NASP Home > NASP Resources > NASP Fact Sheets > Zero Tolerance
Zero Tolerance and Alternative Strategies:
A Fact Sheet for Educators and Policymakers
The National Association of School Psychologists
What is Zero Tolerance?
"Zero Tolerance" initially was defined as consistently enforced suspension
and expulsion policies in response to weapons, drugs and violent acts
in the school setting. Over time, however, zero tolerance has come to
refer to school or district-wide policies that mandate predetermined,
typically harsh consequences or punishments (such as suspension and
expulsion) for a wide degree of rule violation. Most frequently,
zero tolerance policies address drug, weapons, violence, smoking and
school disruption in efforts to protect all students' safety and
maintain a school environment that is conducive to learning. Some teachers
and administrators favor zero tolerance policies because they remove
difficult students from school; administrators perceive zero tolerance
policies as fast-acting interventions that send a clear, consistent
message that certain behaviors are not acceptable in the school. However,
research indicates that, as implemented, zero tolerance policies
are ineffective in the long run and are related to a number of negative
consequences, including increased rates of school drop out and discriminatory
application of school discipline practices. Proven discipline strategies
that provide more effective alternatives to broad zero tolerance policies
should be implemented to ensure that all students have access
to an appropriate education in a safe environment.
Prevalence of Zero Tolerance Policies and Practices
According to data from the U.S. Department of Education and the Center
for Safe and Responsive Schools, at least 75% of schools report having
zero tolerance policies for such serious offenses as:
- firearms (94%)
- weapons other than firearms (91%)
- alcohol (87%)
- drugs (88%)
- violence (79%)
- tobacco (79%)
Among disciplinary actions mandated by zero tolerance policies, suspension
is most frequently used for an extensive range of common offenses, from
attendance problems to disrespect and noncompliance. However, broad
zero tolerance policies require that both minor and major disciplinary
events be treated equally. A 1997 U.S. Department of Education study
found that zero tolerance offenses frequently resulted in suspension
or expulsion, including a) possession or use of a firearm (80%), b)
possession or use of a weapon other than a firearm (78%), c) possession
or distribution of alcohol, drugs or tobacco (80%) and d) physical fighting
(81%).
Problems Associated with Broad Zero Tolerance Policies
Zero tolerance policies are complex, costly and generally ineffective.
Suspension and expulsion may set individuals who already display antisocial
behavior on an accelerated course to delinquency by putting them in
a situation in which there is a lack of parental supervision and a greater
opportunity to socialize with other deviant peers. Further, expulsion
results in the denial of educational services, presenting specific legal
as well as ethical dilemmas for student with disabilities. Finally,
there is no evidence that removing students from school makes a positive
contribution to school safety.
Other problems associated with zero tolerance policies include:
- Racial disproportionality: Black students receive more harsh punitive
measures (suspension, expulsion, corporal punishment) and less mild
discipline than their non-minority peers, even controlling for Socio-economic
Status.
- A greater negative impact on educational outcomes for students with
disabilities (see below)
- Inconsistent application of zero tolerance policies, which often
are not reserved exclusively for serious behaviors but applied indiscriminately
to much lower levels of rule infraction.
- An increasing rate of suspensions and expulsions throughout the
country, even though school violence generally has been stable or
declining.
- Increasing the length of expulsion to two-year, three-year, or even
permanent expulsion.
- A high rate of repeat suspensions that may indicate that suspension
is ineffective in changing behavior for challenging students.
- Elevated dropout rates related to the repeated use of suspension
and expulsion - the most likely consequence of suspension is additional
suspension.
Zero Tolerance and Students With Special Needs
Zero tolerance policies may negatively impact students with disabilities
to a greater degree than students without special needs. Although IDEA
'97 requires continuing educational services for any student with
a disability who is suspended for more than 10 consecutive days or
10 cumulative days in one academic year, policies that require suspension
or expulsion for certain behaviors put many students with disabilities
outside of the education setting, apart from educators who could
help address their needs. Further, discipline practices that restrict
access to appropriate education often exacerbate the problems of students
with disabilities, increasing the probability that these students will
not complete high school. School personnel charged with disciplining
students with disabilities must be familiar with relevant components
of IDEA '97, including the provisions for Interim Alternative Educational
Placements (see resources below). Other alternatives are mandated by
federal and state statute to assure that students with disabilities
have ongoing access to an appropriate education.
Alternatives to Zero Tolerance Policies
Systemic changes in a school's or district's approach to
discipline and behavioral intervention can significantly impact school
climate and student learning. Schools implementing effective strategies
have reported reductions in office discipline referrals by 20-60%; this
results in improved access to academic engaged time and improved academic
performance for all students. Schools can utilize their mental health
experts - school psychologists, counselors and social workers - to research
and develop discipline policies and positive behavior training strategies.
Effective and promising alternatives to zero tolerance should involve
families and community resources, including:
- Violence prevention - the most frequent components
of a violence prevention program include a prevention curriculum;
services from school psychologists, counselors or social workers;
family and community involvement; and implementation of effective
school-wide discipline practices. Some examples of proven programs
include: Second Step, Resolving Conflict Creatively Program and Promoting
Positive Thinking Strategies (see below).
- Social skills training and positive behavioral supports
- interventions that help students with emotional/behavioral disorders
and social skills deficits have potential to significantly improve
school-wide behavior and safety. Effective programs include: Stop
and Think (Project ACHIEVE) and Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports (PBIS).
- Early intervention strategies - interventions that
target low levels of inappropriate behavior before they escalate into
violence can significantly reduce the need for harsh consequences
later. Examples of proven practices include First Step to Success
(kindergarten) and Positive Adolescent Choices Training (developed
for African American youth).
Summary
Although zero tolerance policies were developed to assure consistent
and firm consequences for dangerous behaviors, broad application of
these policies has resulted in a range of negative outcomes with few
if any benefits to students or the school community. Rather than increasing
school safety, zero tolerance often leads to indiscriminate suspensions
and expulsions for both serious and mild infractions and disproportionately
impacts students from minority status backgrounds and those with disabilities.
Serious dangerous behaviors require consistent and firm consequences
to protect the safety of students and staff; however, for many offenses
addressed by zero tolerance policies, more effective alternative strategies
are available. Systemic school-wide violence prevention programs, social
skills curricula and positive behavioral supports lead to improved learning
for all students and safer school communities.
Resources
- Bear, G., Quinn, M. & Burkholder, S. (2001). Interim alternative
educational settings for children with disabilities. Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists. (NASP ASPIIRE Project,
IDEA Partnerships). Available at: www.ideapractices.org.
- NASP National Mental Health and Education Center for Children and
Families--www.naspcenter.org
- Safe and Responsive Schools Project--www.indiana.edu/~safeschl
- Skiba, R. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis
of school disciplinary practice (Policy Research Report #SRS2).
Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center. (available at: www.
Indiana.edu/safeschl/ztze.pdf)
- U.S. Department of Education (1997). Principal/School Disciplinarian
Survey on School Violence. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Programs
©2001--National Association of School Psychologists - 4340 East
West Highway #402, Bethesda, MD 20814