Zero Tolerance - PowerPoint by Cs309NI4

VIEWS: 61 PAGES: 12

									Zero Tolerance
What is Zero Tolerance?

 A policy of predetermined consequences
  regardless of the context of the offense.
 “One size fits all”
 Pertains to possession of weapons, violence
  and drugs
 Sometimes threats, disruption, hate speech,
  activities outside of school
History of Zero Tolerance

 1986- program for war on drugs
 1989- California, New York and Kentucky
  adapt it to school disciplinary policy
 1993- Zero-tolerance policies employed
  widely
 1994- Gun Free Schools Act – 1yr expulsion
  and referral to criminal/juvenile justice
  system
Rationale

 Response to increased school violence
 Protect students/School Safety
 Fairness/Consistency
 Strict guidelines for punishment
 Respect for rules
 Easy to enforce (no gray areas)
Rationale

 Misbehavior largely product of home life
  (Rausch, 2004)
 Case by case basis too time consuming for
  administrators
 Students respect rules more and feel safer
  (consistency and strictness)
 Zero tolerance is the only viable option
In Practice
   Positives
    –   Gun-Free Schools Act increased consistency of
        enforcement of rules and severity of punishments
    –   Increased equity of punishment between males
        and females for threats/violence
   Negatives
    –   Minorities 2-3 times more likely to be
        suspended/expelled (Skiba 2004)
    –   Unfair to Minorities, Low-Income, Special needs
    –   Students resent policies and regard them as
        unfairly strict, lose trust in educational system
More Negatives

   Higher rates of suspension/expulsion
    –   30-50 percent repeat offenders (Skiba 2004)
    –   Associated with higher drop out rates, lower
        academic achievement, less focus on academics
   Policies other than federal firearms policies
    highly inconsistent
    –   Severity of punishments varies
    –   Application varies by district, school, and teacher
         Legal Ramifications

 Is the suspension rational?
 Does the action disrupt school operation?
 Did the student have knowledge of the
  possession?
 Was there due process (rights weren’t
  violated)?
 Zero tolerance polices have several
  variations.
Conflicts

   New Jersey v. T.L.O.
reasonable cause
   Seal v. Morgan
       Intent
       4th amendment
    The judicial system tries to avoid interfering
     with Zero Tolerance
       Ratner v.Loundoun County Public Schools
Alternatives


   Preventative models
    1)positive school environment
          bullying prevention, character education
    2) early identification/ intervention
    3) effective response to offenses
          Rehabilitative, Individualized behavior plans
   Democratic Classroom Strategies, students
    involved in making of rules and punishments
   Punishments appropriate to offense
Alternatives Cont.

–   Eight factors for context of offense(Kajs, 2006):
        Student’s age, gender, and grade level
        Special considerations (e.g. special needs)
        Seriousness of Offense
        Circumstances of offense
        Student's behavioral history
        Student's attitude/socio-emotional development level
        impact of offense on community
        Student’s resiliency level
–   Responses to offenses can be either punitive or non-
    punitive
References

Essex, N. (2006). A teacher’s pocket guide to school law. Boston: Pearson. Ch.5
Kajs, L. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An alternative
     approach to zero tolerance. Education Research Quarterly, 29(4), 16-28, Retrieved
     October 15, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Pelliccioni, C. (2003, Summer 2003). Is intent required? Zero tolerance, scienter, and the
     substantive due process rights of students. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 53(4),
     977. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Rausch, M., & Skiba, R. (2004). Unplanned outcomes: suspensions and expulsions in Indiana.
     Education Policy Briefs, 2(2), 1-8. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from ERIC database.
Ritter, S., Rausch, M., & Skiba, R. (2004). "Discipline is always teaching": effective alternatives
     to zero tolerance in Indiana's schools. Education Policy Briefs, 2(3), 1-12. Retrieved
     October 13, 2008, from ERIC database.
Sadker, D. M., Sadker M.P., & Zittleman, K.R. (2008). Teachers, schools, and society. Boston:
     McGraw Hill.
Skiba, R. (2004). Zero tolerance: the assumptions and the facts. Education Policy Briefs, 2(1),
     1-18. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from ERIC database.

								
To top