Education Policy Briefs Vol.2 No. 1—Summer 2004 Zero Tolerance: The Assumptions and the Facts By Russell Skiba n the face of serious incidents of examine that evidence. To what extent are the I violence in our schools in the last decade, the promises and assumptions of zero tolerance borne prevention of school disruption and violence has out by our rapidly increasing knowledge about become a central and pressing concern. Beyond school violence prevention? In this issue… the prevention of deadly violence, we know that teachers cannot teach and students cannot learn in a school climate characterized by disruption. A Fifteen years after the rise of Zero Tolerance: The recently released national survey of middle and zero tolerance ... there is still Assumptions and the high school teachers and parents found almost no credible evidence that zero Facts . .1 universal support for the proposition that schools tolerance suspensions and need good discipline and student behavior in order to flourish; a large majority felt that the school expulsions are an effective Zero Tolerance School method for changing student Discipline . 1 experience of most students suffers at the expense of a few disruptive students.1 Clearly, schools have behavior. What is Zero the right and responsibility to use all effective Tolerance? . .2 means at their disposal to maintain the integrity, productivity, and safety of the learning climate. It should be noted that, unlike future briefing About this, there can be no dispute. Assumptions . .2 - 5 papers, not all of the specific information presented Great controversy has arisen, however, about how in this paper may directly reflect the experience of Summary . 6 to keep schools safe and productive. In the last Indiana’s schools. Indiana has not included an ten to fifteen years, many schools and school explicit reference to zero tolerance in its regulations End Notes . 7 districts have applied a disciplinary policy that has governing school discipline. Much of the rhetoric come to be known as zero tolerance. The about zero tolerance has emerged in political About the Children philosophy of zero tolerance, adapted from the war conversations at the national level; it is difficult to Left Behind Project. 8 on drugs in the late 1980’s (see What is Zero gauge how much that discussion has affected local Tolerance? sidebar on page 2), encourages a no- school practice in Indiana. Nevertheless, we nonsense approach to school discipline, increasing believe that reviewing the national controversy and both the length and numbers of suspensions and the national data about school discipline may expulsions for a broader range of behavior. By provide a useful starting point for educators punishing both serious and less serious disruptions wishing to reflect upon their local experiences. more severely, the goal of zero tolerance is to send More specific information about practices in a message to potential troublemakers that certain Indiana will follow in Briefing Papers 2 and 3 (see behaviors will not be tolerated. About the Children Left Behind Project insert on page 8). Zero tolerance discipline relies upon a certain set The Children Left Behind of assumptions about schools, violence, and the briefing papers and outcomes of discipline. In the period of heightened Zero Tolerance School Discipline: supplementary fear about school-based violence during the 1990’s, What Have We Assumed? What Do information may also be it was not always easy to dispassionately examine We Know? downloaded from the the evidence for different strategies of violence project web site: prevention. It seemed imperative to put an end to Federal educational policy under No Child Left school shootings immediately, and those strategies http://ceep.indiana.edu/ Behind has begun to stress the importance of using promising the shortest route to that goal were often only those educational interventions that are ChildrenLeftBehind/ the most appealing. supported by research-based evidence. Thus, it makes sense to examine the empirical support for In the last few years, however, there has been an a disciplinary practice that has been widely enormous amount of study concerning the most implemented in our schools. Below, we list each promising methods for preventing school violence assumption commonly associated with zero and promoting effective school learning climates. tolerance, briefly review the evidence concerning Unfortunately, much of this evidence has not that assumption, and close with the facts reflecting supported the assumptions that guided the the match between the assumption and the acceptance of zero tolerance discipline in the research-based evidence. 1990’s. The purpose of this briefing paper is to 2 WHAT IS ZERO TOLERANCE? Over time we have come to understand that violence is not rampant in America’s schools, Zero tolerance first received nor does it appear to be increasing. national attention as the title of a program developed in 1986 by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez in San Diego, impounding seagoing vessels carrying any amount of ASSUMPTION ASSUMPTION drugs. U.S. Attorney General School violence is nearing an Zero tolerance increases the Edwin Meese highlighted the epidemic stage, necessitating consistency of school discipline program as a national model in forceful, no-nonsense strategies and thereby sends an important 1988, and ordered customs for violence prevention. message to students. officials to seize the vehicles and property of anyone crossing the It is true that there was a substantial increase Unless an intervention can be implemented border with even trace amounts of in youth violence in the early 1990’s, an with some degree of consistency, it is unlikely drugs, and charge those increase that leveled off in the latter part of that intervention can have a positive effect. individuals in federal court. the decade.3 Advocates of zero tolerance In particular, behavioral psychologists have pointed to the presumed increase in violence argued that punishment, applied in- Beginning in 1989, school districts in schools as a rationale for a newer, tougher consistently, will be ineffective and probably in California, New York, and approach to school safety. lead to a host of side-effects, such as counter- Kentucky picked up on the term aggression. Federal policy in the Gun-Free zero tolerance and mandated Over time, however, we have come to Schools Act of 1994 mandating a one-year expulsion for drugs, fighting, and understand that violence is not rampant in expulsion for firearms appears to have gang-related activity. By 1993, America’s schools, nor does it appear to be increased statewide consistency in response zero tolerance policies had been increasing. Data consistently support the to students bringing weapons to school. But adopted across the country, often assertion of the U.S. Department of zero tolerance has also been extended to a broadened to include not only Education’s Annual Report on School Safety host of other infractions from fighting to drugs drugs and weapons, but also that “The vast majority of America’s schools and alcohol to threats to disruption, and these smoking and school disruption. are safe places.” 4 Serious crimes involving other applications of zero tolerance have gangs, weapons, or drugs constitute less than resulted in a high degree of inconsistency and This tide swept zero tolerance into 10% of the problems cited by principals in controversy.6 national policy when the Clinton their schools; where crimes against students Administration signed the Gun- occur, the majority of incidents appear to be In general, there is wide variation across Free Schools Act of 1994 into law. theft or vandalism, rather than physical states, school districts, and schools in how The law mandates a one-year attacks or threats with a weapon. With a suspension and expulsion are used. Although calendar expulsion for possession school homicide rate of less than one in a student behavior does contribute to the of a firearm, referral of law-violating million, the chances of violent death among probability of discipline, idiosyncratic students to the criminal or juvenile juveniles are almost 40 times as great out of classroom and school characteristics may be justice systems, and the provision school as in school. Nor does there appear more important than student behavior in that state law must authorize the to be any evidence that violence is becoming determining who will be suspended or chief administrative officer of each more prevalent in schools. While shocking expelled. In one study, one-quarter of local school district to modify such and senseless shootings give the impression classroom teachers were found to be expulsions on a case-by-case of dramatic increases in school-related responsible for two-thirds of the referrals to basis. violence, national surveys consistently find the office (see Figure 1 on page 5). School- that school violence has stayed essentially to-school variability in suspension and State legislatures and local school stable or even decreased slightly over time. expulsion are so great that one set of districts have broadened the As noted school violence researcher Irwin investigators concluded that students who mandate of zero tolerance beyond Hyman concludes from an examination of wish to change their chances of being the federal mandates of weapons, these data, “Despite public perceptions to suspended or expelled “will be better off by to drugs and alcohol, fighting, the contrary, the current data do not support