It is difficult to attend school for seven hours, let alone have a splitting headache at the same time. So, what would I do in such a situation? I would simply take Ibuprofen, which is an over-the-counter pain relief pill that is safe for people four years old and older. This common act is not harmful to other students and does not pose any threat to the safety of the students and faculty in the school.
At least, that is what I thought until I was confronted with the threat of suspension for possession of drugs on my high school’s property. This threat was given to me due to the zero tolerance policy established in the school code of conduct. David L. Stader, an assistant professor of educational leadership at the University of Texas-Arlington and consulting editor for The Clearing House, points out that the Education Commission of the States defines a zero tolerance policy as “a school district policy that mandates predetermined consequences or punishment for specific offenses, regardless of the circumstances, disciplinary history or age of the student involved."
Mary Nash-Wood, journalist for The (Shreveport, L.A.) Times, said these zero tolerance policies were put into place due to the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 which demanded all states receiving federal funds must suspend or expel any student that is found possessing a weapon on school grounds for at least one year. Not only are suspension rates increasing, but good students are being punished. Zero tolerance policies are supposed to protect schools from violence and drugs. Instead, some innocent students are having their reputations destroyed. School administrators need to look at the circumstances surrounding an incident and use positive, social skills programs instead of relying solely on zero tolerance policies.
Those in favor of zero tolerance policies may argue that the policies eliminate all threats of harm without discrimination. National statistics show that between the years of 1993 and 1995, the percentage of students that carried a weapon decreased, claimed Stader. Also, John H. Holloway, Project Director, Teaching and Learning Division, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, comments on a Morris and Wells report in 2000 which showed that these zero tolerance policies have decreased the number of school crimes and arrests.
However, many good, model students are being punished even though they are not committing any act of violence, do not possess a weapon, or are abusing drugs. For example, Nash-Wood, recalled a story about Lindsey Tanner who was a 14-year-old honor student that was expelled from school for giving another student a Midol pill (an over-the-counter pain pill used for menstrual related pain).
Lindsey lost friends, was treated as an outcast in her community and was forced to change schools. She also points out that students are being expelled for non-violent offenses such as carrying prescription medication and scissors. In 2001, Steven C. Teske, a judge for the Juvenile Court of Clayton County, Jonesboro, GA, says that the Texas Youth Commission stated that 67 percent of students that were arrested under the zero tolerance policy did not commit any act of violence.
