Zero Tolerance - Overused and Misunderstood

When school disciplinary policies are updated the phrase "zero tolerance" is almost certain to appear somewhere, either in the philosophical overview of the policy or in a statement of response to certain behaviors. Originally conceived as an approach to dealing with dangerous students who had brought guns onto school grounds, the term is now just as likely to be used with issues of drug and alcohol possession as well as inappropriate conduct involving bullying and harassing behaviors.

In recent discussions, the phrase "zero tolerance" is coming under attack as being inflexible and tying the hands of school administrators. However, this criticism is primarily due to a lack of understanding of the term and the failure to realize that a policy could never completely replace the use of sound judgment by school administration.

The phrase "zero tolerance" is simple to understand conceptually. A certain behavior or action by a student is not to be accepted or tolerated within the school setting, not once, not ever.

But the concept is also rather misleading, at least to some. Though it is clear that the behavior is not to be tolerated, the consequences given a student who has displayed a prohibited behavior can and should vary from situation to situation. Most importantly, any such consequence must be age appropriate.

Many insist that the phrase demands a specific punishment, often a very serious consequence for any violation of the behavior expectation. Unfortunately, common sense is not always displayed when these policies are applied. For example, in Texas there exists legislation indicating a zero tolerance policy for guns or knives on school grounds. Possession of either is grounds for expulsion.

This lead to the preposterous case of expelling a student for having a bread knife in his truck. The knife had been dropped by the student in his vehicle after he had hauled his grandmother's belongings to a Goodwill drop off site. School officials said they had no recourse but to expel the student because he had brought a weapon onto school property. This type of response calls into question administrative thinking - the consequence simply did not fit the action involved.

In yet another incident, at a middle school in Virginia, an equally troubling disciplinary response was enacted when a student brought a knife to school. This knife had been packed by his mother and was to be used to share the youngsters birthday cake when the class celebrated the student's big day. The student was suspended for the action, even though the knife he brought that day was plastic.

"Zero tolerance" for knives in school does not equate to suspending a middle school student for bringing a plastic knife to school for the purposes of sharing food with classmates. Had the youngster been involved in an argument and used the plastic knife in a threatening manner, then some form of disciplinary action would have been appropriate. But a plastic knife used to help share a birthday cake should not be construed as a weapon.

In the case in Texas, different circumstances could warrant expulsion but not the situation described. Yes, that knife could have truly been used as a weapon and it was dangerous to have on school grounds. But the concept of zero tolerance for weapons did not mandate an expulsion for that young man, not under the circumstances described.

Zero tolerance is an appropriate phrase for wording of behavior policies. But it is imperative that we understand that term conveys only that a behavior or action will not be accepted or tolerated. It does not in and of itself conceptually mandate specific consequences for any respective action.

All consequences must include administrative judgments that take into account student intent, the specific aspects of the situation, and most importantly, the age of the student who has exhibited the inappropriate behavior.