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.