zero tolerance policy: a multiperspective analysis
DESCRIPTION
A look at zero-tolerance policies in educational institutions.TRANSCRIPT
Henry 1
Introduction
Over the past several years there has been an ever-growing concern about
violence in the schools. This specter gains greater national prominence each time there is
a school shooting (or an attempted school shooting), though other concerns that do not
necessarily receive the national spotlight also garner the attention of parents and school
boards everywhere (e.g., bullying). Due to events such as these, there is a perception
among the populace that not only is the violence within schools escalating in severity
(from the schoolyard bully of yesteryear to the assault weapon brandishing students of
today) but that it is increasing in sheer volume as well. In order to combat such perceived
widespread violence, schools across the country have instituted zero tolerance policies on
a range of violations with the intentions of stemming the tide.
The concept of zero tolerance is not one that is original to the field of education;
rather, it finds its national origins in the battle against drug trafficking. As such, as a
national policy it has had a relatively short life, beginning in the mid-1980’s. It was used
to confiscate boats possessing any amount of drugs as well as any vessels used to
smuggle illegal drugs into the country from South America and the Caribbean. The
policy was contagious, eventually finding its way into the public education system via
certain districts in California, New York, and Kentucky (Skiba and Knesting 2001). This
early incarnation of zero tolerance in education was directed at the ever-increasing
problem of violence within the school, but within a few years the policy had expanded to
include such behaviors as smoking. However, after incidents such as the Columbine
school shootings garnered the public’s attention and condemnation, Congress acted to
pass the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, designed to apply the concept of zero tolerance
Henry 2
in such a way to dissuade students from bringing guns to school. While originally
directed toward the exclusion of firearms from school campuses across the nation,
subsequent amendments to the Act have added any device that might be used as a
weapon. The states and local districts have further expanded the scope of zero tolerance,
and recent statistics show that “94 percent of all schools have zero-tolerance policies for
weapons or firearms, 87 percent for alcohol, and 79 percent for violence or tobacco”
(Skiba and Knesting 2001, 20).
Yet is such a policy appropriate given the nature of the environment it is being
implemented in? Supporters of the policies obviously argue in the affirmative, that such
action may be lamentable but is nonetheless indispensable in dealing with the situations
facing modern day schools. Critics offer a different viewpoint, one that is characterized
as being racially and economically discriminatory in practice as well as inflexible in its
application. There is no shortage of cases that can be used as anecdotal evidence for the
failings and, all too often, the absurdity of zero tolerance policies. In order to better
understand the context of this policy, one must understand how the policy fits into an
overarching theoretical framework that can offer an explanation for how and why the
policy came into being in the first place.
Using a variety of theoretical lenses may provide the most robust analysis for any
type of policy, and this examination of zero tolerance is no exception. Therefore, in order
to gain a more thorough perception, three frameworks will be utilized. First, a rational
choice approach (namely, what has been called by many the “policy cycle” or the
“stages” heuristic) will be used in order to paint the initial picture of the process. The
benefit of such an approach is the simplification of the events surrounding the
Henry 3
conceptualization of the problem and the implementation of the solution, even if, as some
scholars have argued, the simplistic approach has “outlived its usefulness” (Sabatier
1999). Still, such a framework does provide the analyst with the requisite vocabulary for
examining the policy process. Second, a political framework (namely, the “multiple
streams” approach) will be employed, which will offer a contrasting analysis for the
rational choice perspective. The lack of emphasis on events occurring in a particular
order is often beneficial for the policy analyst simply because the steps often occur out of
order. Finally, a normative analysis will be used in order to ascertain the reasoning for
why such draconian measures have been resorted to in the realm of public education. It
should be noted here that such analysis is often volatile in its offerings because so much
is based upon the individual values held by the researcher or by society at large (or any
subsection of it). Still, it can offer insights that may be lacking in the other frameworks,
and therefore it holds the promise of being advantageous for a more robust
understanding.
Rational Choice Perspective
In order to examine this policy from a rational choice perspective, it is necessary
to understand what the principle concepts of the theoretical framework first. The rational
choice theory of policy is also known by other names, notably the stages or steps
heuristic and the policy cycle, due to its emphasis on the series of stages that potential
policies go through en route to becoming enacted. Scholars have long identified six steps
in the policy process: initiation, estimation, selection, implementation, evaluation, and
termination (Brewer 1974; Sabatier 1999). In the initiation stage, the problem is
identified and more importantly defined. Several solutions will be offered at this point as
Henry 4
well, though many if not most of them will be a poor fit with the identified problem.
Next, during the estimation stage the possible solutions are appraised, with an emphasis
on weighing the costs and benefits of each. In so doing the total range of options is
narrowed. Third, the selection stage is the point at which one of the solutions from the
already narrowed range is chosen by whoever possesses the authority to do so, whether it
is one person or a group of people such as a committee or legislature. The
implementation stage follows the selection stage, and is marked by the execution of the
selected solution by the agencies affected by the decision. Fifth, the evaluation stage is
the period when the outcomes of the implemented policy are reviewed in regards to its
successes, failures, or both. While this stage is considered crucial by most scholars of the
policy process, most grant that it is a “rare commodity” in the process (Brewer 1974,
241). Finally, the policy reaches the termination stage. This can be somewhat of a
misnomer, since the policy is not necessarily ended. Rather, this is the point at which the
evaluations are used in order to tweak the policy so that it may function in a more
efficient manner, though it certainly may refer to the removal of outdated or irrelevant
policies.
Further, the rational choice framework makes certain assumptions regarding the
policy process and the actors involved within it. First, it is assumed that the agreed upon
policy is the value-maximizing, or best, option available from all of the possible solutions
available, and it is chosen by an actor with a unitary set of values (Malen and Knapp
1997; Brewer 1974). In the case of the Gun-Free Schools Act, Congress acted as the
unitary actor under this perspective. The conference report passed the House by a vote of
262-132 and passed the Senate by a vote of 77-20 (“Bill Summary and Status” 2004).
Henry 5
The elected officials in each chamber shared the same set of core values: to see a
reduction in the types of school violence encapsulated by the events of Columbine (the
problem that was identified in the initiation stage). It is presumed that this set of values is
also held by those states and school districts that have also enacted these types of zero
tolerance policies. The zero tolerance policy enacted by Congress was straight forward in
its assumption of being the best policy in respect to reducing school violence: if you
remove guns (and later, all weapons) from the school campus, the level of violence will
decrease.
Second, rational choice makes other assumptions about the actors who are
involved in the policy process. Actors are assumed to have access to a complete set of
knowledge and information regarding the problem that is being considered, especially
during the estimation stage when the solutions are being narrowed and weighed. The
actors are also assumed to have access to all of the possible solutions that may be utilized
in response to the identified problem, both good and bad, as well as all of the possible
outcomes for each possible solution being considered. The actors are also assumed to
possess enough time to fully investigate the options. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, the actors are assumed to possess the mental faculties with which they may
accurately and precisely distinguish between the possible solutions in order to arrive at
the best option for the identified problem. In the case of the Gun-Free Schools Act,
proponents of the rational choice perspective would point to the deliberation within the
subcommittees and committees of Congress as proof that the most complete body of
information was considered in the selection of the final policy. Since the Congress is
composed of 535 members, these proponents would also argue that while no one member
Henry 6
could possess all of this information or all of the possible solutions, the body as a whole
would (the “rational public” model), with the evidence being in the numerous
amendments (other solutions) offered during the process (Sidlow and Henschen 2004).
According to the statistics previously cited in Skiba and Knesting (2001), there is
strong evidence that the policy is being implemented in accordance with the underlying
intent of the policy-makers: universally. Because the Act included a provision that
mandated that the states allow that the chief administrative officer of each district to
modify any expulsion under the Act on a case-by-case basis, this could explain the six
percent of districts that do not have a zero tolerance policy currently in place.
Nonetheless, 94 percent is a significant number, and it is underscored by the expansion of
the policy to other types of disallowed behavior. The Gun-Free Schools Act has also
undergone further changes as time has passed. As noted earlier, the original bill only
covered firearms (hence its name), but over time legislators have added amendments
aimed at expanding its scope to include all weapons. In addition, as the policy flowed
down from the national level to the individual states and school districts, the policy was
further expanded to include many other types of unacceptable behavior and actions.
Proponents of the rational choice perspective would point to this course of action as being
in line with the stages heuristic; that is, so far in the analysis the policy has progressed
through the stages in the manner set forth. At this point in the policy’s life it can be
found in the evaluation stage, where it is being tweaked, expanded, and contracted to fit
with the observed successes and failures of the policy.
The rational choice perspective also assumes that the actual outcomes of the
policy will be in congruence with the preconceived outcomes developed during the
Henry 7
estimation stage. According to Senator Diane Feinstein of California, zero tolerance gun
policies do have the desired effect of reducing the number of guns in the schools which in
turn will lead to a reduction in school violence. Feinstein cites statistics for both the Los
Angeles and the San Diego school districts, where the number of expulsions based on
students carrying guns to school dropped 65 percent and 50 percent respectively in the
academic year 1993-1994 (Feinstein 1994). Indeed, the number of expulsions nationwide
also appears to have dropped over time since the passage of the Act, but there is some
concern with the accuracy and even the quantity of the data provided by the states (Skiba
and Knesting 2001).
However, some argue that there have been unintended consequences associated
with zero tolerance policies across the nation, and such a proposition undermines the
assumptions of the rational choice perspective. Keeping in mind the discretion that the
chief administrative officers of each district possess in regards to the final decisions over
expulsion, researchers have found that zero tolerance expulsions have been
disproportionately applied toward children from lower socioeconomic status as well as
from minority groups, particularly African-Americans (Skiba and Knesting 2001; Ayers,
Dohm, and Ayers 2001). In addition, while the school districts and legislators may see
the overall numbers as vindication for their course of action, some behavioral
psychologists believe that the harsh disciplinary actions dictated by zero tolerance
policies serve only to escalate the actions of those students already predisposed to such
disruptive behavior (Skiba and Knesting 2001).
The criticisms that have been lobbed at the rational choice perspective over the
years apply to this analysis as well. First, the assumption that the policy-makers have
Henry 8
perfect knowledge regarding the subject they are forming policy for seems to be
overstating the actual state. Knowledge itself is inherently imperfect and subject to bias,
and to assume that a person (or even a group of people) is able to possess all of the
pertinent information on a subject in unrealistic. Second, the actors involved in policy
making do not have an adequate amount of time to fully investigate the already limited
options developed during the initiation and estimation stage. As anyone familiar with the
workings of Congress knows, elected representatives are subject to a large number of
external pressures, not the least of which is time. The number of issues before any given
session of Congress can be staggering, and the time set aside for debate is necessarily
limited. Thus, it is possible (and perhaps more accurately, probable) that there is not
enough time available. Third, the apparent unintended consequences that are being
discovered by scholars and researchers also seem to indicate that the rational choice
framework may be a poor fit for the analysis of zero tolerance policy, since the previous
assumptions force adherents of rational choice to believe that the outcomes of a policy
must have been foreseen. Finally, those who have pointed out the weaknesses of rational
choice are quick to call attention to the fact that it is of no usefulness when it comes to
describing and predicting causal conditions. It is a backward looking theoretical
framework in that almost every action can be considered in some way rational, reducing
the theory to essentially a tautology. Critics of rational choice would likely agree with
Sabatier’s assertion that “the stages heuristic has outlived its usefulness” and needs to be
replaced (Sabatier 1999, 7).
It should be noted here, however, that the perspectives of the above analysis are
based on what has come to be known as “pure” rational choice. Scholars who have seen
Henry 9
the inherent difficulty with the economic model and its assumptions have made strides
toward reforming the theory as opposed to discarding it altogether. The best example of
this school of thought is what has come to be known as “bounded rationality,” as
expressed by Bryan D. Jones in Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded
Rationality and Governance (2001). The premise of this revised framework is that actors
still make the best (rational) choice based on their knowledge, even though the
knowledge, time, and mental faculties they possess are limited (bounded). It may be
throwing out the baby with the bath water to agree with Sabatier’s pronouncement of
inadequacy, but it is equally important to recognize the limitations of the framework and
try to develop it further in order to provide the most robust explanation possible.
Political Perspective
The rational choice perspective, then, offers some insights on the development of
zero tolerance policy, but it also leaves some gaps in its explanation. The rational choice
perspective was one of the first frameworks developed for analyzing the policy process,
and much of its language (implementation, evaluation, and so on) is evident in all of the
other frameworks. Still, it is useful for those who analyze policy to utilize different
theoretical lenses in order to gain the most robust understanding possible. A second
perspective that can be beneficial to the policy analyst is the political perspective. For the
purpose of this analysis, a particular variation of the political perspective will be
employed: Kingdon’s (1995) multiple streams theory. But first, the political perspective
in general (as well as the multiple streams perspective in particular) must be summarized.
The central tenet of all political policy frameworks is that public policy is a mean
by which resources may be allocated while maintaining the legitimacy of the overall
Henry 10
system (Malen and Knapp 1997). Specifically, it focuses on the balance of power
between political elites and the competition of their varied ideas and solutions. The term
“political elites” applies to those people who have power and influence in the policy-
making process, and can include such actors as members of Congress, high ranking
members of the executive branch, interest group lobbyists, and high ranking bureaucrats.
It is important to note here that the competition between these elites is rarely, if ever, won
by a particular group. What this means in practical terms is the competition is perpetual,
with policy shifts (even returns to past policy choices) occurring constantly. This
constant competition and change also results from the ever-changing coalitions and
alliances that must be built. The old adage of “politics make strange bedfellows” offers a
clichéd but nonetheless accurate description of the process, and may perhaps be best
showcased in the alliance between the conservative president George W. Bush and the
liberal senator Edward Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind Act. While the two share
little in common ideologically, they hammered out what was considered by most
observers a compromise bill (though like any good compromise, it has left all sides
upset). The ultimate aim of any policy from the political perspective is to reinforce the
legitimacy of the overall government system and institutions that passed it or
implemented it. Because legitimacy is one of the primary concerns of any government, it
makes sense that it would not pass any type of policy that would undermine what
legitimacy it already holds and in fact will try to implement policies that serve to instead
underscore that legitimacy.
While the focus on legitimacy is not explicit in Kingdon’s theory, it is an implicit
assumption. More important, he offers a framework for how the competition between the
Henry 11
elites operates, and how particular policies eventually come to be passed and
implemented. His multiple streams theory proposes that three distinct and independent
“streams” flow in the policy process: a problems stream, a policies stream, and a politics
stream. The problems stream contains those issues that present challenges that the
government may need to address, though some of these challenges fail to make it on the
agenda. The policies stream contains various solutions which are constantly being
refined (evaluated). The politics stream contains such external events and influences as
changes in administrations or Congress, the national mood, and interest group campaigns.
It is important to understand that the solutions that exist within the policies stream are not
formulated with respect to any particular problem. They are merely the pet policies of
various actors who wait for the right moment in political time to attach them to a
particular issue. Kingdon asserts that policy is made when a policy window opens, and in
turn the policy window opens when there is either a crisis or a change in the politics
stream. These windows are only open for a short period of time. Further, the three
streams must be coupled together by a policy entrepreneur (elected official) who can
guide the three streams through an open policy window. Without the entrepreneur those
who advocate certain policies must wait for a later opportunity in order to enact their
preferred policy.
As previously mentioned, zero tolerance policy was originally conceived as a
method to combat the flow of illegal drugs into the country (Skiba and Knesting 2001).
It was a popular program among certain policy-makers and became for them somewhat
of a panacea. Thus, it wasn’t long until what had originally been a drug interdiction
program became a general policy for many school districts on a wide range of issues.
Henry 12
Casella (2003) points out that the implementation of the various zero tolerance policies in
the education system was closely correlated with the implementation of other types of
policy designed to reduce the amount of violence and guns on school campuses. This
underscores Kingdon’s assertion that various actors in the policies stream favor pet
policies, working to get their particular policy choice implemented in different arenas (cf.
the advocate of public transportation who sees it as a solution to everything from
pollution to traffic congestion to drunk driving). However, their mere recommendation to
enact such a policy is not enough.
In the early 1990’s, there was a change in the national mood in regard to the
perceived problem of violence on school campuses and this change provided an
opportunity for a policy window to open. It is hard to disagree with the desire for less
violence, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, or other undesirable acts and substances on school
grounds, so this commonly held value worked to the benefit of those who desired to
expand the reach of zero tolerance policy. As with almost any significant legislation,
various amendments were offered, some of which were accepted and some of which were
declined (“Bill Summary and Status” 2004). Discussion of how bills become law is
beyond the scope of this analysis1, but it is still necessary to point out that during the
process compromises must be made in order to secure passage. These compromises often
take the form of formal amendments in the legislation process. In the case of zero
tolerance as it was implemented in the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, the compromises
made on the floors of the House and Senate were aimed at other aspects of the bill, not
1 Needless to say, the “textbook” definition of how a bill becomes a law is not as accurate today as it may have been one hundred years ago. For a revealing look at the current route most legislation takes, see Barbara Sinclair’s Unorthodox Lawmaking (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000).
Henry 13
the zero tolerance aspect (i.e., the Goodling Amendment designed to clarify the Act’s
federal mandates, direction, and control in regard to schools’ curriculums).
When discussing the outcomes of zero tolerance policy, it has been shown that the
effects have not necessarily been the ones foreseen by the policy-makers; in fact, there
have been several unintended consequences as well. While supporters of the policy saw
it as a way to not only combat violence but to also work in a preemptive (deterring)
manner, critics have argued that the policy unfairly targets minority and the lower
socioeconomic strata (Casella 2003; Brown, Losen, and Wald 2001; Ayers, Dohm, and
Ayers 2001). This has led such groups as the American Bar Association to call for the
removal of zero tolerance policies in education systems (Henault 2001). Still, with
occurrences such as the tragedy at Columbine, zero tolerance policy remains entrenched
in the policy manuals of a vast majority of school districts across the nation. Keeping in
mind the overall goal of policy in the political perspective (legitimacy for the system as a
whole), it is understandable why zero tolerance policy has been maintained despite its
obvious criticisms. The rescinding of a policy that, rightly or wrongly, is associated in
the public’s mind with reducing violence in schools would not serve to maintain the
legitimacy of the government. In addition, because the actors involved are interested in
sustaining their power, rescinding zero tolerance policy presents an unacceptable risk for
most policy-makers. Nonetheless, it can be expected that as the scholarly research on the
failings of zero tolerance policy begins to be widely disseminated in the public discourse,
the coalitions of power among the elites will shift once again, possible spelling an end for
this policy.
Henry 14
In contrast with the rational choice perspective, the political perspective provides
more explanatory power in general. For instance, the rational choice perspective follows
a very rigid steps approach; there is not an opportunity for the events that occur in a later
step to take place any earlier. The political perspective is far less rigid. The political
perspective also presents a researcher with an explanation for why similar policies seem
to recur in apparently different arenas (in this case, drug interdiction policy and school
violence policy). For many of the actors (particularly the bureaucrats), a particular policy
may appear to be a universal fit for any problem, and they will therefore attempt to
implement that policy whenever a window opens. There remains an interdependence
between these actors and others in the system (particularly the elected officials, often in
Congress), because without the policy entrepreneurs open windows will quickly close
with no enactment of the policy. Thus, the balance of power constantly shifts between
differing and sometimes surprising coalitions of actors. As the actors in the policies
stream meet with resistance from other actors in the system regarding their preferred
policy, they will ally themselves with still other actors who may see an opportunity to
gain power by advocating the particular policy. Currently, the zero tolerance coalition
remains intact, but should there be a change in the national mood, which can be
influenced by a concentrated interest group campaign against zero tolerance, the coalition
will dissolve and a new one advocating a new remedy will take its place.
However, just as one particular policy is not the panacea for all the world’s
problems, the political perspective also is not the end-all framework for analyzing policy.
One of its most glaring deficiencies is in its inability to identify what a “good” policy is.
Advocates for the political perspective might argue that a policy that garners the support
Henry 15
of a strong coalition fits the definition of good policy, since compromises are often a
necessity for the enactment of any policy. Yet do the policies that are enacted, even with
compromises, by the majority coalition always make good policies? It would not take
any effort to point to such past policies as segregation and anti-sodomy laws in order to
underscore the fact that a majority coalition will not always select the best possible
outcome (the policy goal of the rational choice perspective). Granted, the idea that
shifting coalitions of power will eventually lead to a shift in the policy also, but such a
framework provides no protection against a reverse shift to the old policies. Thus, there
is a danger in this outlook given that can quickly devolve into a “might makes right”
perspective. This is a second criticism of the political perspective: the primary emphasis
on power. Power, and the constant attempt to gain control of it, cannot be ignored in the
study of policy formation, but a primary emphasis on it provides no inherent safeguards
against the misuse of it. Advocates might argue that there are implied restraints on the
pursuit or use of power embedded in the governmental structure or the political culture of
the society, but there is nothing in the theory that prevents these restraints from being
either ignored or changed. Again, the apparent challenge seems to lie in what makes
good policy, and that will be the focus of the final section of this analysis.
Normative Perspective
In the last phase of this multiple perspectives approach to zero tolerance policy,
the normative approach will be undertaken. As with the rational choice and political
perspectives before it, this lens offers insights that can be overlooked by other
perspectives. However, unlike the other perspectives, the normative lens places the main
emphasis on norms and values, which are present in the others but not the central focal
Henry 16
point. This approach provides an important viewpoint for the evaluation of any policy
because it acknowledges that policies can both reflect the current social norms and values
as well as alter them (Malen and Knapp 1997). Due to this focus on norms and values,
the normative approach also provides the researcher with a fuller understanding of the
range of values that are competing with one another in every policy. Green (1994) points
out that all policies incorporate and try to balance these competing goals, with the
understanding that as any one goal receives value-maximizing attention the others will
see a decline in their value attainment.
In the normative perspective actors are seen as value seekers as well as value
promoters; that is, policy-makers attempt to determine what values are best for their
community and then design policies that incorporate these values. When trying to
determine what values are best, they will often look to the values and norms that they
hold themselves, which are often the ones that are held by many in their respective
community. Thus, when a policy problem arises it is not seen as an opportunity to
maintain the legitimacy of the government as it is in the political perspective, but rather it
is seen as almost a clash of conflicting values. Actors, then, will attempt to evaluate the
various policy questions that surround the problem in order to establish what indeed
constitutes the best set of values. Because of this, the purpose of any policy from the
normative perspective is to promote and protect societal values in two ways: first
shaping what the concept of a good society should be and second creating the right
environment for this concept to take hold (Malen and Knapp 1997). In the case of zero
tolerance policy, the actors (policy-makers in Washington, D.C. first and later state and
local school boards) shared a value that is hard to disagree with, that there should not be
Henry 17
any gun related violence on the campuses of schools in the nation. This was a value that
was also shared by almost all of society.2 Evidence of this can be seen in some of the
research that has been conducted on zero tolerance: nine out of ten principals surveyed
for one particular poll stated that tough discipline policies, such as zero tolerance, were
“absolutely essential for keeping schools safe” (Holloway 2001, 84).
As noted above, the other policy process perspectives incorporate the concept of
values, though not to the degree that the normative approach does. Values and norms are
the central tenet of the normative approach. With this in mind, it is then easy to
understand that the actual process by which policy is made is of little importance in the
normative perspective. In other words, how policy is made is not nearly as important or
crucial as the values and norms behind it. To illustrate, consider the two other
perspectives utilized in this analysis. The rational choice model is a step by step process
through which problems are identified, alternatives are considered and weighed, and the
chosen policy is evaluated against its own performance. Even without focusing on the
value-maximizing goal of the rational choice model it is easy to see that in each of the
steps values play a pivotal role. When comparing and evaluating alternatives (as well as
when a problem is first identified), the various alternatives are weighed according to what
is considered of value to society. Those alternatives that do not maximize or protect this
set of values are rejected (Malen and Knapp 1997). In a similar fashion, the political
model is value-laden as well. For instance, when there is a change in the national mood
due to a perceived crisis or emergency, it is caused by an act which conflicts with the
2 The use of the term “almost” is necessary because gun related violence has occurred on school campuses nationwide, though it is important to realize that these acts are committed by an extremely small percentage of society as a whole.
Henry 18
values held by the society.3 In the policies stream, the pet policies held by the various
policy-makers are based on their value set as well as the norms of the society, otherwise
the policies would never stand a chance of being adopted.
Not surprisingly, the outcome of a policy, when viewed from a normative
perspective, is evaluated based on how it has worked to conform to the values and norms
of the society as well as how it has worked to reinforce those values and norms already
held. A good policy is one that produces and supports the concept of the good society
that has already been agreed upon by the policy-makers (Malen and Knapp 1997). With
zero tolerance policy, the policy-makers concluded that a good society was one that was
without violence in schools; one way of achieving this goal was to introduce the Gun-
Free Schools Act of 1994. The zero tolerance aspect of that Act was quickly applied to
other areas of school violence as well as disciplinary areas such as alcohol and tobacco.
As Green (1994) emphasized, a good policy question utilizing the normative lens takes
into account the set of nested values surrounding the question while also showing these
values’ mutual inconsistency. It would serve the analysis well at this point to highlight
some of the conflicting values surrounding the implementation of zero tolerance policies.
First and foremost, the previously mentioned desire to provide a safe environment
for children is the most obvious value/goal wanted by the policy-makers. A second
value/goal for policy-makers was to provide equity in the application of the policy, a
“one size fits all” policy (Bireda 2000; Brown, Losen, and Wald 2001; Ayers, Dohm, and
3 Even in the case of natural disasters this holds true. When a hurricane or tornado destroys the homes and possessions of a group of people, the thought of otherwise productive people being homeless runs counter to the values held by the American society; thus, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) steps in to assist in the rebuilding of homes and businesses. While some might argue that people who choose to live in areas like Florida or Oklahoma that are prone to such disasters invite such losses, the debate serves to underscore the normative perspective that there are conflicting and competing values that need to be chosen between.
Henry 19
Ayers 2001; d’Oliveira 2004; Henault 2001). Third, a more productive learning
environment could be produced if the “trouble-makers” were removed, leaving only the
well-behaved children (d’Oliveira 2004; Morrison et al. 2001; Essex 2001). This is not
intended to be an exhaustive list of the conflicting values surrounding zero tolerance
policy. Still, even with these three values one can observe how seeking to maximize any
one of them will reduce the maximization of the others. Now that some of the values
have been identified, the outcome of zero tolerance policy can be examined to see
whether some sort of balance between these goals has been achieved. First, the safety
level of school campuses is still debatable due to sketchy data (Skiba and Knesting 2001).
Policy-makers such as California Senator Diane Feinstein (1994) cite these statistics
nonetheless to underscore the success of the policy is supporting this value, but some
studies are beginning to show that zero tolerance policies are not producing safer school
environments (Skiba, Rausch, and Ritter 2004). Second, several recent studies have
shown that there is little equitable treatment in the application of zero tolerance policies.
Brown, Losen, and Wald (2001) found that in 1998-1999, “African American students
accounted for 33 percent of all those suspended and 31 percent of all those expelled yet
made up only 17 percent of all students” (74). Bireda (2000) cites a 2000 Harvard study
that found, among other things, that black and Latino students are more likely to face the
harshest disciplinary actions (zero tolerance actions), twenty-five percent of black male
students were suspended at least once in a four year period, and predominantly black and
Latino school districts are more likely to have zero tolerance policies than other districts.
Third, an Indiana study has found that the higher rates of suspension and expulsion
usually associated with zero tolerance policies actually leads to a worsened school
Henry 20
climate and lower academic achievement (Skiba, Rausch, and Ritter 2004). Thus, it
would appear from the research since zero tolerance policies have been implemented that
the societal values sought have not been achieved or protected.
Shen (1995) notes, “Normative perspectives intend to make explicit the values
embedded in a policy and, therefore, make people more conscious of the possible result
of a policy” (87-88). This is the theory of action associated with the normative approach.
As previously noted, the values associated with zero tolerance policies are evident to
those who study it and due to this the intended outcomes can be readily understood. This
does not imply, of course, that the intended results will be the actual observed results, as
evidenced in the normative analysis of zero tolerance above. The processes involved in
the making of policy (regardless of how one views the order or procedures of the
processes) are both shaped by values and shape values. This happens whether it is during
the identification of the problem (after all, problems are only perceived as such if they
run contrary to the established values and norms of a society) or during the evaluation of
the outcomes (Malen and Knapp 1997). The arrow of causality therefore runs in both
directions.
The normative approach offers the researcher significant insights into zero
tolerance policy. Understanding the values and norms associated with a particular policy
is critical for understanding why particular policies are initially chosen. Social scientists
have long noted that American culture is inherently conservative; that is, there is a
premium placed on stability, security, and the status quo, for better or for worse. This is
not to say that there are not segments of the American society that do not desire change,
but those segments have historically been small and unable to achieve the broad change
Henry 21
that they have desired. This fact helps in comprehending the high value that is placed on
the absence of violence of any kind on school campuses across the nation. Knowing this
fact also aids the researcher in understanding why zero tolerance policies have enjoyed
widespread implementation in school systems and acceptance in the general public.
However, the normative approach falls short when it needs to explain the continuation of
zero tolerance policies when the empirical evidence seems to indicate that they fail in
supporting and protecting the agreed upon values. Here the political perspective may
offer some insight. Certain policies, regardless of their success, are clung to by the
people who populate the policies stream. These policies are seen by their proponents as
something slightly less than a social panacea (though some of these proponents probably
do see their pet policy as being the cure-all for society’s ills), and thus should be
implemented for a wide range of problems. The rational perspective could also be
beneficial here. Zero tolerance policies as spelled out in the Gun-Free Schools Act of
1994 have only been in effect in most schools for ten years. More time may be needed to
allow for reliable data to be collected, assimilated, and analyzed in order for the
evaluation stage to take place. Further, that stage could already be underway, but in a
similar vein not enough time has passed that would allow the researcher to observe the
alterations that come from this stage. The normative approach, then, finds its strength in
supplementing the other perspectives by emphasizing the value of values.
Conclusion
The growth of zero tolerance policies provides a researcher an opportunity to
analyze the factors that contribute to the growth of a policy. In the preceding pages, a
multiperspective approach was taken so that the results of each might be compared and
Henry 22
contrasted. In the rational choice perspective, the policy making process is seen as a
series of progressive steps or stages, each building off of the previous. Policy-makers are
assumed to possess perfect information and perfect decision making capabilities, as well
as ample time to consider all of the possible policy directions. Given these assumptions
(and many more) it is expected that policy-makers will then act in rational ways and
make rational choices. However, this does not assume that the outcome is rational, only
the steps and decisions along the way (Bates 1981). While it has been criticized by many
scholars opposed to the rigidity of the framework and the unrealistic assumptions, the
model has provided policy scholars the language and terminology that is associated with
the policy sciences.
In the political perspective, the policy process is seen as a method by which the
current regime or set of institutions can further legitimize itself. This is the goal of the
actors in this model, and under this assumption the adage of “politics make strange
bedfellows” makes sense. There is a balance of power in this framework as well, and the
actors are constantly trying to maintain it. In Kingdon’s (1995) multiple streams
approach, three streams (problems, policies, and politics) occasionally merge under
optimum conditions. When this occurs, a resourceful policy entrepreneur can guide the
streams through an open policy window in order to form a policy. Members of the
policies streams tend to have pet policy initiatives that they see as a universal cure-all for
almost any problem, and they will attempt to couple their preferred policy to problems as
they arise in the problems stream.
In the normative approach, the policy process is about values and norms. While
values and norms are present in each of the other frameworks at various points, they are
Henry 23
not emphasized to the same extent as they are in this model. To underscore this
prominence, the normative perspective is not concerned with the actual nuts and bolts of
the process itself; thus, how a policy is formed is nowhere near as important as why a
policy is formed. Actors in this model are seen as both value makers as well as value
protectors. In this manner policies can establish, alter, or protect existing values and
norms. The arrow of causality can run in either direction: policies can set values or
values can set policy.
The strength of the multiperspective approach lies in that no one theoretical
framework answers all questions equally well. If such a unifying theory existed, policy
scholars could shift their focus to other questions. However, it does not and researchers
face theories that are limited in their analytic power. The world is complex, and
accordingly the problems that scholars study are complex as well. Since the goal of most
theories is to provide a parsimonious look at the world, some things will be unaccounted
for. Thus, combining two, three, or more of these lenses offers the advantage of a
shifting focus. For instance, the rational choice perspective might offer the researcher
insight into what policy-makers are thinking at a particular stage in the process, though
the processes in real life may not occur in the exact order prescribed by the theory (some
of the stages may not even occur at all!). To compensate for this, the researcher may use
the use of the political perspective, which may offer a more realistic approach to how the
actual process takes place. Finally, in order to further strengthen the analysis, the
normative perspective may be included in order to evaluate the weight of the values of
the policy-makers as well as the norms of the society that the policy will be implemented
Henry 24
in. What this provides is a more robust analysis; the weaknesses of any one framework
are supplemented by the strengths of another.
Such is the case with this analysis of zero tolerance policy. Some of the lenses
failed to adequately explain how the policy either came into being (i.e., the rational
choice approach) or what constituted a good policy (i.e., the political perspective).
Certainly some of the perspectives offered more overall than others, and perhaps in the
total analysis of this paper the political approach offered the greatest insight. From the
historical background of the case, it seems clear that there were those who favored zero
tolerance as an ideal solution to whatever problem surfaced; if it worked in drug
interdiction then it should work in reducing the perceived threat of violence on school
campuses. The qualifier “perceived” is used here deliberately, as the quantitative
research noted in the above analysis indicates that violence has not been, nor is, an
endemic problem facing the school system. With this in mind, the use of the symbolic or
organizational perspectives might have produced further insights; however, the use of the
normative lens to augment the other perspectives provided most of the same insights and
arguably the most important ones. Zero tolerance policy is designed to provide safety on
school campuses and in so doing to also protect the legitimacy of the overarching system.
The results of the first purpose are sketchy at best, but in regard to the second it seems to
have performed well. Though there are grumblings from certain segments of the
population, the policy seems to be entrenched for the time being and for as long as there
is the perception of a lack of safety on school campuses. The future of zero tolerance will
likely borrow a phrase popularized by the Clinton Administration about affirmative
actions: fix it, don’t end it.