Impacts Of Zero-tolerance Policies In School
There is no doubt that safety should be a priority in all schools. In the 1990s, zero-tolerance policies became prevalent in schools as an attempt to prevent drug-abuse and violence. However, many factors were not taken into consideration at the time of its creation. This has ultimately caused the zero-tolerance policy to fail at serving its purpose as an effective discipline system. I have researched its specific impacts and how they continue to bring upon unfortunate consequences to students and their future.
In this paper, I argue that implementation of zero-tolerance policies in the United States contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline and are biased against minorities and students with disabilities, therefore disserving many students and negatively impacting their futures. I also discuss opposing views and why they are invalid or, at the least, should not be highly regarded. I will then finish by relating the problem of zero-tolerance policies with its implications to the public good and provide potential solutions to the problem.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and Gun-Free School Act of 1994, later changing terminology to ‘weapon’, began mandated (minimum) punishments in schools (Martinez, 2009). Disobeying would result in the school’s loss of federal funds. In years following, schools independently added a wider array of offenses to the zero-tolerance policy, some of which included swearing, disrespect, and even dress-code violation (Martinez, 2009). It has been estimated that less than 10% of suspension cases are actually due to serious misbehavior, implying that the remaining 90% had the potential of avoidance. Schools that have a larger proportion of minority students are more likely to include non-rehabilitative responses.
Zero-tolerance policies can have a long-lasting, negative impact on a student’s direction. In many cases, a set punishment can mean immediate suspension or expulsion. In under-privileged areas, it is common for no other educational services to exist for students to turn to during the period of their punishment (Berlowitz, 2017). Unfortunately, for many of these same students, school is one of the safest settings to be in. Excluding them from schools for a long period of time could put them at risk. For example, a student may not have a family able to feed them, have an abusive family environment, not have a home at all, among other potential cases.
The zero-tolerance policy is also a major-contributor to the phenomenon known as the ‘school-to-prison pipeline. ’ The school-to-prison pipeline asserts that zero-tolerance policy is misused among school administrators to unequally ‘pushout’ students of certain races from school. 5. 4 of the 49 million students in United States faced at least one suspension during the 2011-2012 school year. An African American student is four times as likely to face a suspension than a white student. In many cases, schools contact authorities for offenses such as bullying and allow police to decide the fate of the student, often leading to criminalization for African American males. Some schools have even opted to have campus police, leading to prompt ‘classroom to courtroom’ scenarios. A school can avoid all responsibility for the student and point toward their policies to explain why such action is taken.
Another way that schools can systematically pushout a student is through suspension or expulsion. Evidence has shown that a history of disciplinary problems is a strong predictor of dropping out of the education system completely. A study has shown that just one suspension doubles the risk of failing an academic high school course and increases the likelihood of dropping out by 20%. This is not necessarily to say that disciplinary action is bad, rather there are more efficient methods that would reduce the likelihood of a student dropping out, which I will discuss further at a later point. An example of this was seen in Washington state’s 2011-2012 academic year, where 35,000 students, 33% of which were African American, did not graduate from their high school due to an increase in suspensions and expulsions.
It may be argued that the zero-tolerance policy is fair because any form of violence or drug use in school should not be tolerated. In other words, anyone receiving punishment is deserving of it because they should’ve ‘known what was coming’. In response to this, I will refer to my previous points and provide case examples. Those supporting this point should keep in mind that zero-tolerance policy will differ in severity of punishment from individual schools and does not always only pertain to violence and drugs. A hypothetical situation may put this into perspective. For example, say a parking ticket in your district has changed to $10,000, no matter if you did not realize there was a sign that did not allow for parking, or if you only parked in the spot for one minute. You then discovered that the majority of tickets were being passed out to male-owned motorcycles, while police turned their eye from the majority of other mis-parked vehicles. This example can be related to the unfair, discriminatory, excessive punishment that zero-tolerance policies often entail. Even if the punishment is set, we should be considerate of if the disciplinary action taken is justified and being used fairly. Also, ‘kids will be kids’, meaning that a child’s nature is to behave immaturely. It is unfair to expect otherwise, and in most cases, we should take advantage of their growing brain stage and treat discipline as a learning experience instead of creating a negative impact on their direction.
Zero tolerance policies have unfair, prejudiced consequences. While discussing zero-tolerance policies, we should keep in mind this question: “Why does a student misbehave?” It may be easy to answer by saying that they are naturally rotten, or even put blame on parental guidance, but this is not always the case. An example of this can be found in childhood trauma. Children living in poverty are particularly vulnerable to events that lead to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD in an area that lacks mental health resources is one reason why a student may act out in school. It is rare to find a school environment that is trauma-sensitive, meaning the students will still be subject to the mandated discipline of the zero-tolerance policy. Evidence has shown that punishment to students that have experienced trauma in the past can intensify their PTSD and make it nearly impossible to continue to develop and learn.
Another uncontrollable variable that may cause a student to act out is through a disability or other behavioral disorder. Their situation makes the student susceptible to suspension or expulsion, as the zero-tolerance policy fails to accommodate the fact that some actions are out of their control. Posing these students as a danger further stigmatizes this labeled group rather than treating them equally among others. Many students with disabilities are already at a learning disadvantage, suspending or expelling them will make it even more difficult to catch up, therefore increasing drop-out rates.
Some may say that students with a disability or suffering from a mental or behavioral disorder either have control of their actions or should not be among other students if they pose any danger. It is often difficult to impossible to determine whether an action is ‘free’. However, I will provide a sure example that displays a case where a student is likely to perform an uncontrolled action that will result in discipline, while not likely being a danger to their peers. Tourette syndrome (TS) is a disorder that causes ‘tics’ – which are often sudden movements and sounds that the person does not realize will happen. A student with TS has no control over their tics, and has a high chance of disruption or swearing, which have mandated punishments according to some schools zero-tolerance policy. Children with disabilities also are much more likely to get bullied than other students, which could then increase their likelihood of acting out in school. Ultimately, it is unfair to single out students who suffer from a disorder and claim that they should be fully held responsible for any and all of their actions.
All else held constant, zero-tolerance policies fail to make schools safer and do not live up to their initial purpose. Zero-tolerance policies have been in effect for around 25 years and have not shown sufficient evidence that supports their effectiveness. All that evidence has shown is that the policy can make students feel safer, rather than truly improving safety. In many schools, even this remain false; students often experience an increase in stress due to fear of punishment. Some schools have employed safety measures such as bag-checks and metal-detectors. However, the “checks” completed are more of a quick-move on system that would be easy to bypass. Bag-check systems could also be a contributor to the disproportional suspension and expulsion rates if discrimination is used in deciding who’s items to search more thoroughly. Although uncommon, there have been situations in which the zero-tolerance policy actually caused physical harm. For example, an 11-year old boy had his inhaler seized, resulting in his death. This case is just one example that shows how a zero-tolerance policy may completely go off-track of its initial intention of safety and could even be a threat to student’s well-being. Any research regarding an improvement in safety has not shown that it is a result of their zero-tolerance policy. Schools that have given testimonial of success in the policy are by the same administrators who plan to carry on with implementation, showing objective support rather than statistical evidence.
In recent years, policies and individual schools have been editing their methods of discipline to decrease the amount of suspensions and expulsions. For example, according to the Los Angeles Unified School District (2019), the Los Angeles Board of Education is in support of the California Senate Bill 419, prohibiting suspensions for “willfull defiance and disruption”, which has already been in effect in Los Angeles. It has been recognized that students who are black, Latinx, LGBTQ, in foster care, or have a disability are more likely to be targeted by current policy. In California, the white student population enrollment is nearly 5 times as large as the African American enrollment. Dissimilarly, African American suspension account for nearly the same amount as white students. Passing SB 419 would be a step towards defeating this discriminator and contributor to the school-to-prison pipeline. The potential positive impacts of this law are assured because in 2014, Governor Brown of California signed assembly Bill 420, a similar law only impacting grades K through 3. Within a year, suspensions decreased 30,000.
It should be understood that policy reform should be carefully considered and properly implemented. In 2012, the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) used reform by emphasizing intervention and increasing administrator’s case-by-case judgement. However, the decline in out-of-school suspensions (OSS) proved to be insignificant. Although it is uncertain why the reform was unsuccessful, it has been hypothesized that the greater amount of discretion was misused. For example, an act that would not have qualified for an OSS such as class disruption, may have been wrongly classified as bullying, which was still considered a means to suspend a student.
Restorative Justice is a strong alternative that prioritizes mediation and agreement rather than punishment. The outdated method of zero-tolerance policy focuses on violations and lacks the potential for amends. The restorative approach considers the “needs of individuals and understanding the impact on all parties with opportunity for expression of remorse and repairing harm…”. Students are also taught methods on how to make post-conflict amends. A binder consisting of templates may be provided with a fill-in-the-blanks method of initiating a conversation. An example of a verbal apology sentence frame may be “I am sorry that I ____. It is wrong because _____. Next time I will _____. Is there anything I can do now?”. There are sentence templates for various situations such as class disruption, put-downs, and physical harm which often have multiple strategies aside from one-on-one confrontation such as writing letters, helping the classroom, or creating their own resolution. When tested in a third-grade setting of around 100 students, teachers reported that the amends system has been effective for 95% of the community.
In cases where a system of Restorative Justice is not feasible, there are other options that could help to mediate the problem. Assuming that part of the zero-tolerance policy is mandated, I will compile a list that could help to ensure that administrators do not misuse power and school environment can improve. Increase the use of positive behavior interventions and supports. Compile annual reports on the total number of disciplinary actions that push students out of the classroom based on gender, race and ability. Create agreements with police departments and court systems to limit arrests at school and the use of restraints, such as mace and handcuffs. Provide simple explanations of infractions and prescribed responses in the student code of conduct to ensure fairness. Lastly, train teachers on the use of positive behavior supports for at-risk students. Overall, school administrators should strive for equality in the treatment of students while keeping suspensions and expulsions to a minimum.
The zero-tolerance policy is discriminatory towards many groups and has unnecessary negative implications for their futures.
