Zero Tolerance Policies Generally

Zero tolerance policies are school discipline policies that create mandatory punishments for specific offenses; under zero tolerance, schools do not make exceptions or substitute punishments under any circumstances.  After schools adopt such policies, there are often far more students suspended and expelled because schools no longer exercise discretion or leniency toward students.  While the initial target of zero tolerance policies was drug and weapons possession, these polices have since been extended to nonviolent and non-drug behavior such as defiance of authority, habitual profanity, defacing school property and gang-related behavior in schools.  The goal of zero tolerance is to have a uniform school discipline approach, maintain safe schools, and discourage students from disruptive behavior, but the result has often simply been to increase the number and severity of punishments on students, sometimes under ridiculously petty circumstances.  Moreover, some school systems resort to these tactics in part because they have failed to promote proper learning environments and are looking for quick fixes to student misbehavior.  Rather than preventing behavior problems through proactive discipline policies that focus on positive reinforcement, schools simply remove students who misbehave.

Students and teachers are entitled to a safe learning environment that is conducive to learning, but the environment created by zero tolerance policies is often hostile and dysfunctional.  Schools simply line up on the side of punishing students and students perceive the punishment as irrational, impersonal, and unjustified.  Thus, discipline may not be teaching students the appropriate lesson and it may also create divisions between students and teachers that should not exist. 

Why are zero tolerance policies harmful?

The harm that most parents point to is that zero tolerance policies often result in students receiving harsher punishments than they otherwise would have.  However, several other concrete harms result, each of which is addressed below. 

    1. Removal from learning environment

Research indicates a negative relationship between the use of school suspension and expulsion and school-wide academic achievement.  Regardless of their behavior or their disciplinary status, all children must have access to quality educational services and instruction.  When they are removed from school, they obviously do not receive these services and instruction.  However, even in-school suspensions or detention can cause students to miss out on instruction.  Although they may receive work in detention, they are often left unsupervised or are monitored only by a school security guard or someone acting in that function.

    2.  Criminalization of Students

When students are suspended regularly, for long periods of time, or expelled, they are likely to fall further behind academically and are at increased risk of never returning to school at all and/or falling into criminal activity in the community.  If zero tolerance were only imposed for serious misbehaviors, this outcome would not be as serious and might even seem to be a natural outgrowth of the student’s in school behavior.  Zero tolerance policies, however, apply to a broad range of misbehaviors, both minor and major disciplinary infractions alike.  However, because so many behaviors that occur in a normal school are of a relatively minor nature, zero tolerance policies end up being applied more often for minor infractions than serious ones.  However, these children are removed from school and at-risk of dropping out of school or getting involved in criminal activity even though their initial misbehavior was minor.

Unfortunately, this signals a move toward treating children more like adults and in ways that resemble the adult criminal justice system than students who should be educated.  The most irrational aspect of zero tolerance, however, is that they that turn kids into criminals for acts that would rarely constitute a crime when committed by an adult.  Additionally, zero tolerance policies mandating that schools share information on student infractions with law enforcement authorities increase referrals of students to the justice system.  In short, school misbehavior is translated into criminal activity.

    3.  Disproportionate Treatment by Race

Zero Tolerance Policies are also harmful because with the increased presence of police in public schools, mandatory punishments, and the expanded use of suspensions and expulsions, students of color are being pushed out or thrown out of schools at an alarming rate.  Even without zero tolerance, minority students are disproportionately punished.  However, under a zero tolerance regime, disproportionate punishment becomes disproportionately harsh punishment, most important, suspension and expulsion.  Moreover, with the increased referrals of these disciplinary issues to the juvenile justice system, students of color are more likely to be on the schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track than their white peers, which further increases the disproportionality that already existed there.  Across the board, data shows that black and Latino students are more likely than their white peers to be arrested in school, regardless of the demographics of the school's enrollment.  These disparities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic status of students, nor is there any evidence that black and Latino students misbehave more than their white peers.  However, zero tolerance policies are producing these results.

Are there any limits on zero tolerance policies?

Schools generally have broad discretion when it comes to discipline.  However, zero tolerance policies must comply with the United States Constitution.  Given the unequal effects of zero tolerance policies on students of color, an important limit is that these policies can not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Thus, zero tolerance policies should not be applied in a discriminatory manner, which occurs if a policy is motivated by race or is applied differently to students based on race.  In some instances, Title VI may also prohibit zero tolerance policies that, although not motivated by race, have a very high disproportionate impact on students of one race and the school cannot justify this result.  In addition, zero tolerance policies must comply with state constitutions.  State constitutions guarantee students education and often guarantee a specific level of quality in education.  Thus, some states may require that students have engaged in some serious misbehavior to justify depriving a student of this constitutional right.  For instance, if a zero tolerance policy required expulsion for something minor like profane language, it might be insufficient to justify depriving a student of his constitutional right to education.  Likewise, it might violate a student’s right to education to transfer him to an alternative school where the quality of education is low, unless the student had engaged in behavior the effectively forfeited his right to a quality education. 

Strategies for Avoiding Zero Tolerance Policies

Because the Fourteenth Amendment requires proof of intent to discriminate, lawsuits challenging the disproportionate effect of zero tolerance on minorities are difficult to win.  However, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) maintains regulations that prohibit disparate impacts on minorities.  Thus, using the Office for Civil Rights’ complaint process can be another option for addressing the disproportionate impact of zero tolerance policies on students of color.  Any individual or class who believes school officials have discriminated against them can file a written complaint with the OCR either personally or through a representative.  More information on how to file a complaint with OCR is available on this website at “Filing an OCR Complaint.”

  The best strategy, however, may be to take proactive steps to prevent such policies from being enacted or applying broadly.  Parents should urge their states and localities to enact laws and provisions that limit zero tolerance to a narrow class of misbehaviors and apply it only to those instances that are equivalent to the crimes.  For instance, zero tolerance for weapons should not be any conceivable weapon but only those weapons as defined in criminal law.  Similar, zero tolerance for drugs should apply only to those drugs prohibited by criminal statues, not for “drugs” such as Tylenol and aspirin.  Parents should also encourage states to enact disciplinary guidelines for administrators help the determine how to exercise discretion in discipline rather than resorting to zero tolerance.  If zero tolerance is still enacted, parents should advocate for alternative educational opportunities in lieu of expulsions as the zero tolerance punishment.  And, of course, parents should encourage schools to apply zero tolerance punishments equally and avoid applying zero tolerance to behaviors that are more likely to have a disparate impact.  Finally, the best preventative measure is to devote resources to violence prevention rather than punishing students after the fact.