Zero Tolerance

History, Definition, and Application

Zero tolerance grew out of the 1980s drug enforcement policies that mandated severe and certain penalties for any drug infraction, regardless of its seriousness. The term caught on as a disciplinary approach in school districts across the country and eventually became ensconced in federal law in the Gun-Free Schools Act. While the act mandates a onecalendar-year expulsion for possession of a firearm on school property, many school districts have extended the application of zero tolerance for a range of other school misbehaviors.

The extent of usage of zero tolerance is unclear and probably depends upon definition, which is also at issue; although the term zero tolerance is widely used, there is no single widely accepted definition. The National Center on Educational Statistics, which defines zero tolerance as a policy that mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for specified offenses, estimates that up to of 80% or 90% of the nation's schools employ zero-tolerance policies (Heaviside & colleagues, 1998). That definition of zero tolerance may be overly broad; however, one would expect that there are few schools in America that do not mandate some predetermined consequences for specific behaviors. A more limited definition of zero tolerance is a disciplinary policy “intended primarily as a method of sending a message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated, by punishing all offenses severely, no matter how minor” (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).

Zero Tolerance: Pro and Con

Proponents contend that, in the face of escalating school violence and disruption, the firm and resolute message provided by zero tolerance is needed to maintain school discipline. They argue that swift and certain punishments of zero tolerance are ultimately more fair and will eliminate racial imbalance in school discipline. Most importantly, they believe that removing troublemakers will produce a school climate that is free from disruption for those students that remain, and that observation of school punishments will deter others from disruption and violence.

[Page 600]Critics of the approach have tended to focus on the threats to individual liberties and fairness posed by a one-size-fits-all model. They point out that suspension and expulsion remove students from the opportunity to learn, and that many of those removed by strict zero-tolerance policies do not pose serious threats to school safety, but are often good students with no prior history of disruption. Finally, they note that continued racial disparities in suspension and expulsion put students of color at disproportionate risk for contact with the juvenile justice system, creating what has been termed a school-to-prison pipeline.

...