In recent years, schools continue to look for ways to effectively discipline children for
major and minor behavior problems. Zero tolerance has been the most used form of discipline to
date. Schools began using zero tolerance in the 1980s as a result of acts of violence in schools
that left school officials and students feeling unprotected. These policies were originally put in
place for protection against guns and weapons. Over the years the policies have been revised and
have become more problematic than presumed. Are zero tolerance policies in school harming
students rather than helping? Recent studies have come to show that in order for children to get
an education, they must remain in a school setting. This cannot happen if students are unable
to remain in school due to minor offenses. Zero tolerance policies should be revised because
it can punish the well-intended.
To emphasize, while zero tolerance policies were once only used for major offenses, now
the policies are used for minor offenses as well, resulting in suspension and expulsion. Garman
and Walker reveal the solution most commonly used is the zero-tolerance policy (289+). The
solution of zero-tolerance policy has become useful to school administrators that are over
stressed and over worked because it takes the work out individual decision making and applying
one rule to every situation no matter the differences ( Garman Walker 289+). Martinez observes
that the zero tolerance policy is misused and when implemented, usually leads to suspension or
expulsion (153+). Martinez scrutinizes that “using this policy to suspend and expel students-
thus excluding them from receiving an education- does not benefit anyone” (153+). Garman
and Walker argue that the result of a child bringing an item to school that school officials apply
to the policy, is the student being suspended for a certain period of time or, in some severe cases,
expelled (289+).
In the beginning, zero-tolerance policies were pre-determined and used for certain acts of
misbehavior (Browne-Dianis 24). Now the policies were being used to implement minor
offenses. For example, ten year old Shannon Coslet from Twin Peaks Charter School in
Colorado was expelled due to Shannon’s mother placing a small knife in her bag to peel an apple
(Garman and Walker 289+). Garman and Walker reveal that when Shannon realized she had the
knife, she turned it in to her teacher, to be expelled as a result of the zero-tolerance policy
(289+). Browne-Dianis reviews that in 2000, Rev. Jesse Jackson protested about a very harsh
punishment handed down to seven African American male students (24). The students were
involved in an altercation at a high school football game in Decatur, Illinois (Browne-Dianis 24).
The seventeen second altercation involved no weapons; however, the school board used
its zero-tolerance policy and suspended all seven boys for two consecutive years (Browne-Dianis
24). Brown-Dianis argues that in the ten years, zero tolerance has become a large quantity
of harsh rules and penalties that eliminate youth from school and learning for a very slim
range of misbehaviors, even the most basic (24). Rodriguez reveals that Lindsay Tanner
was a normal eighth grade honor student that loved hanging with friends and shopping (469+).
Nevertheless, Lindsay’s life changed drastically after offering a Midol pill to a classmate
(Rodriguez 469+). Rodriguez reveals that because of the zero-tolerance policy in place at
Lindsay’s school, she was immediately expelled and treated as if she was in possession of a
controlled substance (469+).Stuart indicates that “the phrases “habitual truant, incorrigible,
continuously disruptive, and detrimental to health and safety” allow for students to be
dismissed from school for a very broad spectrum of low-level offenses” (469+). Research has
shown a link