Stop
the Presses – Zero tolerance is over zealous and counterproductive
by
Mike Kroll
The
Zephyr, Galesburg
In recent years school officials nationwide have
broadly adopted ever stricter disciplinary codes and implemented Zero Tolerance
policies for a broad array of student actions that range from serious to
incredibly petty. At the same time that we reportedly teach our sons and
daughters about the wonderful privileges of freedom we have systematically
denied them those exact protections in school as we have created a system that
makes it increasingly easy to deny students an education. While we claim that
such action is necessary in today's world so that other students may remain
safe as they receive their education the end result is that many students get
culled from the herd for the mere convenience of school officials.
Last week the Galesburg Police led a drug sniffing dog
through the halls and parking lots of Galesburg High School at the request of
school officials. During this thorough search it was discovered that two students
had very small amounts of marijuana in their locker and a third had beer in his
car. According to Police Chief Dave Christensen both of the lockers contained
less than 2.5 grams of marijuana each, or in the exact words of Chief
Christensen, Òpetty amounts.Ó (For readers less familiar with metric
measurements let me tell you that a freshly minted U.S. penny coin weighs
exactly 2.5 grams!) Christensen said that in one of those lockers a pocket
knife and pipe were also found so that student also faces penalties for having
drug paraphernalia and a weapon in school.
All of these ÒoffensesÓ fall under School District
205's ÒZero ToleranceÓ policy as defined in the official disciplinary handbook
with a minimum penalty of a 10-day suspension from school and a maximum penalty
of expulsion for up to two calendar years. Searches such as this are typically
conducted without any requirement that probable cause exists and in all cases
school and police officials act in concert to build a case against the student.
Students have no right to refuse to answer questions or to have a parental or
legal representative present during questioning. In fact, refusing to
incriminate oneself is itself an offense of the disciplinary code as is the
refusal to inform on one's peers. There is no presumption of innocence as the
process presumes guilt, has exceedingly casual rules of evidence and only
reluctantly offers the opportunity for a defense.
Nowhere else in America today do we come so close to
being a police state as in our public schools. Yet virtually few of us
challenge such a counterproductive system that casually throws children out of
school for minor offenses that aren't even a crime anywhere else or a very
minor violation punishable with a token fine. Expelling a child from school
should be seen as a very drastic act and used only in the case of exceptionally
egregious conduct.
Nationally these uncompromising Òzero toleranceÓ
school disciplinary policies are justified by school officials who claim school
violence is out of control and that consistent severe penalties will deter
student misbehavior and Òcreate a school climate more conducive to learning.Ó
These assertions are made over and over again with little or no hard evidence
other than cherry-picked anecdotes and those few parents who do object are
squelched by assurances that the vast majority of other parents support the
strict rules and want Òtrouble-making studentsÓ removed from the school.
Opposition whithers along with the life prospects of students who are victims
of this simple-minded approach to school discipline.
Last year however the American Psychological
Association released a lengthy report compiled by a task forced that studied
both these policies and the actual empirical evidence of their impacts on schools
and students. The results were anything but a ringing endorsement of zero
tolerance policies.
ÒIn an era of educational
policy defined by accountability, it is appropriate and important to examine
the extent to which any widely-implemented philosophy, practice, or policy has
demonstrated, through sound research, that it has contributed to furthering
important educational goals. ...The duty of schools to preserve the safety and
integrity of the learning environment is incontrovertible. There is no disagreement
with the universal goals that zero tolerance shares with any school
disciplinary system: to preserve a safe climate, to encourage a positive and
productive learning climate, to teach students the personal and interpersonal
skills they will need to be successful in school and society, to reduce the
likelihood of future disruption. It is the means to these ends that have
created controversy around zero tolerance policies. Ultimately, an examination
of the evidence shows that zero tolerance policies as implemented have failed
to achieve the goals of an effective system of school discipline.Ó APA Zero Tolerance Task Force Report
(August 2006)
While there is a commonly held belief that
school violence, substance abuse and classroom disruptions have steadily
increased over the past decade the evidence simply doesn't bare this out.
National data on school violence, rather than perceptions based on media
reports, show that school violence have remained stable in the most affected
schools and actually decreased in most other schools since the mid-1980s. Trend
data from the National Institutes of Health show that while experimentation and
occasional use of marijuana and
alcohol by teenagers has remained stable over the past decade the frequency of
use has actually declined slightly. Use of ÒharderÓ drugs by teens, excluding
abuse of prescription drugs, has shown a consistent downward trend. The
majority of students disciplined under zero tolerance rules have not been under
the influence while in school or caught selling to another student but merely
in possession of small amounts (personal use weight) of drugs or alcohol.
A point commonly made about zero tolerance
rules are that they promote consistency along with Òswift and sureÓ
punishments. But the APA study found that this is not supported by the
evidence. There are wide differences in the rates of suspension and expulsion
across schools and within schools by student demographics. Poor, disadvantaged
and minority students are far more likely to face school discipline than
students from wealthy or professional homes.
ÒA key assumption of zero tolerance
policy is that the removal of disruptive students will result in a safer
climate for others. Although the assumption is strongly intuitive, data on a
number of indicators of school climate have shown the opposite effect, that is,
that schools with higher rates of school suspension and expulsion appear to
have less satisfactory ratings of school climate, less satisfactory school
governance structures, and to spend a disproportionate amount of time on
disciplinary matters. Perhaps more importantly, recent research indicates a
negative relationship between the use of school suspension and expulsion and
school-wide academic achievement, even when controlling for demographics such
as socioeconomic status.Ó APA
Zero Tolerance Task Force Report (August 2006)
Just as important as the immediate consequences in schools are the
future consequences for students who are suspended or expelled from school due
to disciplinary code violations. Not only do far fewer of these students ever
earn a high school diploma or attend college they are more likely to commit
serious criminal offenses as young adults. In today's world denying a child a
high school degree is a most serious punishment that has far reaching lifetime
consequences. Over-reacting to a youthful indiscretion can actually mean the
difference between producing a successful contributing adult or destroying such
an opportunity.
Ò...Zero tolerance has not been shown
to improve school climate or school safety. Its application in suspension and
expulsion has not proven an effective means of improving student behavior. It
has not resolved, and may have exacerbated, minority over-representation in
school punishments. Zero tolerance policies as applied appear to run counter to
our best knowledge of child development. By changing the relationship of
education and juvenile justice, zero tolerance may shift the locus of
discipline from relatively inexpensive actions in the school setting to the
highly costly processes of arrest and incarceration. In so doing, zero
tolerance policies have created unintended consequences for students, families,
and communities.Ó APA Zero
Tolerance Task Force Report (August 2006)
Isn't it about time that people in this
community dismiss simplistic jingoistic ÒsolutionsÓ to school problems. Real
educational success will not come from adopting a one-size fits all approach to
school discipline. Every student is different just as the circumstances of
every disciplinary issue are different and we need more discretion and
individual attention, not less. We need to reserve the ultimate punishment for
only the most serious offenses and even then we need to leave room for
discretion. We should teach our children good citizenship by example just as
America should promote Democracy by example. It is time to return due process,
common sense and proportionality back to our school disciplinary code.
11/22/07