Zero-tolerance policies in schools
Public criticism against such policies has arisen because of the punishments the schools mete out when students break the rules in ignorance, by accident, or under extenuating circumstances.
[3][4][5] In some jurisdictions, zero-tolerance policies have come into conflict with freedom of religion rules already in place allowing students to carry, for example, kirpans.
In the "kids for cash" scandal, judge Mark Ciavarella, who promoted a platform of zero-tolerance, received kickbacks for constructing a private prison that housed juvenile offenders, and then proceeded to fill the prison by sentencing children to extended stays in juvenile detention for offenses as minimal as mocking a principal on Myspace, scuffles in hallways, trespassing in a vacant building, and shoplifting DVDs from Walmart.
The documentary Kids for Cash, interviews experts on adolescent behavior, who argue that the zero-tolerance model has become a dominant approach to policing juvenile offenses after the Columbine shooting.
[26] The American Bar Association finds that the evidence indicates that minority children are the most likely to suffer the negative consequences of zero-tolerance policies.
This is intended as a behavior modification strategy: since those at risk know that it may operate unfairly, they may be induced to take even unreasonable steps to avoid breaking the rule.
This is a standard policy in rule- and law-based systems around the world on "offenses" as minor as traffic violations to major health and safety legislation for the protection of employees and the environment.
[36] Under this argument, if subjective judgment is not allowed, most attempts by the authorized person to encourage bribes or other favors in exchange for leniency are clearly visible.
[41] Another criticism is that the zero-tolerance policies have actually caused schools to turn a blind eye to bullying, resulting in them refusing to solve individual cases in an attempt to improve their image.
[42] A particularly dismaying hypothesis about zero-tolerance policies is that they may actually discourage some people from reporting criminal and illegal behavior, for fear of losing relationships, and for many other reasons.
Students who experience suspension, expulsion and arrests pay higher psychological and social costs such as depression, suicidal thoughts, and academic failure, and run the risk of being incarcerated as adults.
[47] Research found that black, Latino, and white adults with low educational attainment risked a higher propensity of being incarcerated in their lifetime (Pettit & Western 2010).
That showed that incarceration rates of people with low levels of education were continuing to rise and that students were not completing their high school requirements.
For less severe infractions, the American Psychological Association (APA) provided alternatives to zero-tolerance policies to ensure that students are not denied their opportunity to learn.
