PowerPoint #4 U.S. School Safety Zero Tolerance Policies

1. PowerPoint #4 U.S. School Safety Zero Tolerance Policies SCHA760: Legal Aspects of Educational Leadership Presented by Camille Dempsey, 2011 Reference: Bosher, W. C., Kaminski, K. R., & Vacca, R. S. (2004) The School Law Handbook: What Every Leader Needs to Know. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

2. What is a zero tolerance policy? “A zero tolerance policy requires predetermined punishment for specific acts, leaving little or no discretion to the school administrator” (p. 34).

3. How many schools have zero tolerance policies? • 94% have one for possession of firearms • 91% have one for possession for non-firearm weapons • 88% have one for possession of drugs • 79% have one for possession of tobacco • (p. 34)

4. What are the unintended consequences of a zero tolerance policy? • Students can be expelled for seemingly harmless infractions such as suspending a student: • for having a paring knife in her lunchbox. • for bringing a squirt gun to school. • For bringing a five-inch plastic ax as part of a Halloween costume. • (p. 35)

5. What are the issues around infringement of student rights? • “Concerns include due process, free speech, and discrimination” related to zero tolerance policies. • (p. 35)

6. What does the data suggest related to the effectiveness of zero tolerance policies? • There are mixed reviews on whether the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) is effective or not (p. 35). • School districts educate children about the zero tolerance policies and infractions have been reduced as a result (p. 35). • “The percentage of students carrying weapons on school property fell 28 percent between 1993 and 1997” (p. 35). • The number of student who were expelled for bringing guns to school fell by 4% from 1997-1999 (p. 35). • No one knows for sure if the decreases are due to zero tolerance policies or under reporting (p. 36). • (p. 35)

7. What are the federal legal considerations of zero tolerance policies? • Congress passed the GFSA federal law to address weapon possession in the U.S. (p. 36). • This includes, “no guns in schools and no excuses” (p. 36). • States adopted their own laws that included at least a federal definition of weapon and some include other offenses such as drugs and violence (p. 36).

8. What are the case law issues related to zero tolerance policies? • “States must include at least minimum federal GFSA guidelines” • States are not prohibited from creating a more expansive, state-specific GFSA • “Courts usually defer to local school boards when it comes to disciplinary authority” • (p. 37)

9. What examples exist for case law issues related to zero tolerance policies? • Ratner v. London Co. Public Schools (2001): Court ruled that the suspension of a student for possessing a knife he had taken from a suicidal friend was constitutional” because the school gave due process. • Seal v. Morgan et al. (2000): “A mandatory expulsion policy for students possessing weapons violated the Fourteenth Amendment because the policy allowed sanctions without finding that a student knowingly possessed the weapon. • D. G. and C. G. v. Independent School District Number 11 of Tulsa Co., Oklahoma (2000): “A zero tolerance policy on threats was challenged on the First Amendment (speech) grounds on the question of whether a student could be suspended for writing a threatening poem about a teacher. • (p. 37, 38)

10. What are the practical considerations related to zero tolerance policies? • “Check your state’s laws and your local school board’s manual for zero tolerance policies” • “Consider whether the application of zero tolerance policies increases delinquency in your state, school division, or school” • “Train staff in the legality and practical application of all zero tolerance policies” • “Plan for the education of those suspended/expelled, if required by law or policy” • “Implement a follow-up plan to monitor whether zero tolerance is having its intended effect” • “Also use monitoring to ensure that the policies are fairly and consistently applied” • (p. 38)