Blog Entry 8:  April 22, 2018

Response:  Zero Tolerance

Debate- Zero tolerance

            I think that zero tolerance rules are excessive and heavy-handed.  Some of this opinion is from personal experience.  My son’s high school had a zero tolerance policy for any kind of fighting or physical aggression.  I saw several cases where a student was expelled for fighting, and from my son’s perspective several expulsions were unfair.  I was always worried that someone would push him and he would push back, and both students would be expelled.  There were several incidents of this during his four year experience with the school.

            I don’t think aggression should be treated lightly, or children should be allowed to hurt others.  Schools are an obvious solution for many of these problems, because the school system can promote a message of watchful inclusion.  There are too many tragic examples of school violence that could have been averted if concerned people had stepped in (Golnick, p. 336).  The list is long; Columbine, Littleton, Parkland and many others.  The answer is not tougher discipline, it is increased understanding.  We need students to listen to their friends, and tell an adult if a friend is contemplating violence against himself or others.  We need parents and teachers to be part of this support network, and we need a legal system that allows us to temporarily hold children who may be dangerous or suicidal.  All of these approaches can be promoted or supported by the school system.  My problem is with the rigid, one-size-fits-all disciplinary policies.

            The answer is a firm but fair disciplinary policy that leaves room for individual situations.  Grade school students may not understand consequences, and often have poor impulse control.  Younger students should be given more chances and shouldn’t normally be expelled for a single incident.  Older students are more in charge of their lives, and should be held to a higher standard.  Older children also face many challenges, ranging from peer pressure to depression and drug use (Golnick, p. 337).  These are often mistakes of youth, and it isn’t fair when a minor incident follows a child for life.

            Zero tolerance may not be zero tolerance if administrators have discretionary powers.  Justice is dispensed with a scale, not a stick.  The emblem on the American dollar shows the scales of justice, and the message is that justice is metered out to individuals based on their specific crimes.  An accessory to a crime is not charged or sentenced that same as an instigator of a crime.  This is especially true in school environments, where an expulsion can follow a young adult long after graduation.  Administrators who have discretion in these matters can make exceptions, and may help keep students on track.  A few seconds of aggression in a hallway can follow a student for a long time.

Reference

Gollnick, D.M., and Chinn, P.C., ( 2013), Multicultural education in a pluralistic society, Pearson, New York.

Send problems/comments/suggestions to: tcHorner@csuchico.edu

All blog entries are the property and personal opinions of Tim Horner, and may be shared with appropriate credit.