Letter to Educators

ZERO TOLERANCE OF BEHAVIORS NOT FOR KIDS

Dear Colleagues,

Over the past several weeks, I have been immersing myself in every bit of information I could find on the prevalence and impact of zero tolerance policies in our education system. Given the fact that over 90% of American schools have some form of zero tolerance policy, I am sure you are all are on some level familiar with them and most likely aware of some of the general concerns.  My purpose in writing this letter is to hopefully initiate a dialogue about how we can make schools safe without sacrificing our core principles.

It is always scary when people start talking about the core principles of a society because the idea that a society holds core principles is a loaded one to begin with. America is a mixture of diverse ethnicities, nationalities, faiths and cultures making identification of her core values a challenge. Nevertheless, America has a rich history embedded with statements aspiring to be a land of opportunity, equality, and of liberty.

In his piece “:Have Zero Tolerance Policies Turned into a Nightmare? The American Dream’s Promise of Equal Educational Opportunity Grounded in Brown v. Board of Education, Avarita L. Hanson makes the case that equally embedded in the American story is a recognition of the fact that education is the single most important bridge to the realization of the American dream.

Now juxtapose that against a policy of zero tolerance. For those that are not familiar, zero tolerance policies in schools are regulations in which a prescribed consequence is given for a particular type of prohibited behavior without regard to the context. Traditionally they exist as policies mandating suspension or expulsion for students who engage in certain behaviors or bring banned substances to schools.

Zero tolerance policies appear to have started out as a get tough approach to drug policy. Eventually schools began to catch on at which point Congress eventually codified zero  tolerance policies into the law generating a nationwide explosion in the policies which have expanded in breadth from initially dealing with firearms, to all weapons, to drugs, to alcohol, and down the line to the point that students in some instances have been suspended for bringing toys to school, for disobeying school officials, to bringing pagers and cell phones to class.

The new trend of using exclusion as the primary means of forcing kids into submitting to school policies is a dangerous one for the youth affected as well as the society at large. To deny a student access to a quality education is a serious step that we take all too lightly today. Given that the students who are struggling the most academically are also the students who are most often the victims of exclusion based disciplinary approaches, it is should be clear that school exclusion hurts the most vulnerable students. Perhaps this would be a necessary evil if we were talking about students who pose a real threat to their peers, but the truth of the matter is that in most cases the students subjected to zero tolerance policies pose no real threat at all.           

In their report, “The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools”, Russ SKiba and Reece Peterson write, “Data on suspension consistently shows that, as the NCES has reported, referrals for drugs, weapons and gang related behaviors constitute but a small minority of office referrals leading to suspension. Fighting among students is the sinle most frequent reason for suspension, but the majority of school suspensions occur in response to relatively minor incidents that do not threaten school safet., At the middle school level, disrespect and disnbedience are among the most common reasons for suspension, and a significant proportion of suspensions are for tardiness and truancy.” (Skiba & Peterson, 2006 p. 7)

Couple that with the fact that school exclusion practices disproportionally come down against students of color for the most minor offenses while white students are frequently suspended for more serious ones, and some central questions begin to emerge. Can we really justify the indiscriminate use of school exclusion as a disciplinary technique? Does it make sense to take our most vulnerable students and to further stunt their progress by kicking them out of the classroom and sending them to the streets? Where is the wisdom of responding to truancy and tardiness mandating even more time away from the classroom and away from the instruction? Teachers, administrators and parents should take a cold hard look at our zero tolerance policies and ask ourselves, “How does this policy help our hurt the young people entrusted to our care?”

            It is time we started looking at a more comprehensive approach to behavior management beginning with a recognition that all children should be entitled to a basic education, and that it is in the interest of society at large to ensure that students have access to a basic education regardless of their behavior. This is not to say that we allow all behaviors to go unchecked, it is simply a recognition that when we use expulsion to enforce desired behaviors we fall short of the high calling to provide equal access to all students. A proper approach to behavior management includes high expectations, clear standards, preventative techniques and the flexibility to make adjustments given the specific needs of the student(s) involved.

            Zero tolerance policies as we now them violate students right to an education and fail to live up to our duty to society to prepare citizens who can be productive and make a living for themselves and their families. Zero tolerance policies fail to teach students to function as part of a democratic society, instead teaching them that when going gets tough authoritarianism - forcing people into subjection by brute force or the denial of their civil liberties - is the prescribed means of reaction.

            We can do better than zero tolerance. We can and we must if we are going to live up to our own stated goal of equal educational opportunities for all children.

Introduction_ Zero Tolerance Policies

Issue and Question

“Zero Tolerance” is the term used to describe certain categories of school policies designed to increase safety and provide consistency in school discipline practices. The policies generally provide a prescribed consequence (i.e. suspension or expulsion) for a certain types of misbehaviors without regard to the circumstances surrounding the behavior.  A central element of zero tolerance policies is their reliance on school exclusion as the primary means of enforcing desired behaviors and deterring the undesired ones.

            In the nearly twenty years since the passage of Guns Free Act, zero tolerance policies have been the subject of great controversy with the vast majority of material being critical, or at least cautionary, about such practices.  In determining the effectiveness of zero tolerance policies, many questions should be considered.  Does the school system have an obligation to provide a basic education to all students?  What happens to students as a consequence of them being excluded from the education system?  Do zero tolerance policies provide an effective deterrent?  Do such policies disproportionally affect students of color? How do such policies mesh with other school practices and procedures?  Should zero tolerance be reconsidered?  What sorts of approaches to zero tolerance policies can be implemented to improve the effectiveness of the policies while minimizing the controversial impacts.

Relevance of the Topic

In recent years, the debate surrounding the value of zero tolerance policies has intensified as incidents of school violence have been an increasing subject of media attention. For me personally, the topic of zero tolerance policies has recently become a subject of interest a few months ago when a student in my band class brought a knife to a weekend parade, flashed it at another student, and in accordance with district policy was kicked out of school for the rest of the year as a result.

According to a 2009 Safety with Dignity Report published by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Annenburg Institute for School Reform and Make the Road New York, between 79 and 94% of American Public Schools have some sort of zero tolerance policy. A zero tolerance policy can be summarized as a blanket policy or rule for reacting to an infraction without regard to extenuating circumstances surrounding the rule breakage. An example of this would be a school policy to automatically suspend a student for bringing a weapon or drug paraphernalia to school.

What happens to students who are disciplined in accordance with zero tolerance policies? Are zero tolerance policies an effective way of educating and rehabilitating offenders or are they are some suggest pathways to the criminal justice system. Have schools become more safe as a result of the spread of zero tolerance programs? Are zero tolerance programs more effective than giving more latitude to educators and administrators in exercising judgment in school discipline?

Nature of the Controversy    

Zero tolerance policies have been a subject of great controversy since their codification into law in the mid 1990’s.  A major criticism of zero tolerance policies is their heavy dependence on suspension and expulsion as the center piece of the get touch approach to school discipline.  Available research demonstrates a high correlation between school suspension and student’s eventually dropping out of school. The implications to society of an increasing many students being suspended and expelled and eventually dropping out poses broader questions for society as to what to do with an uneducated and unemployable population of individuals living amongst us and the consequences on the criminal justice system of an education system that arguably

            There have also been many studies done that have demonstrated that school discipline in general, particularly disciplinary approaches utilizing exclusion, have a an disproportionate impact on student’s of color who are far more often the subjects of such disciplinary actions, and are generally subjected to them more often and for lesser offenses than their white counterparts.

Another controversy connected with zero tolerance policies are the legal implications of balancing requirements contained in zero tolerance policies against other legislation protecting certain populations of students – i.e. special education students from school practices that would exclude them. This particular controversy raises the additional question of how many students who because they were not properly evaluated for special education services may have been illegitimately subjected to zero tolerance policies when other means of intervention might have been available had a proper special education referral and evaluation  been conducted.

Literature Review Themes

History of Zero Tolerance Policies

DATE	DESCRIPTION
1946-1964	Baby boom generation contributes to tremendous growth in school populations. Corporal punishment begins to be seen as ineffective in dealing with issues in larger school populations.
Late 1970’s - early 1980’s	Schools begin experimenting with in house suspension
1986	Term zero tolerance receives national attention as a drug program developed by US attorney Peter Nunez
1990	Drug program is phased out after a single marijuana cigarette results in the seizure of an Oceanographic Institute research festival.
Late 1980’s - early 1990’s	Schools begin to shift from rehabilitating and preventing student misbehavior to swiftly punishing and reacting to it.
1994	Federal Gun Free Schools Act requires schools to include some sort of school exclusion policy as the response to firearms in schools
1994-1998	Zero tolerance policies expanded beyond what was required under federal legislation. By 1998 79% of schools had a zero tolerance policy for violence and tobacco, 87% for alcohol., 885 for drugs, 91% for other weapons, 94% for firearms.

According to the Michigan Journal of Race and Law, “‘Zero tolerance’ as a term received national attention as the title of a 1986 program develop by US Attorney Peter Nune, which impounded seagoing vessels that carried any amount of illicit drugs.” Although the policy was eventually eliminated in the wake of an Oceanographic Institute research vessel being seixed when a single “joint” was found in a sailor’s cabin, the term became quite popular for a variety of measures from fighting pollution to violence in schools. (Zweiffler & De Beers, 2002) In the early 1990’s several highly publicized school shootings contributed to a public perception that guns in schools were a rampant problem necessitating a national response.  (McAndrews, 2001) Congress eventually passed the 2004 Gun Free Schools Act which contained the previously mentioned provision mandating expulsion for students bringing firearms to school.

Initially, introduced as a means of drug policy enforcement (Skiba, 2006), the wide use of zero tolerance policies in school discipline practice stems from Congress’ 1994 passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act, an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This 1994 legislation included a requirement that local education agencies adopt policies expelling for a minimum of one year any student who brings a firearm to school.  Due to certain ambiguities built into the language of the law (i.e. the frequent interchange of the word firearm and weapon for instance) many states and localities went beyond the scope of Congress’ initial mandate applying zero tolerance policies to all weapons, to anything that could be perceived as a weapon, and then to a multitude of undesired behaviors, under the philosophy that the heavy consequences would act as a deterrent and improve the perception that schools were being serious and proactive about discipline.

      With the potential loss of federal dollars failing to meet the requirement, zero tolerance policies were eventually passed in some measure or another in all 50 states By the time of a 2001 report by Tobin McAndrews, 94% of schools surveyed had a zero tolerance policy for firearms, 91% for weapons other than firerarms, 88% for drugs, 87% for alcohol, and 79% each for violence and tobacco. (McAndrews, 2001, p.1.).  In the years since, zero tolerance policies have been expanded significantly in scope and have been a subject of much controversy.

Rationale for Zero Tolerance Policies

            Although the rationale for zero tolerance policies tends to vary depending who is articulating the policy, the American Psychological Associations Zero Tolerance Task Force found that some version of the following five rationale are consistently used.

1.      Zero tolerance policies provide consistency and clarity for students. ( Skiba et al, 2006) Both educators and parents recognize the importance of consistency in clarity in reinforcing desired behaviors and minimizing the undesired. Proponents of zero tolerance measures contend that by providing a consistent and clear message to students that certain behaviors will not be tolerated, schools can provide students with what they need to make right choices and pursue academic success.

2.      Proponents believe that harsh punishments for violations of school policy deter students from violating school policies. ( Skiba et al, 2006) Advocates of zero tolerance reforms firmly believe that by providing a harsh enough penalty they ultimately deter students from committing acts that have no place in the school setting. By deterring students from bringing wepons to school

3.      There is a public perception that ncidents of school violence have substantially increased in recent years necessitating a firmer response. ( Skiba et al, 2006)  Zero tolerance policies were enacted to combat the seemingly overwhelming increase in school violence during the 1990’s. In a 1995 School Crime Victimization Survey, 12 percent of responding students knew someone who had brought a gun to school. (McAndrews 2000)

4.      The public believes removing certain students is a part of a school’s obligation to provide an environment conducive to learning. ( Skiba et al, 2006)

5.      Parents and community members support the inclusion of zero tolerance policies as a means of ensuring both the actual safety and perceived safety of school campuses. ( Skiba et al, 2006)

Breadth of Application

The extent to which zero tolerance policies are used in schools varies widely by district and school. Although federal law only mandated zero tolerance policies for the possession of firearms, the policies have been widely expanded to cover other weapons, drugs,  alcohol, electronic devices such as pagers and cell phones, laser pointers, sexual harassment, and fighting. (Skiba, 2000, p. 3-6)

According to the Michigan Journal of Race and Law “While these laws originally focused on truly dangerous and criminal behaviors, such as gun possession, some states extended these laws to include possession of other types of weapons as well as the possession or use of drugs.  School districts also quickly expanded the policies even further to include infractions that pose no safety concern, such as ‘disobeying [school] rules,’ ‘insubordination’, and ‘disruption.’” The article goes on to state that “Actions that were once considered relatively harmless childhood pranks now result in expulsion and often criminal or juvenile delinquency charges. For example, ‘Aspirin, Midol, and even Certs have been treated as drugs, and paper clips, nail files, and scissors have been considered weapons.’” (Zweifler and De Beers, p. 194)

Doubt Regarding Fundamental Assumptions

            There appears to be an ever increasing number of researchers and education reform advocates making the case that zero tolerance policies either do not work or go too far. The arguments against zero tolerance tend to focus on the some of the fundamental assumptions from which the arguments are built.

There is a general suggestion from the research that the problem of school violence which has generated the zero tolerance movement has been exaggerated. “The evidence does not support an assumption that violence in schools is out of control. Serious and deadly violence remain relatively small proportion of school disruptions, and the data have consistently indicated that school violence and disruption have remained stable, or even decreased somewhat since approximately 1985. (Skiba et al, 2006, p. 4)

According to GunCite “Recent studies estimate that gunplay at school kills 20 to 30 youths a year, though there no evidence the toll is higher today than in the past. By contrast studies show that 2,000-3,000 children and youths are murdered each year by parents or caretakers, a toll that clearly is rising. Annual surveys report that weapons related violence in schools is no higher today than in the 1970s. But the rate of children being murdered by their parents doubled during that time.  

“In a report titled Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools, 1997-1997, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1234 principals or disciplinarians at the elementary, middle, and high school levels when these principals were asked t list what they considered serious or moderate problems in their schools, the most frequently cited problems at all levels were the less violent behaviors such as tadiness (40%),absenteeism (25%), and physical conflicts between students (21%). The critical incidents that are typically the focus of school safety debates were reported to be at least  “a moderate problem” only relatively infrequently” ( Skiba & Peterson, 2006 p.2)

            Moreover there is no evidence that the higher stakes penalties of suspension or expulsion of students has any deterrent value whatsoever. In fact to the contrary the data appears to indicate that students who are disciplined with suspension are more likely than not to be suspended again and again and that having been previously suspended is a significant indicator of potentially dropping out of school altogether down the road. (Skiba et al, 2006)

Despite the growth of zero tolerance policies the research does not show that there has been any improvement in the consistency of discipline practice across schools or districts. Suspension and expulsion rates still vary widely across schools and districts and the likelihood of a student being suspended or expelled is more frequently emblematic of the attitude of the school and school administrator’s student’s work with than the actual behavior of the individual student. (Skiba et al, 2006 p. 4)

Disproportionate Impact

Nearly every researcher who has written on the subject of zero tolerance has recognized that zero tolerance policies have a disproportionate impact on students of color particularly African-American students.  “In every school district examined, scholars and policy makers have found significant racial disparities in student suspensions and expulsions. African-American and Latino students are more likely to be suspended than their white counterparts. In some areas, African Americans are suspended or expelled at twice their proportion of the school population.” (Zweifler & De Beers, 2002, p. 204)

            Hanson makes the case that “To the extent the use of zero tolerance often leads to an irrational disposition for a child who commits an infraction due to lack of judgment (or judgment reflect of the child’s developmental stage, age, and experience) it is likely to be as psychologically harmful to the affected child as were the segregated schools to African-American children in the Brown era. As legally mandated segregation did in public schools of the 1950’s , the lack of tolerance in today’s school environment erodes the democratic ideals that many of us believe, at least in principle, public schools are supposed to convey to our children and communities. (Hanson, 2005, p. 325)

The disproportionate impact of school exclusion as a disciplinary technique with students of color undermines other efforts to close achievement gap. As teachers are increasingly called upon to make headway in improving the academic performance of students who traditionally lag behind, school districts and administrations adopt policies that result in these struggling students spending even less time in class receiving the benefits of instruction and interaction with the teacher and peers.  As these students progress through the system there is an increasing likelihood that they will ultimate drop out of the school system in many instances entering the criminal justice system or in other instances simply passing the burden on to society at large as to what to do with the uneducated.

Other Images

Multimedia Resources

ZERO TOLERANCE GONE TOO FAR?







YOUTH UNITED FOR CHANGE RELEASE REPORT ON DISCIPLINE


 


ANOTHER VIDEO ON THE YOUTH UNITED FOR CHANGE REPORT



NINE YEAR OLD SUSPENDED FOR TOY GUN

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although most of the written material regarding zero tolerance policies was in fact critical, most offered some pretty solid suggestions for improving upon zero tolerance rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. While there are numerous areas of concern with regard to the application of zero tolerance policies, there are also a great many recommendations available for achieving the goals of the policies while still fulfilling the societal obligation to educate all youth and more effectively rehabilitate those who get into trouble. In a fall 2002 report entitled “The Children Left Behind: How Zero Tolerance Impacts Our Most Vulnerable Youth” the Michigan Journal of Race and Law Symposium recommended that the following principles be adopted:

1.      Guarantee all children an appropriate public education.

2.      Collect and analyze accurate data

3.      Codify due process protections

4.      Implement clear standards for alternative education

5.      Address the obvious disparate impact on children of color

6.      Proactively identify children with disabilities  and children exhibiting risk indicators

These six recommendations provide a strong starting point for a discussion on how we move from zero tolerance as we currently know it, to a more effective approach to student behavior management. The idea that every child deserves access to a quality education has been central to the American jurisprudence system since 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. It is the underpinnings of the recent string of educational reform movements, known ironically by the term “No Child Left Behind.” What is quite clear from examining not only zero tolerance policies, but all aspects of the American education system, a great many students are regularly left behind by a system that puts policy and procedure ahead of what’s best for kids, and making the best decision for each individual student’s success. The recommendation that all students be guaranteed an appropriate education is a very basic first step.

Connected with that would be having systems in place for what to do with students for which it hass been determined that the traditional school setting will not work. My point in framing it this way is to say that the decision to remove a student from a school as a result of behavior should be a decision based on the best interest of the student being removed. Arbitrarily removing a student from school as a purely punitive measure is juvenile and should be abandoned. Educators should not be reduced to juvenile justice systems. Our role is not exact judgment it is to educate.

One thing that has struck me as I have looked at the literature on zero tolerance policies has been the wide spread use of these policies despite the lack of any data supporting their effectiveness. In education circles today, one of the buzz terms that seems to be in wide use is “data driven decision making.” It is somewhat ironic that as we hear more and more about data driven decisions, zero tolerance policies persist despite the fact that the data suggests no epidemic of violence on school campuses to necessitate these policies, no reduction in the number of violent offenses or incidents of weapons on campuses since the implementation of these policies, and no deterrent value associated with these policies.

Another challenge connected with blanket zero tolerance type discipline policies is the complex and confusing paths these policies take to work their way through the school system bureaucracy to a final resolution.  Appeals of suspensions and expulsions taking place under zero tolerance policies can take months before a final decision is made. Even in those instances where a there is no appeal, connecting disciplined students to alternative education programs sometimes eats weeks and/months of valuable learning time. For example, one student at my school was long term suspended through end of the school year for bringing knife on a weekend field trip. When I spoke to the parent of the student about a month after the suspension I asked her whether her son had been enrolled in the district’s alternative program for students who have been long term suspended from other schools. She indicated that while she had made several contacts to the district, the only response she had been given was that the middle school program was full and that there was no room for her child at that time. No alternative plan was developed for the child. No suggestion was provided as to what the parent should do in the mean time. The student was just sitting at home playing video games. A school system that guarantees each child an appropriate education would not tolerate a policy in which the students most in need of academic support are so readily bumped out of the very institution they need the most.

As has been already touched upon it is regularly the students in the most academic need who are more frequently the victims of zero tolerance policies. While the decisions regarding a particular student are being reviewed the school district in question should be under an obligation to provide some sort of immediate referral of the affected student so that his educational progress is not further stunted by the wait time for the district to figure out what will be done with the child.

            Beyond that, we must be willing to look at the disproportionate impact these policies have on students of color and be willing to take the courageous next step of asking what the underlying issues are that are at the root of the inequity. Clearly there are systematic issues that need to be addressed, but far too often those in power are comfortable with the system that fails to recognize the meet the needs of the students it is charged to serve and then blames the child for the systems failure to fulfill its responsibility. For zero tolerance to work we must be willing to look and address the disparate impact on students of color, to understand the sources of it, to recruit better teachers and administrators including people of color who have experience with these populations and are most capable of reaching them.  

Annotated Bibliography

ONLINE REFERENCES

Cauchon, D.  (1999, April 13). Zero-tolerance policies lack flexibility. Retrieved June 11,   2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm     

Discusses the some extreme cases of zero tolerance policies to illustrate the lack of flexibility in the policies. Suggests alternative approaches.

Fairfax parents, students glad over changes in disciplinary policy. (June 9, 2011)         

http://www.fairfax-school-board-takes-up-zero-tolerance-policy-reform-62026.htm      

Retrieved June 11, 2011.http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/06/fairfax-school-       board-takes-up-zero-tolerance-policy-reform-62026.html.                   

Highlights a district that re-evaluated it's zero tolerance policies after observing hundreds of students being suspended unnecesarily.

Hanson, D. (1997).  Alcohol problems and solutions: Zero tolerance. Retrieved June 11,    2011. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/ZeroTolerance.html       

Discusses the challenges of zero tolerance policies as a solution to alcohol problems. Highlights some extreme cases of zero tolerance policies going over the top.

Whitehead, J. (2011, February 17) Zero tolerance policies: Are the schools becoming         police states?  Retreived June 11, 2011.                                                                                     http://www.lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead26.1.html         

Article discussing the shift in school disciplinary practice as a result of zero tolerance policies.

Zero tolerance school environment. California Department of Education. (April 14,            2011).  Retreived June 11, 2011. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp

Overview of the State of California’s zero tolerance policy.

PRINT REFERENCES

Ayers, W., Dohrn, B., & Ayers. R. (2001).  Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools. A handbook for parents, students, educators, and citizens. New York, NY: New Press

A collection of written reflections from scholars and students regarding zero tolerance policies emphasizing the impact on students of color and the legal implications with stripping students of the right to an education and due process under the law.

Freire, P. (1997). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, Co: Westview Press

            A collection of the author’s reflections to teachers on a variety of subjects. Of relevance to the topic of zero tolerance are the authors reflections about the role of authoritarianism in the schools and the  dangers of failing to teach students democratically early on.

Hemphill, S., & Hargreaves, J. (2009). The Impact of School Suspensions: A Student Wellbeing Issue. ACHPER Australia Healthy Lifestyles Journal. 56(3-4), 5-11.

            In this article the authors make the argument that school suspensions lead to less favorable outcomes down the road and should be abandoned in favor of other interventions designed to increase the likelihood of academic success.

Kim, J.H.  (2010)

The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.Understanding student resistance as a communicative act. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

In this article for Ethnography and Education, Kim looks at student resistance as a form of communication and seeks to help educators to honor the voice of marginalized students.

McAndrews, T. (2001). Zero tolerance policies. Eric Digest, 146.

McAndrews provides a succinct critical overview of the history and controversy surrounding zero tolerance policies coupled with suggestions for moving towards a more equitable and more effective approach to behavior management.

McNeal, L.  Dunbar, C. (2010). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.In the Eyes of the Beholder: Urban Student Perceptions of Zero Tolerance Policy.

In this article the authors look at zero tolerance from the lens of students who have been removed from schol as a result of zero tolerance policies. The article represents the authors attempts to include these voices which are frequently left out of the discussion.

Moore, B.N. (2010). Tolerating zero tolerance? Reston, VA: Association of School Business Officials International.

            A look at the impact of zero tolerance policies and the effectiveness or value of the policies in democratic society.

Payne, M. (2010). Educational lynching: Critical race theory and the suspension of black boys. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University.

Sander, J. B. (2010). School psychology, juvenile justice, and the school to prison pipeline. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists

Skiba, R., Reynolds, C. R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J.C.,  & Garcia-Vazquez, E., (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations.  Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Skiba, R. , Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools. Phi Bloomington, IL: Deta Kappa International

Valles, B., & Miller, D. M. (2010). How leadership and discipline policies color school-community relationships: A critical race theory analysis. Journal of School Public Relations. 31(4), 319-341.

Kitronis, W.A. & Webb, P. (2006). Zero -tolerance policies and youth: Protection or profiling?

Zaslaw, J. (2010). Restorative Resolution. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review. 76(2), 10-13.

Zweifler, Z. & De Beers, J. (2002). The children left behind: How zero tolerance impacts our most vulnerable children. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 8 (191), 191-220.