Zero-Tolerance Policies in Schools: Overview

Introduction

A zero-tolerance policy, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) Zero Tolerance Task Force, is “a philosophy or policy that mandates the application of predetermined consequences, most often severe and punitive in nature, that are intended to be applied regardless of the gravity of behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context.” These policies were first instituted in American schools nationwide in the mid-1990s, and they continued to be at the center of a heated debate concerning crime in schools into the 2020s. These administrative policies were designed to resolve various discipline issues by demanding strict adherence to stated school rules, but they have been criticized for their nondiscretionary, “one-size-fits-all” nature, and for the litigation that has ensued in many school districts. Advocates and critics alike suggest the need for flexibility within the policies, while others argue the policies should be abolished entirely. Initially, schools implemented zero-tolerance policies to comply with federal laws designed to eliminate the presence of guns in schools. Many schools chose to expand their policies to include any object that could be considered a weapon. Some districts established additional zero-tolerance policies regarding such discipline issues as drugs, vulgar language, and cheating. When the policies were put into practice, however, administrators began finding themselves in difficult situations, as students inadvertently violated the strict parameters of the zero-tolerance policies.

In the twenty-first century, studies have shown that zero-tolerance policies tend to be ineffective and unjust. Some suggest that low-income students and marginalized ethnic and racial groups are at a greater risk of falling under the expulsion and suspension requirements of zero-tolerance policies. Other studies have shown that the policies actually have had an adverse effect on school discipline.

Understanding the Discussion

Expulsion: The act of forcing a student to permanently leave school as a consequence of an act or behavior.

Marginalization: The act of relegating something or someone to the outskirts of a central group. In the context of zero-tolerance policies, the term is used to discuss the effect of discipline causing a subset of students to be socially and academically separated from their peers.

Nondiscretionary judgment: Decision-making standard that bears no regard for the circumstances of a particular offense before enforcing the designated punishment.

One-size-fits-all: A popular expression used to describe the nondiscretionary nature of many zero-tolerance policies.

Suspension: The act of forcing a student to temporarily leave school and surrender student privileges, such as involvement in extracurricular activities.

History

In 1989 and 1995, the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics included special School Crime Supplements in their National Crime Victimization Surveys. The data from these surveys revealed what many Americans had already believed: school crime was on the rise. The statistics showed an increase in the incidence of gang-related activities, illegal drugs, and violent crimes in schools. The most alarming data, however, concerned the presence of guns on campuses: over 12 percent of the students surveyed reported that they knew someone who had brought a gun to school.

Even before these figures were collected, the federal government had made attempts to protect students from violent crime. Legislation was passed in 1990 to create gun-free school zones, but the law was later declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case United States v. Lopez. The basis for the decision declaring the law unconstitutional was not, however, a pronouncement from the Supreme Court concerning the general legality of gun-free school zones; rather, the court’s holding in Lopez concerned the extent of the lawmaking authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In 1996, the legislation was revisited, revised to comply with the Commerce Clause, and subsequently passed as the Gun Free School Zones Act.

Pursuant to this act, states were required to implement school policies that would include an automatic one-year expulsion for any student found to have brought a gun to school. Failure to comply with this law would result in schools losing the federal funding they were granted under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Although it was not required, many schools chose to extend their zero-tolerance policies to include additional discipline issues.

As soon as zero-tolerance policies were implemented, their nondiscretionary nature began to present certain problems. In some cases, this resulted in unexpected legal expenses for schools as students and parents resorted to litigation to resolve unjust applications of zero-tolerance policies. In the case of Alston v. Irvington School District, for instance, an eight-year-old boy was arrested by police and suspended from school for using an L-shaped piece of paper as a gun in a free-time game of “cops and robbers.” In Muller v. Board of Education, three thirteen-year-old boys were expelled from school for playing with a gun-shaped laser pointer.

Situations such as these, where zero-tolerance policies were strictly applied to nondangerous students and situations, have caused many advocates for zero-tolerance policies to suggest ways that the policies could allow for evaluation on a case-by-case basis. They recommend that administrators should consider factors such as intent, age, ability to understand the zero-tolerance policy, and past disciplinary record when selecting punishments. Policies, they suggest, should be categorized according to the severity of the violation, and consequences should fit the offense rather than conform to a “one-size-fits-all” disciplinary approach. They also recommend that zero-tolerance policies should be clearly communicated to the public, with emphasis on the exact definitions of punishable offenses, consequences for noncompliance, and an explanation of the decision process involved in reprimanding misbehavior. Advocates note that, while implementing discretionary systems for processing each individual problem does consume time and resources, it is cost-effective when compared to the expense of extended litigation.

Although the primary complaint concerning zero-tolerance policies is their nondiscretionary nature, critics also complain that the policies contribute to the marginalization of troubled students. They believe that the overuse of expulsions and suspensions to control misbehavior by its nature creates an environment of exclusion, thereby reducing academic success, ultimately increasing drop-out rates and potentially affecting the course of adult life for these marginalized students. They further insist that any policy that encourages students to drop out of school is incongruent with the essential educational mission of schools. Proponents for zero-tolerance policies counter that the removal of these troubled students is an effective method for increasing the success rate of the student body and ensuring the safety of those remaining students who wish to thrive academically.

Another factor in the debate over zero-tolerance policies is the reported disproportionate use of discipline methods on both marginalized racial and ethnic groups and low-income students. According to the 2001 Racial Profiling and Punishment in US Public Schools Report, 32.7 percent of students suspended under zero-tolerance policies were African American, while African Americans comprised only 17.2 percent of the overall student population. Russell J. Skiba, an educational psychologist who has published widely on the subject of racial disparity in school discipline, discovered that, according to data released by the Maryland Department of Education, African American students accounted for only 34 percent of the student population in Baltimore County but comprised 54 percent of the students that were suspended under zero-tolerance policies.

In February 2001, the American Bar Association approved a resolution opposing nondiscriminatory zero-tolerance policies that “mandate either expulsion or referral of students to juvenile or criminal court, without regard to the circumstances or nature of the offense or the student’s history.” In August 2006, the APA issued a press release based on ten years of researching zero-tolerance policies that stated that the policies had actually increased punishable behavior and school drop-out rates in some middle and secondary school environments. Then, in December 2008, the APA Zero Tolerance Task Force released a report concluding that zero-tolerance policies may negatively affect the relationship between education and juvenile justice and are not in harmony with existing knowledge concerning adolescent development. The report recommended, in some circumstances, reforming zero-tolerance policies, and in others, replacing zero-tolerance policies with other approaches.

Despite the conclusions of these and other studies, some schools reported positive results from the use of zero-tolerance policies. For example, Henry Ross Senior High School in Tacoma, Washington, reported a 95 percent drop in violent behavior within the first year of the implementation of zero-tolerance policies. Similarly, New Jersey’s Lower Camden County Regional High School District reported that zero-tolerance policies contributed to a 30 percent drop in superintendent disciplinary hearings and a 50 percent drop in drug-related offenses.

By 2013 seven states had explicitly "zero-tolerance" disciplinary policies, although nearly all states had provisions for exclusionary measures for serious infractions. In 2014 the Department of Education under Secretary Eric Holder directed public school districts to reduce exclusionary punishments such as suspensions and expulsions and seek fairer disciplinary methods to redress racial inequities in punishment. Strategies such as alternative education programs for highly disruptive students and restorative justice approaches to less severe infractions subsequently gained favor. Many educators cited the need for flexible policies that allow for disciplinary actions commensurate with the gravity of the infractions. Some social scientists called for psychology-based, evidentiary approaches to behavior management and discipline.

Zero-Tolerance Policies Today

One of the worst school shootings in United States history occurred on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, when an adult shooter broke into the school and killed twenty children and six adults. The massacre revitalized the discussion of zero-tolerance laws in schools, as well as the use of metal detectors, armed police in schools, security cameras, and other protocols to prevent the intrusion of weapons into public schools. On February 14, 2018, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killed seventeen others, leading to similar public debate. The tragedies at Sandy Hook and Parkland, in other words, reignited the discussion of whether to establish stricter zero-tolerance laws and to reevaluate the proactive measures schools implement to protect against violence.

Between 2012 and 2017 over half of states had changed zero-tolerance laws in schools. According to the Education Commission of the States, by 2018 exclusionary discipline was allowed or required for gun possession in all states; for assault or harm in thirty-six states and Washington, DC; and for drugs in twenty-six states and DC. Suspension could also be given for defiant or disruptive behavior in forty states and for bullying in twelve states and DC. At least thirty states and DC urged alternative strategies for discipline.

A small number of education policy experts and politicians argued the 2014 Education Department guidance impaired school safety, with Florida senator Marco Rubio even claiming that it might have contributed to the Parkland shooting. In December 2018, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos rescinded the Holder-era guidance.

As further incidents of violence and other crimes at schools continued to drive much of the conversation around school discipline policies in general, commentators noted that the COVID-19 pandemic that first began spreading worldwide in 2020 additionally had lingering negative effects on student behavior over the following years. The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2022 that, according to survey respondents, increased incidents of classroom disruptions from student misconduct and acts of disrespect toward teachers and staff during the 2021–22 school year were attributed to impacts of COVID-19. As part of such observations, many noted the reactive use in some schools of, as well as renewed state legislative support for, harsher disciplinary punishments amid the overall complications resulting from the restrictions and changes to learning and socioemotional development related to the pandemic. Especially in the state of Texas, concerns about and discussions of zero-tolerance policies in schools were heightened once more following a mass shooting, conducted by a former student, at an elementary school in the city of Uvalde that left nineteen students and two teachers dead. Some hoped that the new administration under President Joe Biden would address and even reverse the Education Department's rescinding of the Holder-era guidance, particularly as social and racial justice movements and protests had increased into the 2020s. However, many activists expressed disappointment upon the release of a letter from the Education Department and the Justice Department addressing fair discipline in 2023; they criticized the letter as insufficient and much weaker than the 2014 guidance.

The debate over zero-tolerance policies continued as educators, parents, and administrators attempted to adjust and clarify school regulations, with the common goal of improving school safety and encouraging educational success.

These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

Blad, Evie. "Biden Administration Asks Districts to Investigate Their Discipline Disparities." EducationWeek, 9 June 2023, www.edweek.org/leadership/biden-administration-asks-districts-to-investigate-their-discipline-disparities/2023/06. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024.

Cafardi, Nicholas P. "Another Long Lent." Commonwealth, vol. 138, no. 7, 2011, pp. 7-8.

Curran, F. Chris. "Just What Are 'Zero Tolerance' Policies—and Are They Still Common in America's Schools?" The Conversation, 14 Feb. 2019, theconversation.com/just-what-are-zero-tolerance-policies-and-are-they-still-common-in-americas-schools-111039. Accessed 24 Mar. 2020.

Dunn, Joshua. "The Prohibition of Childhood." National Review, 28 Oct. 2013, pp. 50-51.

"Impact of Zero Tolerance Policies." Critical Examinations of School Violence and Disturbance in K-12 Education, edited by Gordon A. Crews, Information Science Reference, 2016, pp. 135-184.

Laura, Crystal T. "Reflections on the Racial Web of Discipline." Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, vol. 63, no. 3, 2011, pp. 87-95.

Lee, Josephine. "A 'Dark Vision' of Discipline: Zero Tolerance Makes a Comeback." Texas Observer, 10 Mar. 2023, www.texasobserver.org/zero-tolerance-makes-a-comeback/. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024.

Mongan, Philip, and Robert Walker. "'The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions': A Historical, Theoretical, and Legal Analysis of Zero-Tolerance Weapons Policies in American Schools." Preventing School Failure, vol. 56, no. 4, 2012, pp. 232-240.

"More Than 80 Percent of U.S. Public Schools Report Pandemic Has Negatively Impacted Student Behavior and Socio-Emotional Development." National Center for Education Statistics, 6 July 2022, nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press‗releases/07‗06‗2022.asp. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024.

Nguyen, Nicole. "Scripting 'Safe' Schools: Mapping Urban Education and Zero Tolerance during the Long War." Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, vol. 35, no. 4, 2013, pp. 277-297.

Paulson, Amanda. "School Discipline: New US Guidelines Shift away from Zero-Tolerance Policies." Christian Science Monitor, 8 Jan. 2014, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2014/0108/School-discipline-New-US-guidelines-shift-away-from-zero-tolerance-policies-video. Accessed 2 Feb. 2016.

Rafa, Alyssa. "The Status of School Discipline in State Policy." Education Commission of the States, 14 Jan. 2019, www.ecs.org/the-status-of-school-discipline-in-state-policy. Accessed 24 Mar. 2020.

Skiba, Russell J., and Daniel J. Losen. "From Reaction to Prevention: Turning the Page on School Discipline." American Educator, vol. 39, no. 4, 2015-16, pp. 4-11.

Sussman, Anna Louie. "Suspension Trap." Progressive, vol. 75, no. 4, 2011, pp. 28-30.

Stossel, John. "Attacks on Freedom." Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, 1 Oct. 2010, pp. 39-40.

Ward, Stephanie Francis, and Etienne Delessert. "Less Than Zero." ABA Journal, vol. 100, no. 8, 2014, pp. 55-61.

Wright, Crystal. "Sandy Hook Shootings: Gun Outrage in Black and White." Washington Post, 19 Dec. 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/sandy-hook-shootings-gun-outrage-in-black-and-white/2012/12/19/5ed2aa18-49f7-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939%5Fblog.html. Accessed 8 Feb. 2016.