Zero Tolerance

Fact Sheet

Zero Tolerance

History of Zero Tolerance

In public schools, "zero tolerance" means that students are quickly suspended or expelled for breaking the law or violating school rules. These policies were initiated on the federal level by the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act, which responded to several notorious school shootings across the country. The federal law required states to kick out students who brought firearms to school.

Unfortunately, many states and school districts have gone far beyond the federal Gun-Free Schools Act by enacting policies that suspend or expel students for carrying virtually any object that could be considered a weapon, illegal drugs, prescription drugs, and even some drugs available over-the-counter. Some of the most troubling stories and trends have made headlines:

Nationally, students have been subjected to disciplinary action for bringing Midol or Advil to school, bringing a water pistol to school, and taking a slurp of Listerine during school hours. Education Week, October 23, 1996.

In Philadelphia public schools, 33 kindergartners were suspended in 2002 under a tough new discipline policy. The New York Times, December 14, 2002.

An 11-year-old died of asthma because his school's zero tolerance policy prevented him from carrying an inhaler. The New York Times, November 19, 2002.

In 1998, African-American students comprised 17.1 percent of the student population nationally, but 32.7 percent of those suspended. Racial Profiling and Punishment in US. Public Schools, 2001.

Broad zero tolerance policies have brought a number of problems -- the denial of education, rise in dropout rates, increased rate of suspensions and expulsions, and racially biased impact.

Too Many Children Being Suspended and Expelled

While students are reporting school crime at the same level as in the 1970s, the number of youth suspensions has nearly doubled from 3.7% of students in 1974 (1.7 million students suspended) to 6.8% of students in 1998 (3.2 million students suspended). African-American students are suspended at roughly 2.3 times the rate of White students nationally. In Michigan schools, 3,500 students were expelled during academic year 1999-2000. Punitive Approach Leading to Dropouts

The increase in suspensions and punitive policies can lead to higher rates of dropping out and delinquency among suspended youth. Without schooling, nor availability of alternative schools in many cases, youth fall behind in school and often experience repeat suspensions and an increased likelihood of dropping out of school. A 1994 study showed that students who were suspended and expelled believed that their school no longer wanted them and eventually dropped out. Pushed out of school and on the streets, youth are likely to engage in delinquent acts and eventually end up in the juvenile justice system.

Racial Disparities in Discipline

Children of color are subjected to far more suspensions and expulsions than their White counterparts. According to the Department of Education, African-American children made up only 17% of public enrollment nationwide in 1998-99, but 32% of suspensions. White students made up 63% of enrollment and represented only 50% of suspensions and 50% of expulsions. In Tennessee during the 2000 school year, the rate of suspension for African-Americans was double that of White students. In the 1999-2000 school year in Connecticut, nearly 52% of the suspensions of kindergartners went to African-Americans, 35.2% to Latinos and 12.1% to Whites.

Alternative Strategies

Effective alternatives to zero tolerance should involve students, families, and their communities in efforts to provide a safe learning environment and safety in school. Anti-violence programs like anti-bullying, anger management, and peer mediation help to reduce discipline problems in schools. Building student-teacher relationships, challenging curriculum, and teacher training in classroom management and cultural competence make schools safer, equitable, and educational. For instance, the National Crime Prevention Council--which operates a national initiative to pilot school violence prevention projects--currently supports a pilot project geared towards drop-outs in Woodford County, Kentucky which focuses on "soft" services that emphasize fostering positive student-teacher relationships as well as on "hard" techniques that rely on purchasing more hardware and security procedures. In addition, suspended and expelled students need appropriate alternative education; an effective model is a Saturday detention program known as SMART implemented in Chicago and Philadelphia schools.

Sources:

Black, Susan. 2002. Keeping Kids in School: Who can play the biggest role in preventing dropouts? Hint: It's not the students. American School Board Journal.

Dale, Mary Claire. "Zero-tolerance policy puts 5-year-olds out of Philly classrooms." The Associated Press, December 13, 2002.

Little Tolerance for "Zero Tolerance." 2002. The Institute for Public Policy and Social Research Policy Brief, Vol. 4.

Jordan, Will, et al. "Exploring the Complexity of Early Dropout Causal Structures." Report No. 48. Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. Johns Hopkins University. August 1994.

Kenning, C. (2002, October 8). Kentucky, Pennsylvania selected to test school-security program: Woodford County High to get $10,000 and safety audit. The Courier-Journal, B-3.

Richart, D.; Brooks, K; & Soler, M. 2003. Unintended Consequences: The Impact of "Zero Tolerance" and Other Exclusionary Policies on Kentucky Students.

Schiraldi, V. and Ziedenberg, J. 2001. Schools and Suspensions: Self-Reported Crime and the Growing Use of Suspensions. The Justice Policy Institute.

Socolar, Paul. Winter 2002-03. "Zero tolerance kicks in." Philadelphia Public School Notebook. The Civil Rights Project. 2000. Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of Zero Tolerance and School Discipline Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

The Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth. 2000. Inequities in the JJ System Trouble TCCY Taskforce." The Advocate 10 (4).

Home / Juvenile Justice Issues / State-by-State Info / Research
Newsroom / About Us / BBY Partners / Contact us

Building Blocks for Youth
For a fair and effective youth justice system
...a comprehensive effort to protect minority youth in the justice system
and to promote rational and effective juvenile justice policies...