Zero-Tolerance Policy in Schools Essay Sample

The beginnings of the Zero-Tolerance policy in schools were established and codified by federal law in 1990 known as the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The 1990 Act was set up to ensure no one would be able to bring a gun into schools and carry out acts of violence, like school shootings. From this act, zero-tolerance policies were created in an attempt to strictly enforce school bans on firearms, drugs, or other items not allowed within the school. These rules became more common after 1994 when federal legislation was made to expel students who brought a firearm on campus. Due to the 1994 Act, the creation and intended purpose of Zero-Tolerance policies centers on equal punishments for wrongdoing regardless of circumstances or other factors.  The effectiveness of Zero-Tolerance rules has aroused controversy due to being applied in circumstances that did not revolve around firearms or illegal substances. Some of the circumstances involved punishing students who were being physically attacked and tried to defend themselves or even biting into a Pop-Tart that looked like a knife. These cases held students legally accountable without allowing for self-defense clauses and due process on their behalf.  Since the enforcement of these policies resulted in students being suspended or expelled for certain actions that can be considered asinine, the social and emotional impact is noted as being incredibly negative on their welfare, especially in the area of peer relationships.

A child, regardless of age, ought to feel safe in an educational environment and not feel threatened either by staff or fellow students. However, peer relationships have been especially fraught under these policies marked as ‘Zero-Tolerance’ as observed in certain schools’ responses to those being bullied. Some schools, as a response under zero-tolerance policies, have often suspended or expelled the victim of a bullying incident for defending themselves. When not suspending or expelling victims of bullying incidents, schools have turned blind eyes to incidents of bullying in an attempt to bolster their image. In such environments, bullying victims will often not report incidents in fear of reprisals by fellow students and are often not believed by adults when threatened as a result. In general, under zero-tolerance, an unsafe environment for bullied victims is commonly observed, especially when threats of retaliation are made by the bully or the victim being punished for trying to protect themselves. 

An understanding of peer relationships at an adolescent stage is also key to understanding why Zero-Tolerance policies commonly fall short of their intended purpose. As suggested from the textbook, children considered at-risk will often befriend those who behave aggressively much like themselves. A noted consequence of zero-tolerance policies is commonly suspension or expulsion for the act of wrongdoing perpetrated. The suspended or expelled student is then more likely to have similar outcomes to at-risk youth,  which is noted as a result of being isolated from their average peer groups due to the received punishment. Due to the alienation of average peer groups that occurs for the punished student, depression often occurs at a higher rate than among the general population, especially when placed in juvenile detention. This is also commonly seen in already at-risk youth, let alone one placed in such a position by these Zero-Tolerance policies. Zero-Tolerance policies, therefore, operate under equality of punishment that falls short of what is initially intended.

The Zero-Tolerance policies often also forget that an average adolescent might do risky behaviors not out of genuine malice, but out of a need to impress one’s peers. To the average adolescent, peer approval is essential for their likability and popularity within their peer groups. Risk-taking behavior is thus commonly observed amongst adolescents as they have not matured senses of risk perception and impulse control. Considering risk-taking behaviors involve poor decision-making that results in committing infractions in school,  Zero-Tolerance policies often have a long-term negative impact on adolescents who are unable to control their impusles, to begin with. The long-term negative impacts center on increased feelings of depression and suicidal thoughts later on in adulthood often observed in those punished under Zero-Tolerance’s heavy-handed and developmentally inappropriate policies. Consequently. an adolescent who has not breached the school’s safety and is punished for minor acts of wrongdoing disproportionately will likely continue engaging in delinquency. 

Zero-Tolerance policies have originated from federal legislation centered on school safety, appearing on the educational landscape in 1994, touting equal punishment for anyone involved in school-related infractions. However, enforcement has been accused as heavy-handed for actual and perceived infractions by legal courts at best and at worst, violating a student’s right to due process. The policy has failed those already vulnerable, bullying victims, by either punishing them for defending themselves from attack or ignoring their plights to secure the school’s reputation. Threats of retaliation by the bully, which is also supposed to be prevented by the police, have gone dismissed as well, failing victims even further. Consequently, peer relationships have been rendered fraught by these policies by making those not already considered at risk have similar outcomes to those who are. Summarily, the Zero-Tolerance policy centered on allowing for school safety but often held a negative impact on peer relationships, especially on adolescents who do not have developmental maturity to grasp consequences quite yet due to lack of impulse control and future assessment skills.