Retrieved from the NAESP Principal's Portal.

Can Zero-Tolerance Keep Our Schools Safe?

The popularity of zero tolerance may have less to do with its effects than with its get-tough image.
Principal - Finding the Funding November 2000, Vol. 80, No. 2 page(s) 28-30 by Roger W. Ashford
The images of that terrible catastrophe at Columbine High School are indelibly burned into the national conscience. The horror of students frantically scrambling for safety, caravans of ambulances transporting the wounded, and the discovery of 13 bodies sparked countless discussions of why such a tragedy could happen and what might have been done to prevent it. Left in Columbine's wake was a renewed call for the use of tough, zero-tolerance policies regarding weapons at school. Proponents maintain that the harsh consequences mandated under these policies would deter anyone from bringing a weapon to school. In theory, that may be true. But do zero-tolerance policies actually work in practice? The answer to this question depends upon how many and how often students bring weapons to school and whether zero-tolerance policies can reduce those numbers. In the Beginning... The origin of zero-tolerance policies can be traced to the murder of two San Diego public school students by classmates in February of 1993. This tragedy spurred Alex Rescon, director of campus police, to propose a policy designed to eliminate weapons from the San Diego public schools. The policy decreed that any student, without exception, who brought a weapon to school would be arrested and expelled (Vail 1995). Soon after, state legislatures began adopting various zero-tolerance policies which, in addition to weapons, banned drugs, gang activity, and acts of violence, including fighting. In 1994, the federal government demonstrated its support of such initiatives by enacting the Gun-Free Schools Act (see below). This legislation made Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funds "contingent on a state's enacting a 'zerotolerance' law with the goal of producing gun-free schools" (Pipho 1999). By the end of 1995, all 50 states had such laws on the books. For purposes of this article, zero-tolerance is defined as the "automatic expulsion of students who bring guns, knives, or items that look like weapons onto school grounds" (Vail 1995). The Threat of Violence Many Americans believe that violence or the threat of violence in schools is a serious situation, particularly in urban school districts, and that strong action is required. A 1998 study by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency concludes that "carrying weapons to school has become an acceptable risk for many students, both those who are fearful and those who intend to exploit others" (Arnette and Walsleben 1998). Additional reports cited by Arnette and Walsleben include the 1995 School Crime Victimization Survey, which showed that over 12 percent of the responding students knew someone who had brought a gun to school. Similar findings by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 1996 indicated that nearly 12 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 admitted that they had carried a weapon onto school property during the 30 days preceding the survey. Just over 7 percent reported that they were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the 12 months preceding the survey.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. Printing or reproduction of this interview is limited only to members of NAESP. Made available through Educational Research Service (ERS). Reproduction of this material by others, in whole or in part, is prohibited without express written permission from ERS.

Retrieved from the NAESP Principal's Portal.

These findings clearly illustrate the threat of violence in schools and would seem to justify harsh zero-tolerance measures. But other data suggest that this type of legislation may be an overreaction. A Minor Concern? In 1996-1997, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) surveyed 1,234 principals and school disciplinarians at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to find out what they considered to be serious problems in their schools. Only 2 percent listed student possession of weapons in that category (Skiba and Peterson 1999). The NCES report also found that violent crimes in school occurred at an annual rate of 53 per 100,000 students--a statistic nearly identical to that in a similar survey conducted in 1991. Irvin Hyman, who has tracked a number of school-violence indicators over the past 20 years, concludes that, despite public perceptions to the contrary, the current data does not support the claim that there has been a dramatic increase in school-based violence in recent years (Skiba and Peterson 1999). Since a body of evidence appears to indicate that students bringing weapons to school is a relatively minor concern for most principals, and that school-based violence has neither increased nor decreased dramatically in recent years, perhaps we should take another look at zero-tolerance policies. There has been only one study that evaluates the effectiveness of these policies. The NCES found that, after four years of implementation, zerotolerance policies had little effect at previously unsafe schools (Skiba and Peterson 1999). The study concludes, however, that even though there is little data to prove the effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies, such initiatives serve to reassure the public that something is being done to ensure safety. Therefore, the popularity of zero-tolerance policies may have less to do with their actual effect than the image they portray of schools taking harsh measures to prevent violence. Whether the message actually changes student behavior may be less important than the reassurance it provides to administrators, teachers, and parents. There has been some criticism, however, that zero-tolerance policies are being blindly administered by overzealous administrators. For example, a student in Seattle was suspended for bringing a one-inch molded plastic toy gun to school (Jones 1997); a sixth-grader in Columbia, South Carolina, was suspended and threatened with expulsion for bringing a steak knife to school in her lunch box to cut some chicken (Skiba and Peterson 1999); and a second-grader who brought his grandfather's watch to show-and-tell was suspended and sent to an alternative school because there was a one-inch pocketknife attached to the watch. (Skiba and Peterson 1999). Creating a Sensible Policy Given the perceived need to protect children from violence without looking foolish in the attempt, Jones (1997) offers some suggestions to help school boards develop sound and reasonable zero-tolerance policies. First, the school board should receive input from the community, as well as parents, teachers, and principals, regarding standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The school board then needs to decide how to treat gray areas. For example, should toy and unloaded guns be treated the same way as real, loaded weapons? Policy experts suggest that zero-tolerance initiatives contain some room for interpretation, and that principals should be allowed leeway in enforcing the policy. Additionally, the policy should include an appeals process, with prompt referral to a hearing officer. This would help avoid situations in which a suspended child is placed in an alternative school while awaiting an appeal hearing. Finally, school disciplinary policies should be reviewed each year to determine if there are areas that need clarification or revision. Some districts have created policies that differentiate among various types of weapons, allowing principals flexibility in enforcement. One such district made the following distinctions: Students who bring weapons listed in the Gun-Free Schools Act, such as guns, bombs, and grenades, to school are suspended for 365 calendar days and charged under state law. A second category, possession of a knife, brass knuckles, or other implements that could cause serious bodily harm, results in suspension from one to 10 days and notification of authorities. A

National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. Printing or reproduction of this interview is limited only to members of NAESP. Made available through Educational Research Service (ERS). Reproduction of this material by others, in whole or in part, is prohibited without express written permission from ERS.

Retrieved from the NAESP Principal's Portal.

third category carries lesser penalties for possession of items that are not weapons per se, such as water pistols and cap guns. This type of flexibility within a zero-tolerance policy sends a strong message that weapons are not allowed, while allowing administrators to avoid potentially embarrassing situations that a "one size fits all" approach might create. Expulsion Alternatives Some educators believe that other prevention strategies, such as alternative schools, offer better solutions for dealing with weapons at school than zero-tolerance expulsion, which permits potentially dangerous students to roam the streets unsupervised. By assigning these students to alternative schools, they are not only off the streets but able to keep up academically while working with counselors to learn nonviolent ways to address their anger and frustration. Skiba and Peterson (1999) suggest an approach that relies on prevention and planning. They argue that breaking the cycle of violence in school must begin with long-term planning aimed at fostering nonviolent school communities. This would include prevention efforts, such as conflict resolution, behavior management, screening and early identification of troubled children, and implementing effective discipline plans to deal with disruptive behaviors. Such plans would include behavior support teams, consistent and individualized response to disruptive students, and emergency and crisis planning. Unfortunately, a shift from zero-tolerance to these types of prevention policies is not likely to occur anytime soon. Such strategies take time to develop and even more time to implement. But it is clear that much more research is needed to determine if zero-tolerance is a truly effective strategy for keeping our schools safe from those who would inflict weapons-related violence on others. Whether effective or not, zero-tolerance policies send the American public the message that schools are taking positive, aggressive action to address a situation that is perceived to be a real and present danger for schools and children. The media coverage given to recent incidents of school violence only galvanizes public opinion in favor of zero-tolerance and harsh penalties for students who bring weapons to school. In the face of such publicity, legislators do not wish to appear soft on crime and violence. As an Iowa school board member remarked after the district's zero-tolerance policy was criticized for expelling a student who brought a water pistol to school, "It's so easy to condemn unless you're sitting in a position where you've got to protect all kids...I'd rather be seen a fool than be responsible for someone's death" (Jones 1997). It appears likely, then, that regardless of research findings as to their actual effectiveness, zero-tolerance policies will remain in force into the foreseeable future.

The Gun-Free Schools Act

The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 mandates the expulsion of students for one calendar year for possession of weapons on school property and referral of students who violate the law to the criminal or juvenile justice system. In addition, the act also contains the following provisions:

Private schools are not subject to the act. The one-year expulsion requirement does not allow school districts to waive the due process rights of students. State law must allow the chief administrative officer of each school district to modify the oneyear expulsion on a case-by-case basis.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. Printing or reproduction of this interview is limited only to members of NAESP. Made available through Educational Research Service (ERS). Reproduction of this material by others, in whole or in part, is prohibited without express written permission from ERS.

Retrieved from the NAESP Principal's Portal.

The case-by-case exception may not be used to avoid overall compliance with the one-year expulsion requirement. The term "weapon" in the federal law includes guns, bombs, grenades, rockets, and missiles. It does not include knives or common fireworks, although state law implementing the federal act may use a broader definition.

References Arnette, June L.; and WaIsleben, Marjorie C. Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs (ERIC Document ED 420 121), 1998. Jones, Rebecca. "Absolute Zero." American School Board Journal 184:10 (October 1997): 29-31. Pipho, Chris. "Living with Zero Tolerance." Phi Delta Kappan 79:10 (June 1998): 725-727. Skiba, Russ; and Peterson, Reece. (1999). "The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance." Phi Delta Kappan 80:5 (January 1999): 372-378. Vail, Kathleen. "Ground Zero." American School Board Journal 182:6 (June 1995):36-38. -------------------Roger W. Ashford is assistant principal of Piedmont High School in Monroe, North Carolina. His email address is rogerashford@aol.com.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. Printing or reproduction of this interview is limited only to members of NAESP. Made available through Educational Research Service (ERS). Reproduction of this material by others, in whole or in part, is prohibited without express written permission from ERS.