Talk:Zero-tolerance policies in schools

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is established as a fork from zero tolerance. This is the relevant material from the talk page:

Neutral as nitric acid

The lack of citation, the inlining of opinion quotes, the general lack of substance; that the audience might be generally sympathetic to the point of view would appear to be the only reason this article didn't already have a neutrality tag. If clear sources can't be given then large parts of this should be excised.

Further, two hundred examples of wrongdoing don't add any more than the current twenty of so. ZT is more than just "some idiot overreacted to something". Air your grievances on you livejournals, childs. Thumper 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"ZT is more than just "some idiot overreacted to something". Air your grievances on you livejournals, childs."

"A third-grade girl, also in the Christina School District, was expelled for a year because her grandmother sent a birthday cake, and a knife for cutting the cake, to school. The teacher used the knife to cut the cake, and then reported the girl to the authorities as having a dangerous weapon."

That is ZT. It is hypocratical, unfair, unnecessary and of course, american! Only the land of boundless opportunities can allow something like that. Shame on you! 78.51.56.165 (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged bias

Thumper, if you think this article is biased, then provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of zero tolerance. If the article is biased, such evidence should be very easy to produce. Otherwise, the article isn't biased and the tag will have to be removed. Will three days be enough time for you to produce the evidence?

The utilitarian policy assumption is that inflexibility is a deterrent because, no matter how or why the rule was broken, the fact that the rule was broken is the basis for the imposition of the penalty. This is intended as a behaviour modification strategy, i.e. because those at risk know that it may operate unfairly, they may be induced to take even unreasonable steps to avoid breaking the rule. This is a standard policy in rule- and law-based systems around the world on "offences" as minor as traffic violations to major health and safety legislation for the protection of employees, those living nearby and the environment. So merely listing particular examples alleged to be unfair in the school system is unhelpful. As in all other systems, the school system is predicated on the exploitation of its inherent unfairness. So why is there no "balancing" list of those people who resisted breaking the rules because of the threat of the known unfairness? Alternatively, why is Wiki acting as the advocate of zero tolerance by highlighting these examples of unfairness? Surely, the mass publicising of these examples of unfairness serves the schools' purpose by frightening students into conformity. An objective and NPOV assessment might be considered a reassurance to students that, out of the millions of student acts and omissions each and every school day, only an infinitesimal percentage prove to be unfairly penalised. David91 04:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a good start. However, we still need someone to provide research evidence that supports zero tolerance. There is empirical research evidence that it's ineffective.

The issue isn't really whether ZT is effective. The issue is that the article is written not from a perspective of explaining what ZT is, but rather one of ensuring that the reader comes away disproving of it by making the article little more than a list of controversial punishments. Chris Cunningham 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my intention. I am not going to write anything on the North American school system because I know nothing about it. I simply pointed out that a mere list of examples without a proper context is POV. Since you may have greater expertise on the subject than I, you should consider whether there is any empirical evidence at all, whichever POV you espouse. If there is nothing more an anecdotal evidence on either side, you should very clearly state that fact and consider eliminating all opinion statements. As it is, all you have are self-serving examples. Simply transplanting a point from the talk page to the article is not going to save this page on the school issue. You should first address the nature of the school discipline system in North America (since all your examples currently come from that part of the world). Who drafts these rules? What policies do they seek to enforce? Who reviews them before implementation? Who administers the rules once in force? What safeguards by way of an appeal, if any, are put in place? etc. etc. etc. Then you should consider how many times students are penalised under these rule systems and identify what proportion of those so penalised may be considered more than unfairly treated. Then you should consider whether the example made of those particular students had any undue effect on the overall discipline system in the given school or school district. Did the student body rise up in revolt like the French students currently attacking government policy on employment, and threaten to burn the school down unless the student's penalty was remitted? Or did everyone put their heads down and take extra care not to break the same rule? If so, was that a bad thing? It is not for an anonymous user to challenge Thumper or anyone else to produce evidence. If you want to defend this page, you should produce evidence and completely restructure the piece on schools to avoid it from being considered POV. To compare systems, you might wish to consider this month's House of Lords ruling on an English school's refusal to allow a female student to wear a jilbab as an expression of her religious beliefs. Every country has laws about rules and they way they work. If they work unfairly, these rules can be challenged in court. A balanced article would consider what remedies are available in North America and the extent to which the students actually penalised have exercised their right to a judicial review of their penalties. If there are no such cases, an inference might be that no North American court would hold the rules or the penalties imposed unfair. David91 17:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, I just read about the case of Andrew Mikel where the school tried to slap felony charges on him for playing with spitballs and had him expelled for a year. He's otherwise an honor student. The people responsible for this travesty including the principal and others need to be punished in the most cruel sadistic way imaginable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.148.158 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please do not remove the {unreferenced} template or the [fact] requests until you have complied with Wikipedia:Cite sources. Every assertion currently unreferenced should either be verified by a "proper" citation or deleted. David91 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Dear David- I have checked the wikipedia reference guidance information and can't figure out in what way my references are not proper. If you will please please be so kind as provide me that information it would be most helpful. Many thanks.David Justin 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased and relieved that you are interested in learning how to write a balanced encyclopedia entry. In the entry above, I did take the trouble to set out the issues you would need to address to make the piece more objective. At present, you are doing no more than reporting news which is biased and not encyclopedic. It is biased in the sense that it wishes to frame the reader's reaction as "Wow! That is unfair!" Instead of reporting a factual context, e.g. that the student had been a disciplinary problem for years, the episode is made to appear notable by deliberately suppressing all information that might enable the reader to reach a contrary opinion. I agree that some references have now appeared. Unfortunately, they are not obviously acceptable. For example, "Scaringi, D. "Zero Tolerance Needed for Safe Schools." St. Petersburg (FL) Times, June 24, 2001." seems to be a newspaper opinion piece. As such, it does not match the requirement for a verifiable source. To be a verifiable source, the publication you cite should be of a proper standard. All that you have done is to find a journalist who holds the same opinion that you do. I will leave you to remove the offending "sources". To be NPOV, you have to produce information on all sides of the debate, and you have to be able to cite verifiable authority. If you cannot cite verifiable authority, you are not supposed to put the information in. I was subjected to major criticism for simply entering content from memory. I ended up having to send for photocopies of journal articles to justify the entry. Pending that, my information did not go into the article space. It is a tough rule, but we are aiming to produce something of quality here. David91 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Noguera's Work

I question the attribution of the notion that "Supporters of zero tolerance policies claim that such policies are required to create an appropriate environment" to Noguera, 2005. While such a claim is made, Noguera's article argues for the humanization of the school environment and critiques such policies. Listing Noguera's scholarly work with a newspaper article may inappropriately legitimize the argument he refutes. Additionally, the second reference to Noguera's work, (Noguera, 2007), is not listed in the reference section. (MO) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.255.178 (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Supporters of zero tolerance policies claim that such policies are required to create an appropriate environment (Scaringi, 2001; Noguera, 1995). They also point to examples of persons in authority providing lax discipline in the past, with a resulting breakdown in order (for example, in a school environment)(Scaringi, 2001). Some supporters also argue that the mass publicising of examples of unfairness serves the schools' purpose by frightening students into conformity. They point to the millions of student acts and omissions each and every school day, only an infinitesimal percentage of which prove to be unfairly penalised.(Noguera, 1995)

What do these assertions mean? These "policies are required to create an appropriate environment" Who requires them? Appropriate to whom and for what? Why do "these supporters" refer to past laxness when their concern is current indiscipline. Were the rules always in place and not enforced, or did "these supporters" rewrite the rules? Then you quote me but attribute the quote to Noguera in 1995. You should not invent citations. I could go on but I do not want to appear gratuitously unkind. In all seriousness, it would be better to throw all this content away and start again with a blank screen to build up a balanced and verifiable piece. David91 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write this piece but tried to make it an acceptable article by deleting many of the examples of ZT abuse and by referencing content. It appears that a lot of people don't like the content but aren't willing to do any work to improve it; it's much easier to criticize than to create.David Justin 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I had the expertise, I would rewrite this element, but I know nothing about the North American education system. If it was about the European system, I would already have rewritten the element. It is not a case of either liking or disliking the content. NPOPV requires editors to present all relevant views fairly. The objection to the schools element is that, as currently configured, it is POV. Rather than simply deleting it, I will move the material to its own page, and leave you and any others who come along to deal with matters there. David91 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Some of the citations on this page are clearly fakes. All should be independently verified before being accepted. David91 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Shouldn't this article be titled Zero-Tolerance Policy in North American Schools. It doesn't discuss zero-tolerance in any other context. In addition, the article doesn't summarize the offences not tolerated by the schools (consumption of alcohol and the possession of weapons are given as examples). As it stands, this article belongs within a more general entry on the North American education system, or within an entry on school disciplinary policies. There is scope for a separate entry, however, without a list of offences and a balanced assessment of the arguments for and against zero-tolerance, the entry should be reduced to a few lines and exported to another more general article. Pvazz 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

What is a 'zero tolerance policy', anyway? The examples given are of individual administrative acts, not of policies. Nearly all seem to be drawn from high schools in the USA. Is that coincidence?

When did 'zero tolerance policies' begin? What was the first?

This article is sadly lacking is substance.

As to your complaint about the US-centric content, my conclusion is that other countries are less likely to adopt such rash policies. If you can suggest any WP:Reliable sources about other countries' schools, please feel free to share them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

Many policies were enacted after the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.^{[citation needed]}

I was just going to fact-tag this, but it simply isn't true. The CHS massacre was in 1999. From my own personal experience, I can tell you that the State of Iowa had required every single public and private school to adopt a formal weapons policy no later than 1994, and the vast majority of schools were adopting the state's "recommended" (and IMO very poorly written) zero-tolerance policy.

I'm pleased to say that my school wasn't stupid enough to adopt the "recommended" policy -- one that actually prohibited law enforcement officers from carrying a weapon onto campus under any circumstances, in direct violation of state law -- but the suggested policy was about two paragraphs long and could be summarized in a single sentence: possession of any 'weapon', including water pistols, results in mandatory expulsion (for students) or firing (for staff). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much controversy

This article is written in too controversial a style. We have made it an "either-or" where readers are tempted to immediately condemn or support "zero tolerance".

Worse, it's mostly a hook to hang extreme cases on.

Here are two, more balanced, views - which I found after less than 2 minutes of googling:

"Zero tolerance and expulsion don't have to go hand in hand," says Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center in Westlake, Calif. "Zero tolerance simply means all misbehavior will have some sanction. It doesn't mean you bring the maximum punishment for every transgression." USA Today
“Contrary to the myth of zero tolerance, most school board policies provide options and flexibility for administrators,” said school safety expert Kenneth Trump, in the AP report. “What you see is poor decision-making and poor implementation of the policies, rather than the face school administrators are handcuffed in terms of their discretion.” Washington Times

Can we add quotes like these? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be desirable to get some solid information on the current policies. The policies certainly have changed over time. In 1994, when this started, the policies were often nightmarish. They don't have to be, but they mostly were (in my experience).

I think Ronald Stephens is right, but the fact is that schools frequently have no real choice about that link. For example, California law requires expulsion for most weapons and drug violations. So we could say that "Zero tolerance and expulsion don't have to go hand in hand" so long as the school doesn't mind breaking the law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would this source add anything of value to the page?

Story about a teenager punished for going to pick up a drunk friend.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/10/13/north-andover-high-punishes-teen-for-giving-drunken-pal-ride-home-from-party/
One one hand, it adds a bit of range to the cases cited in criticism, but on the other, she got sports-related penalties (can't play for few games, no longer captain), not even suspension/expulsion. I figured I'd stick this here and let more experienced heads decide. 75.182.99.60 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the policy is used in the right way, there are many benefits

There are two problems with this sentence:

There is no attempt to explain what constitutes "the right way", or why it is right (by some objective standard.
There are no references to what the "many benefits" are. ("many" is also a weasel word)

This is incompatible with a neutral point of view - it's more like advocacy (and original research, not reporting). --CaritasUbi (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV tag

It's obvious that a lot of references on the page were added in around 2006 - many of them are out of date, or opinion pieces that have FUD about discipline or undisciplined kids. More content needed on efficacy and research, less on "claims" by proponents of zero-tolerance -- Aronzak (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And note, wikipedia does not need to run a fatuous false balance argument to give equal time to bad ideas that have weak evidential support. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Zero tolerance (schools). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from Escondido school knives case

One of many events of the kind already listed in this article, with no indication that this event will receive WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE sufficient for a separate article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging would be better than leaving the article in place, but I'm not sure this case merits mentioning anywhere on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this case, such as national attention, that would indicate lasting notability. This sort of occurrence is not uncommon in the US(or anywhere). 331dot (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zero tolerance (schools). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History -- Gun Free schools act of 1994

This article first mentions Columbine as the precipitating factor, "The use of zero tolerance policies increased dramatically after the Columbine High School massacre, with principals declaring that safety concerns make them want zero tolerance for weapons." However, the article fails to mention the Gun Free schools act of 1994, when congress authorized and made school funding subject to the adoption of zero tolerance policies. Currently, the article gives the impression that there was no zero tolerance existing before 1999 and Columbine, while phrasing it cleverly the allow the possibility of earlier adoption.

While I'm not an expert on these issues, I also am skeptical that zero tolerance was not in existence far earlier in private, particularly religious schools. No, strike that, I'm am certain similar policies existed in such places as early as the 1970s. Perhaps they were not labeled as "zero tolerance", but expulsions have long occurred in private schools for minute issues, a form of intolerance, which is a synonym for zero tolerance. It appears this article is vastly underestimating the amount of time that such school policies have existed, in actual practice. Gzuufy (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

25 contains a dead link in it. Galladevo (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 14:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero tolerance (schools) → Zero tolerance policies in schools – WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, this isn't a separate topic that happens to have the same name as Zero tolerance, it's a subset of "Zero tolerance" applying particularly to schools. Would be fine with a different natural disambiguation as long as we drop the parenthetical. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Zero tolerance in schools could also be ok. Station1 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support standard naming. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Despite being a longer name, the proposed title is definitely more WP:NATURAL and, to my eye, improves the clarity of the title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Zero tolerance policies in schools" Taylor 49 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not every outrageous action is zero tolerance

I think that when we're writing about individual examples, we should restrict ourselves to incidents described in at least one reliable source as having involved a zero-tolerance policy. Several of the listed examples were not described that way in any of the sources I could find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2024 and 4 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 4hubb (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 4hubb (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content revision

Should this article include the countries and states that have zero tolerance school discipline statutes? 11 states now have zero tolerance school discipline statutes. 4hubb (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]