Unveiling the Zero-Tolerance Policy by Saadia Cumar

Unveiling the Zero-Tolerance Policy

In schools, there is a shining spotlight on punishment. Behaviour outside of set and established rules is reprimanded and given consequences. This relatively new norm has been coined as the “zero-tolerance policy”. It’s roots are found in the American drug movement in the 1990’s (Skiba & Rausch, 2006). Responding to notable rise in school violence at this time, administrators enforced the zero-tolerance approach throughout the United States and later expanded to Canada and Britain (Welch & Payne, 2018). Within education, it sought to apply predetermined consequences to rule violations. Such schools believed taking severe action could act as a deterrent to other students thinking of violating the rules. This saw the western world’s education system transform from prevention policies to reactive policies. This shift remains in schools today. In a way, this policy mimics the reality of the everyday world and prepares students to comply to law enforcement. Harsh and restrictive consequences are set in stone without a discussion on student individuality. Thus, it is of no surprise that the zero-tolerance policy has its problems.  

One institutional measure introduced in a large number of schools is school security. This is enforced through security guards, metal detectors, locker inspections, and more. A study by Johnson et al. (2011) asked students from Baltimore City High School to rate the severity of various contributors to school violence. Rather than intended, school security was perceived to escalate school violence rather than prevent it. Whilst the study didn’t ask the student’s opinions on why they believe this to be the case, these findings are not unfounded. Research has found the enforcement of school security to significantly correlate with school violence – essentially, an increase in reports of school crime and violence (Mayer & Leone, 1999; Nickerson & Martens, 2008). The focus on controlling students with such restrictive methods can create an unwelcoming and prison-like atmosphere where students live in a heightened sense of fear and scrutiny. This is due to severe, punitive punishments being pre-determined rather than individually focused. And so, instead of depending on the school system, students act in self-protection leading to violence. Ultimately, these conclusions paint the picture that the aforementioned measures are utilised out of tradition rather than effectiveness. In fact, the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) have found no scientific evidence that zero-tolerance policies had positive effects on school environment or academic achievement. 

Expanding on the unintended harm caused by these restrictive approaches to school violence prevention, we must discuss exclusions. There is a link between school exclusions and later social marginalization. Students who have permanently been suspended/excluded find it difficult to return to mainstream education, becoming more susceptible to disciplinary problems. Additionally, school suspensions which were once used to make sure serious behaviours were punished are now liberally used in minor incidents and this “disproportionately affects minority students and those with disabilities” (Evenson et al., 2009). Once again, this highlights the unintentional problems resulting from the zero-tolerance approach. 

As important to implementing school safety regimes as student input is, teacher input is just as crucial. It is particularly interesting that a recent state-wide survey by Huang & Cornell (2021) found 74% of Virginia middle school teachers were supportive of the zero-tolerance approach as a school regime. This despite the widespread criticism of the approach. And yet, higher support for the approach was positively correlated with higher student suspension rates. As well as decreased feelings of safety and security for both teachers and students. This then produces a contemporary and culturally relevant take on the need to reduce reliance on an ineffective disciplinary practice.

This is not to say these methods should be removed completely as students themselves are aware of the importance of a school security system. Johnson et al. (2011) aforementioned study concluded from students views that measures of this kind need to be paired with an established sense of trust. Students should not feel afraid to walk into school each day. Instead, schools should focus more on communicative and positive approaches that students themselves believe to be successful. This may include discussing the schools’ rules and regulations with students and gathering their input, letting them know the consequences of rule breaking and instilling a mutual respect between school authorities and security and students. In fact such restorative practices are already predominantly implemented in northern European countries (Deakin & Kupchik, 2018).

It is time for school administrators critically evaluate and look towards evidence-based approaches when curating an effective violence prevention strategy. To do this, they must learn to work with students, not against them. 

References:

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. - PsycNET. American Psychologist, 852–862.

Deakin, J., & Kupchik, A. (2018). Managing Behaviour: From Exclusion to Restorative Practices. In The Palgrave International Handbook of School Discipline, Surveillance, and Social Control (pp. 511–527). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71559-9_26

Evenson, A., Justinger, B., Pelischek, E., & Schulz, S. (2009). Zero Tolerance Policies and the Public Schools: When Suspension Is No Longer Effective. Communique, 37(5).

Huang, F. L., & Cornell, D. G. (2021). Teacher Support for Zero Tolerance Is Associated With Higher Suspension Rates and Lower Feelings of Safety. School Psychology Review, 50(2–3), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1832865

Johnson, S. L., Burke, J. G., & Gielen, A. C. (2011). Prioritizing the School Environment in School Violence Prevention Efforts. The Journal of School Health, 81(6), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00598.x

Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (1999). A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption: Implications for Creating Safer Schools." Education and Treatment of Children.

Nickerson, A., & Martens, M. (2008). School Violence: Associations With Control, Security/Enforcement, Educational/Therapeutic Approaches, and Demographic Factors. School Psychology Review, 37, 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087897

Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero Tolerance, Suspension, and Expulsion: Questions of Equity and Effectiveness. In Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063–1089). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Welch, K., & Payne, A. A. (2018). Zero Tolerance School Policies. In J. Deakin, E. Taylor, & A. Kupchik (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of School Discipline, Surveillance, and Social Control (pp. 215–234). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71559-9_11