Z

Zero Tolerance Policies

ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Zero Tolerance is a catch-all-phrase meant to denote

a practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior by
imposing automatic and often severe penalties for
first offenses. In the United States, zero tolerance policies emerged as part of a series of efforts to combat
what became known as a drug epidemic and a war on
drugs during the 1980s. Their popularity caught on
quickly and soon the approach was used to address
a variety of social problems, ranging from sex
offending, environmental pollution, homelessness,
sexual harassment, trespassing, and skateboarding
(see Molsbee 2008). Eventually, the federal government
recognized that the approach lacked effectiveness,
which led to a retrenchment and a phasing out of the
most dramatic and admittedly draconian laws.
Despite recognition that the laws were not as effective as hoped in addressing ingrained social problems,
school districts embarked on a rapid expansion of zero
tolerance laws as they used them to combat schools
violence. That expansion was fueled, in part, by federal
laws mandating the enactment of zero tolerance policies relating to weapons brought to schools. These new
policies were meant to foster close relationships among
schools, police departments, and juvenile justice systems and to make students fear discipline for misconduct. Given federal mandates, most public schools
in the United States eventually adopted zero tolerance
policies meant to address gun violence, and the reach of
those policies expanded to much wider types of behaviors, such as drug use, and to suspensions for bringing
paperclips and aspirins to school (see Molsbee 2008).
As a result, students were subjected to predetermined
consequences, typically punitive such as out of school

suspension and expulsion (and, increasingly, inschools suspension), intended to be applied regardless
of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational contexts. These consequences
revealed both the strength and limitations of using
zero tolerance policies. The policies could be used to
address a wide variety of behaviors, but they did not
necessarily did so wisely.
Despite their popularity, the policies were widely
criticized. For example, the American Psychological
Associations report on zero tolerance (Skiba et al.
2006) found that there was no evidence that zero tolerance policies made schools safer and that school
expulsions and suspensions may have a damaging effect
on student achievement. Indeed, zero tolerance policies
could in fact be more harmful to society by fostering
the removal of a large number of students from opportunities to learn. And, importantly, those studies dealt
with the policies aimed at severe problem behavior;
it could only be expected that zero tolerance of less
disruptive behavior was equally, if not more,
problematic. In fact, studies found that, although the
studies were meant for violent offensive and weapons
carrying, they actually were not used much for them.
Contrary to expectations, suspensions and expulsions
were not necessarily reserved for the most serious or
dangerous behaviors; the majority of offenses for which
students are suspended appear to be nonviolent, less
disruptive offenses, including offenses related to attendance, disrespect, and general classroom disruption
(Skiba and Rausch 2006).
Part of the appeal of zero tolerance policies has
been that, by removing subjective influence or
contextual factors from disciplinary decisions, such
policies would be fairer to students traditionally
overrepresented in school disciplinary procedures.
Evidence reveals, however, that the disproportionate
discipline of students of color remains a problem.
Findings consistently reveal the overrepresentation
of African-American students in suspensions and

Roger J.R. Levesque (ed.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2,

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

3106

Zero Tolerance Policies

expulsions, despite lack of data supporting that

African-American students exhibit higher rates of disruptive or violent behavior warranting higher rates of
discipline (Raffaele Mendez and Knoff 2003; Rausch
and Skiba 2004). Although there is less available data,
students with disabilities, especially those with emotional and behavioral disorders, also appear to be
suspended and expelled at rates disproportionate to
their representation in the population (Skiba and
Rausch 2006). Studies also have found disparities
in the manner the policies are used more often for
lower-income students (see Molsbee 2008).
There is additional concern in the literature that
zero tolerance policies may create, enhance, and accelerate negative mental health outcomes for youth. Many
incidents that result in disciplinary infractions at the
secondary school level result from poor judgment and
the lack of maturity. Zero tolerance policies do not
account for such developmental differences in maturity
and can often be harmful to child development, for
example, by hindering positive adultchild relationships and interactions, than the behavior for which
children are being punished (Skiba et al. 2006).
Given that an aim of these policies was to better link
schools with juvenile justice systems, it is not surprising
that there was an effect. Evidence indicates that the
introduction of zero tolerance policies has affected the
delicate balance between the educational and juvenile
justice system, and that the effect has been negative.
The increased reliance on more severe consequences in
response to student disruption appears to have resulted
in an increase in referrals to the juvenile justice for
infractions that were once handled in school. Research
indicates that schools appear to be using the juvenile
justice system at a greater rate for offenses that are not

generally considered dangerous or nonthreatening.

Although data are limited, the parallels raise concern
with this phenomenon, often referred to as the school
to prison pipeline (Skiba and Rausch 2006).
Zero tolerance policies remain popular. Yet, data on
their implementation overwhelmingly fail to provide
empirical support for the use of such policies based on
the presumptive benefit to school safety. Instead, findings continually expose the unintended, yet harmful
and detrimental consequences to civil rights and liberties, educational opportunities, and child development
such policies foster. There may be a backlash against
these types of policies, but many remain in force due to
federal mandates requiring them.

References
Molsbee, S. (2008). Zeroing out Zero Tolerance: Eliminating Zero
Tolerance Policies in Texas Schools. Texas Tech Law Review, 40,
325363.
Raffaele Mendez, L. M., & Knoff, H. M. (2003). Who gets suspended
from school and why: A demographic analysis of schools and
disciplinary infractions in a large school district. Education and
Treatment of Children, 26, 3051.
Rausch, M. K., & Skiba, R. J. (2004). Unplanned outcomes:
Suspensions and expulsions in Indiana. Bloomington: Center
for Evaluation and Education Policy. Retrieved May 20, 2010,
from http://ceep.indiana.edu/ChildrenLeftBehind.
Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and
expulsion: Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C. Everston
& C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:
Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 10631089).
Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.
Skiba, R., Reynolds, C., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J., & GarciaVazquez, E. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the
schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. A report by
the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force.
Washington: American Psychological Association.