Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-3
The Law,Policy,and Portrayal of Zero Tolerance School Discipline: Examining Prevalence and Characteristics Across Levels of Governance and School Districts
Reform of school zero tolerance discipline policies is complicated by a lack of systematic evidence on the prevalence and characteristics of such policies. Through document analysis, this study compares explicit zero tolerance laws/policies and mandatory expulsion laws/policies across the domains of federal law, state law, district policy, and media portrayal. Results suggest that explicit zero tolerance laws and policies are rare, appearing in less than one in seven states or districts, whereas mandatory expulsion laws/policies are more common. Districts serving high proportions of minority students as well as districts consisting only of charter schools are more likely to have mandatory expulsion policies for certain offenses. Additionally, district zero tolerance policies apply to a broader set of offenses than state laws. Finally, state and district laws/policies tend to not apply to minor offenses to the degree suggested by media coverage. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. The American Psychologist, 63, 852-862.
3.
ArumR. (2005). Judging school discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BalfanzR.ByrnesV.FoxJ. (2015). Sent home and put off track: The antecedents, disproportionalities, and consequences of being suspended in the 9th grade. In LosenD. J. (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion (pp. 17-30). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
5.
BarrR.DreebenR.WiratchaiN. (1983). How schools work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BerendsM. (2009). Commentary: Nested actors and institutions: The need for better theory, data, and methods to inform education policy. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 735-748). New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
Cohen-VogelL.MclendonM. K. (2009). New approaches to understanding federal involvement in education. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 735-748). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
ConliskE.SiegelM.LengerichE.MacKenzieW.MalekS.EriksenM. (1995). The status of local smoking regulations in North Carolina following a state preemption bill. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(10), 805-807.
9.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CornellD. G.MayerM. J. (2010). Why do school order and safety matter?Educational Researcher, 39(1), 7-15.
11.
CrenshawK.OcenP.NandaJ. (2015). Black girls matter: Pushed out, overpoliced and underprotected. New York, NY: African American Policy Forum, Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies, Columbia Law School.
12.
CurranF. C. (2016a). Estimating the effect of state zero tolerance laws on exclusionary discipline, racial discipline gaps, and student behavior. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 647-668.
13.
CurranF. C. (2016b). Racial disproportionalities in discipline: The role of zero tolerance policies. In CrewsG. (Ed.), Critical examinations of school violence and disturbance in K-12 education (p. 149-164). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
14.
DatnowA.ParkV. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348-361). New York, NY: Routledge.
EitleT. M.EitleD. J. (2004). Inequality, segregation, and the overrepresentation of African Americans in school suspensions. Sociological Perspectives, 47, 269-287.
17.
ElmoreR. F. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94, 601-616.
18.
FuentesA. (2013). Lockdown high: When the schoolhouse becomes a jailhouse. London, England: Verso Books.
19.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
20.
GregoryA.SkibaR. J.NogueraP. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin?Educational Researcher, 39, 59-68.
21.
Gun-Free Schools Act. 1994. 20 U.S.C.A. Sec 8921.
22.
HeavisideS.RowandC.WilliamsC.FarrisE. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools: 1996-97. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office.
23.
HillM.HupeP. (2003). The multi-layer problem in implementation research. Public Management Review, 5, 471-490.
24.
HjernB. (1982). Implementation research—The link gone missing. Journal of Public Policy, 2, 301-308.
25.
HoffmanS. (2014). Zero benefit: Estimating the effect of zero tolerance discipline policies on racial disparities in school discipline. Educational Policy, 28, 69-95.
26.
HogwoodB. W.GunnL. A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world (Vol. 69). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Kennedy-LewisB. L. (2014). Using critical policy analysis to examine competing discourses in zero tolerance legislation: Do we really want to leave no child behind?Journal of Education Policy, 29, 165-194.
30.
KupchikA. (2010). Homeroom security: School discipline in an age of fear. New York: New York University Press.
31.
LindleJ. C. (2008). School safety real or imagined fear?Educational Policy, 22, 28-44.
32.
LipskyM. (1979). Street level bureaucracy (Vol. 198, No. 1). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
MarchbanksM. P.BlakeJ. J.BoothE. A.CarmichaelD.SeibertA. L.FabeloT. (2015). The economic effects of exclusionary discipline on grade retention and high school dropout. In LosenD. J. (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion (pp. 59-74). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
35.
MatlandR. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 145-174.
36.
McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s standards educational goals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
37.
MorrisM. W. (2016). Pushout: The criminalization of Black Girls in schools. New York, NY:The New Press.
38.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1763. (2002).
39.
NolanK. (2011). Police in the hallways: Discipline in an urban high school. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
PaltridgeB. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
42.
PayneA. A.WelchK. (2010). Modeling the effects of racial threat on punitive and restorative school discipline practices. Criminology, 48, 1019-1062.
43.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. B. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all. Berkeley: University of California Press.
44.
Raffaele MendezL. M. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A longitudinal investigation. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 17-33.
45.
Raffaele MendezL. M.KnoffH. M.FerronJ. M. (2002). School demographic variables and out-of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of large ethnically diverse school district. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 259-276.
46.
RauschM. K.SkibaR. J. (2004). Unplanned outcomes: Suspensions and expulsions in Indiana. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
47.
RichardsJ. (2004). Zero room for zero tolerance: Rethinking federal funding for zero tolerance policies. University of Dayton Law Review, 30, 91.
48.
RobersS.ZhangA.MorganR. E.Musu-GilletteL. (2015). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2014 (NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
49.
RocqueM. (2010). Office discipline and student behavior: Does race matter?American Journal of Education, 116, 557-581.
50.
RocqueM.PaternosterR. (2011). Understanding the antecedents of the School-to-Jail Link: The relationship between race and school discipline. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101, Article 633.
SheddC. (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, and perceptions of injustice. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
53.
ShollenbergerT. L. (2015). Racial disparities in school suspension and subsequent outcomes: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. In LosenD. J. (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion (pp. 31-43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
54.
SkibaR. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice (Policy Research Report SRS2). Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center.
55.
SkibaR. J.EatonJ.SotooN. (2004). Factors associated with state rates of out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Children Left Behind Policy Briefs. Supplementary Analysis 2-B. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
56.
SkibaR. J.KnestingK. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Youth Development, 2001(92), 17-43.
57.
SkibaR. J.MichaelR. S.NardoA. C.PetersonR. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317-342.
58.
SkibaR. J.PetersonR. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools?Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 372-382.
59.
SkibaR. J.ReynoldsC. R.GrahamS.SherasP.ConoleyJ. C.Garcia-VazquezE. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations (A Report by the American Psychological Associate Zero Tolerance Task Force). Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance-report.pdf
StevensD. W.SartainL.AllensworthE. M.LevensteinR.GuiltinanS.MaderN.. . . PorterS. (2015). Discipline practices in Chicago schools: Trends in the use of suspensions and arrests (Research Report for the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research). Retrieved from https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Discipline%20Report.pdf
ThorntonC. H.TrentW. (1988). School desegregation and suspension in East Baton Rouge Parish: A preliminary report. Journal of Negro Education, 57, 482-501.
64.
TrujilloT. M. (2013). The politics of district instructional policy formation: Compromising equity and rigor. Educational Policy, 27, 531-559.
VanVoorhisC. R. W.MorganB. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43-50.
68.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
69.
WallaceJ. M.GoodkindS.WallaceC. M.BachmanJ. G. (2008). Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline among U.S. high school students: 1991–2005. Negro Educational Review, 59, 47-62.
70.
WelchK.PayneA. A. (2010). Racial threat and punitive school discipline. Social Problems, 57, 25-48.
71.
WelchK.PayneA. A. (2012). Exclusionary school punishment: The effect of racial threat on expulsion and suspension. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 155-171.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
