More handpicked essays just for you.
How to prevent behavior problems in the classroom
Introduction to zero tolerance in schools essays
Managing behavior within the classroom
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.
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
Toma 2
administration as part of their enactment of the War on Drugs initiation. Several schools embraced the policy as a way of deterring drugs on their campuses. Although when the policy became a law when Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Act of 1989 was passed by congress (Wattleton). For countless amount of years, hundreds of schools began to adopt the policy as part of their regulations when it came to the punishment of a student. The ...
... middle of paper ...
... Inc., 2009. 254. Print.
Kajs, Lawrence. "Education Research Quarterly." Academic
Premier. N.p., june 2006. Web. 12 Apr 2011.
Lorenz, Aaron. "Public Integrity." 12.3 (2010): n. pag. Web. 10
Apr 2011.
Shelden, Randall. Schools As "Day Prisons" and "Zero
Tolerance" Policies. Boston: 2009. 289-91. Print.
Toma 9
Skiba, Russell. Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence. 1st Ed.
Indiana: Brown, 2000. eBook.
Stovall, David, and Natalia Delgado. "New Directions for
Youth Development." 2.125 Aug 2009. 67-81. EBSCO Host.
Database. 27 Feb 2011.
Wattie, Chris. "Water Balloon Hijinks result in assault charge;
Teacher 'was wet'." National Post. Canwest, 24 Jul 2001.
Web. 5 Apr 2011.
Wattleton, Alyce. "Zero Tolerance - Further Readings."
American Law and Legal Information. Net Industries, 2011.
Web. 18 Apr 2011.
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
If you did not know, the zero tolerance policy is when students break school behavior rules and strict regulations created by the district or school and get severe consequences for it. Carla Amurao, the author of the article, “Fact Sheet: How Bad Is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?”, stated that “statistics reflect that these policies disproportionately target students of color”. Students of color are being affected so badly by this policy, that statistics show black students are 3 times more likely to get expelled than white students. Since these students are being expelled or arrested for breaking zero tolerance policy rules, they are missing valuable information in classes due to court hearings. But, some people argue that the zero tolerance policy is unfair to all students, making the education system equal for all to succeed. For example, a “2007 study by the Advancement Project and the Power U Center for Social Change says that for every 100 students who were suspended, 15 were Black, 7.9 were American Indian, 6.8 were Latino and 4.8 were white”. As you can see, the zero tolerance policy affects all races, making them miss their education because of certain consequences. Because the mindset of these people is that, if the zero-tolerance policy does not affect just one race or group of people, then the education system
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,
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).
In all grades of education, from kindergarten to college, there is a form of discipline known as a zero tolerance policy. While the exact wording is different from school to school, basically a zero tolerance policy means that a student is immediately suspended, asked to attend an alternative school, or expelled if they are suspected or caught doing certain things. These policies are in place to hopefully deter students from doing drugs or being violent, but the ethics behind them are questionable. Some research has shown that these policies may not even work, and other forms of discipline would be better suited to help students. The three main activities that result in the zero tolerance policy are being caught with drugs or alcohol, being caught with a weapon, and bullying.
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.
Schools are safe places. However, the American public has become increasingly concerned with crime in schools and the safety of students. In part, this concern has been shaped by the highly publicized acts ...
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).
When people think of the term “juvenile delinquency” they may think of the extreme regulations some schools have begun to enact upon individual students in response to major issues such as bullying and school shootings. Criminal prosecution seems to have become the normality in many bullying cases these days as some students can find themselves being suspended for making guns out of paper, or even drawing a gun. Though these “no tolerance” policies that some schools have come up with in order to prevent delinquency from happening may help deter these negative behaviors in some circumstances they are in no way a practical solution, overall.
During drug testing, school officials stand outside of the bathroom door listening to students urinate making sure there is no tampering with the specimens. In a situation like that anyone can become uncomfortable. Students should trust their school officials and go to them with their problems, even if it is drug related. Officials standing guard while they use the restroom, discourages them to seek help from the officials. Also, if the test showed positive results, questioning students about prescription medications they use, follow the positive result. This means that students have to disclose their private information (taking antidepressants or birth control) to schools. The legal status of the policy is questionable due to invading privacy. Many parents have filed lawsuits against school districts over their student drug testing policies. This means that, “schools electing to drug test their students are subject to tremendous legal liability” (“Preface to ’Should”). Laws vary in almost all the states. In some states judges of their Supreme Court have banned it. With the questionable legal status and invading the privacy of students, it is not ok for schools to have these types of
Schools are drug testing students to prove their doing illegal drugs. Fifty percent of test givers say that they used illicit drugs at least once ("Drug Testing"). Even people who give tests have also taken drugs themselves. In 2013, 7.4 percent of high school reported non-medical use of prescription stimulant adderall in the past year ("Do all"). Also over 35 percent of students report using marijuana in the last year. That's why 1,000 schools around the country have implemented random draw testing ("Should Schools"). Schools are doing more and more drug testing. In 2002 the supreme court ruled that random school drug testing is constitutional, so more schools have adopted the practice of drug testing ("Should Schools"). Drug use among High School students has dropped since 2001 ("Do all"). Some students have even stopped using drugs because of drug testing at school.
Thousands of schools suspend students for their wrong doings, but is it really the right way to handle the situation? Many parents and school boards realize the struggle of suspending students some think children would benefit crucially and others say it is upsetting their learning process. Although, students have shown to change their misbehavior after suspension. This punishment should not be incorporated into schools because it causes unneeded pressure on the minor, allows the student to feel rewarded, and enables them to find an understanding to what they did wrong.
I think mandatory drug test school take place in the school to keep kids safe. The administrators are in charged with keeping the students safe, supportive, and a healthy school environment. So if that means to drug test to keep drugs out of the school I think it should be done. Students see their friends doing drugs at school makes them want to try it.
The issue of school safety has become a controversial topic in the United States, due to tragic acts of violence occurring on a daily basis. American citizens should never have to cope with the negative impact of school violence, no matter how often they hear about the tragedies (Jones, "Parents" 1). In the past, schools were viewed as a safe place for children to get an education. Recently, the concern over violence in schools has taken a toll on many parents, school administrators, and legislatures (Eckland 1). Studies have shown that there are over 3 million acts of violence in American public schools each year. Not all occurrences are serious and deadly, but they occur on a daily basis throughout our country (Jones, “School” 6). This has caused many parents to worry about the well-being of their children while they are in class. This has also led to an increase in questions and concerns by parents and guardians. Many people have asked, “What are you doing about safety and security on my child’s campus” (Schimke 2). School violence is the cause of elevated worry and fear for their children, and school districts should enforce better security.