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.