Youth violence in schools has been an especially focal issue in the public, political, and global perspective for the past decades. In the attempt to control, deter, and punish deviant youth, zero tolerance policies in different schools, districts, counties, and states emerged. “The term has since come to describe this nation’s approach to policing discipline in its public schools—a nondiscretionary approach that mandates a set of often-severe, predetermined consequences to student misbehavior that is to be applied without regard to seriousness of behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context” (Aull, 2012, p. 182). These facially neutral policies resulted in institutionalized discrimination where there has been a pattern of “ racial
…show more content…
This policy envisions an overall improved and exemplary reform to discipline students in the school setting.
History
Racial inequalities within the school system have been present before and after the emergence of zero tolerance policies. Several factors led to the implementation of reinforcing strict student discipline to deter youth violence and protect students. Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969, extended students the right to free-speech and due-process. Years later, this right to free-speech became problematic, when that free-speech posed possible threats to the well-being of surrounding students and staff. Thus “the judicial expansion of student rights prompted schools to rely less on their judgment and discretion when establishing discipline policies” (Dunn, 2013) promoting an inclination towards zero-tolerance policies. What initiated the plethora of school districts to establish policies of their own was the passing of the Gun Free …show more content…
The intent of this policy was to promote a safe school environment and reduce the possible risk of in-school homicide and violence. It stated “any school district that receives federal funding is required to punish students bringing a firearm to school with mandatory expulsion for one calendar year” (Feinstein, 1997). Shortly after this policy was implemented, public fear arose following the Columbine shooting of 1999. Zero-tolerance policies were not only supported but also seen as a vital necessity on school grounds by the public, students, parents, school staff, superintendents and stakeholders. These policies extended the weapons terms, “state laws permit[ed] or require[d] suspension or expulsion of children for conduct such as disruptive behavior, willful defiance of authority, or gross disobedience. In some instances, profanity [was] enough to warrant removal from school” ( Browne, et all, 2001). Hoffmant also mentions that “committing multiple violations in the same school year, a closely related “three-strikes” disciplinary policy” emerged as other mandated suspension codes under zero-tolerance policies. Unacceptably termed behavior wasn’t the only factor that expanded. The learning gaps between races in school also became more apparent as zero-tolerance policies were in effect. According to
This policy envisions an overall improved and exemplary reform to discipline students in the school setting.
History
Racial inequalities within the school system have been present before and after the emergence of zero tolerance policies. Several factors led to the implementation of reinforcing strict student discipline to deter youth violence and protect students. Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969, extended students the right to free-speech and due-process. Years later, this right to free-speech became problematic, when that free-speech posed possible threats to the well-being of surrounding students and staff. Thus “the judicial expansion of student rights prompted schools to rely less on their judgment and discretion when establishing discipline policies” (Dunn, 2013) promoting an inclination towards zero-tolerance policies. What initiated the plethora of school districts to establish policies of their own was the passing of the Gun Free …show more content…
The intent of this policy was to promote a safe school environment and reduce the possible risk of in-school homicide and violence. It stated “any school district that receives federal funding is required to punish students bringing a firearm to school with mandatory expulsion for one calendar year” (Feinstein, 1997). Shortly after this policy was implemented, public fear arose following the Columbine shooting of 1999. Zero-tolerance policies were not only supported but also seen as a vital necessity on school grounds by the public, students, parents, school staff, superintendents and stakeholders. These policies extended the weapons terms, “state laws permit[ed] or require[d] suspension or expulsion of children for conduct such as disruptive behavior, willful defiance of authority, or gross disobedience. In some instances, profanity [was] enough to warrant removal from school” ( Browne, et all, 2001). Hoffmant also mentions that “committing multiple violations in the same school year, a closely related “three-strikes” disciplinary policy” emerged as other mandated suspension codes under zero-tolerance policies. Unacceptably termed behavior wasn’t the only factor that expanded. The learning gaps between races in school also became more apparent as zero-tolerance policies were in effect. According to