Zero Tolerance Policies for Schools - Term Paper Example

Zero Tolerance Policies for Schools s Introduction There is no doubt that all schools have a role to play through all the effective means required to maintain a disciplined and effective learning environment. Despite the simple teachers’ responsibility to ensure children the safety of the learners, students and teachers cannot productively engage in an environment characterized by disruption and chaos. This is a statement that all stakeholders in the education sector recognize and uphold at all levels of learning. However, some controversies have resurfaced in the recent past over the available methods that are used to accomplish the aim of zero tolerance in schools. The school discipline national discourse since the early 1990s has been dominated by the zero tolerance philosophy. The philosophy initially was established for anti drug policy enforcement.i However, in the early 1990s, the term was adopted by various schools as a policy or philosophy mandating the utilization of predetermined consequences, which are punitive and severe in nature on those students perceived to be indiscipline. The predetermined consequences are applied irrespective of the exhibited behavior, situation, and context or mitigating consequences. These policies are widely spread among the schools in America even though there lacks a single zero tolerance definition, which makes it extremely difficult to estimate how the policies prevalence might be. It is assumed under the Zero tolerance policy that eliminating students who involve themselves in deviant behaviors will prohibit others from becoming disruptive.ii This will eventually create an improved and peaceful learning environment for the remaining students.iii Abundant disagreements have emerged in communities, schools and throughout the nation with regards to actual implementation of practices and policies envisioned under the idea zero tolerance. For instance, an adolescent was thrown out of school for violating the laid down school regulations. He was communicating with her mother via a cell phone whom he had not contacted for thirty days because she had been deployed as a soldier to Iraq.iv Such a case conflicts the interests of parents, students and the public in general. In most instances, such cases are rationalized as sacrifices that are necessary if zero tolerance has to be fairly applied and be effective in creating a deterrent effect. The purpose of this paper is to emphasize why zero tolerance in schools is an important legislative, judicial or public policy issue while elaborating on its potential direct effect on education. Literature Review Zero-tolerance policies have been adopted by various schools for various reasons. Some have adopted the policy for purposes of dealing with behavioral issues targeting alcohol/drugs, weapons, fighting within the school premises and threatening behaviors. As documented by the Center for Disease Control 2006, approximately 100% of schools within the district had prohibitions against fighting and weapons. About 80% had prohibitions against gang-activity whilst 90% had put in place zero tolerance policies against drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. The compulsory and free public education promise in the United States is a promise to access and equal opportunity to the “American Dream”. This promise has been found to be an illusionary one characterized by a history of segregation in the lines of race and class disparities. This extends to the gap in both quality and funding of schools. As a matter of fact, education policy shifts in the previous years have engineered the inherent public education inequalities that persist in the American society. Rather than the education policy creating an atmosphere of opportunity, engagement and learning, the educational practices currently operating are increasingly deviating from the very purpose of zero tolerance in schools. The growing pattern of expelling students from educational institutions through the use of “zero tolerance “policies and tracking them indirectly or directly into the adult and juvenile criminal justice systems is what has been referred to as school to prison pipeline. Since time immemorial, schools have been characterized by both informal and formal tracks that direct students into different areas of the curriculum. However, the tracking of students out of their school environment into jail is a phenomenon that is new. Present policies have increased students risks of being expelled, arrested or suspended at school. The poor, disabled students, youth of distinct color to be precise the African Americans are disproportionately affected by the zero tolerance policy. Most often, they are expelled and suspended at higher rates.v Factors That Have Contributed to the Zero Tolerance Policy The policy of zero tolerance in schools does not exist in a vacuum. It is correlated deeply to a socio-political environment that is increasingly punitive and fearful. The diversion towards incarceration and criminalization has seeped into various schools and annually, very young children get ensnared by this legal net. The school funding has decreased precipitously whilst funding for security measures has tremendously been enhanced. Behaviors that were once corrected by the school administration are now grounded by a trip to the jails. This has made many individuals to ask themselves endless list of questions. These are such as why are small and young children perceived to be dangerous? How has the boundary between legal systems and schools become so blurred? Who among the society members gains when an increasing number of young children get expelled or risks being incarcerated? The answers to these questions can be determined by taking a closer look at the role of media constructions and the need for criminalization. Preconceptions of media-based play a crucial role in zero tolerance policies in schools. Stereotype and prejudice acceptance enhances miscommunications between white teachers and black students. This is the major factor contributing to racial disproportion in expulsion and suspension.vi The widespread acceptance of youth of color stereotyping as predators that are extremely violent has greatly impacted on public policy. The script produced by the media representing the youth of color as super-predators that are violent has triggered a variety of policy changes. This has made the justice systems for the juveniles across the US nation to transform rapidly in a direction that is more punitive following accounts made by the media rather than depending on statistical evidence. Legal and Constitutional Questions Numerous legal issues have been raised as a result of zero tolerance policies. The issues are such as its inconsistent application, vagueness and inadequate process for arrests and seizures/searches that occurs on the property belonging to the school.vii The zero tolerant policies illustrate constitutional questions that are clear with reference to both the enforcement and definition. The mandate of zero tolerance has been criticized for both its statutory vagueness and its failure to permit administrators of local schools with discretion in determining zero tolerance policies application. Majority of state laws have failed to clearly differentiate between trivial and serious policy violations. For instance, numerous state laws have failed to define “dangerous weapon” but advocates for students’ expulsion under the Gun Free School federal Act. This lack of clarity is what has enhanced the student’s expulsion with nail clippers and scissors. This vagueness has also pervaded some zero tolerance aspects such as its failure to define threatening behavior,” dangerous drug” among others.viii Statutory vagueness makes it extremely difficult for students to exactly understand what is being banned and lack of school procedures and rules that are not defined clearly allows tremendous discretion by officials to expel and suspend students for infractions that are minor. In the light of the above, numerous states do not possess the stated needs or set expectations that are clearly published for parents and students. This is because; there exists no clarity on what is prohibited. In addition to that, there exist no procedures designed to numerate the rights of student, procedural process or expectations to allow for re-instatement or appeal. Such an action illustrates a clear rudimentary violation as a result of the rights process accorded to students under Goss v. Lopez (419 U.S.565 1975) decision made by the Supreme Court. The decision held that, students should not be suspended without any hearing. However, under state laws, currently, students can be expelled or suspended without any hearings and also without any policy guideline written down as to recourse, request or appeal for re-instatement. The students’ major concern has been magnified by the diminishing boundaries between legal systems and schools. The need for school officials to report infractions to law enforcers and increased presence of police officers at school leads to arresting of the protection process needed by the student when out of the school compound.ix Evidences used by the legal systems to incriminate students legally may be acquired via violation of the Fourth and Fifth Prohibition amendments against self-incrimination and unreasonable seizure/ search. The expectation of students in school is distinct from their police encounters expectations on the street. Zero tolerance has been identified to inflame the increased students concerns over their perceived violation of their rights at school.x Conclusion Zero-tolerance policies have often incorporated disciplinary consequences that are harsh including permanent or long-term expulsion or suspension and sometimes referral and arrest to adult or juvenile courts. Whereas the original intention of the Zero tolerance was to punish individuals with serious violations including being in possession of weapons, they have been frequently applied to nonviolent and minor violations of rules and regulations such as the disorderly conduct and tardiness. As such, the policy does not differentiate between non-serious and serious offenses nor do they isolate the intentional troublemakers from individuals with behavioral disorders. Zero-tolerance policy has resulted to increased negative consequences such as increased rates of expulsions and suspensions and dropout rates among the disadvantaged students. On the contrary, the aim of any disciplinary system that is effective is to ensure a safe school environment while shunning practices and policies that reduces the opportunity for students to learn. Even though the objectives of the Zero-tolerance of ensuring a disciplined and safe school environment must be given support, its implementation has resulted to a continued controversy by impacting on many students opportunity to learn Recommendations Zero tolerance policies represents the most direct and immediate channel from school to legal systems. In that case, they have been targeted by reform suggestions. School districts and legislatures need to take broad steps to eliminate some of the zero-tolerance policy disparities and legal issues. As such the following have been recommended: Statutes clarification by state legislatures concerning the students referral to law enforcement agencies should be done Students’ civil rights should be protected by state legislatures and also be safeguarded against practices that are discriminatory and results to disproportionate minority students’ expulsion. Reinstatement procedures should be clearly defined and enforced by the state legislatures Policies should be implemented by schools. These policies should require an adult or a parent to advocate for a student. In addition to that, they should be present in case of children questioning where there is a possibility of filing criminal charges Parents and students should be notified by schools under the circumstances which the standard practices or law requires student referral to agencies tasked with law enforcement. Schools should stop criminalizing students for behaviors that are trivial which can be handled by school disciplinary board. Practices Effective principals should work hand in hand with their teachers to have a clear definition of offenses that should be referred to the legal office and those that can be adequately handled at the level of the classroom. Furthermore, procedures implemented to address school violence or student’s behavior must be followed by an evaluation. Evaluation helps in determining whether the implemented procedures have improved the safety of the school or behavior of the student. Without this data, resources and time might be wasted on strategies that appears to be appealing but with little effort to diminish the schools violence or disruption actual rate. Read More