Download pdf
Criticism on Implementation of Zero Tolerance Policy in Schools
- 1 Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, 61820, United States
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Scientific research is increasingly showing the drawbacks and potential ill effects of zero tolerance policies on students. This article presents criticisms of the zero tolerance policy in four main areas: ambiguous definitions, exaggerated claims, abuses, and harmfulness. There is also a serious disparity in the treatment of racially diverse students under zero tolerance policies. It is important that schools that are still using punitive policies such as zero tolerance policies pay attention to these voices of accusation and make some adjustments in the context of the school. These criticisms and recommendations are intended to create a healthy and harmonious campus environment and to promote the physical and mental development of students.
Keywords
social and emotional skills, school discipline, restorative justice, zero tolerance policy
[1]. Wand, T. C., & Coulson, K. (2006). Zero tolerance: a policy in conflict with current opinion on aggression and violence management in health care. Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal, 9(4), 163-170.
[2]. Martinez, S. (2009). A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance policies really affecting schools?. Preventing school failure: alternative education for children and youth, 53(3), 153-158.
[3]. Teasley, M. L. (2014). Shifting from zero tolerance to restorative justice in schools. Children & Schools, 36(3), 131-133.
[4]. Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 872-892.
[5]. Lyubansky, M., & Barter, D. (2019). Restorative justice in schools: Theory, implementation, and realistic expectations. In The Psychology of Peace Promotion. 309-328.
[6]. Morris, E. W., & Perry, B. L. (2016). The punishment gap: School suspension and racial disparities in achievement. Social Problems, 63(1), 68-86.
[7]. Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2002). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: an analysis of school disciplinary practice. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
[8]. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. The American Psychologist, 63(9), 852-862.
[9]. Fronius, T., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative Justice in US Schools: A Research Review. WestEd.
[10]. McNeal, L., & Dunbar Jr, C. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: Urban student perceptions of zero tolerance policy. Urban Education, 45(3), 293-311.
[11]. Keleher, T. (2000). Racial Disparities Related to School Zero Tolerance Policies: Testimony to the US Commission on Civil Rights.
[12]. Bailey, R., Meland, E. A., Brion-Meisels, G., & Jones, S. M. (2019). Getting developmental science back into schools: Can what we know about self-regulation help change how we think about “No Excuses”?. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1885.
[13]. González, T., Sattler, H., & Buth, A. J. (2019). New directions in whole‐school restorative justice implementation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(3), 207-220.
Cite this article
Lin,F. (2023). Criticism on Implementation of Zero Tolerance Policy in Schools. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,2,876-880.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries (ICEIPI 2022), Part I
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).