Zero Tolerance Policy in the K-12 United States Education System - Research Paper Example

Zero Tolerance Policy in the K-12 United s Education System The Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) enacted in 1994, inter alia, empowers the educational institutions “to expel from school for a period of not less than one year a student who is determined to have brought a weapon to a school”. In view of the changing environment in the social spectrum and the unprecedented technological developments not even predicted by sociologist and futurist, Alvin Toffler in his Future Shock, it is attempted to seek an answer to the question: Is there is a need to revisit such provisions of this act and the other related acts such as Goals 2000: Educate America Act on account of the inhibiting factors and ominous consequences to the students and their families involved in enforcement of these laws in relation to zero tolerance policy. At the instance of Pennsylvania Parent Teachers Association (PTA), a proposal in relation to zero tolerance policy is being submitted to the Senator Arlen Specter. We expect that his compassion for the students makes him as an advocate in addressing the needs of students. His clout as a senior Senator with wide experience and respectability would be helpful in carrying out the necessary amendments to the act(s). This paper has been prepared after careful study and analysis of the various alternatives, factors involved and the existing policy environment with the recommendations in this respect. Introduction As a torch bearer of democracy and human rights, US is expected to set an example to the world in respect of law related to public policy. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 states that “No assistance may be provided to any local educational agency under this Act unless such agency has in effect a policy requiring the expulsion from school for a period of not less than one year of any student who is determined to have brought a weapon to a school”.  Natural justice warrants consideration of responsibilities in relation to public policy. It is pertinent to note that there are two important questions involved in this issue. Making fire arms available to the student unknowingly by the parents and knowingly or unknowingly by the fire arms dealer deserve primary attention. They are not covered explicitly under the Acts. Secondly, we treat minors differently under this act compared to criminal or other acts. For example, under business law, a minor is not capable of entering into contract, and such contract becomes void. But, the acts under discussion are not consistent with the other acts with regard to the treatment meted out to minors. Under Zero Tolerance Policy, we treat the innocent students as adults without giving due consideration to their age, immaturity and lack of experience or knowledge, and the important consequence could be the black-mark which may haunt them to their grave, in their social life (being idle in home, not attending school), employment (negative factor to employability) and self-respect. Any policy that prevents giving education to children will have adverse effects on the society. The factors related to the issue are multifarious. Uniformity in itself, without taking into account, the social, cultural, economic and psychological factors is not equitable, rather a dangerous precept. Exercising restraint in dealing with the future generation is the need of the hour, considering the pressures they undergo, dilemmas they face in day to day life and the competition from the international community they are already facing. Zero Tolerance – Analysis of the existing policy and its contextual validity Zero Tolerance as a scientific concept is always a costly proposition, even in the case of manufacturing a product, where psychological issues are not involved, as in the case of students. Insistence of zero tolerance in the present form in education to carefree children with exuberance reflects on lack of objectivity on the part of the system. “The Act specifically focused on violence and punishment as mandatory...” (Casella, 2003). Reforming the students, rather than expelling them should be construed as a true ‘reform’. The institutions/teachers are expected to make them as responsible citizens. Federal Government should provide guidelines to the states, broader policy statements and leave the procedural issues to the States, so that they can introduce measures to streamline the system in line with the principle enunciated, keeping in tune with the geographical, social and economic factors which need not necessarily be uniform even within the State. Discrimination The most affected students under the policy are from the economically or socially weaker sections of the society. Fork and Allen (2002) point out “children of low socioeconomic status and ethnic minority groups are suspended or expelled in much larger numbers than the rest of the student population in schools with zero tolerance discipline policies”, and this may have an overtone of racial discrimination. This means economically and socially weaker sections of the society is made to suffer further in giving education to their children, which hampers overall social development and increases disparities in the society. When the classrooms in the schools in backward areas are overcrowded, an element of arbitrariness in implementation of the zero tolerance policy by overzealous teaching community results in heavy drop-outs from the schools. Lack of proper training to the teachers may compound the problems and lead to harassment of the students as well. Hanson (2005, p.297) states “Continuation of zero tolerance policies, as they are presently drawn, has increasingly negative implications, not only for African-Americans whose gains may be greatly eroded but also for our great society at-large”. Interpretation There is a possibility in a heterogeneous society that Zero tolerance is cited as a tool for discrimination, when there is ambiguity in decision making. All are not equal in a capitalistic or in any other society for valid and good reasons. Social status, taxation, privileges and a host of other factors can’t be uniform. Therefore, application of uniform law, at the stage of school education throughout the country irrespective of the unique features of various groups or areas, might create tension and friction in the communities, especially when the actions by institutions happen to fall in a particular pattern even on account of valid reasons. “The term "weapon" means a firearm as such term is defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code (The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). This includes “any destructive device” as per the code. Either lack of knowledge on the part of the student or the school may lead to misinterpretation and suspension of the student, if an object is considered as a threat to the safety of the other children, as it may involve an element of arbitrariness with regard to what is destructive. Skiba (2000) states “In a case in Pennsylvania involving the expulsion of a 13 year old for using a Swiss Army knife as a nail-file, the court ruled against a school district’s mandatory expulsion policy because it allowed no exceptions” referring (Lee, 1999). Zero Tolerance policy is not limited to weapons only, and it extends to drugs/alcohol related and other activities of the students. Schoonover (2007, 231) states “the majority of the 67 school districts in Florida have expanded their use of zero tolerance policies to include infractions other than those that were included to keep guns out of schools”. Including more and more offenses under the purview of zero tolerance policy makes the application of the law arbitrary and difficult. Conn (2004, p.91) states “an Arkansas teenager named Thomas McLaughlin recently settled a lawsuit against the Pulaski County Special School District, which disciplined him for speaking to his classmates about his sexual orientation” There are many instances where the students have been suspended or expelled from the schools even on flimsy grounds citing ‘undesirable behavior’. The cases related to zero tolerance policy have become challenging tasks for the lawyers as well in view of the sweeping and farfetched definition. Schoonover (2007, 232) observes that “Zero tolerance policies and definitions can be so encompassing that judges often rule any behavior that school districts deem undesirable as punishable behaviors that are within the legislative boundaries of the law and therefore subject to severe penalties”. School Education in federal system Confederation of states symbolizes the principle that there is autonomy for states in its governance. When the prerogative of the States is usurped by a Federal law, that too in a sensitive subject like School Education, the results become counterproductive, especially when the students or their families are ignorant of their civil right or lack of financial strength to fight against the injustice. Each state is different in composition of the population based on languages spoken, religions, economy and other cultural and social factors. Skiba (2001, p. 176) observed, “the result is that federal involvement in school discipline takes over the states power to govern its own school system”. Direction and consistency in policy As per the guidelines issued by the National School Readiness Task Force (1991), “School readiness is not determined solely by the abilities and capacities of young children. It is shaped and developed by people and environments. Further, getting ready for school involves helping children in the context of families and improving programs in terms of the morale and skill of their staff members." This is inconsistent with the Zero Tolerance Policy with regard to expulsion which is somewhat silent about the environment. The Federal laws act as shackles to the States in enacting any piece of legislation or to initiate any administrative measures keeping in tune with the needs of the people, when the action is inconsistent with the Federal law. This stifles the process of reform. We need to continuously keep abreast of the developments which may in a vast democratic country like US include conditions peculiar/restricted to different States or even regions within the state. American Psychologist (2008, p.853) states “Although any level of violence and disruption is unacceptable in schools and must be continually addressed in education, the evidence does not support an assumption that violence in schools is out of control or increasing”. Though education is compulsory for all children in the United States, there is difference between state to state with regard to age range covered. The expulsion under zero tolerance policy is inconsistent with the concept of compulsory education. International experience Comparison of the side effects of the zero tolerance policy with the experience in other countries reflects the basic changes needed in the policy to make it more positively effective, by suitably addressing the negative aspects. Fore example, Ontario Human Rights Commission (2010) states “Many interviewees believe that the increased suspension and expulsion of students are having a broad, negative impact on the student, his or her family, the community, and society-at-large. The most commonly identified elements are negative psychological impact, loss of education, higher drop-out rates, and increased criminalization and anti-social behavior”. Analysis of Alternative Options 1. Reserve zero tolerance disciplinary removals for only the most serious and severe of disruptive behaviors. It is one way of mitigating the hardships arising out of pardonable acts of the children. However, what constitutes ‘serious’ is debatable, and it is accentuated by the circumstances of the case. 2. Improve collaborative efforts and communication among schools, and all concerned stakeholders to develop a wide variety of alternatives based on risk behaviors. There are important factors such as type of school, its location, back-ground of the community, average number of students in a class rooms, standards and training level of the teachers that vary from school to school. Policy framework is the cornerstone for the system to be efficient, and therefore, this approach could be supplementary to the formal system. 3. Implement preventive measures that can improve the school climate and reconnect alienated students. The school should be made responsible under law to put a system in place for taking preventive measures, because maintaining a system without statutory authority is difficult.. 4. Expand the array of options available to schools for dealing with disruptive or violent behavior, and in particular, ensure that teachers have the proper training to solve disciplinary problems at the classroom level. The disciplinary process should be handled in stages, viz. Prevention, Counseling, Rehabilitation (or Reform) and Punishment. The system should be backed up by the authority derived from the statutes. 5. Evaluate school discipline or school violence prevention strategies to ensure that all disciplinary interventions, programs, or strategies are truly having an effect on student behavior and school safety (H. Mackey, personal communication, September 25, 2010). The efficacy of the evaluation depends upon existence of a formal system. The acts need to be amended to incorporate the procedure to be followed by the schools in relation to zero tolerance policy. The evaluation made with reference to the prescribed frame work would be meaningful and more effective in ensuring safety at schools. 6. Understanding that not all children are suited for the same learning environment. Instead of simply expelling students, taking students out of the learning environment, and providing alternative schools or school programs (B. Griffith, personal communication, September 29, 2010) This is reasonably a good option which provides an opportunity to the students to continue their education in a new environment. However, there are practical difficulties in providing alternative schools due to factors such as student’s willingness, adjustment to the solution by the families due to economic and other constraints and availability of alternative schools with proper environment. 7. The offenses considered under the purview of zero tolerance policy should be precisely defined for limiting the scope of adding the offenses to the list unilaterally by the school on the basis of undesirable behavior. Going by the various cases, we can understand that it is important to precisely define the offenses which attract expulsion/punishment to avoid misuse or misinterpretation of law by the teachers/schools. The above discussion on alternative options shapes up the scope of the amendments to the acts that may be necessary for achieving the desired objectives or goals. Policy Recommendations The paper is in appreciation of the principles and the spirit behind the zero tolerance policy. The proposals are only with reference to the modus operandi in relation to the implementation of the policy in achieving the objectives envisaged, without diluting the essence of the acts, by delegating authority to States to enable them to formulate procedures in the education system, taking into account the factors which may vary from State to State and within the state in various regions. Broadly, the following features may be considered which may necessitate amendments to the sections, sub-sections or definitions as the case may be. Recommendations for necessary amendments to the act has been considered, after careful analysis of various alternatives, keeping tune with the concept of ‘acting with restraint’ in the case of students, before expelling them from schools under zero tolerance policy with the underlying ‘principles of natural justice’. Preventive Action The act should introduce provisions for making the schools responsible for prevention, rather than punishing the students under zero tolerance policy. The schools should put in place a system for through check-up of the students, for example through metal detectors or some other means, before entering into the campus. When certain students are identified for bringing into the campus any type of arms, drugs or other implements that may cause damage to the other students or environment, it the responsibility of the schools to tighten the monitoring process with additional attention in respect of these students. In fact, the schools should be warned and/or punished if they fail to strictly enforce this procedure which may result into damages. Counseling The students identified in the checking process should be given counseling. Their parents should also be involved in counseling. Any action taken prior to giving counseling or giving information to the parents should be viewed as inconsistent with the policy, unless the specific act on the part of the student warrants disciplinary action at this stage. Rehabilitation The students based on militancy exhibited under the circumstances after counseling should be made to undergo suitable rehabilitation course, and the modalities of which may be worked out at State level for the schools in the states. Rehabilitation centers (Level I) may be established for this purpose for admitting the students, if the rehabilitation exercise at the school level is found to be ineffective. Punishment Punishment should be the last resort, and for this purpose an enquiry should be conducted by a tripartite committee comprising representatives of the Parent Teachers Association, School and Education Department Officials of the State at proper level, after giving opportunity to the student to explain his case. However in order to ensure that the student’s education is not impaired, special rehabilitation centers (Level II) in every school district for such students could be established to make them continue their education in their chosen fields with expert guidance and monitoring. The various stages involved before punishing the student, which may involve expulsion from the school, reflects fairness in treatment. This process would also inculcate a sense of satisfaction to the parents and the communities with regard to the underlying justice in the action taken as there is no room for discrimination in the process. It is also important to note that the students and their parents will respect the system which is reasonable. The President Obama’s call “to fulfill education reforms that move past partisanship to offer every American a complete and competitive education” and his promise "Well give our students, workers and businesses every chance to succeed, and we will secure this century as the next American century" (Condon, 2010) reflect the spirit of the Government’s thinking. Parent Teacher Association Mission statement of Pennsylvania PTA states: PTA Mission: The overall purpose of PTA A powerful voice for all children, A relevant resource for families and communities, and A strong advocate for the education and well-being of every child. PTA voices for all children and advocates for the education and well-being of every child. Parents and teachers are the important stakeholders in zero tolerance policy. Involvement of PTA in legislation process as well as in the implementation stage at all levels is very important. Likely public reactions to the proposals Only uniform education policy for the nation as a whole will ensure advancement in education Ignoring cultural background of a community in implementing a program or policy citing uniformity as a means of securing unity in diversity cannot muster support of the people. Identity of a cultural group is felt threatened when victims predominantly belong to the same group, even if the system is implemented impartially. Unity in diversity could be achieved only through appreciating the cultural background of the communities on sensitive issues. McIntire (2010) states “principals and superintendents have lost their discretion to determine an appropriate response based on an investigation of what really happened. This is unfortunate, and for many children with disabilities, damaging”. Relaxation of the policy will dilute the standards American Psychologist (2008, p.834) referred ‘Although the assumption is strongly intuitive, data on a number of indicators of school climate have shown the opposite effect, that is, that schools with higher rates of school suspension and expulsion appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school climate (Bickel & Qualls, 1980), to have less satisfactory school governance structures (Wu et al., 1982), and to spend a disproportionate amount of time on disciplinary matters (Scott & Barrett, 2004). However, it cannot be argued that the zero tolerance is totally ineffective in application, and this policy is essential for safety in schools. Therefore, recommendations are in tune with the fast changing environment. With internet, mobile and the other latest technologies available to the students, the nature of offenses undergoes changes. For striking at the root cause of the problem, the law/schools should concentrate more on preventive measures. Also, these students need rehabilitative measures for their positive integration into the society. Only Punishments encourage discipline in schools Guidance and counseling plays an important role in inculcating discipline in the younger generation, rather than punishment or fear of it. Rigorous punishment such as expulsion from school even for few months is likely to put them in a path to disaster as it means ‘point of no return’ in the student’s life. Funding by the Federal Government needs to have uniform procedures “The GFSA was tied to at least twelve billion dollars in federal funding for the implementation of ZT policies through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.” (Skiba and Peterson, 1999) Also, funds are provided to schools under Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (1994) for preventing the unlawful possession, use or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students. Neisner (2002, p.17) states that “In the opinion of the both students and principals, according to GAO’s discussions in 18 schools, drug and alcohol abuse among school-age children would be worse without the federally funded program’. But, it is a misnomer to say that ‘Federal Funding’ should be based on common procedures irrespective of the needs of the various States/societies which comprise diverse groups of people on various lines such as culture, religion, language and economy. As long as there is clarity in the objective and the underlying principles, broad policy guidelines should enable the states to introduce suitable measures in line with the national aspirations as expounded in the Federal policy statement. Evaluation of performance as reflected in the statistics in respect of juvenile criminality of the various states would reveal the advantages and disadvantages of the measures taken by the different states in dealing with the situation, for the other States to learn from their experience. Conclusion When the students are expelled by the reason that they are unfit to be taught in schools under zero tolerance policy, there are serious implications to the community/society at large, because their future is not guided by education. If the expulsions under the policy remain unchecked, we create a group which could easily turn into antisocial elements and become burden to the society by taking up the weapons for which there is already a record on them. Therefore, they should be integrated into the society and not alienated or isolated from the society at young stage. Further research on the students who have been expelled from the schools, with regard to their way of life, employment, advancement in carrier if they are employed, their contribution to the welfare of the society and their level of integration with the community/society may prove to be an eye opener for carrying out the reform process on priority basis. It is imperative that the integration of these students into the society overweighs the expulsion from schools without reforming these students for making them law abiding and responsible citizens. The standards of education contemplated in a progressive society are not limited to individual achievements, ignoring welfare of the society at large. The school provides the right environment for them to interact with their equals, because the prejudices on account of social status, ethnic and economic background are very limited among the friends in schools, and a policy with restraint could refine these students and make them contribute to the growth of the nation. References American Psychologist (2008) Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, the American Psychological Association. December 2008 Vol. 63, No. 9, 852–862 Retrieved on October 29, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policies in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 872-892. Condon, S. (2010) Obama Makes Appeal for Education Reform "That Works", CBS News, February 22, 2010 Retrieved on October 29, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6231479-503544.html Conn, K. (2004). Bullying and harassment: A legal guide for educators, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Allexandria VA. Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, Sec.14601 Fun-free requirements (b)(1) Retrieved on September 2, 2010 Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/GFSA/appendixa.html Hanson, A. L. (2005) Have Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies Turned into a Nightmare? The American Dream’s Promise of Equal Educational Opportunity Grounded in Brown v. Board of Education UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy Vol. 9:2 pp.289-379 Retrieved on October 28, 2010. Retrieved from http://jjlp.law.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-9-no-2/02%20Hanson%20final.pdf McIntire (2010) "No Child Left Behind" and Zero Tolerance -- An Incongruity, Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Retrieved on October 28, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=1252&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm Neisner, J. A. (2002) The Safe and Drug-free Schools and Communities Act, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Editor Noble, P. V. Chapter 2. pp.9-18. Novinka Books, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Ney York. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (1993), Integrating Community Services for Young Children and Their Families, School Readiness, Retrieved on October 27, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/93-3read.htm Ontario Human Rights Commission (2010) THE ONTARIO SAFE SCHOOLS ACT: School Discipline And Discrimination. Retrieved on October 28, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/discussion_consultation/SafeSchoolsConsultRepENG Pennsylvania PTA. PTA Vision, Retrieved on October, 27, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.papta.org/142010128142021973/site/default.asp Skiba, R. T. (2000). Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice, Policy Research Report #SRS2 August, 2000. Retrieved on October 27, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf Skiba, R. J. (2001). Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools. pp. 176-187. NY: New Press. Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372-382. Retrieved on September 2, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kski9901.html Schoonover, B. J. (2007) The Application, Consequences, and Alternatives to Zero Tolerance Policies in Florida Schools, 7637, Proceedings of Persistently Safe Schools: The 2007 National Conference on Safe Schools, University of Florida. pp. 231-241Retrieved on October 28, 2010 Retrieved from. http://gwired.gwu.edu/hamfish/merlin-cgi/p/downloadFile/d/19163/n/off/other/1/name/033pdf/ The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) Sec. 8001 (a)(1) Gun-free requirements. Retrieved on October 27, 2010. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/sec1032.html Read More