TOP TEN ISSUES IN EDUCATION

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY

NAME: BOAMMAARURI NCHILE

DATE: 4/5/2015

INSTRUCTOR: DR. W. LEVINE

Top Ten Issues Facing Education Today

1. Democratic classrooms

2. Multi cultural classrooms

3. Inclusive classrooms

4. Virtual schooling

5. Zero tolerance

6. Common core standards

7. Twenty- first century skills

8. Informal education

9. Teachers unions

10. Local school boards

Zero tolerance policies

 

 The term "Zero Tolerance" appeared for the first time in a report in 1994. The idea behind this expression can be traced back to the Safe and clean Neighborhoods Acts, approved in New jersey in 1973, of which inherits the same underlying assumptions (Casella, 2003) The ideas behind the 1973 New Jersey policy were later popularized in 1982, when a popular magazine published the broken windows theory of crime (Casella) . The title of the article comes from the following example: Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside (Koonce, 2014). Zero-tolerance policies have been adopted in schools and other education venues around the world. These policies are usually promoted as preventing drug abuse, violence, and gang, activity in schools (Koonce). In schools, common zero-tolerance policies concern possession or use of drugs or weapons (Koonce). Students, and sometimes staff, parents, and other visitors, who possess a banned item or perform any prohibited action for any reason are automatically punished (Casella). School administrators are barred from using their judgment, reducing severe punishments to be proportional to minor offenses, or considering extenuating circumstances. For example, the policies treat possession of a knife identically, regardless of whether the knife is a blunt table knife being used to eat a meal, a craft knife used in an art class, or switchblade with no reasonable practical or educational value. Consequently, these policies are sometimes derided as "zero-intelligence policies (Koonce) .

Major Challenges Even though practices involved in the

implementation of these policies are often accepted by all members of school communities because they promote a safe environment for learning, they raise questions of the rightness of some actions of school officials, as well as the effectiveness of such policies (Koonce, 2014). Authors exploring this issue argue that schools violates students fourteenth Amendment Right of Privacy under the guise of Enforcing the Zero- Tolerance Policies (Washington Law Review, 2006). Media attention regarding this issue has aroused public concern while parents of students have initiated lawsuits. It has been argued that students in schools are still persons under the constitution and therefore possess fundamental rights that the state must respect (Koonce ).

Major Risks and Threats

Casella (2003) also examines the effectiveness of zero tolerance policies among urban students. Although research has found that zero tolerance is related to an improvement in the rates of violence in schools, he claims that minority students are at a disadvantage as a result of this kind of policy. Latino and African American students are more likely to suffer the punishments of zero tolerance because of issues of institutional racism previously mentioned. Specifically, Latino and African American students are more likely to live in poverty and reside in dangerous neighborhoods (Casella). Consequently, these students are more likely to be punished and are less resilient to the social consequences of suspension and expulsion. Casella finds that zero tolerance only punishes those who need the most help: the poor, underachieving, socially isolated students coming from violent homes and neighborhoods. So one may argue that school violence rates are decreasing, but troubled students are out on the streets.

Major Benefits

Many supporters of zero tolerance say that strict policies are necessary to keep the learning environment safe for students. Proponents also report that it doesn’t matter why a particular rule was broken, the fact that it was broken should result in some type of consequence (Morin, 2015). Supporters often feel like zero tolerance policies best prepare children for the real world (Morin). Proponents also say zero tolerance reduces favoritism because there isn’t room for subjectivity. Just because a student is smart or has parents who are involved with the school, there won’t be any room for leniency when the rules are broken (Morin).

 

Major Drawbacks Zero tolerance policies are complex, costly and

generally ineffective (Casella, 2003). Suspension and expulsion may set individuals who already display antisocial behavior on an accelerated course to delinquency by putting them in a situation in which there is a lack of parental supervision and a greater opportunity to socialize with other deviant peers (Casella). Further, expulsion results in the denial of educational services, presenting specific legal as well as ethical dilemmas for student with disabilities. Finally, there is no evidence that removing students from school makes a positive contribution to school safety (Casella). 

Research Outcomes / Conclusions

There are many alternatives to zero tolerance policies that can help keep kids in school while also teaching them valuable life lessons. Of course, violence prevention is one of the best ways to keep everyone in a school system safe (Morin, 2015) A 2004 study published in the Journal of School Health found that students who feel a sense of belonging in their school are less likely to behave violently (Casella, 2003) Fostering a sense of community is often key in preventing rule violations and behavior problems (Koonce, 2014). Restorative justice programs and community service may be better interventions for first time offenders. Determining consequences on a case-by-case basis can prevent overly harsh consequences. Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions could then be reserved for repeat offenders who pose a real risk to school systems (Morin).

 

References

Casella, R. (2003). Zero Tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives.Teachers College Record, 105, 872–892

Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42, 536–559.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Koonce, G. (2014).Taking Sides- Clashing views on Educational Issues. 18thEd. McGraw-Hill

Morin, A. (2015). The pros and cons of zero tolerance policies. Retrieved from: http://discipline.about.com/od/solvingschoolproblems/fl/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Zero-Tolerance-Policies.htm