An Illinois law passed in 2015 took effect two weeks ago. This law requires Illinois schools to limit long-term suspensions and expulsions and also eliminates zero-tolerance policies that might be used to punish students for particular offenses. Senior elementary education major Kevin Loveless believes the new Illinois law has the potential to help. “This law helps the students who could currently be in a bad place in life,” he said. “Instead of school administrations and teachers kicking the students out of school and forgetting about them, they will start supporting these students and helping them through this [hard] time in their young lives. It keeps the students in school and keeps them doing their work and learning.”
The American Psychological Association (APA) defines a zero tolerance policy as a “philosophy or policy that mandates the application of predetermined consequences, most often severe and punitive in nature, that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context.” Most zero tolerance policies involve bullying or racial slurs. Zero tolerance policies have been under fire since they were first implemented across the country in 1994 after federal legislation required states to expel any student who brought a weapon to school. The law eventually evolved to cover drug abuse and violence in general. Many educators find the policy too generic punish the guilty and help the innocent the way they are supposed to. Blackburn’s Director of Teacher Education and Licensure Officer Terri Reid said, “Any sort of law or restriction that is very cut and dry can prove problematic when you are working with people in general, but especially developing adults in secondary school.” Sophomore education major Austin Ives seems to agree with her. “As educators we should be able to look at every situation separately, something we can’t do with these policies in place,” he said.
Implementing zero tolerance in schools was heavily supported by Congress after the Columbine High School massacre. Congress argued that most adult laws are cut and dry and that these policies are simply preparing students for the future. They also argue that it reduces the risk for favoritism. However, in 2008 the APA conducted a study of schools using zero tolerance policies, and concluded that “Zero tolerance has not been shown to improve school climate or school safety.” A more recent study in 2013 conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that, “the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not support zero tolerance policies and recommends that student suspension or expulsion should be considered on a case-by-case basis.” The APA and AAP criticize these programs because they leave no gray area or way for students to defend themselves from school policy. As Reid explained, “Zero tolerance can be very excessive; a student may come to school and not even know that they have something in their car that could be noted as a weapon. If this “weapon” is discovered they could get in huge trouble for it. That just doesn’t seem right…” This type of extremism is illustrated in many cases. Students have been punished for being in possession of nail clippers, rubber bands, plastic knives and even a backpack with non-gang affiliated graffiti on it. One of the more famous acts of zero tolerance was Park Elementary School’s “Pop Tart suspension” in 2013 during which a 7-year-old boy in Baltimore was suspended for eating his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun.