Many students under strict zero-tolerance policies are punished without a second thought. The Gun-Free Schools Act states that,Įach State receiving Federal funds under any title of this Act shall have in effect a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not less than 1 year a student who is determined to have brought a firearm to a school, or to have possessed a firearm at a school, under the jurisdiction of local educational agencies in that State, except that such State law shall allow the chief administering officer of a local educational agency to modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis if such modification is in writing.Įach state and school system vary in their approach and language surrounding zero-tolerance policies, but the common punishments of suspension and expulsion from school come from the following offenses: bringing any weapon to school, including seemingly innocent items like butter knives and toy swords, having any alcohol or drugs on campus, including tobacco and over-the-counter medications like Aspirin or Midol, fighting, including minor scuffles, threatening other students or teachers, or saying anything that could be perceived as a threat, insubordination, which could include talking back to a teacher or swearing in the principal’s office, and any behavior considered disruptive, such as cutting in a lunch line. With this theory in mind, school districts and states began cracking down on minor violations to prevent serious crimes from occurring in the future. For instance, the police would stop and arrest people for panhandling, disorderly conduct, and public drinking in order to prevent and decrease the number of rapes, robberies, and murders. Wilson and George Kelling, claims that crime is a disorder that, if not eliminated or controlled early on, increases like likelihood of committing a more serious crime later in life. The “broken windows” theory, proposed by James Q. These policies stemmed from law enforcement’s adoption of the “ broken windows” theory and the Gun-Free Schools Act. Zero-tolerance policies were written into school handbooks in the 1990s, created originally to be a deterrent for bringing weapons into schools. To prevent this streamline of students, many of them minorities, from entering the juvenile justice system, schools need to reevaluate their zero-tolerance policies by adding discretion and alternative forms of punishments. The punishment applies regardless of the circumstances, the reasons for the behavior (such as self-defense), or the student’s history of disciplinary problems. Zero-tolerance policies require school officials to give students a specific, consistent, and harsh punishment, usually suspension or expulsion, when certain rules are broken.
Often zero-tolerance policies in schools funnel students into this pipeline.
The “school to prison pipeline” refers to a national trend in which school policies and practices are directly and indirectly pushing students out of school and on a pathway to prison. Ultimately, this disproportionate way of looking at school discipline plays a major role in perpetuating the school to prison pipeline. While extreme, cases like Alexa’s are not rare students all over the country face disciplinary procedures that deliver harsh predetermined punishments, rather than focusing on restorative practices. Several hours passed before she was released. The school deemed these markings as vandalism, and as a result, Alexa was handcuffed, arrested, and detained at a New York City Police Department precinct in Queens. In 2010, 12-year-old Alexa Gonzalez wrote “I love my friends Abby and Faith” and “Lex was here 2/1/10” on her desk in Spanish class with erasable marker.