'Zero Tolerance Policy\r'

'The slide fastener perimeter polity strives to down craze in informs and deliver directho substance abuses a safer place for students. Anne Atkinson, a member of the Virginia be on of Education defines naught permissiveness as a â€Å" form _or_ system of government that mandates pre primed(p) consequences or vindicatements for specified offenses. ” The insurance constitution first became efficient in 1989, but grew intimately rapidly in 1994 when the Gun- Free Schools Act was passed (1).\r\n in that location ar more controversies about the aught border polity including whether or non the polity is in force(p) in reducing violence in schools, whether or non schools atomic number 18 trying to handle disciplinary actions in a lovely manner, and whether or not all students argon hideed equally when punishments ar determined. While many clogers, much(prenominal) as school administration, trust that the cypher allowance account insurance is pr erequisite in schools, those who debate the policy, such as p bents, believe that the policy is unfair and ineffective in schools.\r\nThose who support the zero allowance account policy believe that the policy is effective in reducing violence in school. Atkinson argues that â€Å"strict policies are needed to send a clear message and are designed to cling to students” (2). Agreeing with Atkinson, Richard Curwin and Allen Mendler, pupils on the zero adjustment policy, believe that by apply the zero allowance policies, it is evident to students that militant sort is unacceptable. By allowing the students to realize that misbehavior allow not be tolerated, students become more likely to obey the rules and cooperate with schools (1).\r\n tally to the National kernel for Children Exposed to Violence (NCCEV), 17. 1% of students carried weapons at school and 71% of elementary and secondary schools have experienced at least peerless and only(a) risky villainy by a student. A nationwide review suggested that 15% of students have been complicated in a physical fight on school grounds. By using the zero border policy, those students who are scarlet in school are expelled or suspended, issueing in schools becoming a safer environment for students and teachers (3).\r\nAlthough defenders of the zero permissiveness policy agree that they policies are effective, those who oppose the policy do not believe that the policies are effective in reducing school violence. People who are against the zero security deposit policy agree that the policy is ineffective in reducing school violence. Members of the American Psychological Association (APA), the largest scientific and professional transcription representing psychology in the United States, agree that schools are no safer and more effective in tenet discipline that before the zero tolerance policy in the 1980s.\r\nThey similarly agree that school violence is not out of control, so zero tolera nce policies are not necessary (1). Russell Skiba, chairman of the indium Education Policy Center and Reece Peterson, a scholar on the zero tolerance policy, conducted statistics that stage â€Å" hot crimes occurred at an annual rate of fifty-three per unrivalled hundred thousand students. Because evidence shows that violence rank are not out of control, critics argue that at that place are many other alternatives that can be utilise to promote a safer environment for students and teachers (2).\r\nAccording to the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), approximately alternatives that reduce violence in schools include a measure curriculum, help from school workers, counselors, and psychologists, and parental/family involvement (3). Whether the policy is effective or ineffective is only one aspect of the argument; there are many other controversies that occur within the policy. Whether schools are manipulation disciplinary action in a fair manner is a main con troversy when discussing the zero tolerance policy.\r\nRussell Skiba believes that the way in which schools punish students is fair. He thinks that rash punishments improve overall student behavior and discipline. Skiba acknowledges the fact that harsh disciplinary actions are determined by the degree of the student’s baseless actions (29). While some good deal agree that schools are just when using the zero tolerance policy, others take issue and believe that schools are extremely unfair. Those who oppose the zero tolerance policy believe that the way in which schools use the zero tolerance policy to punish students is very rash and unfair.\r\nThose against the zero tolerance policy, such as Skiba, believe that rash suspensions and expulsions, rather than ameliorate student behavior, forces students to misbehave more frequently. He also believes that rash suspensions and expulsions lead to an increased number of school dropouts and failure to graduate on time (28). A per sonal example of zero tolerance proves schools to be rash and unfair when punishing students. My ten-year-old cousin went to a public school where he was a get of the minority group. He found a pocket knife at home and thought it was the coolest thing he had ever seen.\r\nBeing an immature, unknowing child, my cousin brought the pocket knife to school to show his friends, not intending on using it in any dangerous way possible. As he took the knife out of his pocket to show is closest friends, a teacher spotted him and instanter jerked him away from his friends and into the principal’s office. The principal, being the one to decide punishment, automatically expelled my ten-year-old cousin for bringing a pocketknife to school, even though he did not harming anyone or anything with the knife. Because my cousin was expelled from school, he is no bimestrial in school this year and now has to assume the grade.\r\nThis is a perfect example of how the zero tolerance policy leads to school dropout and failure to graduate on time. Not only is the process of punishment a controversy, but whether or not racism is used to punish is also an issue fearing the zero tolerance policy. An important controversy when debating on the zero tolerance policy is whether or not racism is involved when schools are punishing students. Russell Skiba and Allen Mendler argue that schools are all told just and equal when determining punishments for violence in schools.\r\nThey agree that no matter race, ethnicity, language, or abilities, if you personate a violent action, rash punishments will result (1). Although supporters agree that the policy treats all people equal, those who oppose the policy agree that racism occurs when punishing students using the zero tolerance policy. According to those that oppose the policy, zero tolerance is an unjust policy that does not treat all students equally. The American Psychological Association (APA) agrees that the disproportionate disci pline of students of color is and continues to be a concern when discussing the zero tolerance policy.\r\nThey believe that most expulsions and suspensions are punishments that result from African Americans or Latinos that are violent in schools. Another target group of schools that use the zero tolerance policy are those people with disabilities, especially with emotional and behavioral disorders (2). There are many important controversies dealing with the zero tolerance policy, and many people either support the controversy or are opposed to the controversy. Zero tolerance attempts to prevent violence in schools and create a safer environment for the school community.\r\nIt is viewed as a policy that that tries to teach students wrong from right, and gives students a sense of discipline. Although some believe that the policy has good intentions, there are many controversies that aroused, causing many debates that challenge the military capability of the policy. While many people who believe that the policy creates a safer environment for students and teachers support the zero tolerance policy, there are many who oppose the zero tolerance policy, arguing that it is unfair and ineffective in reducing violence in schools.\r\n'