A System Gone Berserk: How Are ZeroTolerance Policies Really Affecting Schools?

Stephanie Martinez

ABSTRACT: School administrators continue to use zero-tolerance policies as a one-size-fits-all, quick-fix solution to curbing discipline problems with students. Originally intended to address serious offenses such as possession of firearms, zero-tolerance policies are also now meant to address fighting and disrespect. Despite the seeming popularity of zero-tolerance policies, the evidence base is lacking. The literature suggests that zero-tolerance has flaws and school districts and administrators have misused it. When implemented, it typically equates to exclusion through suspension and expulsion: two disciplinary actions that have welldocumented side effects. Researchers have indicated that there are alternatives to zero-tolerance that school administrators can use to curb discipline problems. The author discusses the history of zerotolerance policies, its effectiveness, and alternatives. KEYWORDS: discipline, safety, suspension, violence, zero-tolerance PAUL WAS A SIXTH-GRADE STUDENT who walked to and from school daily. One afternoon, his school administrators received phone calls from two sets of angry parents who stated that Paul had a nail file and threatened to harm their sons with it. Under the school districts zero-tolerance policy, the nail file was classified as a weapon because it was believed that Paul intended to use it to cause harm. Therefore, he was suspended for 10 days and recommended for expulsion. During due process, it was learned that the two boys had been teasing and taunting Paul on a daily basis throughout the school year. On one occasion, the boys took Pauls backpack and threw it into a lake. On another occasion, the boys pushed Paul off a sidewalk and into oncoming traffic. However, under the zero-tolerance policy, Paul was punished for threatening the two boys, yet there were no consequences for what the boys had done to Paul. The 1980s began with the perception that urban schools were unsafe because of an increase in violence (Blair, 1999). In the 1990s, this perception extended to suburban schools (Blair; Gold & Chamberlin, 1996). Thus, one of the National Education Goals of 2000 addressed this concern,
153

stating that by 2000, all school campuses will be safe without violence or drugs (Gold & Chamberlin). This perception of violence in schools still continues and is exacerbated by extended media coverage when isolated events of school violence occur. Recently, in the United States, the public was again made aware of school violence with shootings that took place in Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Bailey, Colorado; and Cazenovia, Wisconsin, resulting in the deaths of a total of six students and one principal (Dedman, 2006; Maxwell, 2006). The tremendous media coverage only galvanize[d] public opinion in favor of zero-tolerance and harsh penalties for students who bring weapons to school. In the face of such publicity, legislatures do not wish to appear soft on crime and violence (Ashford, 2000, para. 1) At first glance, it seems that we need a strong zero-tolerance policy for our schools, and advocates of these policies are justifed. However, after inspecting the effect of these policies on our schools, it becomes apparent that there is more evidence that they do more harm than good. Thus, this policy needs a complete overhaul or, better yet, to be eliminated from district policy manuals. To gain a better understanding of zero-tolerance policies, I first address the history of the policies. Then, I explore the effectiveness of these zero-tolerance policies in deterring school violence. Last, I explore alternatives to these policies. History of Zero-Tolerance Policies The U.S. Customs Agency developed zero-tolerance in the 1980s to target the booming drug trade (Henault, 2001; Pipho, 1998; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b). This policy was introduced to school systems with the Clinton
Address correspondence to Stephanie Martinez, DARES, MHC2113A, University of South Florida 13301 North Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33612, USA; smartinez@fmhi.usf.edu (email). Copyright 2009 Heldref Publications

154

Preventing School Failure

Vol. 53, No. 3

administrations passing of PL 103-382, the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA, 2004). Congress passed this law to address the issue of school violence, requiring schools to institute a zero-tolerance policy for students and enforcing a minimum of 1 year of expulsion to students who bring a firearm on campus; otherwise, schools lose federal funds that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) provides (Ashford, 2000; Casella, 2003; Essex, 2001; McAndrews, 2001; Pipho; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a; 1999b; Skiba, 2000; Stader, 2004; Wald, 2001). This law marked the first time that state legislation began to intervene in the local control that school administrators traditionally had over disciplining its students (Piphon). In addition, the law does not require school administrators to provide access to continued education through alternative schooling for expelled students (Dunbar & Villarrule, 2002). It is interesting to note that as this policy was beginning to be implemented in the schools, the agency that initially introduced this policy, the U.S. Customs Agency, was fazing out their use of zero-toleranace (Henault; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b). However, more important to note is that the legislature modeled a policy for U.S. students and schools after a law that was originally developed to target drug lords. This is not the only indication that the policy was criminalizing our students. In 1995, the law changed its terminology from firearm to weapon (Casella, 2003). By the 19961997 school year, most schools had a zero-tolerance policy, covering behaviors beyond those that the GFSA (2004) mandated. In addition, 94% of schools targeted firearms and weapons, 88% targeted drugs, 87% targeted alcohol, and 79% targeted fights (Casella). In 1997, drugs were added to the policy (Casella). Beginning in 1999, some schools included swearing, truancy, insubordination, disrespect, and dress-code violation (Axman, 2005, Essex, 2004; Skiba, 2000; Wald, 2001) in their policies. As a result, the zero-tolerance policy moved beyond its original intent, and school administrators were using it as a method to relinquish responsibility for students with behavioral problems (McAndrews, 2001; National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2001). Hence, zero-tolerance policies have become a cop-out for school administrators, allowing them to bar students from receiving an education. In February 2001, the American Bar Association posited that zero-tolerance policies should be discontinued in schools (Henault, 2001). Effectiveness of Zero-Tolerance Policies Because zero-tolerance policies have been in effect in schools for more than 16 years, there should be a wealth of evidence for the effectiveness of the policies in curbing violence and discipline problems on U.S. school campuses. Surprisingly, school administrators are continuing to use these policies despite little research to support their effectiveness, relying on a perception that these policies make students feel

safer and result in an improvement in behavior (Ashford, 2000; McAndrews, 2001; Skiba, 2000; Skiba & Peterson, 2000). Skiba and Skiba and Peterson indicated that through a database search, they located only six empirical studies that evaluated security measures, none of which addressed the use of zero-tolerance; instead, these studies focused on metal detectors, locker searches, video cameras, and school uniforms. In addition, research findings were contradictory regarding effectiveness of zero-tolerance. For example, Skiba found that reports on zero-tolerance programs have cited both increases and decreases in weapons confiscation and expulsion as evidence of effectiveness (p. 13). Axmans (2005) study supported this policy, showing that from 1992 to 2002, violent crime declined by 50%. However, Axman neither provided the source of this information nor indicated that the decline of violent incidents was the result of using zero-tolerance policies. The majority of success that supports these policies are testimonials from schools and school administrators who advocate for the continued use of zero-tolerance (Skiba, 2000). McAndrews (2001) provided testimonials with data to indicate the positive outcomes of implementing a zero-tolerance policy, but Skiba would question whether these claims have an objective evaluation to support them. The only data on the effectiveness of zerotolerance are those that indicated an increase in the number of days students have been suspended from school. According to Wald (2001), in 1974, 1.7 million students were suspended from school. By 1998, the number of suspended students increased to 3.1 million. School administrators should interrogate the good that arises from removing students from perhaps the only place in which they have a positive role model (Cassidy, 2005); that is, whether removing students from schoolas required by zero-tolerance policiesaffords them an appropriate education. Unintended Side Effects The intent of zero-tolerance policies is to rid schools of violence. However, implementing zero-tolerance policies results in two major unintended negative side effects. School administrators continue to misuse and abuse the policy for incidents that were not meant to be covered under zerotolerance. The vignette at the beginning of this article is an an example in that Pauls punishments should be reconsidered. At first glance, the assumption may be that because of the stringent guidelines in zero-tolerance policies, it is not possible to reconsider his punishments. However, provisions of the GFSA allow school administrators to consider each incident independently to determine the consequences for each student (Cauchon, 1999; McAndrews, 2001; Pipho, 1998; Skiba, 2000; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b; Stader, 2004). Most district policies take a firm stance and do not consider environmental factors because policies have to be implemented by local individuals who

Spring 2009

Martinez

155

function as street-level bureaucrats deciding when and how to interpret rules (Osher & Quinn, 2003, p. 53). Thus, a flaw enables school district administrators to interpret and manipulate the law in whatever way they choose. Misuse and abuse. School administrators abuse of the zerotolerance policy is more frequent than expected and has probably had nearly as much media attention as when a school shooting takes place. The main argument that advocates of zero-tolerance make is that the policy is used solely for students who display the most severe behaviors on campus that threaten the safety of the school staff and students. However, this argument is not supported by research because often it is applied to students who previously have not demonstrated behavioral problems and are otherwise deemed to be good kids (Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b). The following are examples of extreme applications of zero-tolerance policies: (a) a 12-year-old student uses a Swiss army knife to clean his or her nails (McAndrews, 2001), (b) a 5-year-old student wears a firefighter Halloween costume that includes a plastic axe (Skiba, 2000), (c) a second-grade student brings to school his grandfathers pocket watch that has a tiny knife attached (Cauchon, 1999), (d) a 6-year-old male student kisses a female classmate (Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b), (e) a student uses a plastic knife to cut a piece of chicken at lunch (Wald, 2001), (f) possession of things such as Midol or a water pistol (Building Blocks for Youth [BBY], 2006), (g) hair dyed blue (Essex, 2001), and (i) the classification of a snowball and kicking as deadly weapons (Wald). However, the most severe application of this policy was when an 11year-old boy was denied possession of his asthma inhaler, which resulted in his death (BBY). This demonstrates that administrators frequently use suspension for minor behaviors that do not threaten the safety of school staff or students (Holloway, 2002; Morrison & DIncau, 1997; NASP, 2001; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b; Wald). Overuse of suspension. Zero-tolerance has become the tool that school administrators use to justify the overuse of suspension. Suspension has no benefits for students or schools. There is a tremendous amount of literature to support the fact that suspension is applied disproportionally for certain subgroups of students. Suspension is frequently used as a punishment for minority students (Axman, 2005; Black, 2004; Cartledge, Tillman, & Johnson, 2001; Dunbar & Villarrule, 2002; Henault, 2001; Holloway, 2002; McAndrews, 2001; Morrison & DIncau, 1997; Mosca & Hollister, 2004; NASP, 2001; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a; Skiba, 2000; Wald, 2001). Also, students who are thought to belong to a low SES family (Black; Christle, Nelson, & Jolivette, 2004; Noguera, 2003; Skiba) are served by special education (Christle et al.; Holloway; Morrison & DIncau; Noguera; Skiba); or are academically low achieving (Christel et al.; Morrison & DIncau; Noguera; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b).

Advocates of using suspension have suggested that removing disruptive students will create an environment in which teachers can teach and students can learn. However, researchers have demonstrated that suspension is not an effective change agent because students return to school displaying the same or more severe behaviors (Cartledge et al., 2001; Cassidy, 2005; Christle et al., 2004; Dunbar & Villarrule, 2002; Noguera, 2003; Skiba, 2000; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b; Wald, 2001), which lead administrators to repeatedly use suspension for the same students (Cartledge et al.; Christle et al.). Suspension also negatively affects academic achievement (Cartledge et al.; Christle et al.; Scott, Nelson, & Liaupsin, 2001), is a strong indicator that a student will drop out of school (Cassidy & Jackson, 2005; Christle et al., 2001; Dunbar & Villarrule; McAndrews, 2001; NASP, 2001; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b, Skiba, 2000; Wald), and may lead to juvenile delinquency (Christle et al.; Dunbar & Villarrule; NASP; Skiba & Peterson, 1999b, 2000). In summary, zero-tolerance policies are applied to students who are then excluded from school, whether it is with the most severe use of expulsion or suspension from school. When these two forms of punishment are used, the school administrators are automatically excluding students from educational instruction . . . [which] is contradictory to the mission of education (Christle et al., 2004, p. 521). Thus, when additional behavior incidents were added to school districts zero-tolerance policies, it gave permission to school administrators to apply suspensions more frequently and freely. Hence, if zero-tolerance is truly an effective deterrent, then it would be expected that there should be a reduction in the use of suspension, but in reality there has been an increase in the use of suspension (NASP, 2001). Alternatives to Zero-Tolerance Policies We live in a society rooted in the values of tolerance, respect for others, diversity, and even forgiveness. Do zerotolerance policies reflect these values? (Cassidy 2005, p. 41). Cassidy answered her own question by stating, I think not (p. 41). Because zero-tolerance has not had the positive effect on schools that it was intended to have and does not help citizens to address school violence and safety, school administrators must find other methods. Previous researchers have provided numerous proactive and preventative interventions that have been effective in curbing violence and misbehavior on campuses when implemented both schoolwide and in individual classrooms. The best interventions take an early intervention approachwhich may include screening and early identificationand try to prevent behaviors from happening in the first place (Ashford, 2000; Bucher & Manning, 2003; Kauffmann & Burbach, 1997; NASP, 2001; Skiba, 2000; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b).

156

Preventing School Failure

Vol. 53, No. 3

In-School Resources On a schoolwide level, school administrators can use personnel such as school resource officers, school psychologists, counselors, social workers, and mental health experts (Axman, 2005; Black, 2004; NASP, 2001). Also, school administrators should collaborate with families, communities, and mental health professionals (BBY, 2006; Skiba & Peterson, 2000). There is a need for a crisis team to prepare for unexpected violent events (Gold & Chamberlin, 1996; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 2000), prepare a schoolwide discipline plan (Ashford, 2000; Skiba & Peterson, 1999a, 1999b), and develop a positive school climate and culture (Bucher & Manning, 2003). School administrators who have implemented schoolwide positive behavior support have experienced positive outcomes regarding discipline (Cartledge, 2001; Christle et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2001; Skiba & Peterson, 2000). One solution to this overuse of suspension is to have a graduated system of discipline in which school administrators are required to provide punishment (Black; Curwin & Mendler, 1999; Skiba, 2000). Classroom Management On the individual classroom level, there are many socialemotional curriculums and interventions that teachers can implement to prevent behaviors that result in the use of zero-tolerance. Three classroom indicators of decreased behavioral problems are (a) teachers who are able and willing to deal with behavioral problems (Baker, 2005), (b) effective and stimulating lessons (Kauffman & Burbach, 1997; Monroe, 2005; Noguera, 2003), and (c) teachers who have high expectations (Black, 2004; Christle et al., 2004; Kauffman & Burbach; Mosca & Hollister, 2004). A preventative measure that teachers can take in their classrooms is to incorporate social-skills training and violence-prevention curriculums such as Second Step and Promoting Positive Thinking (NASP, 2001). Additional preventative measures that teachers can take are the following: (a) focus on antibullying, anger management, peer mediation, and conflict resolution; (b) develop rapport with students; (c) mentor students; (d) develop cultural competence; and (e) be a role model (Ashford, 2000; Black, 2005; Bucher & Manning, 2003; BBY, 2006; Cartledge et al., 2001; Casella, 2003; Curwin & Mendler, 1999; Gold & Chamberlin, 1996; Kauffman & Burbach; Mosca & Hollister; Skiba & Peterson, 2000). When students act up in class, teachers can use alternatives to referring them to the office by using a cool-off room, restitution, and behavior contracts (Casella; Christle et al.). Conclusion Zero-tolerance has no place in public schools. When looking at this policy, the following questions should be answered: (a) Why is it still being used when the U.S. Customs

Agency has already discovered its ineffectiveness and has been phased out? (b) Because it has proven to be ineffective in schools, why are these policies still in place? The outcomes that zero-tolerance policies have brought to schools have been only negative. Using this policy to suspend and expel studentsthus excluding them from receiving an educationdoes not benefit anyone. Instead, the best option for disciplining students is to refer to the Latin root of the word education, which means to teach or to train (Cartledge et al., 2001; Osher & Quinn, 2003). School administrators and teachers can implement many strategies that can create a safe school climate without having to resort to using zerotolerance policies.
AUTHOR NOTES Stephanie Martinez is a technical assistance specialist on Floridas Positive Behavior Support Project at the University of South Florida. She is also a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at the University of South Florida. Her research interests are positive behavior support, discipline, systems change, and special education. REFERENCES Ashford, R. W. (2000). Can zero-tolerance keep our schools safe? Principal, 80(2), 2830. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb .com.proxy.usf.edu/hww/advancedsearch/advanced_search .jhtml;hwwilsonid=0EKYP4CDC2C0VQA3DIKSFGOADUN GIIV0?prod=EDUFT Axman, K. (2005). Why tolerance is fading for zero-tolerance in schools. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0331/p01s03-ussc.htm Baker, P. H. (2005). Managing student behavior: How ready are teachers to meet the challenge? American Secondary Education, 33(3), 5164. Black, S. (2004). Safe schools dont need zero-tolerance. Education Digest, 70(2), 2731. Retrieved September 7, 2006 from the Wilson Web database. Blair, F. E. (1999). Does zero-tolerance work? Principal, 79(1), 36 37. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Bucher, K. T., & Manning, M. L. (2003). Challenges and suggestions for safe schools. The Clearing House, 76, 160164. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Building Blocks for Youth (BBY). (2003). Fact sheet: Zero tolerance. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/issues/zerotolerance/facts.html Cartledge, G., Tillman, L. C., & Johnson, C. T. (2001). Professional ethics within the context of student discipline and diversity. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(1), 2537. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Casella, R. (2003). Zero-tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105, 872892. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Cassidy, W. (2005). From zero-tolerance to a culture of care. Education Canada, 45(3), 4042. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Cassidy, W., & Jackson, M. (2005). The need for equality in education: An intersectionality examination of labeling and

Spring 2009 zero-tolerance practices. McGill Journal of Education, 40, 445465. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Cauchon, D. (1999, April 13). Zero-tolerance policies lack flexibility. USA Today. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http:// www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm Christle, C., Nelson, C. M., & Jolivette, K. (2004). School characteristics related to the use of suspension. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 509526. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Curwin, R. L, & Mendler, A. N. (1999). Zero-tolerance for zerotolerance. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 119120. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Dedman, B. (2006). Does every school need a metal detector? Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/15111439/print/1/displaymode/1098/ Dunbar, C., & Villarrule, F. A. (2002). Urban school leaders and the implementation of zero-tolerance policies: An examination of its implications. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(1), 82104. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). (1965), 20 U.S.C 27 (1965). Essex, N. L. (2001). The limits of zero-tolerance. Principal Leadership (Middle School Edition), 1(8), 57. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Essex, N. L. (2004). Student dress codes using zero-tolerance? Education Digest, 70(2), 3236. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Gold, V. E., & Chamberlin, L. J. (1996). School/student violence: A primer. American Secondary Education, 24(3), 2732. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA), 20 U.S.C. 892 (1994). Henault, C. (2001). Zero-tolerance in schools. Journal of Law and Education, 30, 547553. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Holloway, J. H. (2002). The dilemma of zero-tolerance. Educational Leadership, 59(4), 8485. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Kauffman, J. M., & Burbach, H. J. (1997). On creating a climate of classroom civility. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 320325. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Maxwell, L. A. (2006). School shootings in policy spotlight. Education Week, 26(7). Retrieved October 11, 2006, from http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/10/11/07shoot.h26.html McAndrews, T. (2001). Zero-tolerance policies (ERIC Digest, No. 146, Pub. No. EDO-EA-01-03). Eugene: University of Oregon Clearinghouse of Educational Management. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/ digests/digest146.html Monroe, C. R. (2005). Why are bad boys always black? Causes of disproportionality in school discipline and recommendations

Martinez

157

for change. The Clearing House, 79, 4550. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Morrison, G. M., & DIncau, B. (1997). The web of zero-tolerance: Characteristics of students who are recommended for expulsion from school. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 316315. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Mosca, F. J., & Hollister, A. (2004). External control and zerotolerance: Is fear of our youth driving these policies? Educational Horizons, 83(1), 25. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2001). Zero-tolerance and alternative strategies: A fact sheet for educators and policymakers. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://www.naspcenter.org/factsheets/zt_fs.html Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory Into Practice, 42, 341350. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Osher, D., & Quinn, M. M. (2003). Policies matter: For students, for teachers, and for better outcomes. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 5258. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Pipho, C. (1998). Living with zero-tolerance. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 725726. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2001). Effective instruction: The forgotten component in preventing school violence. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 309322. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero-tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school discipline practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Education Policy Center. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999a). The dark side of zero-tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools? Phi Delta Kappa, 80, 372376. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999b). Zap zero-tolerance. Education Digest, 64(8), 2430. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 66, 335346. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Stader, D. L. (2004). Zero-tolerance as public policy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. The Clearing House, 78, 6266. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from the Wilson Web database. Wald, J. (2001). The failure of zero-tolerance. Salon. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://archive.salon.com/mwt/ feature/2001/08/29/zero_tolerance/print.html