NCJ Number
189860
Date Published
2000
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This Department of Justice funded study examined the use of suspension and expulsion of students using a new “zero tolerance” rationale or policy on youth violence in schools, the cost to society for the increase in youth expelled from school, and alternative educational environments, programs, or training for high-risk youth.
Abstract
Suspension and expulsion had long been used to remove students from school for serious offenses, representing the upper end of the continuum of actions utilized by school administrators and reserved for repeat offenses of a serious nature or single offenses of an egregious type. Recently, students are being expelled for serious acts using a “zero tolerance” rationale, even when a mild threat or act of violence was involved, or a first offense, regardless of a student’s record of conduct. This emergence of “zero tolerance” was based on the increasing concern for the safety of students in schools who were experiencing an increase in acts of violence. Zero tolerance is defined as a school or district policy that mandates predetermined consequences or punishment for specific offenses, conveying a “tough” response in deterring youth from committing violations. This report, funded under the Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, was a preliminary attempt to assess these new directions in suspension and expulsion with a zero tolerance in relationship to making students safer in schools and the cost to society of those students expelled. Suspension and expulsion have their place in effective school discipline, but can be overused or misused with potentially disastrous consequences for students. Zero tolerance was a move toward strict discipline of a few in a failed attempt to make schools safer. When students are excluded from the general student population, every effort should be made to keep youth involved in meaningful educational experiences. A wide range of educational alternatives and programs are available nationwide and are described in this study (California, Illinois, Florida, Virginia, New York, and Oregon). The growth in alternative education strategies and options can have positive outcomes. When the alternatives fail, community-based programs must fill the gap to prevent youth from involvement in the criminal justice system. Suspension and expulsion should not be seen as an easy solution to the problems facing schools, but should be used with great discretion with measurable positive impacts. References