Zero-tolerance policies: Is the Safe Schools Act All That Safe?

Bullying is a very serious issue in schools today. According to Barbara Coloroso the percentage of children being teased between grades 7-10 is significant; “86 percent of students between the ages of 12 and 15 said they get teased at school.” (2002, page 12). This is a very alarming percentage and it shows that obviously the conventional methods for dealing with bullying are not working. One of the most common forms of dealing with bullying, which is the board-wide standard in Ontario, is the zero-tolerance policy.

Zero-tolerance means that a school will automatically punish a student committing infractions. A zero-tolerance policy results in students being punished severely (usually a suspension or expulsion) regardless of any legitimate excuse, and sometimes the police being involved. (Martin II, 2001)

Zero-tolerance policies for bullying in Canadian schools have been under observation lately. Many people think that a zero-tolerance policy is ineffective in solving bullying issues because of many issues, including both the instigator and the victim being punished, the instigator missing enough school to be ineligible for a credit, rampant misuse and misunderstanding of what “bullying” actually is, and the racial inequalities of this rule. For example, two students from Emery Collegiate Institute were suspended on December 1, 2005 after an alleged robbery and fight. The boys are saying that the school did not properly investigate the circumstances before suspending them for 16 days each, and that the Toronto District School board breached a November agreement with the Ontario Human Rights Commission by not informing their parents of the suspension the same day. The agreement was made after a large number of black parents claimed the board was disproportionately targeting their children using the Safe Schools Act. (Kalinowski, 2005, B3) Schools should find another way to deal with bullying than the ineffective and rather damaging zero-tolerance policy that deals effectively with the issue, is sensitive to both parties’ rights and allows for rehabilitation of the perpetrator.

Zero-tolerance policies are resulting in astronomical absenteeism rates, and not only because of suspensions, although that is a rather significant factor. In Ontario, the provincial average for the 2003-2004 school year was 7.2 percent. The Sudbury Catholic District School Board had 16.5 percent of students suspended, and the Rainbow District Board has 9.9 percent suspended. (Ulrichsen, 2005) It is well known that absences affect children’s learning and grades; so suspending them for the slightest infraction seems slightly illogical, especially because education is one of the few things that help to prevent bullying.

Additionally, bullying not only affects the bully’s attendance, but that of the victim. Many times, because of the zero-tolerance policy, the victim as well as the bully is punished, especially if it is a “he said- she said” instance, where the children only have their words to prove what has happened. In fact, “15 percent of all school absenteeism is directly related to the fears of being bullied at school”. (DeHaan, 1997). This is also an alarming statistic, to think that this many children are refusing to go to school because they are afraid; that school, a place that is supposed to be nurturing and safe, becomes a source of menace and shame. Children who miss enough school, especially in high school, risk the chance of failing a class, or even the whole semester.

Absenteeism due to bullying does not only affect children. If the bullies are not dealt with by the time they become adults, things can become increasingly detrimental. For example, research indicates that when a person is bullied, ten percent take time away from work and they are absent, on average, 30 days. Fifty-six percent of bullied people said that they have suffered psychological, health-related or other personal impacts as a result of the bullying—most often irritability, loss of sleep, or loss of self-confidence, but sometimes sever anxiety attacks, loss of appetite or increased use of alcohol, tobacco or other substances. (Cote, 2005, page 2) If this is what an adult does when they are bullied, imagine the effects on a child who is half their age or less, and has much less life experience to say that they actually are worth something. A zero-tolerance policy allows a bully no chance to learn that what he did was wrong, because he has no chance to be educated any differently, and if he does not learn what is wrong with his actions, he may become a workplace bully and cause his co-workers this sort of grief.

Laura DeHaan, Assistant Professor of Child Development at North Dakota State University says that education plays a significant part in bullying: “Bullies are usually not model students. Very often they are not doing well in school and do not have good connections with their teachers.”. (DeHann, 1997) It is reasonable to assume, then, that if bullies are not model students, then suspending/ expelling them would not be an effective punishment because they already show distaste for school, not to mention the fact that without a good education, there will be few career options open to these people. With very few career options open to them, they are more likely to resort to criminal activities to make ends meet, and it has been proven that “6 out of 10 bullies gain a criminal record by the age of 24.”. (Field, 2005). Having children shunned by the education system so early may make this number much higher in the future.

Zero-tolerance policies can also result in students have less respect for the teachers and administration that intervene the bullying. For example, in her book, The Bully, the Bullied and the Bystander, Barbara Coloroso explains that parents and teachers greatly underestimate the frequency of bullying: “23 of the students bullied and 71 of the teachers reported that teachers intervened often or almost always… Parents and teachers greatly underestimated the frequency of bullying when compared to student responses.” (page 13) This situation, when paired with a zero-tolerance policy is a recipe for resentment: the students watch other bullies get punished for breaking the rules, but when they are bullied, no one helps or believes them, so they resent the administrators. Administrators who are not respected by their children will not be listened to, and suddenly, the classroom is anarchy and it is not a positive learning environment for anyone anymore.

According to Abraham Maslow, children are not necessarily innately “evil”—they do sometimes behave in aggressive mannerisms, but in the same turn, they can behave in docile, selfless mannerisms. “The main principle that determines the relative frequency of the two types of behaviors good and bad seems to be that the child who is insecure, basically thwarted, or threatened in his needs for safety, love, belongingness and self-esteem is the child who will show more selfishness, hatred, aggression and destructiveness.” (1970, pages 121-122) If the children who misbehave are generally the ones who are in need of love, belongingness and self-esteem, kicking them out of school for the slightest infraction may, in fact, reverse any progress that has been made with that child. Because taking the child away from his friends or school, especially at a young age, can shatter their self-esteem and sense of belonging; it will only serve to make him misbehave worse the following time.