More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction to zero tolerance in schools essays
Introduction to zero tolerance in schools essays
Zero tolerance policy is today's need
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Zero Tolerance: Doubtful Indeed
Many schools around the country have been faced with violence and even actual deaths. Take the incident at Columbine, for example. Many schools for this very reason have proposed and in some cases even imposed a policy called, The Zero Tolerance Policy. The article, ”Taking Zero Tolerance to the Limit” by Jesse Katz, is about the absolute ban of drugs and weapons in schools. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because it punishes everyone for the problems of few, it’s too extreme and there is still no clear line between what is a drug and what is a weapon.
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.
Another example from the article of t...
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
A new policy is needed and most certainly should start out with holding schools to handle their own discipline situations, rather than relying on school security and police (Wilson, 2014). School administrators must be able to differentiate between what is a true discipline situation and when a student simply made a mistake. The rate of school suspensions have skyrocketed over the last thirty years from 1.7 million nationwide to 3.1 million and growing today (ACLU, n.d.). Each school needs to create policies of when to get school security involved and what the school’s security job involves. Unless there is a true threat to the safety of the school and/or its student’s law enforcement should never be called (Wison, 2014). The instinct to dial 911 at every infraction has to stop. Furthermore the schools must develop a gender and racial fairness; black children should not be receiving harsher punishments for similar infractions of white students (Wilson,
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.
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.
Looking back on my own educational experience the words, “zero tolerance” vaguely strike a chord. If I am not mistaken I believe that our district adopted the zero tolerance policy between my junior and senior year (96/97-97/98 respectfully) as a means to hinder bullying/violence among the students. As I consider my years in high school I do not recall violence being a normal occurrence, with the exception of your random argument turned, “meet me at short stop,” dispute, nor do I remember drugs being a large concern among parents and/or school personnel. Perhaps I was naïve or maybe it turns out that it just wasn’t something to be considered a problem. There is an exception to every rule; however, I trust that during my high school career violence and drug abuse and its distribution was not the norm…
The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.
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.
First, random drug testing schools should be implemented for the safety of the students. According to NYT, “90% of all NOVT students tried marijuana and 60% tried opiates and other pharmaceuticals” (Slotnik para. 7). If NOVT had random drug testing, they could’ve detected that sooner and helped the students in earlier from harmful exposure to drugs. This could’ve also improved the safety of the students due to the fact that they wouldn’t have to go to dangerous people in order to obtain the substances. They could’ve been hurt in the receival of these items. Also, of all the 12th graders at U of M, “...12% tried narcotics and 1% tried heroin.” states NYT (Slotnik para. 11)How are we supposed to maked the world of our students and children a safer place, if our students and children are meeting with drug dealers? Evidently, if our students WERE safe, they wouldn’t be doing drugs in the first place. As you can see, if we were to drug test students, we could stop them from using drugs and have a deterrent from using them. Then they’d be safer because they wouldn’t be around the wrong people.
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
There is current controversy over zero tolerance within schools with communities, teachers/staff, and administration. There is a disconnect between the administrators (people who create the policy) and the teachers and school staff (who implement the policy throughout the school year). There are large gaps in administrator comprehension, that is, what they remembered of the law and the intent and conditions for applying it. Some teachers are not even aware of what a zero tolerance policy is, thus it is broadly interpreted and therefore practiced inconsistently (Robbins). The disconnects in understanding zero tolerance are not only found between teachers and administrators but also between administrators and their communities. Some parents are
On December 20th 2012, an armed gunman walked into Sandy Hook elementary school and shot twenty seven children. This event had a huge impact on people’s emotions. However this is not the first shooting that has happened in schools. Furthermore, bullets are not the only weapons that are being carried into school campuses and class rooms. These types of crimes have happened too many times in the 20th century and this shows how weak the school safety plans are.
She includes that the people implementing these policies believe it creates an atmosphere of safety, citing the Boston Chief of Police for city schools who says metal detectors “make students feel safer [because] ’They know they can’t bring in a weapon, but they also know the kid behind them can’t either”’ (Anderson para.6). According to Anderson, though, treating every student like a criminal “diminish[es] feelings of trust and safety” (Anderson para.8) and could be a factor in the school-to-prison pipeline. She contends that students do not want to engage in a school system that puts discipline first because, with evidence from Kesi Foster, students feel they are seen “’as less than or as criminal out of the gate’” (Anderson para.13).
School disciplinary models need reform. According to Toran Hansen, “restorative justice is being used in school systems as a response to a growing dissatisfaction with traditional approaches to school based discipline.” There are distrustful students and parents who lost faith in traditional discipline systems. Researchers linked punitive measures to isolation and exclusion from learning and socializing. Detention, suspension, expulsion and zero tolerance are key barriers to stunt student achievement, leadership and citizenship.
However, implementing the ‘zero-tolerance’ policy has had adverse effects since it hasn’t been shown to improve the school’s overall safety. Instead, it is associated with: “ lower academic performance, higher rates of dropout, failures to graduate on time, increased academic disengagement, and subsequent disciplinary exclusions”. (Achilles). Schools with high suspension rates create a hostile environment with distrust between the staff and the student body because of the lack of ‘positive behavioral reinforcement’. If the students believe the staff doesn’t care about them, they will in return act like careless people. My cousin Jamal, claims that in his school students frequently disrupt the school day with verbal attacks with each other and even the staff--and sometimes the staff spits
...they quit and then they were to be retested in ninety days. If the student tested positive again after the ninety days, he or she would be expelled from school and forced to enroll in substance abuse classes. These policies offer consequences to scare students, but more need to be added. The new policy would allow students three strikes before they are expelled. The first time a student fails the test, the student’s parents would be notified of what their child has done and the student would be retested. If the student fails the second test, they would be suspended and forced to attend a substance abuse class while on suspension. If that did not work and the student failed the test for a third time, the student would be expelled and put in a detox program. With those consequences, the students would decrease their use of illegal drugs if not stop it all together.