In an effort to maintain peace, safety and a disciplined environment conducive to effective teaching and learning, many schools have adopted the zero tolerance policy. This philosophy was originally created in the 1990’s as an approach towards drug enforcement to address the rampant use, possession and sales of drugs in schools (Jones, 2013). Today, this policy is used to mandate the application of pre-determined consequences of violation of stated rules. These rules may pertain to a number of issues; drugs, bullying, theft, and corporal punishment. This report will review and explore the various uses of the zero tolerance plan and its applications throughout schools in American society. There will be a study on the effectiveness of zero tolerance, an outline of the pros and cons of its usage, an evaluation of a case scenario as it pertains to the utilization of this policy, and a plan of action in formulating a sound disposition. The stakeholders’ perception will be reviewed and how they are impacted in these decisions will be demonstrated. The detailing of the pros and cons of a desired plan of action in response to the situation and the examination of the effectiveness of a zero tolerance policy, will allow for an investigation into the possible outcomes of court rulings in regards to the case. It will also allow for a deeper inspection into the research of the moral and ethical implications of an expulsion due to a violation of a zero tolerance policy. A Situation Regarding Zero Tolerance Administrators saw three students at the Union Colony Charter School in Greeley, Colorado, playing with a water gun. According to the school's interpretation of the state's zero tolerance weapons law, which mandates suspension of stu... ... middle of paper ... ...d689_1139. Mongan, P., & Walker, R. (2012). The road to hell is paved with good intentions: A historical, theoretical, and legal analysis of zero-tolerance weapons policies in American schools. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(4), doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2011.654366. Nelson, C. (2008). The impact of zero tolerance school discipline policies: Issues of exclusionary discipline. NASP Communiqué, 37(4). Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/mocq374impact_zero_tolerance.aspx. Pushed out. (2009). Teaching tolerance, 36. Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.org/pushed-out. Texas Education Agency (2014). Educator Code of Ethics. Retrieved on January, 19th, 2014 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4_wide.aspx?id=2147506337.
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
If you did not know, the zero tolerance policy is when students break school behavior rules and strict regulations created by the district or school and get severe consequences for it. Carla Amurao, the author of the article, “Fact Sheet: How Bad Is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?”, stated that “statistics reflect that these policies disproportionately target students of color”. Students of color are being affected so badly by this policy, that statistics show black students are 3 times more likely to get expelled than white students. Since these students are being expelled or arrested for breaking zero tolerance policy rules, they are missing valuable information in classes due to court hearings. But, some people argue that the zero tolerance policy is unfair to all students, making the education system equal for all to succeed. For example, a “2007 study by the Advancement Project and the Power U Center for Social Change says that for every 100 students who were suspended, 15 were Black, 7.9 were American Indian, 6.8 were Latino and 4.8 were white”. As you can see, the zero tolerance policy affects all races, making them miss their education because of certain consequences. Because the mindset of these people is that, if the zero-tolerance policy does not affect just one race or group of people, then the education system
The Alabama Educator Code of Ethics is designed for every educator in the state of Alabama. The Code must be implemented for the safety of students and educators. The goal of the Alabama Code of Ethics can be accomplished as long as all educators value the worth and dignity of all students, parents, and staff. There are nine Alabama Educator Code of Ethics and Standard 1: Professional Conduct, Standard 4: Teacher/Student Relationship and Standard 5: Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Use of Possession are the most important standards.
"Code of Ethics – Education Profession ." Florida Department of Education Web. 1 Apr. 2011.
The intent of this argumentative research paper, is to take a close look at school systems disciplinary policies and the effect they have on students. While most school systems in the nation have adopted the zero tolerance policies, there are major concerns that specific students could be targeted, and introduced into the criminal justice system based on these disciplinary policies. This research paper is intended to focus on the reform of zero tolerance policies, and minimizing the school to prison pipeline.
Kafka, Judith. 2011. The history of "zero tolerance" in American public schooling. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137001962.
A science teacher in Mississippi asked her students to take a picture with their completed DNA Lego model. John Doe took his picture with a smile and a hand gesture in which his thumb, index, and middle finger was raised. This was enough to earn him an indefinite suspension with a recommendation for expulsion because his school administrators believed he flashed a gang sign although he was simply putting up three fingers to represent his football jersey number. (NPR Isensee, 2014). This kind of criminalization of young people contributes to suspension, dropout, and incarceration, and too often pushes students into what is referred to by many education scholars and activists as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” a term that refers to “the policies and practices that push our nation’s schoolchildren, especially our most at-risk children, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems” (ACLU 2013). The School-to-Prison Pipeline is one of the most urgent challenges in education today. This paper will focus on the following circumstances and policies contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline: 1) resource deprived schools, 2) high-stake testing and 3) zero-tolerance discipline policies. However, it is important to note that the school-to-prison pipeline is a broad problem not limited to these three components and has been influenced by historical inequities (segregated education), concentrated poverty, and racial disparities in law enforcement (NAACP, 2005). They have each served to isolate and remove a massive number of people, a disproportionately large percentage of whom are youth of color, from their communities and from participation in civil society (NAACP, 2005). I argue for attention to the school-to-pr...
Over the course of creating a critical reflective journal there is one experience that stands out. It was a visit to George Washington Community School, an urban school in Indianapolis Indiana, to observe the role of teacher preparation. During this visit my intent was to observe the concept of formal, common, and frozen registry for communication between teachers, students, staff, and community. During this exposure I was able to see discipline in a school setting in new and revealing way.
Another major reason why juveniles are ending up in the juvenile justice system is because many schools have incorporate the zero tolerance policy and other extreme school disciplinary rules. In response to violent incidents in schools, such as the Columbine High School massacre, school disciplinary policies have become increasingly grave. These policies have been enacted at the school, district and state levels with the hopes of ensuring the safety of students and educators. These policies all rely on the zero tolerance policy. While it is understandable that protecting children and teachers is a priority, it is not clear that these strict policies are succeeding in improving the safety in schools.
School shootings have altered American history greatly over the past two decades. From 1997 to 2007, there have been more than 40 school shootings, resulting in over 70 deaths and many more injuries. School shoot-outs have been increasing in number dramatically in the past 20 years. There are no boundaries as to how old the child would be, or how many people they may kill or injure. At Mount Morris Township, Michigan, on February 29th, 2000, there was a 6 year old boy who shot and killed another 6 year old girl at the Buell Elementary School with a .32 caliber pistol. And although many shootings have occurred at High Schools or Middle Schools, having more guns on those campuses would not be a good environment for children to grow up in. However, on a college campus, the pupils attending are not children anymore; the age range is from 17 to mid 20’s. Therefore they understand the consequences associated to the use of weapons and have gained more maturity. In April 16th, 2007, at Blacksburg, Virginia, there was a shooting rampage enacted by Sung-Hui Cho (23 years, from Centreville, VA) who fired over 170 rounds, killing 32 victims, before taking his own life at the Virginia Tech campus. Colleges and Universities would be a much safer place, for student and teacher, if guns were permitted on campus for self-defense purposes.
Severson, Kim, and Alan Blinder. "Guns at School? If There's A Will, There Are Ways." LexisNexis Academic. LexisNexis, 28 Sept. 2013. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
If the zero tolerance program is installed in the educational system, schools must decide when and how it should be enforced. This is a very complex issue and when open to debate you see three approaches to it. First, advocates of zero tolerance policies concentrate on positive changes in school security, ways of punishment, and change in student behavior. Those who oppose the policies argue that zero tolerance should be eliminated due to its lack of rationale and logic. Finally, the opposing viewpoint criticizes the zero tolerance policy for being too extreme and inappropriate for schools.
Martinez, S. (2009). A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance policies really …..affecting schools? Preventing School Failure, 53(3), 153-157. Retrieved from …..http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/228530113?acco…..untid=6579
First of all, the zero tolerance policy is very unfair because it punishes everyone for the problems of few. Even if you’re the best student in the school and have never taken any drugs or used any weapons except for the butter knife, you still have to feel uncomfortable as if you really have used drugs or weapons. For example, in the article by Jesse Katz, when it talks about the girl who got Midol to school and shared it with another girl with the sole purpose of easing menstrual cramps. Kimberly, the girl who had gotten the drug along with Erica, the girl that received the drug got a ten-day suspension. The parents of Kimberly got the district later on with a federal lawsuit for racial discrimination because the school suspended Kimberly, who is black, for 80 more days because she had the drug.
Zero tolerance laws initially were introduced as a means to discipline drug offenses of students while attending school. Due to increased gang violence, the policy spread nationwide after the 1994 signing of the “Gun Free Schools Act” where zero tolerance policies were coupled with the mandated reporting of a student to the police if they are carrying a gun or acting violence to other students or school