Phil Beadle
If you are not entirely aware of the history of zero tolerance, like many elements of policy over the last decade-and-a-bit, it was imported from the USA. In New Jersey in 1973, the Safe and Clean Neighbourhoods Act led to an article on the Atlantic Monthly entitled ‘Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbourhood Safety’ in which the authors studied the increase of police officers being put on the beat in tough areas of Newark and, despite the fact that there was no statistical or factual proof that it had worked, as increased use of foot patrol had no impact whatsoever on crime rates, the authors concluded that it had been effective in making communities feel safer. There was no evidence to inform this conclusion. Their central metaphor was a conclusion that “police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken.”[1] To say that this analogy is esoteric is to understate things. The idea is that one broken window in an area suggests that the area is uncared for, and it then becomes okay in the minds of recidivists to break windows there, but the “tend to agree” is telling.
Ultimately, the authors’ conclusion was that every minuscule individual threat to public order that goes unchallenged is a contribution to people feeling unsafe and to the potential collapse into the chaos of a crime-infested community where no one feels safe.
It’s an argument that appears to make logical sense but is merely hypothesis backed up by anecdote. There is no conclusive proof that it is true and, furthermore, it does tend to reflect the paranoia of the conservative view that everything is always going to hell in a handcart. According to the authors, the “wish to ‘decriminalize’ disreputable behavior that ‘harms no one’ – and thus remove the ultimate sanction the police can employ to maintain neighborhood order – is […] a mistake.”[2] They end the article suggesting that further version of the Newark experiment should take place.
The ideas in the article were taken up by Rudy Giuliani when he was Mayor of New York,[3] and the supporters of ‘zero-tolerance’ approaches have claimed that they were responsible for the reduction of the crime rate in New York during the period of his mayoralty. This is despite the fact that, once again, there was no evidence at all to uphold this claim, and there have been several scientific studies supporting the view that it is manifestly false. The crime rate in New York fell by the same percentage as in other major cities during that time as the economy was booming, and this had already started significantly before Giuliani was mayor.
In a paper delivered in 2013, academic Sheldon Wein identified the characteristics of what he described as a “new named fallacy”. These were:
He draws the conclusion that there is such a thing as the ‘zero tolerance fallacy’ and that “one commits the zero tolerance fallacy when one uses an invalid argument that has the conclusion that we ought to have a zero tolerance policy for some behaviour or practice.”[5] Wein then identifies the wonky syllogism[6] that stands at the heart of the zero tolerance fallacy:
Typically such arguments take a form something like this:
Premise: We want to do as much as we can to keep people from x-ing.
Premise: Nothing does more to prevent x-ing than having no tolerance for x-ing.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should adopt the following zero tolerance policy: Absolutely no x-ing.
Wein goes onto locate the “focal meaning” of zero tolerance. He claims it has the following features:
He notes that “it is in schools where it is most obvious that zero tolerance policies have done damage”,[11] and further notes an unforeseen consequence of such policies, when students know that teachers have no discretion when it comes to rule enforcement, is that they will often have less respect for the teachers: “Why should one show respect to those who are not trusted to make decisions about how to apply rules?”[12] So, there is an argument that, like all such draconian policies, zero tolerance policies in schools lead to the de-professionalisation of teachers.
There is the further issue that, in America at least, they do not work. The professionals at the National Association of School Psychologists in the USA are unequivocal about this, entirely emphatic, certain: they have evidence. “Purely punitive ‘get tough’ approaches such as zero tolerance policies do not work. They simply suppress unwanted behavior temporarily while increasing negative consequences, such as reduced perceptions of safety and connectedness among students and the perpetuation of the school-to-prison pipeline.”[13] This has been known for decades and the evidence is robust. (Once again, we see the disrespect for evidence from some of those who claim it as their possession.)
The National Association of School Psychologists describe the need to move from the punitive to the positive, and this is a journey that many feel needs to take place in many schools in England. Placing the management of human behaviour into the hands of those who only see it through the lens of control, who see human error everywhere they look and who seem almost to fetishise punishment is wrong and potentially damaging to the children and, down the line, to society itself. The approach to the management of human behaviour in schools is led by people who appear to have little insight into it, and such a complex realm is far too important to society to be put into the hands of the willing amateur or the ‘good chap’.
The expert professionals at the National Association of School Psychologists have drawn on the level of evidence that one would expect from such an esteemed professional organisation. This is not one person’s view; it is also in no way extremist, but it is categorical about extremism. “Coercive discipline […] inhibits the development of responsibility in students.[14] More school rules and higher perceived strictness predict more disruptive behavior in school — not less, and more severe punishments generate defiance among certain youth.”[15] [16]
The section of the Congressional Briefing that is titled ‘Zero Tolerance Policies’ makes three main conclusions:
All these points are important: zero tolerance doesn’t work; it has been found to be extremely bad for learning in the USA; it causes students to drop out; it is racially discriminatory; and it doesn’t allow for human error or any forgiveness of such. On the matter of behaviour, the ruling sector of our education system’s claims to be ‘evidence-led’ are revealed, when confronted with actual evidence, to be incoherent.
[1] James Q. Wilson & George R. Kelling, Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbourhood Safety, The Atlantic Monthly pp.2-3.
[2] James Q. Wilson & George R. Kelling, Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbourhood Safety, The Atlantic Monthly p6.
[3] And what do people think of him now?
[4] Sheldon Wein, Exploring the Virtues (and Vices) of Zero Tolerance Arguments (2013) Ossa Conference Archive, 171. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/ p1.
[5] Sheldon Wein, Exploring the Virtues (and Vices) of Zero Tolerance Arguments (2013) Ossa Conference Archive, 171. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/ p1.
[6] Here’s a funky piece of knowledge-rich stuff for you. The correct term for the wonky syllogism is the petitio principii fallacy.
[7] Identified perpetrators must always be brought to trial.
[8] The rules must be narrowed to the extent that there is no chance of the perpetrator escaping punishment.
[9] No excuses nor justifications for the offence will be permitted. So ‘no excuses’ is merely a subset of ‘zero tolerance’. I won’t go on here, but it is an important point.
[10] Sheldon Wein, Exploring the Virtues (and Vices) of Zero Tolerance Arguments (2013) Ossa Conference Archive, 171. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/ pp3-4.
[11] Sheldon, Wein, Exploring the Virtues (and Vices) of Zero Tolerance Arguments (2013) Ossa Conference Archive, 171. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/ p5.
[12] Sheldon, Wein, Exploring the Virtues (and Vices) of Zero Tolerance Arguments (2013) Ossa Conference Archive, 171. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/ p6.
[13] National Association of School Psychologists, Congressional Briefing. Effective School Discipline Policy and Practice: Supporting Student Learning (2013). p1.
[14] T. J. Lewis, S. E. L. Jones, R. H. Horner, & G. Sugai (2010). School-wide positive behavior support and students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Implications for prevention, identification and intervention. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 18, 82–93.
[15] S. M. Way (2011). School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 346–375.
[16] National Association of School Psychologists. Congressional Briefing. Effective School Discipline Policy and Practice: Supporting Student Learning (2013). p2.
[17] R. Casella (2003). Zero tolerance policy in school: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105, 872–892. R. Casella (2003). Punishing dangerousness through preventive detention: Illustrating the institutional link between school and prison. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 55–70.
[18] American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862.
[19] R. J. Skiba (2004). Zero tolerance: The assumptions and the facts [Education Policy Brief]. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Indiana University; American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862.
[20] American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862; A. Gregory, & D. Cornell (2009). Tolerating adolescent needs: Moving beyond zero tolerance policies in high school. Theory into Practice, 48, 106–113; National Association of School Psychologists. Congressional Briefing. Effective School Discipline Policy and Practice: Supporting Student Learning (2013). p3.
Added Thu, 6 Jun 2024 13:47
