Zero tolerance policies in schools mandate predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses, regardless of the circumstances, disciplinary history, or severity of the behavior. The aim of these policies is to send a strong message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated.
Some key things to know about zero tolerance policies:
- They emerged in the 1990s in response to concerns about drugs, violence, and weapons in schools
- They require severe punishment, usually suspension or expulsion, for designated offenses
- Offenses covered often include drug and alcohol possession, fighting, bullying, and bringing weapons to school
- Critics argue they promote excessive punishment and do not allow consideration of individual circumstances
Below is an overview of the key pros and cons of zero tolerance policies in schools when it comes to disciplining students, explored in more detail throughout this article.
Pros of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools
- Deter serious offenses and create safer school environments
- Treat all offenders equally regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status
- Clearly define expectations and consequences for students
- Leave little room for judgment calls by school administrators
Cons of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools
- Unflexible, one-size-fits-all approach, fails to consider circumstances
- Lead to severe punishment of minor infractions
- Relationship between offenses and punishment is arbitrary
- May negatively impact school climate and student-teacher relationships
- Potentially violate civil rights and disproportionately affect minorities
Pros of Zero Tolerance Policies for Student Discipline
There are some arguments in favor of zero tolerance policies when it comes to regulating student behavior and discipline.
1. Deter Serious Offenses Like Weapons, Drugs, Violence
One intention of zero tolerance policies is to deter students from committing serious offenses by implementing harsh, defined consequences. In theory, students would be discouraged from bringing weapons, drugs or alcohol to school or taking part in violence or bullying if they know it will result in automatic expulsion or suspension.
After the initial implementation, the number of students caught with firearms did decline across various school districts, suggesting the policies may have had some deterrent effect.
2. Improve School Safety
Closely related to the aim of deterring serious offenses, zero tolerance policies hope to create safer school environments by weeding out weapons, drugs, and threatening behaviors.
Removing students who break rules regarding drugs, fighting, or weapons helps eliminate dangerous situations that could be detrimental to other students’ safety and well-being at school. This creates peace of mind for students, teachers, and parents.
3. Fair and Equal Punishment
Ideally, zero tolerance policies promote fairness and equality in school discipline because the same punishment is handed out to any offender regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or prior record.
Rather than leaving discipline decisions up to individual teachers and administrators, zero tolerance policies standardize consequences across the board. This ensures similar cases receive equal treatment.
Cons of Zero Tolerance Policies for Student Discipline
However, there are also a number of criticisms and unintended adverse consequences that research has associated with zero tolerance policies in schools.
1. Unflexible, Fails to Consider Circumstances and Intent
The main criticism of zero tolerance policies is that the predefined punishments often fail to take circumstances, context, or severity into account. They utilize a one-size-fits-all approach even when infractions vary greatly in intent and impact.
For example, a student who accidentally leaves a small Swiss army knife in their lunchbox receives the same consequence as one who brings a switchblade to school with malicious purposes. But the circumstances and necessity for removal are quite different.
Punishment is unable to be adapted or reduced based on the offenders’ histories, disciplinary records, or home environments.
2. Goes Too Far Punishing Minor Infractions
Zero tolerance policies frequently go too far handing out suspensions, expulsions, and police citations for relatively minor misbehavior that many consider a normal part of childhood and adolescence.
For example, a young student may be suspended for bringing a plastic butter knife to school to cut food, playing with toy weapons like fingers guns, or carrying migraine or asthma medication without the proper documentation.
The overly harsh punishments often seem disproportionate to the offenses, causing disruption and damage to the students’ academic progress and futures over fairly innocuous mistakes.
3. No Evidence Link Between Offenses and Severity of Punishment
There is often little evidence demonstrating that removing a student from school for a year or more effectively deters others or even that student from similar behavior in the future. Nor does it seem to reform most individual offenders.
The relationship between the seriousness of punishment and type of offense seems arbitrary. Some research indicates that suspensions actually increase misbehavior and drug use rather than reforming students.
4. Negative Impact on School Climate and Student-Teacher Relationships
Strict zero tolerance policies may negatively affect school climate, harming the learning environment and student-teacher relationships. Required removals can make students feel ostracized and disconnected rather than supported.
Teachers also have expressed frustration when students are severely punished for accidental violations of policy that the teachers perceive as relatively minor or harmless. This damages productive student-teacher dynamics.
5. Violation of Student Civil Rights
Harsh mandatory punishments raise concerns about violation of civil rights, especially for minority students and those with disabilities who tend to be impacted disproportionately by zer0 tolerance policies.
These students lose important educational opportunities but are also more likely to become further disenfranchised from society without access to school services. This contributes to the school-to-prison pipeline.
Key Questions and Answers About Zero Tolerance Policies (FAQ)
Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about zero tolerance policies for school discipline.
What behaviors do zero tolerance policies usually cover?
Typical offenses requiring preset punishments under zero tolerance policies include possession of weapons, alcohol, or illegal drugs on campus, bullying, fighting, making threats, and willful defiance of authority. State laws and district policies outline specific infractions at each school.
What are common punishments enforced by zero tolerance policies?
Most zero tolerance school policies require suspension (from 1-5 days up to a full year) or expulsion for a first offense. Some even mandate referring students to law enforcement. Other consequences may include citation fines or mandatory counseling.
Do school districts have flexibility with zero tolerance punishments?
Most state laws and school board policies allow minimal flexibility, however there is often some administrator discretion about length of suspensions or referrals. Still, administrators have limited ability to reduce consequences mandated by zero tolerance policies without facing backlash.
Who is most impacted by zero tolerance discipline policies in schools?
Studies show minority students, particularly African Americans, Hispanics, and special education students with disabilities are suspended and expelled far more often under zero tolerance policies, exacerbating the school-to-prison pipeline. Racial discrimination likely plays a role.
Are there alternatives to zero tolerance policies for disciplining students?
Educators suggest utilizing graduated systems of discipline consequences rather than one-size-fits-all punishment regardless of circumstances. Various alternative discipline methods also emphasize counseling over exclusion, keeping disciplinary decisions at the classroom level first, and positive behavior support programs to engage students.
Conclusion and Discussion: Are Zero Tolerance Policies Too Harsh?
In reviewing the background, pros, cons, and questions around zero tolerance policies for disciplining students, there seem to be persuasive arguments on both sides of the debate. These policies likely deter some dangerous behaviors but also seem to go too far punishing minor youthful misjudgments.
In theory, strict rules should curb drugs, weapons, bullying and violence to keep schools safe while applying equal treatment. But excessive harsh punishments can severely damage student futures and disproportionately target minority youth without flexibility to consider circumstances.
Ultimately there needs to be a balance between keeping schools orderly and secure environments for learning while recognizing adolescents will make developmentally normal mistakes. Allowing for some context and case-by-case decisions seems reasonable.
Graduated discipline systems with multiple tiers of infractions and consequences depending on severity and intent would improve upon the rigid one-size-fits-all exclusion approach. This would continue preventing violence and weapons while adding flexibility for minor accidents common in adolescence due to impulsivity and poor foresight.
Supplementary counseling-based support programs aimed at positive engagement could also help reform behaviors and bolster inclusion. However, adding police citations to school punishment should end given the damage that the school-to-prison pipeline inflicts upon disadvantaged minority youth.
Perhaps utilizing customized school management system software provides additional ways to track student behavioral records and disciplinary histories so that administrators can better calibrate punishments to fit offenses on an individualized basis rather than suspending all offenders in blanket fashion regardless of circumstances. This would uphold accountability and order while still allowing developmental growth and second chances where merited situation ally.
With some adjustments, schools can maintain safe environments free of the most serious threats while reforming disciplinary policies and software infrastructure to minimize fallout of impulsive mistakes inherent to adolescence. This balanced approach ensures strictness against violence coupled with compassion against exclusion for minor youthful errors. Overall student growth and future trajectories should become central aims again.
