Zero tolerance policies and student discipline in American schools

¶ … Zero Tolerance on Discipline by Principals

The occurrence of unruly incidents by students in the form of school violence in the 90s and 2000s shocked parents, lawmakers and even the students. All these groups expect the school heads to get tougher in terms of enforcement of rules and adopt a zero tolerance to such unruliness. However, it has become apparent that such reaction by the school principals only heightens tension and increases the chance of similar incidents being repeated in time. Zero tolerance even makes the incidents more severe. The policy is widely implemented in the U.S. It is also one of the most widely scrutinized school policies in the U.S.A. Zero tolerance entails prescribing clear predetermined punishment to specified violations of school regulations and rules, irrespective of the context of the behavior in question (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011). The punishment under the policy is usually expulsion or suspension. Theoretically, it is believed that zero tolerance deters deviant behavior because the punishment is harsh and is clearly outlined.

The zero tolerance policy has been in common use in schools for several decades now. The policies came up some time in the 90s. They were widely adopted by most institutions by the end of the 90s. Although there is little empirical research to back up the policy (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008), the policy has come under scrutiny and criticism. These policies are being reviewed by federal governments and school boards with an aim to either modify them or remove (U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Critics of the policies cite that the policy make the teachers and administrators in executing their role as overseers of the students and administrators of discipline. Zero tolerance policy is observed to have a disproportionate impact on minority learners owing to its exclusionary disciplinary approaches (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014). However, only a handful of studies have focused on zero tolerance. Most of the criticisms are not based on any empirical research. Indeed, the few studies that exist focus on exclusionary aspects of discipline and punishments aspects of the school environment and not on zero tolerance policies (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force).

1.1. Background

A look at the history of the above developments can be traced back to the 70s. The U.S. experienced a policy shift in the way it handles criminals. The policy began to focus more on more severe punishment for offenders. The rate of imprisonment is known to have increased dramatically. The expression " zero tolerance " was first coined in the justice corridors to refer to drug laws. Although it is possible that there are many individual schools that have used this approach for many years before the common adoption, the widespread use of zero tolerance started in 1994 with the Gun Free School Act. The Act permitted school administrators to expel anyone who was found with a gun within school premises (Gun-Free School Act, 1994). Many schools quickly embraced and implemented this Act with an aim of attracting or maintaining federal funding. Although there are variations in the implementation and application approaches of the zero tolerance policy, 79% of schools applied this rule to alcohol, drug abuse and violence by 1997. The policies exhibit a variation in the treatment to the students. Usually, education of such affected learners is not as effective in the alternative educational programs (Civil Rights Project & Advancement Project, 2000). Although the original use of the term zero tolerance was restricted to serious abuse regarding items such as weapons; popular media has increasingly applied the term to refer to other forms of disciplinary approaches. Teachers are reported to have pointed out that under zero tolerance, any actions that led to students being sent to the principal's office almost automatically led to either suspension or expulsion. Some critics have also pointed out that the policy led to serious punishment against minor student infractions. Thus, the schools have inadvertently aligned to the prison tendencies. A recent report by Advancement project defined zero tolerance as shortcut for all school discipline that required some form of punishment. Such definitions are not in alignment with the intended meaning of zero tolerance as fathomed by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. On its part, zero tolerance, concerning school discipline, is defined as a policy that leads to compulsory expulsion of students who commit specified crimes punishable by the zero tolerance policy (Office of Civil Rights, 2014). Consequently, there exists an apparent indication of a systematic inconsistency between legal requirements of the policy and the school rules, which adopt these policies and put them into practice. This paper attempts to examine the difference between Explicit Zero Tolerance and the Mandatory Expulsion policy. The EZT laws are clearly referred to by the expression "zero tolerance" irrespective of the offenses or the punishment prescribed. Mandatory expulsion laws are in tandem with the definition by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (Office of Civil Rights, 2014). They require compulsory expulsion for offences even if they are not openly using the phrase "zero tolerance." "

Even as institutions are inclined to eliminate the exclusionary discipline tendencies in the zero tolerance implementation, and to address the inequities inherent in the approach discipline (U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education, 2014). There is still need to understand the extent of the use of the term 'zero tolerance'. If there is insufficient information and public awareness of the specifics of the law, it is likely that public officials will misinterpret and focus on the wrong polices. For instance, if the zero tolerance laws are explicitly about severe infractions of discipline such as weapons, then such policies may not have any impact on the exclusionary discipline used on minor infractions.

On the other hand, if there is exclusive focus on mandatory expulsion laws, some important policies and laws related to the 'zero tolerance' approach may be missed. An example is a situation where a policy that uses an alternative consequence such as suspending a student is overlooked when reviewing mandatory expulsion law or policy (U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

It is clear, therefore that the understanding of the term ' zero tolerance has direct implications on the setting of school rules, policy and discipline benchmarks for both the administrators and the students.

1.3. The Effects of Suspension and Expulsion

Many research studies prove that neither expulsion nor suspension help to improve the safety within schools or even better the behavior of students. Indeed, these researches show that schools with a high rate of expulsion and suspension have higher safety risks compared to their counterparts with lower rates of these disciplinary statistical demographics. Such incidence is more profound among students of color. As opposed to the objective of modifying a student's behavior, statistics show that students who have been subjected to the zero tolerance policy and suspended or expelled tend to bear a higher propensity to commit crimes; leading to the conclusion that the policy is a fanner of negative behavior and not an extinguisher. Such students are more likely to be suspended again in future (Hemphill et al., 2006; Mendez & Knoff, 2003). The American Psychological Association used such research findings to conclude that the zero tolerance policy is counterproductive in matters of correction of behavior for the individual and the facilitation of a safe school environment. Exclusion from school carries both short-term and long terms burdens. Expulsion and suspension is almost an assured way to reduce a student's academic output. The risk of negative behavior seems to be multiplied over time. The lower academic achievement by the individual may also spill out to the general student population. Suspension is associated with school drop --out and failure to graduate in good time (The American Federation of Teachers, 2016).

In summary, the high risk of contact with juvenile delinquent system is observed to be, in part, a result of exclusionary discipline practices in learning institutions. A student's likelihood to engage in delinquent acts and end in juvenile justice centers increases by three times when the zero tolerance policy is rigidly applied to include such minor offences as breaking the schools dress code or disrupting class (The American Federation of Teachers, 2016; Mendez & Knoff, 2003). This observation was made in a nationwide study of the relationship between school disciplines measures relate to student success. Therefore, it is clear from the studies that zero tolerance is counterproductive.

1.4. Statement of the problem

Zero tolerance policies have been implemented in many parts of our country. Yet, little research has been carried out to examines the impact of the policies on education. This is attributed to two major reasons: tolerance policies can be carried out and implemented in many ways, thus making comparisons across implementation practices and outcomes become difficult. Second, the sensitive nature of school discipline and practices makes it hard to secure the needed cooperation from the districts and schools that can perform the experimental research (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011).

Lack of rigorous research notwithstanding, the existing data and case studies at the local level suggests that zero tolerance policies do not deter misbehavior. In Tennessee, the number of violent offenses and drugs in schools are on increase. This increase is the data for the past three years since the state decided to implement the zero tolerance policy.

There is evidence that bullying is still a common practice in most of the schools. In elementary and middle schools, it is estimated that at least one out of five students bully their colleagues. Researchers have not been keen to study misbehavior such as suspension in national schools, which have implemented zero tolerance policies (Teske, 2011). Whether zero tolerance is effective or not is open to debate, but researchers have found a strong link between the types of punishment associated with these policies including expulsion and suspension and negative outcomes.

In fact, it has been observed that when a student is suspended from school, chances of being expelled increase. Most of the students who get suspended in high school or middle school are less likely to graduate on time and are likely to drop out of school (Mendez, 2003). Increased rates of suspension have resulted in lower standardized test scores and low achievements even when factors such as socioeconomic status and race are controlled.

According to educational and psychological research, there is a connection between zero tolerance and punishment with the negative outcome. Researchers have established that expulsion and suspension are likely to reinforce negative behavior as it denies the students the opportunity to socialize positively and nurtures distrust in adults. This inhibits adolescent development (Gregory & Cornell, 2009). Research have further shown that school discipline policies and student engagement are related. Students, who think that their teachers are fair, respectful and attentive are likely to trust them, form bonds with them and will lead to performing well in school. When the ability of the school staff is restricted and zero tolerance policies are implemented it leads and inhibits formation of school bonds.

Numerous supplementary questions arise regarding the appropriateness of these policies in helping to prevent bullying in schools. Threats of severe punishment such as expulsion and suspension may deter the children and even adults from reporting any incidences they see in schools. Also, the fact that the implementation of these policies in schools is inconsistent makes it difficult to achieve the desired goals. For instance, in schools where zero tolerance policy for violence is effected, any student who is violently bullied may also retaliate and so get suspended for retaliating (Gregory & Cornell, 2009; Arcia, 2006).

At a classroom level, it is the discretion of the teacher to determine what actually constitute a violent act or threats considered to fall under zero tolerance offences. In one of the cases, a seven-year-old boy was expelled from school for carrying a toy gun in his backpack (Phillips, 2010).

The U.S. Department of education showed that nationally, the number of students expelled based on violation of the Gun Free Schools Act was 42%, all of whom came from middle schools or elementary schools.

What makes zero tolerance appealing is that when we remove the effect of background factors especially when it comes to assigning punishment to groups of students, it results in fair treatment (Gregory & Cornell, 2009).

This is thought to be a good intention however, research shows consistently that huge percentage of Latino, African-American, poor, and disabled students are expelled and suspended in schools under the garb of zero tolerant policies. Analysis of this has shown that the disproportion is not caused by higher rates of violence or disruption. Also, it has been observed that minority students are likely to be found in schools which rely on harsh disciplinary practices.

In nutshell, the implementation of zero tolerance policies is spread across the country despite lack of sufficient evidence that the policies are effective and have been implemented in different forms by staff that interpret them differently. Because of these variations in interpreting the policies in schools and lack of rigorous evaluations of the policies, no conclusion can be made on the impact of the same nationally (Gregory & Cornell, 2009). Further, the existing research shows that using the existing case studies and urban school district cases reveals that zero tolerance policies reduce school violence. The policies may also be related to the negative impacts in which students are expelled or suspended or forced to attend school that have harsh policies.

1.5. The reason for the study

This study is intended to help explore what zero tolerance discipline policies contributes to the final outcome

1.6. Objective

The dissertation seeks to inform and help understand school discipline policies and zero tolerance policies through exploration of the impact of zero tolerance policies on disciplining different groups amongst students.

1.7. Research questions

i. Are schools safer with zero tolerance policies? How effective is the policy at handling disciplinary matters?

ii. Has the policy on zero tolerance impacted on students?

iii. Are the zero tolerance policies appropriate and does it play any role especially when it comes to development of the child or the youth?

iv. Has zero tolerance affected the relationship between the juvenile justice system and education?

v. What are some of the impacts (both positive and negative) on zero tolerance policies on communities, families and students?

1.8. The importance of the study

The research undertaken in this paper intends to contribute to both researchers, students discipline, and the decisions made by educational policymakers & practitioners. The study is committed at addressing important aspects of zero tolerance and discipline. the study assesses the degree to which zero tolerance policies have contributed to the disciplinary issues in high school and its impact on school dropout. Further, the study looks at the correlation between zero tolerance laws and perception of controlling the problem over school disciplinary policy. By looking at these effects, the study allows one to re-examine the effect of zero tolerance policies on students.