Running head: ZERO TOLERANCE

Zero Tolerance, School Shootings, and the Post-Brown Quest for Equity in Discipline Policy: An
Examination of How Urban Minorities Are Punished for White Suburban Violence



























ZERO TOLERENACE 2


Abstract

This article situates zero tolerance policies within the landscape of urban education post Brown
v. Board of Education. School discipline has emerged as a critical arena in the quest for racial
equity in education as a growing body of literature demonstrates that urban students of color are
disproportionately subjected to punitive discipline as a result of zero tolerance policies. This
study examines the demographic characteristics of school shootings from 1990-2011. Analysis
reveals that through the mechanism of zero tolerance, a nation of urban minority students have
been and continue to be punished for the actions of predominantly White, suburban/rural
gunmen. The authors present alternative policies and practices, make recommendations for
stakeholders, and explore the larger implications of zero tolerance mandates.
Keywords: Brown v. Board of Education, school shootings, zero tolerance policies,
discipline disproportionality, urban schools











ZERO TOLERENACE 3
Zero Tolerance, School Shootings, and the Post-Brown Quest for Equity in Discipline Policy: An
Examination of how Urban Minorities are Punished for White Suburban Violence
On May 16, 1954, the landmark Brown v Board of Education of Topeka Kansas Supreme
Court decision abolished de jure segregation of American schools, and ushered in a new era of
integration which became the gold standard for defining the terms of formal equality (Guinier,
2004, p. 93) under constitutional law. To this end, the Brown decision engendered a myriad of
expectations such as renewed faith and hope, however, sixty years later, the promise of
educational equity in American schools remains unfulfilled (Hanson, 2005). Many of the social
ills that disenfranchised the social, political, economic, and educational realities of minorities in
general and African Americans in particular remain embedded in the fabric of American society.
For instance, school discipline has emerged as an imperative in the quest for civil rights in
education post-Brown, and more specifically within the last three decades. In fact, on January 8,
2014, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan and Attorney General, Eric Holder, released a series
of guidelines, which urged schools to abandon zero tolerance discipline policies. Officials
contend that such policies do not promote the legal or democratic principals of equal educational
opportunity (Hanson, 2005), and have and continue to punish minority students more harshly and
more frequently than their White counterparts (US Department of Education, 2014).
The Obama administrations call to action is representative of a recent trend in the
increased legal and political scrutiny of zero tolerance, discipline disproportionality, and the
pervasive overlap between educational institutions and the criminal justice system, generally
termed the school to prison pipeline or jailhouse track (Advancement Project, 2005; Wald &
Losen, 2003). In January of 2010 a federal class action lawsuit was filed which challenged the
New York Police Departments unlawful arrest of school children for non-criminal violations
ZERO TOLERENACE 4
(New York Civil Liberties Union, 2010). Likewise, in August 2012, the US Department of
Justice found that officials in Meridian, Mississippi helped to operate a school-to-prison pipeline,
wherein children arrested in local schools were subjected to incarceration in violation of their
constitutional rights (US Department of Justice, 2012). Moreover, on December 12, 2012, the
Senate Judiciary Committee of the US Congress held the first ever hearing on issues related to
the school-to-prison pipeline (Advancement Project, 2012). The unprecedented legal and
political visibility of such cases has brought renewed public attention to zero tolerance mandates
and racial discipline disproportionality, a phenomenon that has been documented since the 1970s
(The Childrens Defense Fund, 1975). Through their focus on student constitutional rights, these
collective actions signal a paradigmatic shift in the debate over school discipline, from a
racialized perspective based on fear and punishment to one that more closely adheres to the
ideals of educational equity embodied in the Brown decision.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between school shootings and
zero tolerance discipline mandates in order to analyze whether the demographic characteristics of
school gun violence incidents during the zero tolerance era justify the disproportionate adoption
and application of punitive discipline in urban, high minority schools. This article commences
with a discussion of the historical evolution of school discipline, and seeks to position the
harmful effects of zero tolerance policies and racial disproportionality in discipline within the
broader context of racial inequality in education since the Brown v Board of Education decision.
This study presents data and analysis on school shootings from 1990-1999, a period of rapid
expansion of zero tolerance policies. Results indicate that through the mechanism of zero
tolerance, a nation of urban minority students have been punished for the actions of a small
number of predominantly White, suburban/rural gunmen. The article concludes with
ZERO TOLERENACE 5
recommendations and implications for policy, practice, and legal measures with a specific
emphasis on urban school contexts.
Historical Context

The Post-Brown Evolution of School Discipline
During the Brown era of the 1950s, school disciplinary practices centered on corporal
punishment and public embarrassment, wherein the law protected teacher and administrative use
of reasonable force as long as the punishment promoted discipline and was not used to
intentionally inflict pain. Under such law, children and their families could not accuse school
parties of a criminal offense, but could challenge school disciplinary practices based on their
civil substantive individual and procedural rights (Hanson, 2005). In the 1960s and 1970s, in-
school and out-of-school suspensions and expulsions arose as alternatives to the harsh policies of
corporal punishment and embarrassment. In-school suspension was often cited as the most
humane and reasonable form of discipline because it allowed students to remain in school and
would not impede their academic achievement (Hanson, 2005). The 1980s presented a new set
of challenges as school discipline evolved toward the era of zero tolerance discipline.
The Birth of Zero Tolerance
The notion of zero tolerance originally emerged from federal drug and weapons criminal
justice policies of the 1980s (Hanson, 2005). Policymakers began applying zero tolerance to
educational settings during the late 1980s when several states mandated expulsion for drugs,
fighting, and gang-related activity (Skiba, 2000; Wallace, Goodkind, Wallace & Bachman,
2008). Zero tolerance proliferated rapidly following the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which
required a one-year expulsion for possession of firearms (Atkinson, 2005). A series of rampage-
style school shootings between 1990 and 1999 played a critical role in the ideological appeal and
rapid expansion of zero tolerance (Howell, 2009; Skiba, 2000; Welch & Payne, 2010). During
ZERO TOLERENACE 6
this time, the nation witnessed a series of widely publicized school shootings in relatively
unfamiliar places such as Pearl, Michigan, Moses Lake, Washington, and the 1999 Columbine
High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado. Such was the popular anxiety, that a 1998 public
opinion poll found that 71% of respondents said that they thought a school shooting was likely to
happen in their community (Howell, 2009).
However, the apprehension that attended high profile campus shootings was perhaps fed
more by a media-driven moral panic (Howell, 2009, p. 17) than any empirical rise in school
violence. While nationwide gun homicide increased significantly in the late 1980s and early
1990s, school crime did not experience similar increases and has continued to drop since then
(Howell, 2009). Stanley Kurtz (2002) of The National Review noted that between 1993 and 2001
violent school deaths decreased from 44 to 15 while news stories on school shootings increased
from 200 to more than 450. Thus, while school-associated violent deaths dropped 40% through
the 1990s, the specter of gun violence in schools resulted in the widespread implementation of
increasingly punitive zero tolerance policies (Howell, 2009). According to the National Center
for Educational Statistics, by the end of the 1990s, 94% of American public schools had zero
tolerance policies for firearms, 91% for other weapons, 88% for drugs and 87% for alcohol, 79%
for tobacco, and 79% for violence (Kaufman, et al., 2000).
Review of Literature

Urban Minorities and the Proliferation of Zero Tolerance

While the adoption of zero tolerance has been a national phenomenon, research indicates
that urban, high minority schools disproportionately utilize zero tolerance policies and punitive
discipline controls (Kaufman, et al., 2000; McFadden, Marsh, Price & Hwang, 1992; Welch &
Payne, 2010). Data from the National Center for Educational Statistics reveals that urban (city)
locales are significantly more likely to have zero tolerance policies than urban fringe (suburban),
ZERO TOLERENACE 7
town or rural locations (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Principals of schools with 50% or
more minority enrollment also report the highest prevalence of zero tolerance (U.S. Department
of Education, 1997). Moreover, high minority schools are more likely to use punitive
disciplinary responses in dealing with misbehavior to the exclusion of milder discipline
alternatives (McFadden et al., 1992; Welch & Payne, 2010). Welch and Payne (2010) used a
sample of over 800 schools to test the effects of racial composition of students on punitive school
discipline. They found that schools are more punitive and less restorative when there are more
Black students enrolled in them regardless of the amount of school misbehavior, student
economic disadvantage, school urbanicity or training of faculty and administration (Welch &
Payne, 2010).
Indeed, zero tolerance initially focused on objective criminal activities (i.e. weapons
possession), but the two decades that followed saw many schools expand the mandate of zero
tolerance to cover a range of subjectively defined behaviors that have little impact on school
safety, such as disrespect, insubordination, and disruption (Bireda, 2010; Gregory, Skiba &
Noguera, 2010; Skiba, 2000). Research findings indicate that minority students are often referred
to the office for subjective offenses (Gregory, et al., 2010), and that racial discipline disparities
are more likely to be found in minor, subjective offense categories (Losen & Martinez, 2013).
Skiba, Michael, Nardo and Peterson (2002) conducted a study of middle-school students in a
large, urban Midwestern public school district located in one of the 15 largest cities in the United
States. Using data drawn from the disciplinary records of all 11,001 students in 19 middle
schools in the district for the 19941995, they concluded that minority students were often
referred to the office for subjective offenses (e.g. loitering, disrespect, excessive noise), while
ZERO TOLERENACE 8
White students were referred for objective violations (e.g., smoking, vandalism, obscene
language).
Consequences of Zero Tolerance
Exclusionary Discipline (Suspension & Expulsion)
As zero tolerance spread around the nation, the use of exclusionary discipline expanded
as well. In the process, suspension and expulsion have become the punishment of choice rather
than the consequences of last resort under zero tolerance (Skiba, 2000). The increasing selection
of minority students for discipline based on subjective offenses, combined with the expanded
application of exclusionary discipline has resulted in epidemic levels of suspension in particular.
Losen and Martinez (2013) used data from over 26,000 U.S. middle and high schools to show
that over two million students were suspended during the 2009-2010 academic year. This means
that one out of every nine secondary school students was suspended at least once (Losen &
Martinez, 2013).
According to a nationally representative study utilizing parent reports in 2003, almost 1
in 5 Black students were suspended, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 White students and
Asian/Pacific Islanders (Kewel Ramani, Gilbertson, Fox, & Provasnik, 2007). A national survey
of 74,000 tenth graders found that about 50% of Black students reported that they had been
suspended or expelled compared with about 20% of White students (Wallace et al., 2008). The
study also showed that suspensions and expulsions of Black students increased from 1991 to
2005, while the pattern for other racial and ethnic groups showed decline (Wallace et al., 2008).
By virtue of their exclusionary nature, suspension and expulsion have particularly damaging
effects on the lives of the poor, minority students that are most often the target of exclusionary
ZERO TOLERENACE 9
punishments (Gregory, et al., 2010; Losen & Martinez, 2013; Wallace, et al., 2008; Welch &
Payne, 2010).
Effects on Academic Performance
Exclusionary discipline has a devastating impact on the academic performance of
students. Suspension and expulsion remove students from the learning environment and
potentially increases the amount of time that they spend unsupervised and with other out-of-
school youth (Wallace, et al., 2008). Lewis, Butler, Bonner III & Joubert (2010) studied a
Midwestern urban school district that enrolled 3,587 African-American male students. They
found that Black males were suspended for a total of 3,714 school days during the course of one
academic school year, and correlated this loss of classroom time with lower proficiency on
standardized test scores in reading, writing, science and math. High suspension rates and punitive
discipline have also been linked to a greater frequency of dropping out (Gregory, et al., 2010;
Losen & Martinez, 2013). Recent evidence shows that being suspended even once in ninth grade
doubled the likelihood of dropping out, from 16% for those not suspended to 32% for those
suspended just once (Balfanz, Byrnes & Fox, 2013).
Social and Emotional Factors
Punitive discipline and academic struggles also affect the long-term social and emotional
well being of students. Suspension strongly correlates with future delinquency and substance use
(Raffaele Mendez, 2003), and developmental research indicates the frequent use of punitive
discipline is at odds with the developmental challenges of adolescence, and may inhibit the
normal social growth of adolescents (American Psychiatric Association Zero Tolerance Task
Force, 2008). Inappropriate use of school discipline has also been linked to posttraumatic stress
disorder, depression, anxiety, and aggressive behavior in and outside of school (Cameron &
ZERO TOLERENACE 10
Shepard, 2006). The high rates of suspension that characterize punitive disciplinary
environments also undermine important developmental teacher-student relationships (Losen &
Martinez, 2013).
Does Zero Tolerance Prevent Misbehavior and Make Schools Safer?

The negative consequences of punitive discipline could perhaps be justified if frequent
suspension was empirically linked to better student outcomes. Unfortunately, the existence of
such a link has not been documented. Rather, research findings indicate that suspension does not
appear to deter future misbehavior (American Psychiatric Association Zero Tolerance Task
Force, 2008). Raffaele Mendez (2003) conducted a longitudinal study of suspension in a Florida
school system in which suspension rates were collected for student cohorts in grades 4 through
12. Despite a rapid decline in enrollment in grades 9-12, suspension rates remained between 18-
20%, suggesting that out-of-school suspension does not work as a deterrent of misbehavior for
suspended students or their peers. McFadden, et al. (1992) conducted a one-year investigation in
Florida, which found that 25% of the students receiving suspension or corporal punishment
committed more than five disciplinary offenses, 75% of the students committed between one and
five offenses, and less than 1% of the students committed only one offense. Such high recidivism
rates amongst disciplined students suggest that punishment may actually serve to increase the
frequencies of the very behaviors they are intended to eliminate (McFadden, et al., 1992). There
is also little evidence that frequent use of suspension and expulsion reduces violence or increases
safety, including measures of the possession and use of firearms in schools (The Civil Rights
Project/Advancement Project, 2000; Skiba, 2000). Research utilizing National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) data of school violence indicate that, after four years of
implementation, schools that use zero tolerance policies were still less safe than those without
such policies (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
ZERO TOLERENACE 11
This article has noted that school shootings during the 1990s fostered widespread anxiety
over gun violence in schools and contributed to the development of zero tolerance policies.
Research evidence has also been presented demonstrating the contribution of zero tolerance to
discipline disproportionality, academic problems, social/emotional injury, and diminished life
chances for urban, minority students. While racial discipline disproportionality was prevalent
prior to the 1990s (Childrens Defense Fund, 1975), the growth of zero tolerance policies
reinforced and exacerbated the problem by providing a justification for the increasing use of
punitive, exclusionary discipline as the punishment of choice in school discipline (Losen &
Martinez, 2013; Skiba, 2000). It is worth reiterating that the deleterious effects of
disproportionality under zero tolerance have proceeded unchecked despite the inability of zero
tolerance to effectively address student misbehavior and school safety.
Theoretical Framework
Racial threat theory (RTT) and critical race theory (CRT) are positioned within the
conflict perspective and utilize the lens of race to analyze the power imbalance between
dominant and minority groups in society. (Blalock, 1967; Hughes, 2012; Welch & Payne, 2010).
This article uses RTT and CRT to examine the ways in which urban minorities have become the
primary victims of punitive discipline, even though data shows that urban schools experienced
none of the rampage style school shootings that contributed to the near universal implementation
of zero tolerance policies.
RTT suggests that racial minorities are perceived to present an economic, political and
criminal threat to the dominant social group (Blalock, 1967; Finn & Servoss, in press). To this
end, the dominant group responds to this perceived threat by imposing punitive social controls in
order to maintain dominance. While RTT was originally applied to criminal justice research
ZERO TOLERENACE 12
(Hughes, 2012), the growing overlap between school discipline and criminal justice
(Advancement Project, 2005; Casella, 2003; Hirschfield & Celinska, 2011) has recently led
education scholars to apply racial threat to school discipline practices (Rocque & Paternoster,
2011; Welch & Payne, 2010). In the current study, RTT helps explain why schools and districts
(with predominantly White teachers and administration) are more likely to implement zero
tolerance policies based on the perceived threat of minority criminality. Because minority
students can constitute a threat to the cultural hegemony of predominantly White teachers and
school personnel, RTT also informs our understanding of how cultural differences (in
communication, social behavior, hairstyles, dress, demeanor, etc.) contribute to the
disproportionate application of exclusionary discipline (Fenning & Rose, 2007; Ferguson, 2001;
Gay, 2006; Rocque & Paternoster, 2011; Skiba, et al., 2002).
CRT also derived from legal scholarship (Bell, 1973), and explores the influence of
endemic, structural racism on society and social institutions. In the 1990s, scholars began
suggesting that racism was an important contributor to the persistence of inequity in education
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). By challenging the purported objectivity and color-blindness of
zero tolerance policies, which claim to apply swift and certain punishment regardless of the
situational context (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008),
CRT suggests the structural functioning of racial bias in the unequal application to school
discipline. Specifically, the widely held association between minorities and predatory criminality
that are embedded in American social discourse (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) help to explain
why responses to 1990s school gun violence resulted in a focus on punishing the dangerous
behavior of urban minorities (Casella, 2003; Robinson, 2001) rather than the psychological
condition of White suburban/rural youth. Furthermore, zero tolerance provides a convenient
ZERO TOLERENACE 13
mechanism by which schools are able to apply socially constructed definitions of minority
students as violent or deviant in order to justify punishment and exclusion (Watts &
Erevelles, 2004). CRT also helps explain how the structural inequalities of the legal system
trickle down as law enforcement officials have become increasingly involved in school
discipline.
Methodology
This study examines national school shootings between the years of 1990 and 2011, in
order to determine if the gun violence that was so instrumental to the widespread proliferation of
zero tolerance mandates emanated from the urban communities that have been disproportionately
affected by punitive discipline policies. This study examines two primary questions: 1. Did
school shootings from the period of rapid zero tolerance expansion (1990-1999) occur more
often in urban or in rural/suburban areas? 2. Were the widely publicized, rampage-style
incidents of the late 1990s predominantly an urban, minority or a White, suburban/rural
phenomenon? 3. How has school gun violence contributed to disproportional discipline of
minority students in urban environments?
Sample
This study utilizes school shooting data that was compiled by Jessie Klein (2012),
Assistant Professor of Sociology/Criminal Justice at Adelphi University. Dr. Klein has published
widely on issues of school violence, masculinity and the roots of school shootings (see Klein,
2010; Klein & Chancer, 2006). For each school shooting between 1979 and 2011, Klein
provided information on the location, perpetrators, victims and casualties, as well as an
examination of motive and contributing factors. Of the 191 school shootings between 1979 and
2011, 116 took place between 1990 and 2011. Fourty-four (44) of the incidents between 1990
ZERO TOLERENACE 14
and 2011 took place on college or university campuses and are excluded from this study. This
study analyzes gun violence incidents in three increasingly specific subsets: 1) 116 non-
collegiate shootings occurred between 1990 and 2011; 2) 48 non-collegiate shootings occurred
between 1990 and 1999; 3) seven prominent rampage style shootings occurred between 1996-
1999. The year 1990 was selected as a starting point for subsets one and two because it was one
year after the appearance of the first school-based zero tolerance policies in California, New
York, and Kentucky (Skiba, 2000; Howell, 2009). The end point of 1999 was selected for subset
two because the years 1990-1999 encompass the era of zero tolerance proliferation, in which
zero tolerance went from a criminal justice and law enforcement doctrine to near universal
implementation in American public schools (Kaufman, et al., 2000). The federal Gun-Free
School Act, which formalized zero tolerance for firearms possession in schools, was enacted in
1994, roughly halfway through the years examined in subset two. As previously noted, the
spread of zero tolerance was facilitated by series of rampage style shootings between the years
1996-1999. The seven incidents in subset three were selected because they figured most
prominently in the media based on the troubling characteristics of the incidents and the
unprecedented number of causalities. These selected incidents are also those most often cited in
the zero literature as particularly instrumental to the development of punitive discipline policies
(Borum, Cornell, Modzeleski & Jimerson, 2010; Burns & Crawford, 1999; Graham Tebo, 2000;
Howell, 2009; Lassen, Steele & Sailor, 2006; Losen & Martinez, 2013; Noguera, 2003; Skiba &
Peterson, 1999). In addition, 1999 was the year of the Columbine High School shooting, which is
widely cited as seminal in the zero tolerance literature (Howell, 2009; Skiba, 2000).
Procedure
ZERO TOLERENACE 15
After selecting the 116 school shootings between 1990 and 2011, population and
geographic information on the school location of each incident was located using the Search for
Public Schools function on the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) website.
NCES annually collects information on all public schools in the United States, and assigns each
school a locale code based on its physical location and surrounding population data. Applying
the NCES locale code to each school shooting indicated whether each incident occurred in an
urban population center.
The NCES locale code system classifies territory into four major types: city (c), suburban
(s), town (t), and rural (r). Each type has three subcategories. For city and suburb, these are
gradations of size large (l), midsize (m), and small (s). Towns and rural areas are further
distinguished by their distance from an urbanized area. They can be characterized as fringe (f),
distant (d), or remote (r) (US Department of Education, n.d.). The present study is primarily
interested in determining whether incidents occurred in urban areas or in rural/suburban areas.
Thus, for the purposes of discussion in this study, all three subcategories of the city locale type
are referred to as urban. The suburban, town and rural types, and all attendant subcategories,
are referred to as suburban/rural.
Limitations
The NCES does not maintain longitudinal data on the locale designations of individual
schools. Although the current study examines incidents between 1990 and 2011, the locale
information is from 2010, 2011, and 2012. It is within the realm of possibility that some of the
schools could have had a different locale designation at the time of the school shooting in
question. However, a potential change to the primary distinction drawn in the study, between
urban and rural/suburban, would only be a reasonable possibility for a small number of schools.
ZERO TOLERENACE 16
It should also be noted that Klein (2012) does not present a comprehensive list of all school
shootings during the years 1990-2011.
Findings
Table 1 presents the number of school shootings at primary or secondary schools in the
period 1990-2011 that took place in each of the twelve NCES locale designations. Table 1 also
presents totals broken into the urban and suburban/rural population designations. The data
indicate that school shootings during the period examined were significantly more likely to take
place in suburban/rural (72 incidents) settings than in urban (44 incidents) settings. Of all locales,
large suburban schools had the most school shootings. Shootings were relatively evenly
distributed between suburban and rural schools, with relatively fewer shootings occurring in
town locales.
[Insert Table 1 See Appendix]
Table 2 presents the number of school shootings at primary or secondary schools in the
period 1990-1999. Table 2 also presents totals broken into the urban and suburban/rural
population designations. The data indicate that school shootings during this period were also
significantly more likely to take place in suburban/rural (31 incidents) settings than in urban (17
incidents) settings. Of all locales, large suburban schools again had the most school shootings.
During this period, shootings were more evenly distributed between suburban, town and rural
schools.
[Insert Table 2 See Appendix]
Table 3 presents seven rampage-style school shootings from 1996-1999 that figured
prominently in the media and are often cited as particularly instrumental to the development of
zero tolerance (Borum, Cornell, Modzeleski & Jimerson, 2010; Burns & Crawford, 1999;
ZERO TOLERENACE 17
Graham Tebo, 2000; Howell, 2009; Lassen, Steele & Sailor, 2006; Losen & Martinez, 2013;
Noguera, 2003; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Table 4 shows the racial demographics of each school.
While the rampage style gun violence that characterized these incidents represents a particularly
small subset of school-related violent deaths (Borum, et al., 2010), they contributed
disproportionately to the popular anxiety over school gun violence. The incidents of rampage
gun violence in Table 3 are notable in that none of the perpetrators were minorities, and all but
one of the seven incidents took place in suburban/rural communities as determined by the NCES
locale system.
[Insert Table 3, See Appendix]
[Insert Table 4, See Appendix]
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine to what degree school gun violence has arisen
from the urban communities so disproportionately affected by punitive discipline policies.
Further, it seeks to provide accurate context for understanding the relationship between school
shootings during the 1990s and the disproportionate adoption and implementation of zero
tolerance policies in urban, high minority school contexts.
Our results indicate that school shootings over the last three decades, including those
during the decade of rapid zero tolerance proliferation, were committed predominantly (62%) in
rural/suburban schools by White male gunmen. While 38% of shootings occurred in urban
schools, almost 81% of people in the United States reside in urban areas (US Department of
Commerce, 2011). This comparison should be referenced with caution as NCES locale
designations differ from the definition of urban used in census data. Kleins (2012) data on the
reported motives of the 116 shootings examined demonstrated that only 13 incidents were
ZERO TOLERENACE 18
considered to be gang-related. This is important because the rise of gang related activity during
the 1990s is often cited by proponents as a reason to implement zero tolerance policies (Skiba,
2000; Howell, 2009). The rampage shootings presented were committed almost exclusively by
White male gunmen in rural/suburban schools. Kleins (2012) data indicates that the motives of
these incidents are not of particular relevance to the predominantly gang and drug related
criminal activity concentrated in urban areas. Motives included masculinity, gay bashing,
violence against women, status, racism and anti-school sentiment (Klein, 2012). Yet again, it is
minority students in urban districts who have been disproportionately affected by the academic,
socio-emotional and developmental side effects of punitive discipline. In light of these findings,
the following sections address the question of why?
Misbehavior Rates
One potential explanation is misbehavior rates. Are non-White students more likely to
engage in behavior that warrants discipline? While some studies have found small but
statistically significant racial and ethnic differences in certain behaviors (Wallace, et al., 2008),
the magnitude of racial differences in discipline far exceeds the magnitude of observed
differences in misbehavior rates. However, in multivariate tests that control for misbehavior rates
(among many other factors), Black students are selected more often for punishment and are
disciplined more harshly (Fabelo, Thompson, Plotkin, Carmicheal & Marchbanks, 2011;
Gregory, et al., 2010; McFadden et al., 1992; Rocque, 2010; Vavrus & Cole, 2002; Welch &
Payne, 2010).
Socioeconomic Status
Another explanation for racial discipline disparities is socioeconomic status (SES).
Considering that the nations urban districts contain disproportionate concentrations of racial and
ZERO TOLERENACE 19
ethnic minorities and higher rates of poverty (Council of Great City Schools, 2013), perhaps
discipline disproportionality is a by-product of disparities associated with SES. Despite the
logical appeal of this line of reasoning, research findings indicate that differences in
socioeconomic status have relatively little impact on racial and ethnic differences in school
discipline (Fabelo, et al., 2011; Rocque, 2010; Skiba et al., 2002; Wallace, et al., 2008).
Implicit Bias, Discrimination & Negative Perceptions
While the above research findings indicate that student behavior and individual
characteristics (aside from race) do not significantly contribute to disproportionality in
multivariate studies, scholars have found the characteristics, cultural attitudes and management
skills of teachers and staff are a significant contributor to discipline outcomes (Skiba, et al.,
2011; Skiba, et al., 2013; Vavrus & Cole, 2002). Such studies highlight the influence of implicit
bias, discrimination, and negative perceptions against minority students in how teachers and
administrators perceive and respond to student (mis)behavior. Several researchers have proposed
that cultural differences between minority students and predominantly White teachers contribute
to an over-selection of minority students for disciplinary consequences (Bireda, 2010; Gay,
2006; Townsend, 2000). The different communication styles of teachers and their minority
students are also an area of potential cultural conflict (Gregory, et al., 2010). School personnel,
who may lack sensitivity toward the culturally-based communication styles of minority students,
may be more likely to escalate relatively minor violations of conduct based on what they view as
a threat to their authority and classroom control (Fenning & Rose, 2007).
Scholars have also identified negative teacher and administrator perceptions as potential
moderators of discipline disparities. Tests of implicit racial bias developed by neurologists,
although not specific to bias in school discipline, indicate widespread negative but unconscious
ZERO TOLERENACE 20
bias against racial minorities (Baron & Banaji, 2006). Examining statistical disparities based on
data compiled on the many decisions educators made during a school year, researchers have
raised concerns about the possible effects of implicit bias on racial discipline disparities (Losen
& Martinez, 2013). Moreover, related studies of police and probation officers have also linked
implicit bias to the recommendation of harsher punishments for minority offenders in the
juvenile justice system (Gregory, et al., 2010).
Minority students who are perceived as not fitting into social or behavior norms are often
labeled as dangerous or as troublemakers, despite the findings of ethnographic research
showing that the labeling of students as dangerous is often done in the absence of any
dangerous activity (Fenning & Rose, 2007). Labeling of minority students often fuels teachers
negative academic and behavioral expectations, which engenders hostile and psychologically
unsafe learning environments (Bireda, 2010). One can see how students who have been
convinced they are troublemakers and the school personnel who have labeled them thus are
primed for escalating conflict. This situation, when coupled with media-constructed stereotypes
of minority youth as aggressive and delinquent, contribute to the differential selection of
minority students for disciplinary sanctions (Gregory, et al., 2010) and often lead to the harsh
sanctioning of minority students for nonviolent offenses (Fenning & Rose, 2007).
Recommendations
Under zero tolerance, racial discipline disparities and punitive discipline have seen
almost three decades of persistent growth. This period has afforded ample time for the
documentation of negative consequences and for the testing of alternative discipline strategies.
There are a number of empirically tested alternatives that demonstrate the ability to effectively
address misbehavior and simultaneously have positive effects on educational outcomes and
ZERO TOLERENACE 21
student growth (Fenning & Rose, 2007; Gregory, et al., 2010; Losen & Martinez, 2013; Rausch
& Skiba, 2004, Richart, 2004). This work seeks to analyze potential alternatives to zero
tolerance, and to make recommendations for policy and practice with a focus on the unique
challenges of urban school contexts. We also find that zero tolerance and discipline
disproportionality have developed into civil rights issues that require the kind of ethical action
(legal, legislative and political) embodied in the Brown decision.
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is the most well-researched and
often cited alternative to punitive discipline policies. PBIS espouses the proactive teaching of
expected behaviors and development of positive teacherstudent relationships while promoting a
better school climate for all students (Fenning & Rose, 2007). Several studies have shown that
PBIS has the potential to limit disciplinary referrals and improve student outcomes across a
variety of urban school contexts (McCurdy, Mannella & Eldridge, 2003; Warren, et al., 2003).
Lassen, Steele & Sailor (2006) studied a school-wide PBIS implementation in an urban, inner-
city middle school in the Midwest over a three-year period. Data on referrals, suspensions,
standardized test scores, and treatment fidelity were gathered and analyzed. Results
demonstrated significant reductions in referrals and suspensions and increases in standardized
math and reading scores. Recent research findings also suggest that schools and districts can
reduce both suspensions and racial disparities more effectively if they revise their school codes
to align with the positive and constructive framework of PBIS (Fenning, et al, 2013).
While it is clear that PBIS has the potential to improve discipline, urban schools face a
variety of obstacles when considering broad changes to discipline policies. Limited resources
and the pressure to meet standardized test requirements often leave scarce resources and concern
ZERO TOLERENACE 22
for addressing the underlying issues behind discipline disparities (Fenning & Rose, 2007). Also,
beyond the required buy-in of teachers and administrators, successful school-wide
implementation of PBIS requires bringing together school-based professionals with expert
behavioral consultants from a local behavioral health agencies (McCurdy, et al., 2003). Resistant
bureaucratic organizations in large, urban districts may be an additional barrier to creating
collaborative discipline processes that involve school personnel and the larger community
(Weiner, 2003). Additional study of the implementation processes required with PBIS and other
constructive discipline policies (e.g. Ecological Models, Restorative Justice) on the school and
district level are needed to provide stakeholders with sound methods for implementation.
Teacher Development and Cultural Competency
Teachers likely hold the most potential in influencing student discipline outcomes. The
majority of teachers in urban districts are White European Americans who have not had
significant contact with minority individuals outside of their own racial and ethnic group
(Milner, 2006). It is essential to raise awareness of implicit bias, institutional racism, and cultural
mismatch through meaningful teacher development. Such training can foster critical reflection
about ones own ethnic identity and deficit theories of minority students (Bireda, 2010; Fenning
& Rose, 2007). Once a general awareness is attained, professional development could focus on
disciplinary events that arise from the differing styles of communication we have already noted.
This may interrupt the cycle of punitive discipline based on subjective offenses that contribute to
racial discipline disparities (Bireda, 2010; Gregory, et al., 2010; Skiba, 2000). Professional
development could also focus on less tangible teacher actions. Studies of successful teachers of
minority students support the idea that teachers differ from one another in their ability to foster
cooperation and diffuse conflict (Gregory, et al., 2010). Teachers that show both caring and high
ZERO TOLERENACE 23
expectations may provide cultural synchronization between authority in the home and in the
school (Irvine, 2002). Teachers use of humor, emotions, and colloquial expressions are other
avenues through which cultural connections to students may be made (Gregory, et al., 2010).
Additional study of professional development and teacher growth support, specifically designed
to prevent the implicit bias and cultural mismatch at the root of many escalating disciplinary
incidents, are necessary to help address racial discipline disparities.
Staffing & Pre-Service Training
The research findings presented previously on the implicit bias and negative perceptions
often held by teachers and school personnel are particularly relevant to this study because
research shows that urban schools tend to have a higher proportion of lower paid, novice teachers
(Obidiah & Howard, 2012). Furthermore, other school professionals, such as counselors, often
avoid working in schools with critical needs because of high caseloads (Holcomb-McCoy &
Johnston, 2012). These factors highlight the importance of preservice teacher experiences in
urban education environments. By providing high quality preservice experiences in urban
schools for future teachers, the process of building cultural competency and literacy can be
initiated in those who are most likely to land in urban school contexts. Additional research is
necessary in the area of preservice training, specifically the ability of teacher training programs
to effectively prepare novice teachers for behavior management in urban schools.
A Civil Rights Issue
As we have noted, a large body of literature demonstrates that minority students are
disproportionately selected for harsh punishment under zero tolerance policies. It is important to
emphasize that race is the only factor that the research has shown consistently linked to
disproportional discipline, and for decades, a wide variety of research studies have been
ZERO TOLERENACE 24
remarkably consistent in their findings. Recent studies of disproportionality that use highly
sophisticated, multivariate analysis to isolate the effect of race alone on disciplinary actions have
demonstrated that African American students are far more likely to receive disciplinary action
(Fabelo, et al., 2013; Skiba, et al., 2011). The results of these recent studies are astonishingly
similar to those in the The Childrens Defense Fund (1975) study from almost 40 years ago. We
have also presented a wealth of scholarship that finds virtually no benefits of punitive discipline
for student misbehavior or school safety. In light of these findings, we must conclude that
disproportional discipline under zero tolerance mandates constitutes a violation of civil rights
that requires the kind of legal, legislative and political action that characterized the Brown
decision (Skiba, et al., 2011; Losen, 2013).
Implications
The overarching implication of this study is that school discipline must be viewed
through the lens of pervasive implicit bias and structural racism. In other words, in the absence
of specific efforts to produce equitable outcomes, such as those pursued in the Brown case,
discipline disproportionality and its attendant negative side effects should be expected to persist,
as they have for more than 40 years. We do not imply that nothing can be done, rather,
overwhelming evidence of real harm to minority students demands ethical action. We do
challenge the assumption that school discipline policy, and its increasing overlap with law
enforcement, can proceed under the aegis of race-neutrality. We also suggest that the
unwillingness to acknowledge the critical role of race in school discipline has contributed to the
persistence of punitive discipline and zero-tolerance despite little evidence of benefit and
significant evidence of harm.
Implications for Educational Practitioners
ZERO TOLERENACE 25
The collective operation of implicit bias on a micro-level (i.e. teacher, administrators,
counselor, parent, school community) is a component of larger structural racism. Thus,
practitioners can benefit from an understanding of the most recent research and analysis of
implicit bias. Cognitive and social scientists have shown that implicit biases exist, are
pervasive, are large in magnitude, and have real-world effects (Kang, et al., 2012, p. 1126).
Because individuals are often not aware of such implicit attitudes and stereotypes, they operate
automatically often in ways that one may consider unethical if one had conscious awareness of
them (Kang, et al., 2012). This has important implications for those who are involved in the
everyday processing of disciplinary actions in schools, and for the potential benefits of
aforementioned efforts to promote cultural competency and awareness amongst practitioners.
Issues of implicit bias are also critical in the role of school counselors with relation to
equitable discipline. Bryan, Day-Vines, Griffin and Thomas (2011) have shown that referrals to
school counselors for disruptive behavior also are plagued by racial disproportionality. These
findings have even deeper implications with regard to long-standing concerns over the
disproportional placement of minority students in special education (MacMillan & Reschley,
1998; Patton, 1998).
Implications for Leaders
Efforts to practice ethical school discipline, which proceeds with a critical awareness of
the role of race, demands that schools and districts maintain discipline data that is disaggregated
by race (and hopefully by gender, language status, SES, etc.). A lack of annually and uniformly
collected data makes is difficult for stakeholders to determine the magnitude of discipline
disparities (Losen, 2013). As many schools and districts begin looking for alternatives to
ZERO TOLERENACE 26
punitive discipline, uniform comparable data will allow accurate determinations of the efficacy
of new discipline policies.
As previously mentioned, restorative practices and discipline policies have shown the
ability to limit disciplinary activity and improve student outcomes across a variety of urban
school contexts (Fenning & Rose, 2007; McCurdy, Mannella & Eldridge, 2003; Warren, et al.,
2003). Even within schools and districts with zero tolerance mandates, a recognition of the
pervasive nature of implicit bias may warrant reformulations of zero tolerance that contain
specific guidelines pertaining to what offenses may be punished through exclusion (American
Psychiatric Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008). Because teacher/administrator
discretion in discipline can operate to mitigate or moderate discipline inequity, such efforts
should be undertaken with special attention to maintaining balance between
teacher/administrator discretion and avoiding disparities.
Implications for Policymakers and Legal Scholars
When considering the negative impacts of exclusionary discipline on achievement, it
becomes clear that discipline must be considered an academic issue, as well as an issue of school
climate and safety (Losen, 2013). In other words, it is likely that eradicating disproportional
school discipline will increase academic achievement. This indicates that there are grounds for
evaluating schools based on discipline outcomes as well as traditional factors such as
achievement. Moreover, there is perhaps a policy-level opportunity to leverage the prodigious
financial resources aimed at achievement into the arena of discipline.
There are also financial implications related to the fact that federal education dollars are
tied to district adoption of zero tolerance for firearms possession on school property. The appeal
of federal dollars reinforces the continued existence of zero tolerance regardless of its
ZERO TOLERENACE 27
disproportional impact and lack of results. This is especially likely in large, urban districts that
already suffer under inadequate resources and costly standardized testing mandates. Moreover,
alternatives to zero tolerance (such as PBIS) are resource intensive, creating an additional
financial incentive to retain zero tolerance in low-wealth urban districts (Fenning & Rose, 2007;
McCurdy, et al., 2003). However, the operation of discrimination on a structural level implies
that any existing zero tolerance policies will tend to become the agents of those operating under
the influence of implicit bias, regardless of the policys or the actors intention. Despite the harm
caused by punitive discipline, the economic incentives favor retention of zero tolerance. In such
a climate, legal, political and legislative efforts to disentangle federal education dollars from zero
tolerance mandates could be particularly helpful in producing more equitable outcomes in school
discipline. Efforts to include discipline outcomes, rather than achievement measures alone, in the
evaluation of school performance could also help realign the incentives in a way that promotes
more positive discipline policies (Losen & Martinez, 2013).
Conclusion
An informal search of news articles reveals that in the two years since Jessie Klein
published her research, at least 10 additional school shootings have occurred, including the
second most deadly school shooting ever recorded in Newtown, CT, where 28 people lost their
lives (White shooter, suburban school). The tragedy of every school shooting is profound and
each provides a point of reflection for educational stakeholders and society as a whole. The past
three decades have shown that harsh, punitive discipline has little hope of preventing
misbehavior, deterring gun violence or creating safer schools. Yet, the simplistic logic of get
tough policies has led many to overlook the disproportionate punishment of urban minorities for
the gun violence committed predominantly by others. In the process, minority students have been
ZERO TOLERENACE 28
subjected to a different form of violence based on misplaced blame, discrimination and
exclusion. As proponents of critical race theory remind us, school violence is the result of the
structural violence of oppressive social conditions that force students (especially low-income,
male Black and Latino students) to feel vulnerable, angry, and resistant to the normative
expectations of prison-like school environments (Watts & Erevelles, 2004, p. 271). Zero
tolerance is just such an instance of codified structural violence against minority students in
urban schools. While constructive discipline policies and teacher development are necessary
steps down the path that leads to more effective practices in school discipline, deep reflection on
the part of policy makers and other stakeholders will also be necessary to attain the level of
transcendence needed for meaningful structural reform. It can be hoped that the recent
declarations by the Obama administration represent the beginning of such movement. Hanson
(2005) profoundly summarizes this discussion:
Through the expansion and applications of zero tolerance policies of
the 1990s, America is now at war with its youth-seeing them as
delinquents at best and criminals at worst-as their often minor,
adolescent acts occur or originate in the only place other than their
homes. And for those acts, America is excluding many youth from
school and from obtaining an education (p.314).
















ZERO TOLERENACE 29
References

Advancement Project/Civil Rights Project. (2000). Opportunities suspended: The
devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline. Cambridge, MA: Civil
Rights Project.

Advancement Project. (2005). Education on lockdown: The schoolhouse to jailhouse track.
Retrieved from www.advancementproject.org/reports/FINALEOLrep.pdf.

Advancement Project. (2012, December 12). Ending the school-to-prison pipeline
hearing before the senate judiciary subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and
human rights. Retrieved from http://www.advancementproject.org/news/entry/ending-
the-school-to-prison-pipeline-hearing-before-the-senate-judiciary-su

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance
policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American
Psychologist, 63(9), 852-862.

Atkinson, A. J. (2005, November) Zero tolerance policies: An issue brief. Retrieved from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/administrators/superintendents_memos/2006/inf003a.pdf

Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fox, J. (2013, January). Sent Home and Put Off-Track: The
Antecedents, Disproportionalities, and Consequences of Being Suspended in the Ninth
Grade. Paper presented at the Closing the School Discipline Gap: Research to Practice
conference, Washington, DC.

Baron, A. S. & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race
evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(1), 53-58.

Beger, R. R. (2002) Expansion of police power in public schools and the vanishing rights of
students. Social Justice, 9(1-2), 119-130.

Bell, D. A. (1973) Race, Racism and American Law. New York, NY: Little, Brown and
Company.

Bireda, M. R. (2010). Cultures in conflict: Eliminating racial profiling. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Education.

Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: John Wiley
and Sons.

Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W. & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about
school shootings: A review of evidence. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27-37.

Burns, R. & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for a
moral panic. Crime, Law and Social Change, 32, 147168.

ZERO TOLERENACE 30
Cameron, M. & Sheppard, S. M. (2006). School discipline and social work practice: Application
of research and theory to intervention. Children & Schools, 28(1), 15-22.

Casella, R. (2003). Punishing dangerousness through preventive detention: Illustrating the
institutional link between school and prison. In J. Wald & D. J. Losen (Eds.), New
directions for youth development: Deconstructing the school-to-prison pipeline (55-70).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Council of Great City Schools. (2010). Fact sheet & statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cgcs.org/Page/75

Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M. D., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P. & Booth, E.
A. (2011). Breaking schools rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to
students success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State
Governments Justice Center.

Fenning, P. & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary
discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536-559.

Fenning, P., Pigott, T., Engler, E., Bradshaw, K., Gamboney, E., Grunewald, S., & McGrath
Kato, M. (2013). A mixed methods approach examining disproportionality in school
discipline. Paper presented at The Closing the school discipline gap: Research to
practice, Washington, DC.

Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Finn, J. D., & Servoss, T. J. (in press). Misbehavior, suspensions, and security measures in high
school: Racial/ethnic and gender differences. In Losen, D. J. (Ed.), Closing the school
discipline gap: Research for policymakers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2006). Connections between classroom management and culturally responsive teaching.
In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management. (pp.
343-372). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Graham Tebo, M. (2000) Zero tolerance, zero sense. ABA Journal, 86(4), 40-46.

Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J. & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59-68.

Guinier, L. (2004). From racial liberalism to racial literacy: Brown v. Board of Education and the
interest-divergence dilemma. Journal of American History, 91(1), 92-118.

Hanson, A.L. (2005). Have zero tolerance school discipline polices turned into a
nightmare: The American dreams promise of equal educational opportunity grounded in
Brown v Board of Education. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 9(2), 289-
378.

ZERO TOLERENACE 31
Hirschfield, P. J. & Celinska, K. (2011). Beyond fear: Sociological perspectives on the
criminalization of school discipline. Sociology Compass, 5(1), 1-12.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. & Booker, B. (2012) Meeting the academic and social needs of urban
African American students: Implications for school counselors. In James L Moore, III &
Chance W. Lewis (Eds.), American Students in Urban Schools: Critical Issues and
Solutions for Achievement (33-52). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Howell, J. C., (2009) Juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework (2
nd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Hughes, C. C. (2012). The impact of school discipline research on racial threat theory. In R.
Rosenfield, K. Quinet & C. Garcia (Eds.), Contemporary Issues on Criminological
Research (69-74). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Irvine, J. J. (2002). In search of wholeness: African American teachers and their culturally
competent classroom practices. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S. P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Fleury, J. K., Chandler, K. A.,
Rand, M. R., Klaus, P., & Planty, M. G. (2000). Indicators of School Crime and Safety,
2000 (NCES 2001-017/NCJ-184176). Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education
and Justice.

Kewel Ramani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., & Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and trends in the
education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039). National Center for
Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC.

Klein, Jessie, (2012) The bully society: School shootings and the crisis of bullying in Americas
schools, New York, NY: NYU Press, Retrieved from
http//:www.nyupress.org/bullysociety/dataonschoolshootings.pdf.

Klein, J. (2010). School shooters share a common profile. In L.S. Friedman (Eds.). School
shootings: Writing the critical essay. (pp. 41-49). New York, NY: Greenhaven Press.

Klein, J. & Chancer. L. (2006). Normalized masculinity: The ontology of violence rooted in
everyday life. In B.A. Arrigo and C.R. Williams, (Eds.). Philosophy, Crime, and
Criminology (Critical Perspectives in Criminology) (74-102). Champaign, IL: University
of Illinois Press.

Kurtz, S. (2002, May 15) Zero sense: A dangerous trend. National Review. Retrieved from
http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz051502.asp

Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W.F. (1995). Towards a critical race theory in education. Teachers
College Record 97, 47-68.

ZERO TOLERENACE 32
Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M. & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide positive
behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the
Schools, 43(6), 701-712.

Lewis, C. W., Butler, B. R., Bonner, F. A. III & Joubert, M. (2010) African American male
discipline patterns and school district responses resulting impact on academic
achievement: Implications for urban educators and policy makers. Journal of African
American Males in Education, 1(1), 7-25.

Losen, D. J. & Martinez, T. E. (2013). Out of school & off track: The overuse of suspensions in
American middle and high schools. The Center of Civil Rights Remedies. Retrieved from
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-
remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/out-of-school-and-off-track-the-overuse-
of-suspensions-in-american-middle-and-high-schools

Losen, D. J. (2013). Discipline policies, successful schools, racial justice and the law. Family
Court Review, 51(3), 388-400.

MacMillan, D. L., & Reschley, D. J. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African
Americans in special education: The case of greater specificity or reconsideration of the
variables examined. Journal of Special Education, 32, 1524.

McCurdy, B. L., Mannella, M. C. & Eldridge, N. (2003) Positive behavior support in urban
schools: Can we prevent the escalation of antisocial behavior? Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 5(3), 158-171.

McFadden, A. C., Marsh, G. E., Price, B. J., & Hwang, Y. (1992). A study of race and gender
bias in the punishment of school children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 140-
146.

Milner, H. R. (2006). Classroom management in urban classrooms. In C. M. Evertson & C. S.
Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and
contemporary issues (pp. 491-522). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary
issues (pp. 491-522). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

New York Civil Liberties Union. (2010). B.H. et al v. City of New York (Challenging the
NYPDs school safety policies and practices). Retrieved from
http://www.nyclu.org/case/bh-et-al-v-city-of-new-york-challenging-nypds-school-safety-
policies-and-practices

Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking
disciplinary practices. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 341-350.

ZERO TOLERENACE 33
Obidah, J. E. & Howard, T. C. (2005). Preparing teachers for Monday morning in the urban
school classroom: Reflecting on our pedagogies and practices as effective teacher
educators, Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 248-255.

Patton, J. M. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African Americans in special
education: Looking behind the curtain for understanding and solutions. Journal of Special
Education, 32, 2532.

Raffaele Mendez L. M. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A
longitudinal investigation. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 17-33.

Rausch, K. & Skiba, R. (2004). Doing discipline differently: The Greenfield Middle School
story. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.iub.edu/~safeschl/ChildrenLeftBehind/pdf/3a.pdf

Richart, D. (2004). Northern lights: Student achievement and school discipline at Northern
Elementary School. Building Blocks for Youth. Retrieved from
http://www.bridges4kids.org/PBS/SuspensionAchievement.pdf

Robinson, P. (2001). Punishing dangerousness: Cloaking preventive detention as criminal
justice. Harvard Law Review, 114, 14291456.

Rocque, M. (2010). Office discipline and student behavior: Does race matter? American
Journal of Education, 116(4), 557-581.

Rocque, M. & Paternoster, R. (2011). Understanding the antecedents of the school-to-jail link:
The relationship between race and school discipline. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 101(2), 633-666.

Skiba, R., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C. & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of
racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment (Policy Research Report
#SRS1). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center.

Skiba, R. & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe
schools? The Phi Delta Kappan, 60(5), 372-376, 381-382.

Skiba, R. (2000, August). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary
practice. Indiana Education Policy Center. Policy research report #SRS2. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center.

Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C., Rausch, M. K., May, S., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not
neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in
school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85-107.

Skiba, R., Trachok, M., Chung, C. G., Baker, T., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R. (2013, January).
Where should we intervene? Contributions of behavior, student, and school
ZERO TOLERENACE 34
characteristics to suspension and expulsion. In Losen, D. (Ed.), Closing the school
discipline gap: Research for policymakers. New York: Teachers College Press.

The Civil Rights Project/Advancement Project. (2000). Opportunities suspended: The
devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline. Proceedings from A
National Summit on Zero Tolerance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.

Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African American learners:
Suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66, 381-291.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration, United States
Census Bureau. (2011, August). 2010 census demographic profile summary file: 2010
Census of population and housing. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/dpsf.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics. (1997) Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools: 1996-1997 (NCES
98030). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/98030/Tab19.asp

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. (n.d.) Identification of Rural Locales. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, January 8). School Climate and Discipline. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/index.html

U.S. Department of Justice. (2012, August 10). Justice department releases investigative findings
showing constitutional rights of children in Mississippi being violated. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/August/12-crt-993.html.

Vavrus, F, & Cole, K. (2002). I didnt do nothin: The discursive construction of school
suspension. The Urban Review, 34, 87111.

Wald, J. & Losen, D. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New
Directions in Youth Development, 99, 915.

Wallace, J. M. Jr., Goodkind, S., Wallace, C. M. & Bachman, J. G. (2008). Racial, ethnic, and
gender differences in school discipline among U. S. high school students: 1991-2005.
Negro Educational Review (59(1-2), pp. 47-62.

Warren, J. S., Edmonson, H. M., Griggs, P., Lassen, S. R., McCart, A., Turnbull, A. & Sailor, W.
(2003) Urban applications of school-wide positive behavior support: Critical issues and
lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 5(2), 80-92.

ZERO TOLERENACE 35
Watts, I. E., Erevelles, N. (2004) These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school violence by
using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research Journal,
41(2), 271-299.

Weiner, L. (2003). Why is classroom management so vexing to urban teachers? Theory Into
Practice, 42, 305-312.

Welch, K. & Payne, A. A. (2010). Racial threat and punitive school discipline. Social Problems,
57(1), 25-48.





































ZERO TOLERENACE 36
Appendix

Table 1

Number of School Shootings by Location, 1990-2011
Locales

City Suburban Town Rural
large medium small large medium small fringe distant remote fringe distant remote
Shootings 20 16 8 22 3 3 1 11 3 15 11 3

Location Urban Suburban/Rural
Shootings 44 72

Note. Locales based on current National Center for Educational Statistics designations. See Identification of Rural
Locales by U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp































ZERO TOLERENACE 37
Table 2

Number of School Shootings by Location, 1990-1999
Locales

City Suburban Town Rural
large medium small large medium small fringe distant remote fringe distant remote
Shootings 6 5 6 10 0 2 1 6 2 6 4 0

Location Urban Suburban/Rural
Shootings 17 31

Note. Locales based on current National Center for Educational Statistics designations. See Identification of Rural
Locales by U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp
























ZERO TOLERENACE 38
Table 3
Characteristics of Rampage School Shootings, 1996-1999
Location Year NCES Population Race of Gender of
Locale Designation Perpetrator Perpetrator

Moses Lake, WA 1996 t(r) Suburban/Rural White Male

Pearl, MS 1997 s(l) Suburban/Rural White Male
West Paducah, KY 1997 r(f) Suburban/Rural White Male
Jonesboro, AR 1998 r(f) Suburban/Rural White Male
Edinborough, PA 1998 r(f) Suburban/Rural White Male
Springfield, OR 1998 c(s) Urban White Male
Littleton, CO 1999 s(l) Suburban/Rural White Male
Note. Locales based on current National Center for Educational Statistics designations. See Identification of Rural
Locales by U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp





















ZERO TOLERENACE 39
Table 4

School Demographic Characteristics of Rampage Shootings, 1996-1999

Location Amer Ind/ Asian Two or
Alaskan Pac Islander Black Hispanic White More Races

Moses Lake, WA 8 4 16 329 376 7

Pearl, MS 0 9 353 46 653 1

West Paducah, KY 1 5 19 9 480 10

Jonesboro, AR 1 0 11 11 371 8

Edinborough, PA 3 7 3 15 664 21

Springfield, OR 27 24 10 155 1089 158

Littleton, CO 19 60 17 284 1205 47

Note. Demographic data based on current National Center for Educational Statistics locale designations. See
Identification of Rural Locales by U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center
for Education Statistics, (n.d.). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp