U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Zero Tolerance for Policies Depriving Children of Education: A Comment on Zero Tolerance Policies

NCJ Number
209145
Journal
Children's Legal Rights Journal Volume: 24 Issue: 4 Dated: Winter 2004 Pages: 18-25
Author(s)
Erin M. Hickey
Date Published
2004
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article reviews the history of zero tolerance policies and describes the problems emerging from the indiscriminant use of such policies.
Abstract
Zero tolerance policies allow schools to expel or suspend students who possess a “weapon” on school grounds. One of the main problems with such policies is that many State statutes do not provide objective review mechanisms for their expulsion decisions. Following a discussion about the public misperception of school violence, the author explains that the history of zero tolerance legislation is rooted in a 1986 program that allowed the government to seize seagoing vessels carrying any amount of illegal drugs. In 1989, some school districts began adopting zero tolerance policies in response to the misconception that school violence was increasing. Moreover, many of the statutes have required mandatory expulsion for possession of objects that far exceed the Federal definition of a firearm. Most States provide no alternative education for students expelled under zero tolerance policies, thereby effectively denying these children and adolescents the right to an education. The author reviews the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Goss v. Lopez, which held that every child has a right to an education that cannot be denied without due process of the law and then reviews specific zero tolerance policy cases from around the country, including Tennessee and Texas. Four main arguments against zero tolerance policies are enumerated and include the fact that these policies mandate excessive punishment without regard for the circumstances surrounding the cases and that they are not an effective means of addressing school violence and children’s needs. Endnotes