"Zero tolerance" first appeared in the 1980s, a time when "getting tough" was widely accepted as the answer to every social problem. It first was used by the United States Customs Agency for a program aimed at drug smugglers. That program ended in failure, but the idea of zero tolerance lived on. "Zero tolerance" just sounds so tough, so precise, so easy, that it inevitably was picked up by state and local politicians, school boards, and school administrators as a simple way to make the public feel safe.
When Congress enacted the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, "zero tolerance" enjoyed a substantial boost in popularity. The law requires students who bring dangerous weapons to school to be expelled for one year, but most schools went further, adding drugs, alcohol, and fighting to the list of infractions that brought automatic suspension or expulsion. Many added disruptive behavior, swearing, insubordination, or violation of dress codes as well.
Effectiveness of Zero Tolerance
Despite the widespread use of zero tolerance policies for many years, there is almost no data on its effectiveness. Evaluations by school administrators are largely positive, but wholly subjective. While this certainly is evidence that school administrators like zero tolerance policies, there is no data demonstrating positive behavioral change among the students in their schools.
School administrators like zero tolerance because it makes their lives easier. "One size fits all" discipline is easy to dispense, and if parents complain that a punishment is too severe, administrators can claim that school policy "ties their hands," leaving them no choice. This makes it possible for them to suspend "troublesome" children — those whose offenses are minor but frequent — and keep them out of school for extended periods of time. It also makes it unnecessary for those administrators to implement more effective but more challenging policies designed to increase positive behavior.
Abuse of Zero Tolerance
Everybody has heard of zero tolerance rules applied in ways that are patently absurd. A fifth grade girl from Delaware was suspended for forty-five days because her mother sent her to class with a birthday cake, and included a knife to cut it in the box. A twelfth grade girl in Colorado was suspended because she left a wooden replica of a rifle, used for drill team practice, in the back seat of her car in the school parking lot. A five-year-old Pennsylvania boy was suspended for wearing a plastic ax as part of his Halloween fireman's costume. A sixth grader from Washington was expelled when a water pistol fell out of his backpack, and only readmitted when his family brought legal action against the school district.
Many assume that severe punishments of such trivial infractions are rare, but numerous examples continue to accumulate from everywhere zero tolerance policies are in force. The essential problem is that no attempt is made to distinguish trivial infractions from serious misbehavior. A water pistol is the same as a loaded revolver, aspirin is the same as cocaine, and a push in the hallway is the same as a vicious assault.
Some claim that zero tolerance prevents administrators from showing favoritism and, indeed, there are many instances of "good kids" being suspended or expelled for relatively minor mistakes. Nevertheless, there is plenty of data to show that school administrators are significantly more likely to suspend students from poor families than from rich families, and significantly more likely to suspend African-American students than those of European ancestry. This may arise less from class or racial discrimination than from a belief that poor and minority families are less likely to register complaints with the school board — or hire attorneys to defend their children's rights.
Alternatives to Zero Tolerance
Clearly, it is time to return to policies in which punishments are proportional to the misdeeds they punish. If school boards are unwilling to trust disciplinary decisions to individual administrators, they can require consultation with school psychologists, counselors, or social workers. If students or their parents believe improper decisions have been made, they should have access to due process, in keeping with long standing concepts of justice.
More important, schools must implement programs that reduce the need for punishment by training teachers to improve their classroom management skills and find alternatives to reporting all student misbehavior to administration. Schools must incorporate anger management and conflict resolution into their curricula, and introduce programs to combat bullying and promote cross-cultural understanding.
When schools model social values like equity and justice, graduates carry those values out into the wider society. When zero tolerance policies prevail, transmitting those values becomes impossible.
Sources:
Martinez, Stephanie. "A System Gone Berserk," Preventing School Failure, Spring 2009.
Skiba, Russell J. "Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence," Indiana Education Policy Center Research Report #SRS2, August 2000.
Victor A. Gallis - Vic Gallis has written for a variety of literary journals, educational publications, and websites. Thirty years spent in public education, ...
Join the Conversation