the crime, in order for children to learn from their behavior. Through the use of zero tolerance policies, students do not learn from their behavior. They are just told they have done something wrong and given a punishment. The student is not educated on why their behavior was wrong, or given strategies to prevent the behavior from happening again. Which is why, even at the basic level, zero tolerance cannot be effective, ever. Besides, how can a zero tolerance policy be truly effective when it’s largely reliant on the American criminal justice system, which in itself, was created for adult criminals – and not children?

Court System:

The American Judicial system was created to penalize adults that committed crimes. Due to the creation of zero tolerance policies, America has seen the creation of the juvenile court system, which in its entirety is simply just a miniature version of the adult court structure. In fact, many of the consequences in the juvenile court system have adult counterparts. Such as, incarceration, house arrest, and probation. However, for juveniles, there is the possibility to be tried as an adult, or to have their actions be forever held against them in the form a permanent record (Heitzeg, 2009, P. 15). Additionally, many times a student’s actions may not necessarily have to go before a court system, and instead could be handled inside of the school, in the classroom, or ideally, there would be preventative measures taken to prevent the maladaptive behavior from occurring in the first place. The only use of the juvenile court system is to perpetuate the school – to – prison pipeline.

The school – to – prison pipeline is term used to describe the phenomenon associated with adolescents who enter into the juvenile court system never finding their way out. The school – to – prison pipeline has been vastly exacerbated through the use of zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies have been taking children out of school and thrusting them in front of a judge and placed in a formal court setting. Once these students are in the judicial system, research demonstrates that they stay in the court system for the rest of their lives (Heitzeg, 2009). Thus, creating a pipeline to prison directly from school. Another significant piece that speaks to how ineffective zero tolerance policies are, is the racial and prejudicial aspect.

Racism and Prejudice:

When it comes to zero-tolerance policies, it is not the middle class, Caucasian students that are being affected. Instead, there is a disproportionate, overrepresentation of lower income students and African American students being targeted by these rules (Skiba et al, 2011; APA, 2008; Heitzeg, 2009, Bell, 2015). Whether it be attributed to racism, or cultural insensitivities, the fact remains that African American students are 2 – 4 times more likely to be referred to the office for the same behavioral problems committed by their white counterparts (Skiba et al, 2011). There are inherent problems with a system that targets minority groups. If only one group of people are being targeted, then there is no way zero tolerance policies are equity based. How can zero tolerance policies really be what is best for children when the policies are really only practiced against students of color? Fortunately, there are steps that can be taken to either reform zero tolerance practices, or eliminate them entirely with new, better solutions to behavioral discrepancies.

Recommendations:

The overall belief is that zero tolerance policies in their current form are unsustainable systems which promote racial injustices and has contributed significantly to the creation and perpetuation of the school – to – prison pipeline. However, there are actions that can be taken by individual school districts that would promote a healthier school climate. For instance, schools could keep zero tolerance policies in effect, but create punishments that are applicable – thereby eliminating already existent punishments. The punishment should fit the crime (APA, 2008, Pgs. 857-858). If a student accidently brings a knife to school, or if their parents pack a knife in their child’s lunch bag, there is no reason the student should have to be automatically suspended, expelled, or taken to the juvenile court system for a simple misunderstanding. Another system that schools could enact would be restorative justice programs (APA, 2008, P. 858). Restorative justice seeks to place the accountability with the student, as well as looking at the antecedent first and affirming the use preventative practices in the classrooms. All too often, American students are penalized harshly and unfairly. If schools were to adopt more reasonable policies, and give their teachers more training on cultural sensitivity along with behavioral workshop classes, there could be a complete turnaround in the current educational discipline system that would not only benefit the school, but also the children.