A Proposal for Revising Zero Tolerance Policies in Educational Settings

Since being introduced after passage of the 1994 Federal Gun-Free Act, zero tolerance policies created to ensure school safety have resulted in millions of suspended or expelled students in educational settings. Zero tolerance policies originated with the U.S. federal drug enforcement in the 1980s with the idea that harsh penalties would reduce drug crimes. In the early 1990s the idea was widely adopted by schools, not limited as originally intended to possession of drugs and weapons but more broadly to punish any infraction of school rules—even minor ones. We argue that this broader application overreached the initial policy goals and transformed educational institutions from doorways to opportunity into gateways to the criminal justice system.

Evidence of this overreach is dramatic. The number of students suspended has been rising since 1970s and increased dramatically after the 1994 Federal Gun-Free Act was passed. Although the 2001 No Child Left Behind regulations aimed to decrease the number of students suspended, the suspension rate has increased 9% from 2002-11. Meanwhile, the percentage of student victims of school violence (ages 12-18) dropped only 1% from 2002-11. African American students, who account for 16% of the total student population, represent 42% of the students with multiple school suspensions, and 34% of school expulsions in 2011-12. Other racial minorities also suffer; for example, American Indian and Alaska Native students represent 0.5% of the total student population but 2% of multiple suspensions and 3% of expulsions.

This paper discusses the current situation: 1) As unfair punishment to minor misbehaviors; 2) As a school to prison pipeline; and 3) As disproportionately affecting students of color. This paper then proposes a shift in policy emphasis from punishment to prevention. Specifically: 1) School policies should clarify the goals of discipline policies, distinguish minor from major violations, and shift from suspension to detention and in-school suspensions; 2) Instead of removing disruptive students from school (always an option of last resort), schools should aim to reduce negative behaviors among students by establishing positive relationships between teachers, students, school administrators, and parents; and 3) Schools should provide de-identified monthly reports on disruptive student behaviors and resulting disciplinary actions, and make these reports available to students and staff. Students and parents should have the right to dispute unequal treatment based on these reports and other evidence.