“Zero Tolerance”: What Parents Should Know
Anne S. Robertson, Parent News Offline, Spring 2000, National Parent Information Network
In recent years, school districts across the country have been developing stricter disciplinary guidelines around issues that are related to student and school safety or substance abuse. These stricter measures are designed to comply with the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) that required all states to pass legislation to enforce federal gun-free-school laws and expel students who bring a firearm onto school property. Although the act specifically addressed issues related to the possession of a firearm, many states and individual school districts took the opportunity to broaden the scope of their existing guidelines and to develop policies to include other types of infractions such as possession of a weapon, substance abuse, or aggressive behavior. The policies are frequently termed “zero tolerance” and require that school administrators and school board members consistently enforce certain infractions, such as possession of a weapon or illegal substance, with strong punitive measures. GFSA guidelines require that students be expelled for at least a year, although it is not unusual for individual school districts to expel students for a longer period of time.
Many parents and educators supported the move to stricter guidelines, hoping that administrators would have more discipline options available to gain control of unruly students and create a safer school environment. Although everyone can agree with the goal of developing safe, drug-free schools, the success or impact of zero-tolerance policies on certain students, the overall school climate, and the community has not yet been studied. Zero-tolerance policies may actually undermine the long-term goal of building a safe learning community. As noted by U.S. District Judge James H. Jarvis, “Zero hour has indeed arrived for the zero-tolerance policy.”
Judge Jarvis was referring to a case involving high school junior in Tennessee who was expelled after a knife was discovered in the glove compartment of the student’s car, despite the undisputed evidence that the student had no knowledge of the presence of the knife. Judge Jarvis reversed the board’s decision, writing that “The board, in its zeal to implement the zero-tolerance policy, trampled upon the rights of a student who was simply in the presence of someone who probably violated the policy.”
Recently, an incident in Illinois made headlines after Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition protested the two-year expulsion of six students for fighting during a football game, even though there were no weapons involved or serious injuries reported. Jackson’s Coalition filed a lawsuit on behalf of the students, but in this case, Judge Michael McCusky supported the decision of the school board and upheld the expulsion. Educators, law-enforcement officials, parents, and community members are clearly divided on the appropriateness of zero-tolerance policies to enforce school order and safety while building a learning community that serves all students.
What happens to expelled or suspended students? In most school districts, suspension or expulsion essentially bars the student from school property and public education for a designated period of time. While some school districts have a limited number of alternative placements for disruptive youth, in most districts, suspension or expulsion leaves the student without benefit of an alternative educational placement. Students who have a supportive family or teacher may be fortunate enough to transfer to another public or private school. Unfortunately, under GFSA, about 57% of the expelled students are left without access to public education or productive structured alternatives that would help keep them “off the streets” and out of any further trouble.
Most educators, community members, and parents agree that leaving troubled youth to their own devices for a large part of the day is not a good idea, but this is essentially the impact of zero-tolerance policies. A growing number of people are concerned about these policies and recently a consortium of over 45 professional organizations representing the juvenile justice system, social advocacy groups, and education communities drafted a position statement calling for educational, psychological, mental health, or crisis intervention for all expelled students.
President Clinton also has expressed his concern for suspended or expelled students through a reauthorization proposal of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESBA) that would require that school districts provide suspended or expelled students with appropriate counseling, education, or supervision to meet individual needs and to challenge students to continue their education. Unfortunately, because the mandate is not funded and insufficient funding is one of the main reasons that most districts currently lack alternative programs, it is unlikely that the revision will be included until new resources are identified to support the development of new alternative programs.
Working together, parents, teachers, and administrators can not only enhance the quality of the school community in ways that will prevent discipline problems, but they can also work to minimize long-term detrimental effects on students who may be affected by zero-tolerance policies.
In recent years, school districts across the country have been developing stricter disciplinary guidelines around issues that are related to student and school safety or substance abuse. These stricter measures are designed to comply with the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) that required all states to pass legislation to enforce federal gun-free-school laws and expel students who bring a firearm onto school property. Although the act specifically addressed issues related to the possession of a firearm, many states and individual school districts took the opportunity to broaden the scope of their existing guidelines and to develop policies to include other types of infractions such as possession of a weapon, substance abuse, or aggressive behavior. The policies are frequently termed “zero tolerance” and require that school administrators and school board members consistently enforce certain infractions, such as possession of a weapon or illegal substance, with strong punitive measures. GFSA guidelines require that students be expelled for at least a year, although it is not unusual for individual school districts to expel students for a longer period of time.
Many parents and educators supported the move to stricter guidelines, hoping that administrators would have more discipline options available to gain control of unruly students and create a safer school environment. Although everyone can agree with the goal of developing safe, drug-free schools, the success or impact of zero-tolerance policies on certain students, the overall school climate, and the community has not yet been studied. Zero-tolerance policies may actually undermine the long-term goal of building a safe learning community. As noted by U.S. District Judge James H. Jarvis, “Zero hour has indeed arrived for the zero-tolerance policy.”
Judge Jarvis was referring to a case involving high school junior in Tennessee who was expelled after a knife was discovered in the glove compartment of the student’s car, despite the undisputed evidence that the student had no knowledge of the presence of the knife. Judge Jarvis reversed the board’s decision, writing that “The board, in its zeal to implement the zero-tolerance policy, trampled upon the rights of a student who was simply in the presence of someone who probably violated the policy.”
Recently, an incident in Illinois made headlines after Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition protested the two-year expulsion of six students for fighting during a football game, even though there were no weapons involved or serious injuries reported. Jackson’s Coalition filed a lawsuit on behalf of the students, but in this case, Judge Michael McCusky supported the decision of the school board and upheld the expulsion. Educators, law-enforcement officials, parents, and community members are clearly divided on the appropriateness of zero-tolerance policies to enforce school order and safety while building a learning community that serves all students.
What happens to expelled or suspended students? In most school districts, suspension or expulsion essentially bars the student from school property and public education for a designated period of time. While some school districts have a limited number of alternative placements for disruptive youth, in most districts, suspension or expulsion leaves the student without benefit of an alternative educational placement. Students who have a supportive family or teacher may be fortunate enough to transfer to another public or private school. Unfortunately, under GFSA, about 57% of the expelled students are left without access to public education or productive structured alternatives that would help keep them “off the streets” and out of any further trouble.
Most educators, community members, and parents agree that leaving troubled youth to their own devices for a large part of the day is not a good idea, but this is essentially the impact of zero-tolerance policies. A growing number of people are concerned about these policies and recently a consortium of over 45 professional organizations representing the juvenile justice system, social advocacy groups, and education communities drafted a position statement calling for educational, psychological, mental health, or crisis intervention for all expelled students.
President Clinton also has expressed his concern for suspended or expelled students through a reauthorization proposal of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESBA) that would require that school districts provide suspended or expelled students with appropriate counseling, education, or supervision to meet individual needs and to challenge students to continue their education. Unfortunately, because the mandate is not funded and insufficient funding is one of the main reasons that most districts currently lack alternative programs, it is unlikely that the revision will be included until new resources are identified to support the development of new alternative programs.
Working together, parents, teachers, and administrators can not only enhance the quality of the school community in ways that will prevent discipline problems, but they can also work to minimize long-term detrimental effects on students who may be affected by zero-tolerance policies.