(Editor's note: I was going to go with a piece written about the Hall of Fame inductions of two of my favorite Redskins, Darrell Green and Art Monk, but changed my mind after reading some of the derogatory comments about sportswriters in the article. Seeing as I cover high school games these days, my opinion on typewriter jockeys is now a work in progress :) Anyhow, it looks like I'll be taking a seminar on legal issues this summer, so it seemed like a good excuse to go back and examine one or two old writings on educational legal issues. This was a piece on "zero tolerance" composed for a spirited debate for my School Law class at U. VA. For the record, I believe our team won that debate.)
In spite of the negative connotation the two words cause, there is a place for "zero tolerance" policies in schools today. I believe that the three main reasons for this are as follows. First, when one looks at the climate within schools today, it is obvious that a zero tolerance policy is necessary to ensure school safety. Secondly, statistics show that zero tolerance policies are successful. Finally, in awareness of the extreme consequences which have occurred under this policy, court decisions have been made which give school administrators more discretion to enforce the policy while using common sense.
To understand the need for "zero tolerance," one must understand the events which caused its formation. Popular theory suggests that the policy started about 15 years ago, but as a generation celebrates the 40th anniversary of the "Summer of Love," one must remember the behaviors that made the summer of 1967 memorable for its participants. Certainly, the music has left a lasting impression, but others expressed themselves through free love and illegal drug use. When Richard Nixon became president, he took a look at the youth of America, and decided that they were having too much fun. With this in mind, Nixon's "war on drugs" was launched in 1969. As far as schools are concerned, zero tolerance policies began to evolve in the late 1980's. In 1989, school districts in California and Kentucky introduced policies that mandated expulsion for drug possession, or participation in gang-related activity. In Yonkers, N.Y., the program included restricted access to schools, a ban on hats, immediate suspension for any school disruption and increased use of law enforcement. Within a four year period leading into the early 1990's, zero tolerance had become a way of life in educational institutions. With Congress' passing of the Gun-Free Schools Act in 1994, the zero tolerance policy had reached a national level.
The Gun-Free Act required states that receive federal funds to expel any student who brought a weapon to school for at least one calendar year. It also required state provisions permitting the local school superintendent to modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis. This allowed states, such as Virginia, to enact their own statutes. In many cases, like with Virginia, the altering of zero tolerance policies gave more leverage to individual schools and administrators. Partly because of this newer legislation, which promoted common sense, especially where guns and drugs are concerned, we see several reasons why some form of "zero tolerance" policy is necessary.
The truths are these. Society is not safe. There have been cases of students bringing guns to schools. Students do abuse drugs. Violence, especially with the emergence off gangs such as MS-13 in Virginia, is becoming a more common way for young people to resolve conflicts. This may not be encouraging news, but it is the reality of life in the 21st century school. Zero tolerance policies in schools make them safer, and schools have to provide students with a place that protects them. In the absence of a safe environment, the ability to educate students is compromised.
The important aspect is to continue to realize why we need this policy. Last year, as reported on CNN and other national news organizations, two Long Island teenagers were taken into custody. They were arrested on charges of plotting a terrorist attack at their Suffolk County high school complete with a "hit list" of specific students. Their attack, which would have used guns and homemade explosives, was scheduled to coincide with the 9th anniversary of the Columbine H.S. massacre, and was to occur sometime around April 20, 2008. Columbine's immediate impact on "copycatters" was obvious six "would be" assassins were caught in one ten day period of 2001 alone. The fact that Columbine is still noteworthy NINE years after the tragedy is bone chilling, and should speak volumes about the seriousness of the episode, as well as for the need of zero tolerance.
Does the policy work? History says it does indeed work; unfortunately, the public eye is blinded by visions of overzealous principals.
In Texas, a survey found that from 1993 to 1998, the percentage of teachers who viewed assaults on students as a "significant problem" dropped 22 points, from 53 to 31, after beginning their zero tolerance policy. In Baltimore, an aggressive zero tolerance law produced a 30 percent drop in student assaults on other students and a 50 percent drop in student assaults on teachers and staff IN ITS FIRST YEAR! Also, in its first year with the policy, Granite City H.S. in Illinois reported a 60 percent drop in student expulsions. The National School Safety and Security Services notes the false perception given by zero tolerance critics and comments in its opinion report on zero tolerance that the "vast majority" of school administrators strive for firm, fair, and consistent discipline.
It is important to recognize that the applications of zero-tolerance policies have gone overboard on several occasions and I do not condone a long-term suspension for a six year old who brings a nail clipper or an Advil to school. Admittedly, a few administrators have taken the definition of zero tolerance to extreme levels. But, in almost all cases, this is a successful policy. It is unfair to base a judgment on several rare, but highly publicized events.
However, when the policy has been put to the test in court, decisions have backed up the school administrator. In Brian A. v. Stroudsburg Area School District (2001), a federal district court considered the case of a 15-year-old student who was expelled because he wrote a note stating, "There's a Bomb in this School bang bang!" Being three weeks after Columbine, the matter was taken seriously. In making their decision to expel the student, school officials considered the fact that the student was already on probation because of blowing up a shed on the property of another school. The court held that the schools act of expelling the student was a reasonable response.
In another case, Lovell v. Poway Unified School District (1996), a federal appeals court considered the appropriateness of the suspension of a 15-year-old student who threatened to shoot her school counselor because of unhappiness with her schedule. Like Brian A., the student said she was not serious and apologized for what she called "merely uttering a figure of speech." Still, the counselor felt a real threat and the suspension was upheld in court. In its comments, the court noted "in light of the violence prevalent in schools today, school officials are justified in taking very seriously student threats against faculty or other students."
There are several truths about zero tolerance which the general public may not be fully aware of. First of all, school officials have been held liable for failing to protect students from foreseeable harm (e.g. Eisel v. Board of Educ. 1991). In the Eisel case, a school counselor was made aware of suicidal statements made by a student, who then died in a murder-suicide pact with a friend. Second, the zero tolerance policy is legal. In 1985's case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court was forced to address the constitutionality of student searches as a violation of the 4th Amendment. By a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that the rights of children and adolescents are not the same as adults and that school officials have a responsibility to maintain the discipline necessary for education. Third, the flexibility within the policy allows for school administrators to discipline the true offenders while remaining sensible to the less serious and accidental violations. The policy has been altered from the "one size fits all" that many people still believe exists. Finally, the practice of zero tolerance works because the "due process" rights of a student are not violated. One well known example of this comes from Goss v. Lopez (1975), in which the court noted that minimum due process must be provided before a student is suspended for even a brief period of time. Bethel v. Fraser (1986) adjusted the ruling on minimal due process stating that a two day suspension, in this case for a violation of free speech, does not "rise to the level of a penal sanction calling for the full panoply of procedural due process protections applicable to a criminal prosecution."
In short, the zero tolerance policy does work. It ensures the safety in schools, which is needed for a positive learning environment. Also, past history, and statistics show evidence that the policy is successful. Finally, there is little recent evidence that administrators' judgments have been extreme, and court decisions have backed this up.
No comments:
Post a Comment