Bulletin Boards |Calendar |About Us

Front page

Behavior Management

Conflict Resolution

Early Intervention

For Educators

For Families

Internet & Assistive Technology

Recreation & Sports

Specific Disabilities

State By State

Transition

Washington Watch

Site Map

REPORT: ZERO TOLERANCE CONTRADICTS CHILD DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES

June 30, 2000

The widespread use of "zero tolerance" policies for violent behavior in public schools could be doing as much harm as good for youth at a time when they are at critical stages of psychological development, a new study from Harvard University's Civil Rights Project says. While swifter and stiffer punishments have been designed to make schools and classrooms feel safer, the report, Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of Zero Tolerance and School Discipline Policies, suggests that approach may be making students and educators adversaries instead of allies. This is particularly true for students with behavioral problems, who the researchers argue are more frequently suspended rather than given a second chance.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act contains "extensive procedural protections for children with disabilities, [which] should ensure that under appropriate circumstances the impact of their disabilities are considered in meting out punishment," the report notes, but "it is clear that in many circumstances, school officials are ignoring the law, and parents and students are unaware of their rights or unable to enforce them."

For all students, the researchers argue, zero tolerance policies "inherently conflict with prescriptions for healthy child development." Since they focus more on punishment than behavior management or intervention, these approaches bring few if any constructive benefits to the school setting, which by its nature provides one of the best environments for changing a child's conduct. Overly harsh punishments, which these researchers argue are the norm in zero tolerance policies, undermine the relationship of trust between an educator and a student and can shatter a child's confidence. "Rigid and inflexible discipline policies" also stunt a child's "formation of positive attitudes toward fairness and justice," they claim.

"This damage is particularly acute for children who are already considered 'at-risk' for school failure, and often has the effect of pushing them out of school completely," the report states.

Nevertheless, the American Federation of Teachers, one of zero tolerance's most vocal proponents, continues to support the strategy. In February, AFT President Sandra Feldman acknowledged some educators may be applying the policies "imperfectly - and in some places stupidly." But she argues fine-tuning interpretation and use of a zero tolerance plan is better than abandoning it.

Noting higher academic standards have met with similar complaints as the violence and drug policies, Feldman said, "the problem here is not with the principles behind standards and zero tolerance -- the overwhelming majority of people, including teachers, principals and parents, believe we should raise the bar on student achievement and behavior. The difficulty lies in getting the policies done right. We need to recognize problems as they come up and work to solve them instead of giving up on higher standards and zero tolerance at the first sign of difficulty."

School systems with zero tolerance policies are also sticking to their plans despite increasing scrutiny. The Chicago Public School System, for example, initiated its policy in 1995 and has consistently added more security measures each year through the 1999-2000 school year. "Violence in the schools is another concern that became especially prominent last year that we must contend with," Chief Education Officer Cozette Buckney wrote to school employees and parents last September. "We recognize that a hostile classroom is not a place in which minds can be cultivated and nurtured. That is why this year we will continue with our zero-tolerance approach to threats of violence."

Schools also insist they have no choice, since maintaining a zero tolerance policy is required by all public schools receiving money under the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act. But the law also "vests school administrators with discretionary powers in determining the punishment," the researchers argue. "In most instances, however, this is not the practice."

As educators apply their own interpretations of the rules, the situation is getting worse. "Principals and administrators are no longer using literal interpretations of their state's and district's zero tolerance policies, and they are no longer willing to use the discretionary clauses found in many of these provisions," the report states. "Instead, they are inventing highly creative interpretations of the ill-conceived laws and using them to suspend and expel children based on relatively minor, non-violent offenses."

Based on case studies of four schools in Miami and analysis of programs around the country that have implemented alternative approaches to improving school safety, the researchers argue better teacher training and better monitoring of teachers by the schools could stem the tide of suspensions and expulsions. As teachers themselves have frequently noted, little training in classroom management and conflict resolution is provided in most school districts, whether through higher education programs or inservice meetings. "Because teachers are the first link in the disciplinary process, they should be better equipped to deal with behavioral problems using innovative strategies that do not shut out students for typical adolescent misbehavior," the researchers argue.

In addition, if schools pay closer attention to how teachers are interpreting and applying discipline policies, "problems such as poor classroom management, discriminatory treatment or singling out of particular children" would be brought to light, the report suggests.

Some schools are resisting implementing more flexible approaches with some degree of success. These programs, such as the "whole child approach" at Chicago's Rachel Carson Elementary School, use "positive" approaches to discipline and provide opportunities for teachers and students to bond, the researchers note. Carson's approach adjusted the academic environment to be "more physically inviting," increased parent involvement in school activities and uses a full-time "interventionist" to handle infractions of well-posted discipline rules and punishments. The result was a total of 10 children, less than 1 percent of the student body, suspended in 1999-2000 for a maximum of two days. None were expelled. "This record is in dramatic contrast to the rest of the city of Chicago, where the expulsion rate has been 'soaring' during the past two years," the researchers say.

"The work involved in successfully transforming a school's culture is a daunting task that requires a steadfast commitment from the principal, teachers, staff, parents and community," the report cautions. "To achieve this transformation, adults must analyze their own behaviors as well as the behaviors of their students and be open to changing practices that may no longer fit with the school's overall mission."8