Using zero tolerance policies at school

A second grader brings a nonworking cigarette lighter shaped like a pistol to school and shows it to his friends. He tells his buddies he needs it for protection against his grandfather. The boys are excited! Three boys believe it is a real gun and ask to touch it. All four friends hold the gun in the corner of the playfield out of sight of the adult on-duty. Each boy takes a turn as "look-out" to ensure no one sees what they are doing as they pass the handgun from boy to boy. One boy asks to take the perceived weapon home and the owner of the lighter agrees.

One of the boys tells his mother, "'Tommy brought a gun to school today because he is scared of his grandfather." The mother immediately calls the principal and tells her what happened at school today with the gun. The principal thanks the mom for the information and talks with the vice principal about what to do - at this time everyone still believes the gun is real. You are the principal; what would you do?

Zero tolerance expulsion policies in schools are seen by some as an extreme yet understandable policy response to the post-Columbine realities of the 1990s. Yet, for all of its clear intent, have zero tolerance expulsion policies resulted in commonly agreed upon application and outcome or have they been morphed into an unpleasant of even offensive outcomes?

It is easy to imagine school discipline policies that are grounded in common sense and that are sensitive to student safety and the educational needs of all students. Such policies are the kind that most parents would want if their own children were being disciplined. Unfortunately, current policies eliminate the common sense that comes with discretion and, at great cost to society and to children and families, do little to improve school safety (American Bar Association, 2006).

Does zero tolerance really mean zero tolerance? In the case Seal v. Morgan (2000), a student was suspended and then expelled when the Assistant Principal found a hunting knife in the glove box compartment of his car. The student indicated he was unaware that the knife was in his glove box.

The school board found that the student had violated the State's Zero Tolerance Policy based on the fact of possession. In the subsequent federal appeal, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the concept of possession implies knowing or conscious possession, and that the school board violated the student's due process rights when it expelled the student without findings of conscious possession. This ruling suggests the student must know they have the weapon before it is in his possession.

The National Center for Educational Statistics found that, after four years of implementation, zero-tolerance policies had little effect at previously unsafe schools; the center also reports that the current data do not demonstrate a dramatic decrease in school-based violence in recent years. The popularity of zero-tolerance policies may have less to do with their actual effect than the image they portray of schools taking resolute measures to prevent violence.

Some schools report positive results from their policies. In Tacoma, Wash., Henry Foss Senior High School's School-Centered Decision Making team implemented in fall 1991 a zero-tolerance policy against fighting. After one year, the policy resulted in a 95 percent drop in violent behavior on campus. Moreover, the policy's positive impact led to record-breaking freshman enrollment; the majority of new entrants indicated that they were attending the school primarily because of its safety.

Zero-tolerance policies must make sense. The punishment must fit the crime:

• Lisa Smith, an eighth-grade honors student, brought a 20-ounce bottle of Cherry 7-Up mixed with a few drops of grain alcohol to school and was expelled and sent to a 4-month boot camp. That same day another girl brought Kool-Aid with rum to school and passed it around the school cafeteria. Eleven girls were expelled for drinking the rum-laced Kool-Aid.

• A second-grader from Louisiana was expelled for bringing her grandfather's gold-plated pocket watch to school; the timepiece had a tiny knife attached.

• Shanon Coslet, a 10-year-old from Colorado, was expelled because her mother had put a small knife in her lunchbox to cut an apple. When Shanon realized the knife might violate the school's zero-tolerance policy, she turned it in to a teacher, who told her she had done the right thing. The child was expelled.

• Kids have been kicked out of school for possession of Midol, Tylenol, Alka Seltzer, cough drops and Scope mouthwash - all contraband that violates the zero-tolerance, anti-drug policy.

Zero-tolerance has its place in public education but must be used with common sense and intelligent thought. If a child brings a "real" weapon to school, that child must be disciplined and expelled - the law and policy is very clear. If a child brings something that looks like a weapon and threatens another person with it, there is probably reason for expulsion. If a child brings a pocketknife to school that they used for fishing with their grandfather the night before and turns it in to the principal as they enter school, discretion must be used. Now, what to do about the cigarette lighter? The right thing to do is obvious in this case. The child brought something that looked like a weapon to school and stated he was going to use it as a weapon to protect himself. All of the boys who handled the lighter thought it was a gun and none of the boys told a teacher about the gun. This in itself causes concern. This situation has a possibly deadly outcome and the four boys took no concern for the effect of their actions. Thank goodness the gun was just a cigarette lighter.

Should the boys be suspended, expelled or given detention? The message must be clear that a child should never handle a gun and if a child sees a gun, he must report it to an adult immediately with no exceptions. The boys' action requires consequences.

Zero tolerance policies do not offer the option to do nothing. If the principal chooses expulsion, the policy allows the board to modify the expulsion and the principal can offer mutually agreeable options to allow the children an education while protecting the other school children. Expulsion hopefully teaches the boys the possible result of their actions.

Intelligent zero tolerance policies give disciplinary discretion to the people who know the child best. One size fits all policies seldom work. A child who accidently brings a pocketknife to school should be disciplined differently than a child who brings a loaded handgun. It just makes sense.

Bill Rutherford is a psychotherapist, public speaker, elementary school counselor, adjunct college psychology instructor and executive chef, and owner of Rutherford Education Group. Please e-mail him at bprutherford@hotmail.com and check out www.foodforthoughtcda.com.