http://www.ztnightmares.com/

http://endzerotolerance.com/

What is "zero tolerance"?

From its inception in federal drug policy of the 1980's, zero tolerance school discipline has been intended primarily as a method of sending a message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated, by punishing both major and minor offenses severely. The broadness of zero tolerance drug programs led to a host of civil rights controversies1. But the term caught on among educators concerned about a near-epidemic of youth violence, and school boards across the country adopted zero tolerance policies for a range of disruptive behaviors. In 1994, President Clinton signed the Gun-Free Schools Act, mandating a one-year expulsion for weapons in school.


Why has zero tolerance created such controversy?

Almost from the outset, zero tolerance disciplinary policies have created controversy. Across the nation, students have been and continue to be suspended or expelled for a host of relatively minor incidents including nailfiles, paper clips, organic cough drops, a model rocket, a 5" plastic axe as part of a Halloween costume, an inhaler, and a kitchen knife in a lunch box to cut chicken (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). These harsh reactions to relatively trivial incidents may also be connected to the two-year and even permanent expulsions being considered by some districts. If a student is expelled for a year for a toy cap gun, districts may feel a need to distinguish truly dangerous incidents by extending punishment even further for actual weapons.

Oftentimes, policymakers in these contentious incidents claim that they are allowed little or no room for flexibility in the administration of district disciplinary policy. Yet this inflexibility is in no way a requirement of federal zero tolerance policy. Indeed, by requiring local districts to have in place a procedure allowing for case-by-case review, the Gun-Free Schools Act appears to mandate some degree of flexibility in the implementation of zero tolerance.