Zero tolerance (schools)

A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances. In schools, common zero-tolerance policies concern possession or use of drugs or weapons. Students, and sometimes staff, parents, and other visitors, who possess a banned item for any reason are always punished.

These policies are promoted as preventing drug abuse and violence in schools. Critics say zero tolerance in schools have occasionally resulted in punishments which have been criticised as egregiously unfair against students and teachers, especially in schools with poorly written policies. Consequently, these policies are sometimes derided as zero intelligence policies.[1] Outside school, zero tolerance may be used in general or with reference to a particular category of transgressions, e.g. a zero-tolerance policy against alcohol use.

In the United States and Canada, zero tolerance policies have been adopted in various schools and other education venues.

Contents

Claims made in support

Supporters of zero tolerance policies claim that such policies are required to create an appropriate environment (Scaringi, 2008; Noguera, 1995). They also point to examples of persons in authority providing lax discipline in the past, with a resulting breakdown of order in the school (Scaringi, 2001).

Some supporters also argue that the mass publicizing of examples of unfairness serves the schools' purpose by frightening students into conformity instead of galvanizing them into resistance. They point to the millions of student acts and omissions each and every school day, only a small percentage of which prove to be unfairly penalized. (Noguera, 2007)

The policy assumption is that inflexibility is a deterrent because, no matter how or why the rule was broken, the fact that the rule was broken is the basis for the imposition of the penalty. This is intended as a behavior modification strategy: since those at risk know that it may operate unfairly, they may be induced to take even unreasonable steps to avoid breaking the rule. This is a standard policy in rule- and law-based systems around the world on "offenses" as minor as traffic violations to major health and safety legislation for the protection of employees and the environment. (Ghezzi, 2006)

Some view zero tolerance policies as a tool to fight corruption (Takyi-Boadu, 2006). Under this argument, if subjective judgment is not allowed, most attempts by the authority person to encourage bribes and/or other favors in exchange for leniency are clearly visible.

Claims made in criticism

Critics of zero tolerance policies frequently refer to cases where minor offenses have resulted in severe punishments and instead make schools more like a jail or a prison. Typical examples include the honor-roll student being expelled from school under a "no weapons" policy while in possession of nail clippers.[2]

Furthermore zero-tolerance policies have been struck down by US courts[3] and by Departments of Education.[4]

A particularly dismaying hypothesis about zero tolerance policies is that they may actually discourage some people from reporting criminal and illegal behavior, for fear of losing relationships, and for many other reasons. That is, ironically, zero tolerance policies may be ineffective in the very purpose for which they were originally designed.[5]

Research evidence

There is no credible evidence that zero tolerance reduces violence or drug abuse by students (Skiba 2000). Furthermore, school suspension and expulsion result in a number of negative outcomes for both schools and students.[6]

On its face, rigid rules limit the powers of the person doing enforcement and thus should ensure equal treatment for everyone. However, the evidence indicates that minority children are the most likely to suffer the negative consequences of zero tolerance (American Bar Association, 2006).

The American Psychological Association concluded that the available evidence does not support the use of zero tolerance policies as defined and implemented, that there is a clear need to modify such policies, and that the policies create a number of unintended negative consequences,[7][8] including making schools "less safe".[9]

Media attention

Egregious cases often attract the attention of the international media. Many publicized cases have questioned the schools' disproportionate responses to technical transgressions. These cases include students being suspended or expelled for transgressions such as possession of ibuprofen or Midol (both legal, non-prescription drugs commonly used to treat menstrual cramps and headaches) with permission of the students' parents, keeping pocketknives (small utility knife) in cars, and carrying sharp tools outside of a woodshop classroom (where they are often required materials). In some jurisdictions, zero-tolerance policies have come into conflict with freedom of religion rules already in place allowing students to carry, for example, kirpans.

Media attention has proven embarrassing to school officials, and the embarrassment has resulted in changes to state laws as well as to local school policies. One school board member gave this reason for changes his district made to their rigid policy: "We are doing this because we got egg on our face."[15]

Zero tolerance policies have been portrayed in the American musical comedy-drama series Glee. Starting with the second season episode "Never Been Kissed", zero tolerance against bullying is promoted as being effective and is the reason gay character Kurt Hummel transfers schools after being bullied in the episode "Furt".

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "Zero Tolerance is Zero Intelligence". Delaware Liberal. 6 October 2009. http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/10/06/zero-tolerance-is-zero-intelligence/. 
  2. ^ Final Report, Bi Partisan Working Group on Youth Violence 106th Congress, February 1996 Zero Tolerance Policy Report, American Bar Association
  3. ^ "Pensacola honor students win zero tolerance drug ruling" article of the AP/Bradenton Herald, Sept. 8, 2002 at Overlawyered.com archives Sept. 2002 pt. III
  4. ^ Rhode Island Officials Rule School Can't Censor Teen's Yearbook Photo (1/19/2007)
  5. ^ Rowe, Mary and Bendersky, Corinne, "Workplace Justice, Zero Tolerance and Zero Barriers: Getting People to Come Forward in Conflict Management Systems," in Negotiations and Change, From the Workplace to Society, Thomas Kochan and Richard Locke (editors), Cornell University Press, 2002
  6. ^ Russell J. Skiba Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice Policy Research Report #SRS2 August, 2000
  7. ^ Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, December 2008.
  8. ^ Zero Tolerance Policies: no substitute for good judgment Summary of the APA Task Force Report at everydaypsychology.com
  9. ^ a b Nuckols, Ben (13 October 2009). "Delaware board likely to tweak zero-tolerance rule". http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_us/us_zero_tolerance_boy. 
  10. ^ Petras, Kathryn; Petras, Ross (2003). Unusually Stupid Americans (A compendium of all American Stupidity). New York: Villard Books. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0-9658068-7-1. 
  11. ^ Nuckols, Ben (14 October 2009). "Delaware 1st grader has 45-day suspension lifted". http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_re_us/us_zero_tolerance_boy. 
  12. ^ "Christina Board Will Consider Amendment to Student Code of Conduct for Youngest Students" (Press release). Christina School District. 13 October 2009. http://www.christina.k12.de.us/News/2009/1013_CodeOfConduct.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-14. 
  13. ^ a b c Urbina, Ian (12 October 2009). "It’s a Fork, It’s a Spoon, It’s a ... Weapon?". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/education/12discipline.html. 
  14. ^ McVicar, Brian (March 4, 2010). "Ionia kindergartner suspended for making gun with hand". The Grand Rapids Press (Ionia: Booth Newspapers). http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/03/ionia_kindergartener_suspended.html. Retrieved 11 August 2010. 
  15. ^ Urbina, Ian (13 October 2009). "After Uproar on Suspension, District Will Rewrite Rules". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/education/14discipline.html. 

References

External links