NO TO ZERO TOLERANCE

In Decatur, Ill., a federal court has rejected the suit of the Rev. Jesse
Jackson and Operation PUSH on behalf of six black students expelled for a
football-game brawl. The case has intensified national discussion
concerning zero tolerance school discipline.

The pervasive fear created by a string of tragic school shootings has left
both schools and society more receptive than ever to tough talk. Zero
tolerance has gained wide popularity for its promise of a no-nonsense
solution to a difficult problem. But how well does zero tolerance really work?

The term was first adopted by the Reagan administration, taken from a San
Diego program that impounded any seagoing vessel for even trace amounts of
drugs. Treating drug-runners and water skiers equally severely, the
policy's intent was to send a clear message to dealers and users alike.
Controversial from the first, the boat impoundment policy was quietly
phased out after a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute research vessel was
seized for traces of marijuana found in a crewman's cabin.

But the term quickly caught on among educators concerned about a near
epidemic of youth violence. Beginning in 1988, school boards across the
country adopted zero tolerance policies for everything from gang clothing
to drugs to boom boxes. In 1994 President Clinton signed the Gun-Free
Schools Act, mandating a one-year expulsion for weapons in school.

As with zero tolerance drug policy, however, get-tough disciplinary
measures led to controversy. Some districts reported increases in weapons
confiscated. Yet strict zero tolerance has also resulted in numerous cases
of suspension or expulsion for everything from nail files to paper clips,
Midol to cough drops. Protests seem to flare most often in districts that
insist on stiff, unyielding penalties without opportunity for review.

As Decatur highlighted, racial issues play a part in the zero tolerance
debate. African American students are suspended two to three times as
frequently as white students, and represent an even greater share of
expulsions. Research shows that although black students do not misbehave
significantly more than other students, they are frequently punished more
severely for less serious offenses.

One of the lessons learned from Columbine is that school alienation can be
deadly. Yet the primary purpose of suspension and expulsion is to
disconnect troublemakers from school. We know little about the short-term
effects of school suspension, but in the long-term, suspension is
moderately correlated with dropping out of school. It is not surprising
that many police departments have become disillusioned with zero tolerance
school discipline. As school suspensions and expulsions multiply, so does
crime in the community.

The zero tolerance mentality has brought a sharp increase in school
security technology: metal detectors and video surveillance. After 10
years, however, there is virtually no evidence that security technology or
personnel have increased school safety. Of the handful of published
evaluations of school security measures, none is of sufficient quality to
show that security measures substantially affect school safety. In fact,
some researchers argue that overreliance on school security measures and
zero tolerance contributes to a cycle of fear and violence, creating a
climate more conducive to violence.

There can be no doubt that schools need effective responses to disruption
and incivility--harassment, verbal abuse, threats--before minor incidents
escalate into serious violence. Yet the Draconian responses of zero
tolerance yield a seemingly endless spiral of punishment. If a child with a
toy cap gun is expelled for a year, then we are almost forced to respond to
truly dangerous events and real weapons with two-year, three-year, perhaps
permanent expulsions.

As an alternative, many schools are beginning to consider more moderate
policies, under which the punishment fits the crime, and to develop
preventive plans for school safety. School violence experts consistently
emphasize comprehensive and careful planning as the best path to safe schools.

The solution to the problem of school violence will be found not in
reflexively kicking more students out but rather in learning why some
adolescents become alienated and dangerous, and what we must do to better
include, involve and reconnect troubled youth in our schools.

The writer is a professor in the School of Education at Indiana University.
He was a member of the team that prepared the president's guide to school
safety, "Early Warning, Timely Response."