The Negative Consequences Of Zero Tolerance Policies

A recent influx of violence has impacted public schools throughout the United States causing school leaders to make school safety a leading priority. Zero tolerance policies were implemented in the early 1990’s, in an effort to reduce school violence. These policies generally require an out-of-school suspension or expulsion for a variety of behaviors. The chief administrators of the district have the authority to modify the expulsion requirement for students on a case-by-case basis. Zero tolerance policies are still a controversial topic to educators in America.

Supporters of the zero tolerance policies believe they are necessary to keep the learning environment safe for students. They also think that zero tolerance policies will help prepare children for the real world, in the sense that if you make a mistake there are unavoidable consequences. Supporters believe zero tolerance reduces

Opponents of the policies argue that there is no clear definition of what is constituted as a weapon, such as a rubber band. Most critics do not think that these policies work because it prevents children from getting a public education and causes some of them to face legal charges for relatively minor offenses. These students are also more likely to drop out of high school (Kang-Brown).

There are questions concerning those who oppose these policies, such as whether school leaders are going too far and moving too quick with their no chances approach and are school leaders’ actions reasonable and legally defensible. Benjamin Ratner’s case is a good example of moving too quickly, going too far, and having unreasonable actions. Ratner was helping a suicidal friend by taking away her knife yet he was reprimanded for it (Essex).

On the one hand Zero Tolerance Policies are a great way to help keep the learning environment safe for all students. Also children can learn that not following the rules can have very dire