Discipline Zero 16 ##HOT##
Since the emergence of zero tolerance discipline policies in the 1990s, schools have increasingly relied on suspensions as a behavioral management tactic. But these policies can potentially stigmatize students and expose them to the criminal justice system. A field of developing research strongly suggests a correlation between school discipline and the likelihood of dropping out, arrests, and incarceration.
Discipline Zero 16
A zero tolerance policy in schools requires administrators to hand down specific and consistent punishment for certain behaviors that occur on campus. The consequences given to students are usually harsh, involving either suspension or expulsion, and it can sometimes be for misconduct issues that are relatively minor. It is an outcome that applies regardless of the circumstances or the reasons for the behavior, including actions taken in self-defense.
The first zero tolerance policies were developed in the 1990s in the United States as a response to school shooting incidents that occurred. Laws like the Gun-Free Schools Act, which passed in 1994, require schools to expel any student who brings a gun to campus. It was at this time when it became popular to become harsh on minor violations under the idea that it could prevent serious crimes.
Does a zero tolerance policy in schools actually work, or does it create a situation where students become more fearful about what might happen to them? There are several pros and cons to review with this approach.
1. Zero tolerance policies work to create a safe learning environment. Proponents say that the use of a zero tolerance policy makes it possible for schools to keep the learning environment safer for students. The reasons why a rule is broken rarely matter, which is why there should not be any exceptions under any circumstances. If there are policies violated, then students should receive a serious consequence for that decision. Taking a harsh action might seem extreme to some, but it can also serve as a deterrent to other kids who might be thinking about taking a similar approach.
4. Almost anything can be turned into a weapon with intent. Critics often put zero tolerance policies at schools on blast because there can be some confusion as to what constitutes a weapon. The reality of violence is that almost anything can be turned into something that could harm someone else. Our situation is different today than in the past when you could take a pocketknife to school because you had shop class that day. Rubber bands might seem like a silly item that is non-threatening, but elastic band injuries are fairly common. A family in Naperville, IL even sued the school district there because of an eye injury sustained on campus by one.
Critics will point out that the district went too far in that situation by initiating a strip search to determine if she had more medication on her person. From a drug-only standpoint, students are not doctors. Even medicines like Tylenol or ibuprofen can create potentially hazardous side effects. By having a zero tolerance policy against carrying drugs, it reduces the potential for harm with all students.
7. Zero tolerance policies create clear guidelines to follow. The presence of a zero tolerance policy sends a clear message to students and families. It removes offenders from the classroom and allows administrators to act quickly with discipline based on school policies. The guidelines of expectations and consequences are clear and communicated to everyone before the start of the school year. It is a fast-acting intervention that projects the messages that ill intent is not tolerated at school for any reason.
9. A majority of parents support zero tolerance policies at schools. The American Psychological Association reports that parents overwhelmingly support the implementation of a zero tolerance policy. This action ensures that students feel safe because they know that unwanted behaviors or actions are dealt with quickly and in no uncertain terms. It is a method that works to keep schools safer because it limits the opportunities for bullying and encourages students to report the presence of guns, weapons, or drugs that might get brought into the school.
10. Zero tolerance does not apply in most situations to socioeconomic issues. Zero tolerance policies work best when they work to maintain a safe and disciplined learning environment. Teachers are unable to teach and students cannot learn when there is disruption and chaos in the classroom. These policies help to create a place where everyone can feel protected while they work to better themselves.
Critics rightly point out that zero tolerance policies are ineffective when schools attempt to enforce them for socioeconomic reasons. Kids showing up with a lack of school supplies for the classroom is not an issue that can be fixed with an automatic suspension. Tardiness and unexcused absences have reasons that fall outside of the intent-to-harm spectrum as well, requiring schools to work with students and parents to resolve the underlying issues that cause the behavior in the first place.
We believe our new strategy provides a comprehensive and coherent approach to turn our net zero ambition into action. This coming decade is critical for the world in the fight against climate change, and to drive the necessary change in global energy systems will require action from everyone.
So, in the years ahead, bp is going to significantly scale-up our low-carbon energy business and transform our mobility and convenience offers. We will focus, and reduce, our oil, gas and refining portfolio. And, as we drive down emissions on our route to net zero, we are committed to continuing to deliver long-term value for our stakeholders.
The introduction of the new strategy and transformation of bp are expected to deliver material progress towards its ambition to become net zero by 2050 or sooner and its supporting aims. By 2030, bp aims to have delivered significant progress against its first five Aims:
bp intends to maintain its financial discipline with a rigorous business plan, including strengthening its balance sheet, maintaining strict discipline on capital spending and deleveraging to reduce net debt to $35 billion.
Based on expected growth in profitability, and its focus on disciplined investment allocation, bp aims to deliver strong and growing returns, with ROACE rising to 12-14% in 2025(1). It also expects to rebalance its sources and uses of cash, on average over 2021-25, to a balance point of around $40/bbl Brent, assuming an average bp refining marker margin around $11/bbl and Henry Hub at $3/mmBtu in 2020 real terms.
The goal of ZERO is to accelerate the transition to a just zero-carbon energy system. Achieving this requires systems thinking as well as the development and adoption of new technologies and infrastructure. In addition, innovation will be required in business models, institutions, policy and society.
Many of the potential components of a zero-carbon energy system (such as demand reduction, renewable energy conversion, energy storage and nuclear power) have been researched over many decades. However, the concept of a zero-carbon system (without fossil fuels) has only really gained traction with policymakers since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015.
In many large urban school districts, there are more security employees than counselors. In the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) system, for example there is one security guard for every 147 students, while the counselor-to-student ratio is 1:217. In addition, based on 2015-16 data, Groeger et al. (2018) found that Black students in DCPS were 15 times more likely to be suspended than their white peers (nationally, Black students were four times more likely to be suspended). In short, many students are not getting the emotional and mental support they need as they go through our schools. Instead, as exemplified by these staffing ratios, too many students are affected by punitive, militaristic methods of discipline, which may not only have negative consequences for the students who are disciplined, but for their peers as well (Perry and Morris 2014).
Unfortunately, if done wrong, restorative justice practices have the power to perpetuate a culture of compliance and control. If teachers embed restorative justice practices into the current discourse of behavior and classroom management, nothing will change. That is why teachers and staff members must believe in the power of restorative practices to shift their own biases away from more extreme approaches, such as zero tolerance policies (Vaandering 2014). School leadership must also provide adequate time and training to ensure a successful rollout of restorative justice practices schoolwide (Crosnoe 2004; Weaver and Swank 2020). The research suggests that we must move away from compliance-based classroom management and move towards practices that facilitate a more autonomous space for students to take responsibility for their actions. Such practices help students develop a strong sense of advocacy and belonging within their classroom (Vaandering 2014).
But this leaves us in a conundrum. If we view self-discipline in terms of willpower, it creates a chicken-or-the-egg situation: To build willpower, we need self-discipline over a long period of time; but to have self-discipline, we need massive amounts of willpower.
CPS charter schools are exempt from local school board policies under Illinois law (105 ILCS 5/27A). Charter schools may choose to adopt the SCC or establish their own discipline policies. Charter schools are not exempt from federal and most state laws, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or from federal and state regulations as they pertain to discipline of students with disabilities/impairments. If a charter school establishes its own discipline policy, it must incorporate language from and comply with the guidelines for suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities/impairments outlined in this policy. Charter schools must also comply with policies and procedures established by the Office of Diverse Learner Supports and Services for the discipline of students with disabilities. Students expelled from charter schools should contact the Department of Student Adjudication at (773) 553-2249 for assistance in enrollment into a school post-charter expulsion.