This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
May-June 2000

Zero tolerance: zero reality?

Last fall, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition put "zero tolerance" policies in the headlines. Defending six high school students suspended after a fight at a football game, Jackson decried zero tolerance policies, claiming they unfairly target African-American students.

Jackson, like many who commented on the case, had con-fused "zero tolerance" with "uniform penalty."

"For schools, 'zero tolerance' simply means that a consequence will follow an act of misconduct," IASB Legal Counsel Melinda Selbee writes in the January 2000 issue of the Policy Reference Education Subscription Service (PRESS). "Zero tolerance toward drugs tells students: 'You will be punished for possession of marijuana.'"

"To some people," she continues, "'zero tolerance' means 'uniform penalty.'" A uniform penalty policy would remove all discretion from the discipline process. Instead of saying, 'commit X and suffer up to and including Y,' a uniform penalty policy would say, 'commit X and no matter what, you will suffer Y.'"

According to Selbee, "no Illinois school district has a uniform penalty policy for student misconduct. Somewhere, each student conduct policy leaves discretion for formulating an appropriate punishment."

Moderating a panel at the National School Boards Association convention in April, IASB Field Services Director Angie Peifer noted that the distinction between zero tolerance and uniform penalty has become blurred.

Discretion

Zero tolerance became a battle cry when the 1994 federal Safe Schools and Communities Act became law, in response to highly publicized problems of drugs and weapons in schools. The law requires states to have in place expulsion policies for a fairly narrow range of gun and drug offenses. States that don't comply risk losing federal funds.

In response, some districts have created zero tolerance policies for a variety of infractions, including dress code violations, sexual harassment, threats of a terrorist nature, Internet misuses and others.

In some districts, zero tolerance does indeed mean that if there is one violation of the rule in question, then the student is expelled. Mitigating circumstances are not considered.

Peifer noted that the definition implied in the 1994 federal legislation does allow school boards to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, using a system of graduated sanctions.

Tom Pickrell, director of legal services for the Arizona School Boards Association, addresses the issue in an article with a title that speaks volumes: "Zero Tolerance Isn't Zero Thinking." (ASBA Journal, Winter 2000)

Unforgiving

"Perhaps because the phrase 'zero tolerance' sounds so unyielding, the public assumes that, once a student's conduct triggers the zero tolerance procedure, the student will be booted summarily from the school and never heard from again. As anyone familiar with the law, if not the culture, of public education knows, it just isn't that easy to say good-bye to a troublesome student, regardless of what he or she has done," writes Pickrell.

A zero tolerance policy, he goes on to say, predetermines the consequence or penalty for a specific infraction. "If an offense falls within the zero tolerance category, the student will be expelled or suspended for at least one year unless the governing board affirmatively decides that, in light of mitigating circumstances, a less punitive action is appropriate."

"A zero tolerance policy, therefore, changes the dynamics of the disciplinary process, but it does not necessarily alter the outcome."

Zero tolerance was a rousing battle cry for lawmakers and school officials who feared that school violence was getting out of hand. But the term sounds so harsh and unforgiving that it creates more questions than it answers.

School leaders and critics alike are concerned about the balancing act that weighs the safety of all students against the fate of the student who runs afoul of a strict policy. Expelling a weapon-toting child from school may spell the end of that child's chances to turn his or her life around. On the other hand, weapons cannot be tolerated in schools.

One school board member summed it up: "If a student is expelled from school for a year and there is not an alternative program in place, I believe that teen will probably end up in jail," said District 207 Board Member Oscar Marquis, quoted in the Morton Grove Champion (December 9, 1999).

"We look very carefully at the student as an individual. We don't want to do absolutely the same thing in each situation because that causes injustice," said Doug Harris, quoted in the same newspaper article.

Illinois does provide an alternative to expulsion, via the Safe Schools Act (see article on page 22 for an explanation of the act). Safe schools, along with school board discretion in applying penalties, can help reduce fears that students are being thrown out by the educational system.

The discipline of students is, and probably always will be, a touchy issue. Some people believe strict, even harsh, discipline is necessary to guide children into becoming law-abiding adults. Others espouse a kinder, gentler approach. School officials are caught in the middle, likely to be criticized whatever they do.

School boards can protect themselves by:

1) adopting written discipline policies that comply with all laws, with community input;
2) communicating those policies to parents and community members;
3) being careful to follow the policies and administrative regulations to the letter; and
4) giving each case close individual attention, considering all the available alternatives.

These steps probably won't stop the critics who exist in every community. But they will ensure that the school board is on secure legal ground and that it can defend its decisions.