This research begins with the development of zero tolerance discipline policies in grades K-12 according to Federal and State laws.An investigation of juvenile crime and safe school environments proposes that zero tolerance discipline policies are excluding children from education rather than ensuring student safety on campus.Children of low socioeconomic status and ethnic minority groups are suspended or expelled in much larger numbers than the rest of the student population in schools with zero tolerance discipline policies.Students often face criminal charges in addition to expulsion that tends to increase the risk of incarceration for that student in the future.Disciplinary actions under zero tolerance policies increases the risk that a student will drop out of school, which is effecting the overall drop out rate in grades K-12.Educational professionals report that zero tolerance policies also interfere with healthy psychological and sociological development of children.In contrast, the research also reviews alternative operations and disciplinary practices that have improved the behavior and performance of students while maintaining a safe school environment.Further research is necessary to establish the full range of the effects of zero tolerance discipline policies and the impact these policies have on a child's future.
Take Prisoners: Zero Tolerance Discipline Policies in K-12

In San Francisco, California, a Black middle school student made a bet with his classmate on the outcome of a school basket ball game.The classmate lost the bet and told school authorities that the boy threatened him for payment.Without conducting an investigation, school authorities and law enforcement agencies charged the 7^th grader with felony extortion and he was expelled (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).In Mississippi, five Black students were throwing peanuts at each other on the school bus one morning.A peanut accidentally hit the White female bus driver in the back of the head.The bus driver immediately drove to the local police station where the five students were questioned, arrested and charged with felony assault, which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.Community pressure and legal assistance eventually prevailed on the student's behalf and the felony charges were dropped.However, the junior and senior students lost their bus privileges and suspension from school was recommended.Subsequently, the boys dropped out of school because they were unable to maintain regular transportation for the thirty mile trip to their high school within the low-income, rural community in the Mississippi Delta (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000). 

All students may face obstacles as a result of zero tolerance discipline policies in grades K-12 that tend to be similar to the experiences of the students in the documented cases above.These types of experiences certainly interfere with a student's positive social and educational development.Moreover, zero tolerance discipline policies are more often applied to students from low socioeconomic status (SES) communities in general and ethnic minority students in particular, which limits their educational development and, consequently, effects their personal and social situation in the future.

Christopher Edley, Jr., a co-director of Harvard University's Civil Rights Project, organized a conference in Washington D.C. in June 2000 to address the disparities that exist in the application of zero tolerance discipline policies along economic and ethnic lines (cited in Johnston, 2000).Raymond Pierce, a deputy assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, spoke to participants at the forum about the inconsistent application of discipline policies that have been occurring during the past decade.He also stated that parents and students are largely unaware of their civil rights under the policies and due process of the laws that come into play concerning zero tolerance discipline policies (cited in Johnston, 2000).Bruce Hunter, the director of policy for the American Association of School Administrators in Arlington, Virginia, made a statement at the conference that zero tolerance policies go beyond racial discrimination.Jonathon Kozol, (1991) author of the book Savage Inequalities about conditions in high-poverty schools, maintains that research has shown that these disparities in the application of zero tolerance discipline policies commonly exist in high-poverty schools in low-income communities (cited in Johnston, 2000).A recent report published by Harvard University informs the public that, "Without a change in philosophy, many schools will continue to write off and weed out children, cutting off their educational opportunities" (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000, Lessons section, para 1). 

Exclusion from educational institutions is not the only result of zero tolerance discipline policies.Researchers have found significant evidence of institutional racism, especially against Black students, in the practice of zero tolerance policies as well (e.g. Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000; see also The Applied Research Center, 2000).The most serious issue in the controversy over zero tolerance policies is the intrinsic referral of children to the criminal justice systems in conjunction with practices of "racial profiling" (Rev. Jesse Jackson cited in Johnston, 2000, 'Major Problem' section, para 7) by school administrators and law enforcement agencies (e.g. Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000; Brooks, et al., 1998, 2000).Incidents of unreasonable disciplinary actions taken against students frequently include vague explanations for these actions, such as disrespect for authority and disruption of the classroom, leaving interpretation of the terms subject to discriminatory practices (Gordon, R., Libero, D. P. & Keleher, T, 2000).

Under zero tolerance discipline policies students have faced suspension or expulsion for the possession of objects considered to be a threat to the safety of other children.A list of these objects includes, and is not limited to, such items as scissors, plastic knives in lunch bags, nail clippers and toy axes that were a part of their Halloween costume (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).School authorities have expelled or suspended students for possession of drugs because they shared cough drops or Midol with other students (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).The absurd interpretations of Federal and State legislation to protect children from weapons, illegal drugs and violence on campus would be amusing if the conclusions were not so disproportionately exclusive for the children these laws are supposed to protect. 

As a result, in 1994 the 103^rd Congress made several amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, usually cited as Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (see U.S. Department of Education, http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA).Among these amendments is Title XIV—General Provisions Part F, the specific Federal law that addresses possession of weapons on school campuses. Part F is cited as the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 and contains the foundations for State laws and local policies that require expulsion of a student for possession of a weapon on campus for a period not less than one year.States must comply with this law in order to receive Federal funds.The State laws must allow any local education agency to modify the expulsion requirement on a case-to-case basis.States must also allow local education agencies to continue to provide education for students that are expelled for weapon possession in an alternative local education agency upon the discretion of these agencies.The official definition in the Federal law defines "weapon" as a firearm.The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 also requires local education agencies to refer a student possessing a weapon to a criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system in order to receive Federal funds.Again, the official definition in this section of "weapon" is a firearm (U.S. Department of Education, 1994).The Jeffords Amendment to the Gun-Free Schools Act later expanded the language of the definition for the term "weapon", which allows for interpretation of a weapon to include a knife (Skiba, 2000).

The Federal laws do not require mandatory State laws of suspension or expulsion of students for possession, distribution or use of illegal drugs, alcohol or tobacco.Title IV of the same Act does contain statements of Federal desires for punitive reforms in grades K-12 and offers financial support to the States for education and prevention programs that inform students about substance abuse and positively intervene in a crisis situation (U.S. Department of Education, 1994).However, in practice students are regularly suspended or expelled under zero tolerance policies for reasons that defy logic.For example, a 7^th grade student in an Ohio school district faced expulsion for purportedly sniffing whiteout that she was using during class.Although the Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati verified with experts that whiteout is not a drug, the student was suspended for nine days.Her official school records now indicate that she was suspended for drug abuse (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000). 

An examination of State laws that went into effect before and since the amendments to Federal education laws in 1994 offers a partial explanation for this phenomenon.In addition to State laws local school districts may enforce policies and punishments on students, which further complicates the controversial aspects of zero tolerance discipline policies.As the Federal law mandates, all States have laws that expel students from school for possession of a firearm.Besides this common basis, grounds for expulsion of a student varies from State to State1.18 States have laws that demand expulsion of students who use, possess or distribute drugs on campus.10 States have laws of expulsion for willful and continued defiance of authority and two States have laws that require a student to be expelled for habitual use of profanity (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).Students, then, may be suspended according to various State and/or local laws for arbitrary reasons.In total, 41 States have laws concerning suspension and 49 States have laws covering expulsion (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).

43 States have laws that require school authorities to report students to local police departments and/or juvenile courts if they violate certain school disciplinary policies.In many instances, distortions of the basic Federal law of 1994 results in criminal charges in cases where the student did not commit an actual crime on campus.For example, Maryland law compels school authorities to report a student to local law enforcement agencies for possession of a pager on campus (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).

In recent years more and more school campuses across the United States are beginning to have an atmosphere similar to a juvenile detention facility.In many urban school districts, metal detectors and/or security cameras are in use on campus (Tyre, 1998).In some schools, either police or a school district's private security officers monitor the halls and common areas of campuses (Department of Education, 1998).Surprise locker and school bag searches complete with drug-sniffing dogs have become frequent experiences for students in grades K-12 (e.g. Brooks, et al. 1998, 2000; The Times Online; Tyre, 1998).Zero tolerance policies seem to make schools safer for children, which is a growing concern of parents in light of the incidents of violence on campuses that result in serious injuries ordeaths of children (Brooks, et al. 1998, 2000; CNN, In-Depth, 2000). Yet, do zero tolerance discipline policies contribute to school environments that are safer for students?

The phenomenon of school shootings in the past decade has understandably been influential in the development of zero tolerance discipline policies.Parents are anxious about their children's safety while attending school.Still, according to the U.S. Department of Education (1998) school shootings are "relatively rare" (CNN, 1998, School Shootings Have High Profile But Occur Infrequently, para 1).Only 10% of all schools and 8% of rural schools reported[2] serious violent crime during 1996-97 (CNN, 1998).Parental anxiety may also be increased by the frequent media reports of violence among children and teen-agers in general (Brooks, et al. 2000).The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports in 1998 that homicide accounts for 20% of all deaths in the 10-24 year old age category (CDC, cited in Johnston, 1998).Although, this age category is rather deceptive because a person is commonly considered an adult at 21 years of age.

Often, the way that the news media presents the reports of school shootings gives parents the impression that mass shootings, such as at Columbine, occur more frequently in U.S. schools than confirmed by the actual facts.This is not to say that any death due to violence is not a tragedy, however it may occur, but often the news media aims for a reaction on an emotional level and does not distinguish details in the reports.This kind of reporting tends to confuse the issue of violence in U.S. schools (e.g. Brooks, et al., 1998, 2000, Skiba, 2000).

ABC news published a list of school shootings over a period of 16 months in the years 1997-98 on the Internet[3].Of the 14 incidents listed, two were written threats of violence only and one was a report of a gun that accidentally went off in a student's backpack, wounding another student.Granted the student should not have been carrying a gun to school, but the shooting was not intentional.Two shootings took place on campus outside the school building during after-school hours and were attributed to rivalries that originated between the students within the community that were not school related.Seven shootings actually took place during school hours and one shooting took place at a school graduation dance.Of these eight incidents, five shootings were on a massive scale, such as Columbine, and three were directed at one, or at the most, two people (ABC news, 1998).ABC news headlines the list as "An Explosion of Violence" (ABC news, 1998).Again, any violent death is a tragedy, but not all of the 14 reports were actually random, massive violence erupting from out-of-control juveniles.

Professionals who collect and analyze data on school shootings according to scientific methods maintain that premeditated murder within U.S. schools has a very low incidence rate overall (CNN, 1998).The CDC (1999) reports that less than 1% of all homicides among 15-19 year olds take place in/around or on school grounds or on the way to and from school.In the same report, CDC notes that five multiple victim deaths on school grounds have occurred in the school years 1995-98 (CDC, 1999).Also, Skiba (2000) notes that the most publicized school shootings took place in suburban or rural communities of high to middle-income levels and in schools with a relatively low percentage of low-income and ethnic minority students.Yet, the general perception of the public is that schools in low-income urban communities with a high percentage of low-income and ethnic minority students are the most dangerous schools in the U.S. (Skiba, 2000; Tyre,1998). 

Recent studies by academics and journalists (e.g. Education Weekly, 2000; Gordon, et al. 1999; Mayer & Leone, 1999) has generated questions about the effectiveness of zero tolerance discipline policies in relation to safe school environments.In contradiction to stories in the mainstream media about youth violence in schools and communities, professional researchers (Brooks, et al. 2000) report a significant decrease in violence among adolescents on and off campus in recent years.The latest data published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1998, 1993, cited in Brooks, et al. 2000) collected from 1993-98 shows a 56% drop in juvenile homicide arrests[4].This reality of the statistical information on juvenile crime was noted in a recent report published by the Justice Policy Institute/Children's Law Center in Washington D.C[5].In the journal, the authors (Brooks, et al. 2000) note that the most current data shows that the number of arrests of children under 13 years of age for juvenile homicide is the lowest since the FBI began collecting this statistic in 1964.The authors (Brooks, et al. 2000) report that the number has dropped by nearly one half, from 41 in 1993 to 22 in 1998.Crime has also decreased among youth under 18 years old.From 1993-98 the number of youths arrested for rape was down 29%, robbery dropped by 47% and aggravated assault declined 27%.In all, the juvenile crime rate has dropped 30% since 1993 (Brooks, et al. 2000).

In 1999, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) did a joint study of the change over time in student reports of crimes in and out of school (1999, cited in Brooks, et al. 2000).Their study was based on data collected in the National Crime Victimization surveys that are conducted by the BJS from a category on school crimes.The findings of the BJS/NCES study (1999, cited in Brooks, et al. 2000) showed a 29% decline in the total number of school crimes reported from 1993-97 (3,795,200 to 2,721,200).The number of serious violent crimes reported were down 34% (306,700 to 201,800) and violence such as fighting decreased by 27% (1,438,200 to 1,055,200) (Brooks, et al. 2000).

According to the statistics on juvenile crime over the long range it may appear to advocates of zero discipline policies that these policies have been a factor in the reduction of, at least, serious violent crimes on school campuses.CNN correspondent Peg Tyre (1998) relates how New York City school officials took measures to improve student safety.She states that New York City schools, often cited as some of the most dangerous in the U.S., are considered a model of the outcomes of zero tolerance discipline policies accompanied by physical deterrents, such as metal detectors and video surveillance cameras (Tyre, 1998).Physical deterrents, constant police surveillance on campus and zero tolerance discipline policies were applied in the city's schools in response to a school shooting in a Brooklyn high school in 1992.The article cites that during the years 1996-98 the number of guns confiscated from students in New York City schools dropped by 69.7% and attacks on teachers were down 24% (Tyre, 1998).Tyre (1998) claims that the effectiveness of the zero tolerance policies in New York City schools is difficult to measure because a drop in the overall crime rate in the city is inseparable from the drop in school violence.Still, representatives from the United Federation of Teachers and The Center for Educational Innovation in New York City were quoted in the article as attributing the reduction of overall violence in the city's schools to the implementation of zero tolerance policies and physical deterrents (Tyre, 1998).Ironically, Skiba (2000) relates in his journal that Columbine High School had video cameras that recorded all of the horrific scenes of the mass murder, but did not prevent it (Skiba, 2000). 

A current study[6] by the Department of Special Education at the University of Maryland does not support the conclusion of New York City school officials concerning school safety and zero tolerance discipline policies.Using data from the National Victimization Survey of 1995 by the BJS, Matthew J. Mayer and Peter E. Leone (1999, cited in Brooks, et al. 2000) separated the responses in a sample of 9,000 students[7].The sample was divided into two categories, students who attended schools with rigid surveillance, i.e. metal detectors, personal searches and locked doors and students who attended schools where campus rules were stressed and the consequences for breaking the rules were clearly understood by the students.Then, the relationships between the two different methods of discipline on school campuses and the rates of victimization reported by students from schools in each category were measured (Mayer & Leone, 1999, cited in Brooks, et al. 2000).

The authors (Mayer & Leone, 1999, cited in Brooks, et al. 2000) of the study discovered that there was less disorder and reports of victimization in the schools where the rules and the penalties for breaking them were understood and disciplinary action was applied fairly.In the schools with metal detectors, locked doors and security guards or staff monitoring the hallways students reported more victimization.Students also reported more acts of self-protection and a feeling of fear in schools with an atmosphere of harsh restrictions.Mayer and Leone (1999, cited in Brooks, et al. 2000) suggest that maintaining an environment of juvenile detention tends to promote the disorder and violence that zero tolerance policies seek to eliminate.An environment of open communication that emphasizes personal responsibility seemed to significantly decrease violence and disorder (Mayer and Leone (1999), cited in Brooks, et al. 2000).

Russell J. Skiba, (1999, 2000, 2001, cited in "Offenses Up," 2001) director of the Safe and Responsive Schools Project at Indiana University, came to a similar conclusion.Skiba (2001, cited in "Offenses Up," 2001) claims in a new study published in May of 2001 that expelling children under zero tolerance policies does not significantly change student behavior.He argues that data from his latest study reveals that zero tolerance policies do not ensure school safety[8] (Skiba, 2001, cited in "Offenses Up," 2001).Skiba (2000) also notes that very few empirical studies exist on the effectiveness of various security measures, such as metal detectors, police officers in school, etc., that are often associated with zero tolerance discipline policies.

There is also indication in the mainstream media that zero tolerance policies may be loosing some of their credibility with parents.Center Grove High School in Johnson County Indiana took action to revise their zero tolerance discipline policies when pressured by parents who opposed some aspects of the local school board's discipline policies.The school board revised its policy to include alternatives to expulsion, such as counseling, which will take effect in the Fall 2001 school year ("Offenses Up," 2001).On July 1 of this year a new Indiana law went into effect that allows students with serious and chronic diseases, such as asthma, to legally carry prescribed medication on their person and self-medicate when necessary (Domschke, 2000).At a school board meeting in Hartford, Wisconsin, 550 parents and community members protested the mandatory expulsion of students for possession of drugs and alcohol in local schools (Skiba, 2000).Although, the recent protests against zero tolerance policies are possibly secondary reactions to the initial mass protest by low-income and minority parents in Decatur, Illinois in response to the expulsion of seven Black students for engaging in a fistfight during a high school football game.Definitely, parents and educational professionals are now criticizing the growing rates of suspension and expulsion of students in grades K-12.

Data on suspension and expulsions are difficult to analyze because local schools do not collect data in a uniform manner, but according to State and local procedures (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).Often access to this data is difficult to obtain; such as in Indiana where a pin number must be used to access certain records even though they are published on the Internet for easy access by Indiana education administrators.For an estimate of the quantity and rates of suspensions and expulsions that occur in U.S. schools there are several sources on a national level to examine.

In a report titled "Violence and Discipline Problems in US Public Schools: 1996-97" published by the National Center for Education Statistics, (NCES, 1998) principals were asked to complete a survey about the discipline policies and actions within their schools[9].Among other questions, the survey asked principals to state how many times students were disciplined for particular offenses, i.e. the possession or use of a firearm, the possession or use of a weapon other than a firearm, the possession, distribution or use of alcohol, drugs or tobacco and physical fighting.The survey also asked principals to indicate specific actions taken against the student, i.e. expulsions, out of school suspensions lasting more than five days, or referral to an alternative school or program (NCES, 1998).The data from this survey offers an estimate of suspensions and expulsions occurring in grades K-12 on a national level for the school year 1996-97 in relation to zero tolerance[10] discipline policies.NCES notes that these disciplinary options were only those actions that were measured by the survey and not all schools necessarily experienced any of the offenses listed in the survey and, consequently, none of the actions may have been taken against students (NCES 1998).

75% of all schools had adopted zero tolerance policies for the offenses listed in the survey (Appendix II).According to the survey, rates of suspension for five or more days were the highest among any of the actions or combinations of actions taken against students.For possession or use of a firearm about 16,578 actions were taken against students, 49% of the actions were suspensions, 31% expulsions and 20% were transfers of students to alternative schools or programs.For possession of a weapon other than a firearm[11] about 58,000 actions were taken against students, 55% of the actions were suspensions, 23% expulsions and 22% were transfers.For possession, distribution or use of alcohol, drugs or tobacco about 170,000 actions were taken against students, 62% suspensions, 18% expulsions and 20% of the actions were transfers.About 130, 000 actions were taken against students for physical fighting, 66% suspensions, 15% expulsions and 19% were transferred to alternative schools or programs.The survey also revealed that schools with no crime reported were less likely to have a zero tolerance policy for violence (74%) than schools reporting one or more serious crimes (85%) (NCES, 1998). (Appendix II).

The latest figures released by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights from the Individual School and District Summary Compliance Reports show an increase in suspensions and expulsions in US schools.This is the first time specific data was collected by Federal government agencies on expulsions in grades K-12.The annual suspension rate for all students in 1978 was 3.7%; in 1998 that percentage rose to 6.9%, (Johnston, 2000) representing 3.1 million students suspended during that school year (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).Academics and journalists are crediting the nearly double rate of suspension in grades K-12 to zero tolerance discipline policies.87,000 students were expelled during the 1997-98 school year, 50% White, 31% Black and 16% Hispanic.The percentages become even more alarming when you compare these groups of children by ethnicity.White students made up 63% of all students in 1998-99, Black students made up 17% and Hispanic students 16% (Johnston, 2000).Clearly, zero tolerance discipline policies tend to increase rather than decrease exclusion of children from educational opportunities during the fundamental and formative years of their education, especially ethnic minorities.It should be noted for clarity in relation to the increase in suspensions and expulsions that often these actions occur for unwarranted reasons, such as the various examples cited earlier in this paper.Another relationship that is being researched in the subject of exclusion of children from educational development is the effect of zero tolerance policies on drop out rates.

The Department of Education's NCES report on high school drop out rates in 1999 recounts that students whose families are in the lowest 20% ($20,000 annually or less) of the income categories in the U.S. are five times more likely to drop out of school (Department of Education, 1999).A U.S. Census Bureau report published in 2001[12] states that students from families with an annual income of $20,000 or less dropped out of school in 1999 at a rate of 9.0% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).Of all income levels in 1999, White students dropped out at a rate of 7.3% and made up 65.6% of all students enrolled in 1999.Black and Hispanic students dropped out at a rate of 12.6% and 28.6% respectively and made up 16.2% and 37.7% of the population of students[13].NCES reports that low-income (lowest 20%) students made up 13.9% of all students and dropped out of school at a rate of 11% as compared to middle (5%) and high (2.1%) income students enrolled in 1999[14]. The Department of Education also cites that the drop out rates have remained relatively steady since 1990 when zero tolerance policies were beginning to develop in U.S. schools (Department of Education, 1999).

One could argue that zero tolerance policies have not affected drop out rates significantly judging by the statistics over the long range, but there are other factors to consider when examining drop out rates that may not be revealed by statistical data alone.NCES notes that the high school drop out rates are based on the Current Population Survey sent out by the U.S. Census Bureau, which does not include persons in prison and persons not living in a household (Department of Education, 2000).According to Indiana Department of Correction statistics, the current population of juveniles incarcerated is 1,382.The average age of this population upon entry 15.9 years old.The minimum average sentence for serious violent crime is listed as 12 months.The adult population incarcerated is 20,125 persons.The average age of the adult population upon entry is 30.5 years with the highest percentage (28%) of people serving a 5-10 year sentence (Indiana Department of Corrections, 2001).Judging from the totals of just one State, clearly there is a large population that is not being counted in the NCES reports of high school drop out rates that has the potential to change these rates significantly.

In a report published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory[15], (SEDL) "Rural Students at Risk", authors Thompson and Deloney (1994) argue that school practices effect drop out rates as well as personal variables of students, such as family income, etc.School practices tend to increase the risk that a low SES student will drop out of school[16] (Thompson and Deloney (1994).Studies done by the SEDL have found that elementary school teachers tend to separate students of low SES into low-ability groups according to their perceptions of stereotypical attributes of low SES students (Thompson & Deloney, 1994).Pertaining directly to zero tolerance policies, high numbers of suspensions in a school correlate with higher drop out rates as well (Wheelock, 1986).Frequent suspensions of an individual student also significantly influences that student's decision to stay in school or to drop out (Catterall, 1986).

Students referred to the criminal and juvenile justice systems by zero tolerance policies are even more likely to drop out of school due to their experiences within this system and the associations that they may make with peers in a similar situation (Skiba, 2000). Author John Kozol (1991) spoke with Education Weekly (Johnston, 2000) in a recent article about the problems of unruly students in relation to school discipline.Kozol (1991) claims that students in low SES communities often struggle with conditions of overcrowding in classrooms and a lack of physical comforts, such as air conditioning during periods of extreme heat.These students typically deal with inexperienced teachers who are apt to over-react to restless students coping with unrewarding curriculums and physical discomforts in general.He explains that it is easier for students in this academic environment to lose control and act out their frustration and discomfort in a disruptive or disrespectful manner (cited in Johnston, 2000).Under policies of zero tolerance, students are then subject to suspension and/or expulsion for their behavior more often than they are referred to alternative programs, (NCES, 1997) such as counseling or mentor programs.When schools suspend and expel students who are already struggling with obstacles like low SES, racial discrimination and meeting the demands of high stakes mandatory testing, the educational institutions must take more responsibility for student failure to complete a high school program.Under zero tolerance policies, it appears that the schools are failing to meet the needs of students already at risk of dropping out.

The "Decatur Seven" (Brinkman, 2000) case in Decatur, Illinois had the effect of bringing racial discrimination in relation to zero tolerance discipline policies in U.S. schools out of the closet and into the mainstream media.Children have struggled with institutional racism in U.S. schools for many decades according to Ernest R. House in his journal "Race and Policy" published in 1999.The journal covers race and policy in education from the formation of the United States and includes coverage of race and policy in the current educational system. A quote from the abstract of this journal sums up the gist of his research and sheds some light on the darker aspects of zero tolerance discipline that have recently become a subject of heated debate among social activists and those who set education policy in the U.S.

Racial beliefs are embedded in the national identity in complex and disguised ways. These beliefs attribute presumed character traits to African Americans and other minorities, who are thought of as different in character and ability, especially the ability to govern themselves. These beliefs lead to education policies which separate, differentiate, and mandate different curricula and treatment for minorities, policies justified as being fair and democratic. These beliefs influence not only curriculum content, but how the schools are organized, financed, and administered at a deeper level than is commonly understood (House, E.R., 1999, Race and Policy abstract)

The Decatur Seven case in the school year 1999-00 brought national attention to an continuing issue (Brinkman, 2000) among social activists that zero tolerance policies violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination in any public or private institution which receives Federal funding (see also the Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).In Decatur, Illinois Eisenhower High School officials originally expelled seven students for two years over a fistfight that broke out among them at a high school football game.According to Dave Aaronson, a spokesman for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, besides sparking an ongoing national debate over racial discrimination in zero tolerance policies, the Decatur case moved this commission to hold a hearing in Congress about national school disciplinary procedures in February 2000 (Brinkman, 2000).Social activists from around the U.S. marched together in solidarity that went beyond diverse political perspectives to protest the two-year expulsion of the students.The mass demonstration was the apparent effect of the cumulative experiences of students and parents of low SES and minority status in the U.S. who regularly experience the exclusive and biased effects of zero tolerance discipline policies[17].The Rainbow/PUSH coalition filed a lawsuit against the Decatur school on behalf of the seven students, but in January 2000 a Federal judge ruled against the students.Perhaps because of the mass protest and national debate, six students' sentences were reduced to a one year expulsion and an offer of alternative schooling and one student was allowed to withdraw (Brinkman, 2000).The Decatur case brings into question the amount of similar harsh punishments that take place, past and present, which are not as well publicized as that event.

For example, a Black student in Merrillville, Indiana faced expulsion from school under questionable circumstances for possessing a mixture that was alleged to be wine and apple juice in an open bottle (Lach, 2000).The honor student claimed that the bottle was given to her to hold by a former student of Merrillville High School whom she conversed with briefly that morning at the school's entrance.The student said that she did not drink any of the contents of the bottle and intended to throw it away, but a teacher confiscated the bottle from her when she went to class.The 15-year-old stated to school authorities that she thought the bottle contained only apple juice.She was given a breath analysis test and passed it, but was immediately suspended and then expelled for the remainder of the school year according to the school's zero tolerance discipline policy. 

A general atmosphere of suspicion surrounded this case as some in the community felt that the judgement and immediate suspension of the student was a stereotypical reaction based on the student's ethnicity.Operation Push tried to intervene on the student's behalf but was denied access to the student's hearing by school administrators.The superintendent of Merrillville School Corporation upheld the school's decision to expel the student even though she was a model student and this was her first offense of any kind.He justified his support by saying that if a student is excused for a first offense it may increase the use of drugs or alcohol on campus ((Lach, 2000).The superintendent's statement is typical of the philosophy of zero tolerance discipline policies in general.Those who believe that it interferes with the healthy psychological and sociological development of juveniles criticize this philosophy.

The general debate among education professionals and childhood development professionals is whether any of the supposed benefits of zero tolerance policies outweigh the harmful effects on the personal and social development of children (e.g. Baxter, 1999, Skiba, 2000).Bethany M. Baxter, a former teacher and secondary school principal, presents her views in the debate based on her career experiences in an article published by CNN news.Baxter (1999) claims that current policies promote intolerance of other people in children and not the behavior of other people in social situations.She also acknowledges that zero tolerance policies tend to spread detrimental behavior among students instead of deterring it (Baxter, 1999).Baxter (1999) argues that zero tolerance policies and discipline are not the same thing.She maintains that discipline is a process that teaches a child correct social behavior and, in a school environment, this depends on a close connection between teachers and students, which zero tolerance policies effectively erode.

Baxter (1999) gives an example of a student who was told to write her feelings in a journal as a class assignment and was encouraged to be candid about exploring her feelings because the journal was confidential, meaning only her teacher would read her entries.Based on what the student wrote about her feelings of anger, her teacher felt obligated by school policy to show the journal to school authorities, resulting in the child's suspension.This type of action, according to Baxter and other professionals, (e.g. Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2000) destroys the integrity of the student/teacher relationship and causes children to mistrust adults (Baxter, 1999). 

Applications of zero tolerance policies most often separate children from their peers and teachers when they are suspended/expelled.In effect, this type of action suggests to children that their peers are expendable rather than teaching children to value, counsel and correct their peers in a supportive manner when they are socially misbehaving.Baxter feels that zero tolerance policies are also sending a message to children to be intolerable of others who are different from themselves and that people who are different from themselves should be "sacrificed for the common good" (Baxter, 1999, Sending the Wrong Message section, para 6).

A child's self-esteem and value judgements are damaged by the punishments meted out to them under zero tolerance policies (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000; Brinkman, 2000).The seven students in the Decatur case had negative reactions to their experience.In a follow-up interview one year after the expulsion one student reported feeling stigmatized and felt that people now judged him according to the publicized accounts of his actions in and the subsequent events surrounding the case.Although some of the students involved enrolled again in high school or college classes, one of the students dropped out of school entirely and no mention was made in the article that he would pursue a GED or further education in the future. Two of the students reported feeling that they could have done better in school and had a more promising future if they had been given a reprieve by the school and a chance to atone for their actions instead of the harsh punishment applied to them.Now these two feel they want to leave Decatur, Illinois where they feel outcast and persecuted despite the national support they received. (Brinkman, 2000).

Four of the students were arrested during their expulsion from school.Three students were arrested for another fight that broke out at a friend's house and one was arrested for possession of marijuana. At least two of the students still face a trial on charges of mob action and assault of a school employee stemming from the original fistfight at their high school's football game.Another student had already performed community service and served his 12-month probation for criminal charges incurring from the initial fight and expulsion. The repeated arrests in this case seems to give support to Skiba's (2000) argument that juveniles tend to develop harmful associations with peers who are not in school and who may have been arrested themselves.Students also risk getting into trouble again because they have more hours of free, unstructured time once they are expelled from school (Skiba, 2000)

Alternatives to zero tolerance discipline policies have proven to be successful in schools located in low-income communities with a high percentage of ethnic minority students.In a few of these schools, which are usually cited in the category "dangerous", zero tolerance policies have been replaced and administrators, teachers, staff and parents are now involved in schools that have totally restructured their operations (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).Some of the new methods of operation include improving physical comforts for students and changes in academic programs designed to make the curriculum more interesting and allow students more creativity and self-expression in their assignments (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).

Also, these schools are offering more extra curricular activities, fostering parental involvement in the school and creating mentoring programs consisting of teachers and staff.In some schools, rules are posted around the school along with signs that remind students that the teachers, staff and parents care about their academic performance and appreciate their good behavior and efforts to learn.In other schools, a student's mentor is made aware that a student is misbehaving and in danger of suspension or expulsion and is encouraged to communicate with the student to see what might be causing the behavior and to offer her/his support and guidance.In these schools with alternative structure and discipline policy suspensions and expulsions have dropped dramatically, in some cases to less than 1% of the student population during one school year (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000).

In essence, the examples in this paper show zero tolerance discipline policies to be a philosophy of maximum punishment for violation of established rules regardless of the past behavior of a student that are supposedly applied to all students equally.Justification for this attitude is improved student safety on campus, which according to research may not be accomplished by zero tolerance policies and their physical supplements per say.Further research is necessary to prove that zero tolerance policies improve school safety because crime in all schools is inseparably connected to crime in all communities throughout the nation.Also, examples of actual cases illustrate that not all reports of crime in U.S. schools are instances of an actual crime, violent or not.

The quantity of students of low SES and ethnic minority groups who are suspended, expelled, or fail to complete a high school program due to zero tolerance disciplinary actions show that the applications are not equal and possibly in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The documented cases reveal that irrational and racial discriminatory actions are commonplace and if these actions are questioned the U.S. State and Federal courts uphold them.What is accomplished directly from suspension and expulsion or indirectly from drop out rates is student intimidation and exclusion from education.In addition, the mass alienation and exclusion of children from grades K-12 in an inconsistent and biased manner tends to develop intolerance of other children, distrust of adults and erodes a child's sense of fairness and justice.More seriously, zero tolerance policies criminalize children.More research is necessary in this area to establish the long-term psychological and sociological effects on children charged with a crime in grades K-12 and processed through the criminal and juvenile justice systems.

Alternative academic programs and discipline policies in schools do produce positive results.However, the majority of children of low SES and ethnic minority groups in the U.S. will continue to be excluded from educational development until zero tolerance discipline policies in grades K-12 are abolished.Knowing the devastating effects of zero tolerance policies, why do those who implement educational policy in U.S. schools and the general public support them?

A false perception among parents of violence in U.S. schools tends to contribute to the popularity of zero tolerance policies.Basic economics also tends to influence those who set education policy.The NCES states that a high school diploma or GED is essential for employment in the current, global high-tech economy (Department of Education, 2000).In market economies regulated by supply and demand, subsidies and cost-effective practices designed to increase profits, labor is also a regulated market.Education is a key regulator of the labor market along with competition for a share of the labor market that is supposedly unbiased according to merit, or individual competence.Even in ideal economic cycles of high production and consumption employment opportunities never equal the amount of people seeking employment.Those who are not as well educated do not have the same opportunities or no opportunities in certain employment markets.Tracking students by ability, high stakes mandatory testing and zero tolerance discipline policies effectively regulate the amount of people who will be competing for employment on every level of income and ability.To use an analogy, dairy farmers are paid economic subsidies regulated by law and so dispose of gallons of milk to balance supply and demand and regulate prices.Certain policies in the educational institutions effectively dispose of a particular class of students' future opportunities in the employment markets and also regulate wage scales.These are just two of the factors that tend to influence educational policy in U.S. schools.In respect to the evidence of exclusive outcomes for low SES and ethnic minority students, more research and action according to the conclusions of further research should be applied to the purpose and function of zero tolerance discipline policies in U.S. schools by those who seek means that will improve the future of this class of students.

Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project (2000, June).Oportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies.Retrieved January 20, 2001, from Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project Web site: http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/conferences/zero/zt_report2.html

Baxter, B. M. (1999, August 19). The intolerance of zero tolerance. SpeakOut.com, Article, News, Headlines. Retrieved May 20, 2001 from SpeakOut.com, News Web site: http://www.speakout.com/Content/ICArticle/4170/

Brinkman, P. (2000, September 17). Altered Lives. [Electronic Version]. Herald & Review Online. Retrieved January 10, 2001 from the Herald & Review Online Web site: http://www.herald-review.com/01/life0917-0.html

Brooks, K., Shiraldi, V. & Ziedenberg, J. (2000). School house hype: Two years later. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved March 2, 2001 from the Justice Policy Institute/Children's Law Center Web site: http://www.cjcj.org/schoolhousehype/shh2.html

Catterall, J. (1986). School dropouts: Policy prospects. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Policy and Planning Center.

Domschke, A. (2001, July 16).Law lets kids carry medicine at school. The Times, pp A1, A7.

Facts about violence among youth and violence in schools. (1999, April 21). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Communications, Media Relations. Retrieved April 22, 2001 from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Communications, Media Relations Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/fact/violence.htm

Gordon, R., Libero, D. P. & Keleher, T. (2000, March 10). Facing the consequences: An examination of racial discrimination in u.s. public schools. . Erase Initiative, The Applied Research Center. Retrieved March 23, 2001, from The Applied Research Center Web site: http://arc.org/erase/FTC1intro.html

House, E. J. (1999, April 26). Race and policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, no 16. ISNN 1068-2341. Retrieved from the Arizona University College of Education, Education Policy Analysis Archives Web site: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n16.html

Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. (1994, January). Retrieved March 4, 2001, from the U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/toc.html

Indiana Department of Correction. (2001, January 01). Offender population statistics: January 2001. Retrieved June 10, 2001 from the Indiana Department of Correction, Facts and Figures Web site: http://www.ai.org/indcorrection/statistics/statistics.html

Johnston, R. C. (2000, June 21). Federal data highlights disparities in discipline [Electronic Version]. Education Week, 19, no. 41,3.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in america's schools. New York: Crown.

Lach, J. (2000, October 4). Merrillville student expelled: Sophomore's mother says appeal is possible, daughter's future uncertain. The Times, pp A1, A11.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, November 15). Dropout rates in the united states: 1999. [Electronic Version] Retrieved May 22, 2001 from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/dropout/index.asp

Offenses up in rural schools. (2001 May 23). The Times: The Region, p A9.

School shootings have high profile but occur infrequently. (1998, March 28). CNN: U.S. News Story Page. Retrieved April 22, 2001 from CNN, U.S. News Story Page Web site: http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/25/school.violence.statistics/index.html

Skiba, R. J. (2000, August). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. Indiana Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report, #SRS2, p 4. Retrieved April 3, 2001, from Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center, Safe and Responsive Schools Project Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf

Tompkins, R. & Deloney, P. (1994). Rural students at risk: in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. [Electronic Version]. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved February 20, 2001 from the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Web site: http://www.sedl.org/rural/atrisk/welcome.html

Tyre, P. (1998, May 22). How new york got safer schools. Retrieved April 22, 2001 from CNN, In Depth Specials: Are our schools safe? Web site: http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/22/school.reduced.violence/index.html

Violence and discipline problems in u.s. public schools: 1996-97. (1998). National Center for Education Statistics,980-30008. Retrieved from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/violence/98030008.html

Violence in u.s. schools. (1998, June 15). ABC News, U.S. Retrieved from ABC News, U.S. Web site: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/shootingslist980521.html

Wheelock, A. (1986) The way out: Student exclusion practices in boston middle schools. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Advocacy Center.

Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project (2000, June).Oportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies.Retrieved January 20, 2001, from Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project Web site: http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/conferences/zero/zt_report2.html

Baxter, B. M. (1999, August 19). The intolerance of zero tolerance. SpeakOut.com, Article, News, Headlines. Retrieved May 20, 2001 from SpeakOut.com, News Web site: http://www.speakout.com/Content/ICArticle/4170/

Brinkman, P. (2000, September 17). Altered Lives. [Electronic Version]. Herald & Review Online. Retrieved January 10, 2001 from the Herald & Review Online Web site: http://www.herald-review.com/01/life0917-0.html

Brooks, K., Shiraldi, V. & Ziedenberg, J. (2000). School house hype: Two years later. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved March 2, 2001 from the Justice Policy Institute/Children's Law Center Web site: http://www.cjcj.org/schoolhousehype/shh2.html

Burbach, H. (2001). Violence and the public schools. Curry School of Education. Retrieved from Curry School of Education Web site: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rkb3b/Hal/SchoolViolence.html

Bureau of Justice Statistics Home Page. Retrieved April 23, 2001, from the U.S. Department of Justice Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Catterall, J. (1986). School dropouts: Policy prospects. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Policy and Planning Center.

Cole, B. (2001 March 07). Tactical team officers focus on school, office scenarios in drill. The Times: Local Report, p A3.

Correctional education: Does it offer an effective second chance for youth? (1994, December 15). American Youth Policy Forum: Forum Brief. Retrieved April 22, 2001, from the American Youth Policy Forum Web site: http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/1994/fb120594.htm

Creating safe and drug free schools: An action guide. (1996, September). Department of Education. Retrieved May 10, 2001, from the Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/actguid/title.html

Dickson, K. (1999, November 11). Sheriff says expulsions too extreme: Walker asks board to reconsider decision on fate of seven students. Retrieved January 10, 2001 from the Herald & Review Online Web site: http://www.herald-review.com/01/life0917-0.html

Dickson, K. (1999, November 17). Analysis: school board and Jackson roll in opposite directions. Retrieved January 10, 2001 from the Herald & Review Online Web site: http://www.herald-review.com/01/life0917-0.html

Dolan, B. (2001 April 20). Parents face prosecution for truant students: Prosecutor says he'll crack down on parents who refuse to cooperate in getting children to school.The Times: Local Report, pp A3, A4.

Domschke, A. (2001, July 16).Law lets kids carry medicine at school. The Times, pp A1, A7.

Donohue, E., Shiraldi, V. & Ziedenberg, J. (1999). School house hype: School shootings and the real risks kids face in america. Retrieved March 2, 2001 from the Justice Policy Institute/Children's Law Center Web site: http://www.cjcj.org/jpi/schoolhouse.html

Education stats offer snapshot of U.S. classrooms. (2001 June 01).The Times: The Region, p A8.

Erler, S.(2001 May 1). Legislation could open door for expelled students: Illinois charter school already operating with innovative curriculum. The Times, pp A1, A12.

Facts about violence among youth and violence in schools. (1999, April 21). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Communications, Media Relations. Retrieved April 22, 2001 from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Communications, Media Relations Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/fact/violence.htm

Gordon, R., Libero, D. P. & Keleher, T. (2000, March 10). Facing the consequences: An examination of racial discrimination in u.s. public schools. . Erase Initiative, The Applied Research Center. Retrieved March 23, 2001, from The Applied Research Center Web site: http://arc.org/erase/FTC1intro.html

Gushee, M. (1984). Student discipline policies. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, ED259455. Retrieved May 25, 2001, for the Department of Education, ERIC Digests Web site: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed259455.html

Hoffman, L. (2000). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools and districts: School year 1998-99. [Electronic Version]. Education Statistics Quarterly, Featured Topic: The Common Core of Data. Retrieved May 10, 2001, from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2000-333 [Revised], Education Statistics Quarterly Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/quarterly/summer/2feat/q2-5.html#H9

House, E. J. (1999, April 26). Race and policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, no 16. ISNN 1068-2341. Retrieved March 8, 2001 from the Arizona University College of Education, Education Policy Analysis Archives Web site: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n16.html

Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. (1994, January). Retrieved March 4, 2001, from the U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/toc.html

Indiana Department of Correction. (2001, January 01). Offender population statistics: January 2001. Retrieved June 10, 2001 from the Indiana Department of Correction, Facts and Figures Web site: http://www.ai.org/indcorrection/statistics/statistics.html

Indiana K-12 school data. (2001). Indiana Department of Education. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from Indiana Department of Education Web site: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/htmls/education.html

Johnston, R. C. (2000, June 21). Federal data highlights disparities in discipline [Electronic Version]. Education Week, 19, no. 41,3.

Kaufman, P., et. al. (2000). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2000. Education Statistics Quarterly, Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved May 10, 2001, from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Statistics Quarterly Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/quarterly/winter/elementary/e_section4.html

Keleher, T. (2000, February 18).Racial disparities related to school zero tolerance policies: Testimony to the u.s. commission on civil rights. Erase Initiative, The Applied Research Center. Retrieved March 2, 2001, from The Applied Research Center Web site: http://arc.org/erase/USCCR.html

Kozol, J. (1982). Alternative schools: A guide for educators and parents. New York: Continuum.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in america's schools. New York: Crown.

Lach, J. (2000, October 4). Merrillville student expelled: Sophomore's mother says appeal is possible, daughter's future uncertain. The Times, pp A1, A11.

Lach, J. (2000, September 26). Push backs suspended merrillville student. [Electronic Version]. The Times Online. Retrieved January 20, 2001, from The Times Online, Archives Web site: http://archive.nextwerk.com/NewsArchive21.nsf/WebDocs/

Lach, J. (2000, September 29). Suspended student waits for word. [Electronic Version]. The Times Online. Retrieved January 20, 2001, from The Times Online, Archives Web site: http://archive.nextwerk.com/NewsArchive21.nsf/WebDocs/

Lux, A. (2000, October 6). Media are guilty of rushing to judgement in m'ville case. The Times, A15.

Mudd, B. (1999, November 13). Public continues to voice opposition to expulsions. Retrieved January 10, 2001 from the Herald & Review Online Web site: http://www.herald-review.com/01/life0917-0.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997, July 30). Dropout rates in the united states: 1995. [Electronic Version] Retrieved May 22, 2001 from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 97-473 Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/dp95/index.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, November 15). Dropout rates in the united states: 1999. [Electronic Version] Retrieved May 22, 2001 from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/dropout/index.asp

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001, January) Digest of Education Statistics 2000. [Electronic Version]. National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2001-034. Retrieved February 2, 2001, from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/digest/index.html

National Longitudinal Surveys home page. (2001). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal Surveys Web site: http://stats.bls.gov/nlshome.htm

O'Bannon signs charter school legislation. (2001 May 3). The Times: Region Report, p A8.

Offenses up in rural schools. (2001 May 23). The Times: The Region, p A9.

Office for Civil Rights Home Page. Retrieved March 20, 2001 from the Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/

Positive Discipline. (1990). ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education Urbana IL, ED327271. Retrieved May 25, 2001, from the Department of Education, ERIC Digests Web site: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed327271.html

Roderick, M. (1991). The path to dropping out: Evidence for intervention. Research Bulletin: Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

School shootings have high profile but occur infrequently. (1998, March 28). CNN: U.S. News Story Page. Retrieved April 22, 2001 from CNN, U.S. News Story Page Web site: http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/25/school.violence.statistics/index.html

Scwartz, W. (1995). School dropouts: New information about an old problem. ERIC Digest 109, 1995, EDO-UD-96-5, ISSN 0889 8049. Retrieved April 22, 2001, from the Department of Education, ERIC Clearing House on Urban Education Digest Web site: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/digests/dig109.html

Skiba, R. J. (2000, August). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. Indiana Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report, #SRS2, 1-22. Retrieved April 3, 2001, from Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf

Skiba, R. J., Boone, K., Fontanini, A. &Peterson, R. L. (2000). Preventing school violence: A practical guide to comprehensive planning. [Electronic Version]. Indiana Education Policy Center, 1-35. Retrieved March 20, 2001, from Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center, Safe and Responsive Schools Project Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/publication.html

Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C. & Perterson, R L. (2000, June). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. [Electronic Version]. Indiana Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report, #SRS 1, 1-26. Retrieved, March 20, 2001, from Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center, Safe and Responsive Schools Project Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/publication.html

Tompkins, R. & Deloney, P. (1994). Rural students at risk: in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. [Electronic Version]. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved February 20, 2001 from the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Web site: http://www.sedl.org/rural/atrisk/welcome.html

Tyre, P. (1998, May 22). How new york got safer schools. Retrieved April 22, 2001 from CNN, In Depth Specials: Are our schools safe? Web site: http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/22/school.reduced.violence/index.html

U.S. statistics in brief: Law, communications, Transportation, Housing. (2001). Retrieved May 10, 2001, from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Statistics in Brief Web site: http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part2.html

Violence and discipline problems in u.s. public schools: 1996-97. (1998). National Center for Education Statistics,980-30008. Retrieved from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/violence/98030008.html

Violence in u.s. schools. (1998, June 15). ABC News, U.S. Retrieved from ABC News, U.S. Web site: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/shootingslist980521.html

Wayman, J. (2001, February 8). Factors influencing ged and diploma attainment of high school drop outs. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9, no 4. ISNN 1068-2341. Retrieved March 8, 2001, from the Arizona University College of Education, Education Policy Analysis Archives Web site: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v9n4/

Web resources. (2001). CDC fact sheet on school violence.U.S. News Online. Retrieved March 10, 2001, from U.S. News Online, News & Views, Web resources page, Web site: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/990426/denver.htm

What works in preventing school violence: The safe and responsive fact sheet series. Indiana Education Policy Center. Retrieved March 20, 2001, from Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center, Safe and Responsive Schools Project Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/publication.html

Wheelock, A. (1986) The way out: Student exclusion practices in boston middle schools. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Advocacy Center.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How "untracking" can save America's schools. New York: The New Press.