More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction to zero tolerance in schools essays
Paper on zero-tolerance school policies
Introduction to zero tolerance in schools essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
School System As mentioned previously, the school system has a perceived obligation to discipline students in an attempt to protect the safety of all staff and students, to preserve the decorum of the school, and also to develop character in students (Kajs, 2006). It is these three notions, along with the public’s perception of the rising issue of youth crime, and federal and provincial legislation that led to the implementation of zero tolerance polices. There are arguably three stages of the zero tolerance policies: there must be a perceived issue by the public, which creates a moral panic and leads to the government taking action to calm the situation by creating legislation and lastly, the school board implementing the regulations and
There are many issues that stem from treating youth similarly to adults in the criminal justice system. It leads to the criminalization of children which could have a negative impact on the rest of their lives. For example, students that are expelled or suspended from school may have difficulties in returning to school or staying in school once they do return. This can be due to the fact that they have become behind in their school work, or they feel ostracized by their peers and as such drop out. This presents a huge issue for society because students that drop out are less capable of finding suitable employment and are thus more likely to turn to lives of crime to make ends meet (Findlay, 2008). In the research conducted by Daniel and Bondy, they argue that zero tolerance policies not only negatively affect emotion health, but also graduation rates and life chances. Furthermore, it denies youth their fundamental right to education (Daniel et al., 2008).While Daniel and Bondy’s study focussed on the opinions of school administrators, Skiba and Knesting look at the opposite side and view the opinion of the children in schools. Skiba et al (2001), mention the perceptions of the effectiveness of disciplinary
It can also be seen that the media played the largest role in the beginning stages of zero tolerance policies and that moral panics are a factor in government policies relating to school violence. This analysis of how zero tolerance policies became implemented in Canada is crucial to answering the question about why, if zero tolerance policies are negative, did they come into effect and stay for so long. The answer, as demonstrated throughout this paper, is that the public’s perception and unnecessary fear of crime and violence of youth shapes the way the government and school boards deal with deviant behaviour even if their perceptions were the result of a misguided moral
Thus, the shifting perceptions of the justice system has transformed what it means to be a child and an adult due to their pervasive, and punitive approaches to crime and delinquency. Although adolescents today enjoy many new freedoms and greater time to experiment, those that don’t conform to “normative behaviors” and engage in socially constructed definitions of delinquency, often end up under the firm hands of the juvenile justice system. Despite the creation of this phase in an adolescent’s life, the injustices within the adult justice system have breached into the juvenile system, thus, blurring the lines of what it means to be an adolescent in modern times. Thereby, the adolescent stage is constantly being manipulated to conform and match the social construction of crime and delinquency, and the rise in the practice of trying juveniles as adults within the court system and mandating life sentences is evidence of this
A new policy is needed and most certainly should start out with holding schools to handle their own discipline situations, rather than relying on school security and police (Wilson, 2014). School administrators must be able to differentiate between what is a true discipline situation and when a student simply made a mistake. The rate of school suspensions have skyrocketed over the last thirty years from 1.7 million nationwide to 3.1 million and growing today (ACLU, n.d.). Each school needs to create policies of when to get school security involved and what the school’s security job involves. Unless there is a true threat to the safety of the school and/or its student’s law enforcement should never be called (Wison, 2014). The instinct to dial 911 at every infraction has to stop. Furthermore the schools must develop a gender and racial fairness; black children should not be receiving harsher punishments for similar infractions of white students (Wilson,
Rios argues that when someone is socially incapacitated they lack social acceptance in both schools and the labor market. The social incapacitation these young people experience comes from criminalization, which is disguised as a protective mechanism. An example of one of these types of mechanisms is zero tolerance policies that paints everyone as bad, and tends to take shape under protective techniques for potential victims. In this case, the youth control complex is understood to be necessary, as it is disguised as a protective mechanism for social order. The fact of the matter is that it’s a tragedy for everyone rather than only the individuals experiencing the immediate effects of this form of
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
In the most recent years, the relationship between educational institutions and the juvenile justice system, which was once created to protect children, has displayed an ultimatum for minors through “zero tolerance” policies that result in sending individuals from school to prison to pipeline. Studies have shown that these policies are not beneficial to students or the educational environment that should be guaranteed to children. Opponents argue that the policies promote safety, but through this research it can be concluded that the policies actually increase danger. Studies demonstrate the factors that affect the enforcement of these policies which include media, the sociopolitical atmosphere, and the racial disproportionality, yet there are valid solutions for this issue that can be explored.
Following the Columbine tragedy in 1999, “school systems across the nation introduced the zero-tolerance policies aimed at the curtailment of harmful student behaviors” (Noll, 2014, p. 295). The original focus of the policies was to eliminate the use/carrying of weapons but soon after spread to restricting drugs and medication (2014). By 2006 95% of the U.S. public schools had adopted the zero-tolerance policies and more than half of them reported taking significant action against students, many of which resulted in expulsion (2014). While the zero-tolerance polices were originally welcomed by all members of a community as a means of promoting and keeping a safer environment-- as of late many individuals are questioning the relevance of some actions and some school officials (2014).
Lawmakers and school officials have been wearisome in the efforts of finding a policy that works to make our schools a safer place for students and administrators. Schools, both public and private, are an environment for learning and pleasant experiences that a child or adolescent will remember for the rest of their lives. Although, experiences like the Columbine High school massacres are not what an individual would want to remember and is one of the most significant enforcer when it comes to all austere policies. Zero tolerance was first introduced by President Ronald Reagan’s
In this case, schools, without the incorporation of students and parents, chooses what constitutes deviant behavior; along these same students and parent barring means, schools then decide who is deviant; they further determine how to deal with this non-normative behavior/ deviance by compiling a paper trail in order to legitimize disposing of particular students. It is vital to note that “troublemakers,” as frequently labeled, act in similar ways as many of the other students, yet get more severe punishments. The adolescents in these types of schools are all seen as criminals due to the labels that have been placed on them, thus are easily criminalized from coming up short in the socially constructed educational system, which prompts suspensions and eventually expulsions. The youth control complex or “web of control” in which institutions create a social fabric, manages most of the youth as criminals. The police, school administrators, and other authorities don’t bother to try to see if these individuals’ are actually criminals, or responsible for the incidents that led them to being labeled as deviant, instead they are generalized in an amorphous way as criminals. All in all, the criminal justice system’s fabric becomes part of the social context that consistently undermines these individual’s abilities to achieve within the
Vandergoot concludes “the goals of the youth legislation…its major objectives are reducing the use of incarceration for young offenders…the YCJA emphasizes restraint, accountability, proportionality, and discretion… it encourages use of extra judicial measures” ( Vandergoot, 2006, p30). Vandergoot determines that the objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is in the interest of youth, however, she accounts for the long term effect on adolescence as well. Vandergoot concludes the emotional and social consequences as youth interact with the system. Vandergoot claims the system leaves juveniles “debased”, suffering an “assault on their self-image”, that “block or snares in the adolescent psyche”, ultimately lowering their motivation and self-esteem which advances youth to have the “they think I’m bad I’ll show them I’m bad” mentality(Vandergoot, 2006). The mentality that derives from direct encounters with the youth justice system, often damages the adolescence completely disregarding the purpose of a youth justice system.
Another major reason why juveniles are ending up in the juvenile justice system is because many schools have incorporate the zero tolerance policy and other extreme school disciplinary rules. In response to violent incidents in schools, such as the Columbine High School massacre, school disciplinary policies have become increasingly grave. These policies have been enacted at the school, district and state levels with the hopes of ensuring the safety of students and educators. These policies all rely on the zero tolerance policy. While it is understandable that protecting children and teachers is a priority, it is not clear that these strict policies are succeeding in improving the safety in schools.
If the zero tolerance program is installed in the educational system, schools must decide when and how it should be enforced. This is a very complex issue and when open to debate you see three approaches to it. First, advocates of zero tolerance policies concentrate on positive changes in school security, ways of punishment, and change in student behavior. Those who oppose the policies argue that zero tolerance should be eliminated due to its lack of rationale and logic. Finally, the opposing viewpoint criticizes the zero tolerance policy for being too extreme and inappropriate for schools.
Schools inevitably must deal with disciplinary action when it comes to misconduct in students. However, at what point should the courts and law enforcement intervene? “Zero tolerance” policies started as a trend in the school setting during the 1990s in “response to the widespread perception that juvenile violence was increasing and school officials needed to take desperate measures to address the problem” (Aull 2012:182-183). However, national statistics indicated a decrease in juvenile’s share of crime during the influx of zero tolerance policies in schools (National Crime Justice Reference Service 2005).
I personally do not believe that the zero-tolerance policy is a good thing because it limits the students abilities to defend themselves. The wellbeing of the students is and should always be the most important factor for public schools.
Zero Tolerance is a no nonsense approach to school delinquency and minor infractions. It was the approach school and government officials instituted due to the high crime rate within schools during the 1980s and 90s. Students were being robbed in school, assaulted, killed etc. Officials began expelling, suspending, even turning kids over to police authority for punishment, in order to regain a proper structure, due to their concern that the violence within the schools were placing a strain on education. Zero Tolerance can be seen in institutes of learning till this day.
The zero-tolerance policy gives schools organizational structure and a safe environment which is needed to promote learning. Creating policies that provide safety for all students is the responsibility of school officials and administrators. Adopting the zero-tolerance policies for schools will deter students from breaking rules that can harm them or others while in school. Although all students can not be deterred from causing harm the zero-tolerance policy sends a message that if students decide to break any of the rules consequences will be faced. Some parents may not agree to the consequences placed upon their kids for breaking these rules, however it is the duty of the school administrators and staff to keep students from being harmed