Review of "A System Gone Berserk: How Are Zero-Tolerance Policies Really Affecting Schools?"

Zero Tolerance policies have become negatively effective due to misuse and abuse of the policy and overuse of suspension; however, they could be ruled out by better alternative methods such as in-school resources, comprehension and prevention, and classroom management.

Article Review

            The purpose of this article was to show how zero tolerance policies are really affecting schools and kids. The author demonstrates both sides of the argument for zero tolerance policies. To gain a better understanding of zero-tolerance policies, the author first addressed the history of the policies. Then, she explored the effectiveness of those zero-tolerance policies in deterring school violence. Last, the author explored alternatives to these policies.

            In the history of the policies section, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 2004 was viewed in terms of the requirement of schools to institute a zero-tolerance policy for students and enforce a minimum of 1 year expulsion to students who brought a firearm on campus; otherwise, schools would lose federal funds that the Elementary and Secondary Act provided at the time. The article takes into consideration that as this policy was beginning to be implemented in the schools, the agency that initially introduced the policy, the U.S. Customs Agency, was phasing out their use of zero-tolerance. The article leans toward the side of the argument in which zero tolerance policies are no longer effective to administrators that take advantage of the policies.

            The section addressing the effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies shows data that zero tolerance policies can and are effective in some ways; however, the article clearly cannot support that data. Because the article cannot support the data of the effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies, it is actually used as part of the argument against the policies. The only supported data mentioned is the increase in suspension of students. This increase indicates the policies are being used, but does not infer they are being used in the correct and ethical ways.

            In addition to the articles argument, it states two major unintended negative side effects of zero-tolerance policies. One side effect is the misuse and abuse factor of administration. The other side effect is the overuse of suspension. These two side effects counteract the argument in the sense that even if data shows the policies to be effective, there are side effects that are involved and are important factors. These side effects are the basic argument for which zero-tolerance policies should not be used in schools.

            Zero-tolerance policies can be effective if used properly; however, as a deterrent, the data does not match up to view them as being overall effective. These policies were intended to remove violence, but they have become administrators’ easy-way-out for disruptive and misbehaved students. The article justifies this argument by offering suggestions of alternatives to zero-tolerance policies.

            In the conclusion, the article proceeds to restate the argument in question form of why zero-tolerance policies are still being used in schools after already being deemed ineffective by the U.S. Customs Agency, who founded them to being with. The negative effects are addressed and alternatives are again suggested to implement zero-tolerance policies.

Reference:

Martinez, Stephanie. "A System Gone Berserk: How Are Zero-Tolerance Policies Really  Affecting Schools?" Preventing School Failure 53.3 (2009): 153-58. Print.