When the Conservative government implemented the Safe Schools Act in 2001, the education minister’s message was one of restoring “respect and responsibility” in Ontario schools.
No violence, weapons, threats, vandalism, drugs or swearing at teachers would be tolerated, from junior kindergarten to Grade 12.
Such things were counter-productive in a place where students were supposed to be learning.
The consequences would be uniform across the province: mandatory expulsions or suspensions.
Zero tolerance works by deterrence. Because the punishment is automatic and unsparing, students are supposed to know the rules and not break them. In this way, the message of zero tolerance alone is supposed to do the work.
Through this blanket provincial law, the Conservative government was sending a strong message to the schools of the province. It would be up to the schools to relay it to students.
Schools have received that message. Some have written disciplinary codes that go beyond the Safe Schools Act.
“In Toronto we’ve seen a number of schools introducing I.D. tags, and some schools introducing school uniforms,” says Rebecca Raby, a professor in the Department of Child and Youth Studies at Brock University, who is studying student reactions to zero tolerance. “Generally, school rules don’t get slimmer as the years go by. They get thicker and more detailed, and the Safe Schools (Act) added to that.”
The act has done little but increase the number of suspensions in the province, according to current Education Minister Gerard Kennedy, who originally voted against the legislation.
Within the Ottawa public board schools, the suspension rate has gone up from an average of 723 per month in 1999-2000, to 951 per month in 2001-2002, according to meeting memos from the Special Education Advisory Committee.
That’s an increase of 32 per cent, while over the same period, total student enrolment has slightly decreased.
While the bulk of school administrators have gotten the message, it doesn’t seem that all educators have climbed happily aboard.
At a meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee last June, it was noted that “staff are concerned about the number of suspensions across the system.”
Observers say students with behavioural problems are getting unduly suspended, even expelled.
These numbers continue to rise despite the fact that, under such circumstances, the act provides principals with the power to waive mandatory suspensions.
The Safe Schools Act also gave teachers the power to suspend their students, but many teachers aren’t using it.
They prefer to see themselves as mere security guards, not disciplinarians. One Ottawa teacher, for example, literally laughs at the idea of suspending his students.
How students are reacting to zero tolerance is still unclear. Raby says her preliminary research suggests students are scoffing at what they see as excessive rules, such as no ball caps or having to stand for the national anthem.
She says schools are emphasizing a respect for authority, but at the same time aren’t opening the door for students to explain themselves or offer input on rulemaking.
She suspects students will come to see rules and authority as trivial.
“When young people see hypocrisy in action, they really see it, they see the contradiction,” she says.
Those feeling the impact of zero tolerance are also reacting in another way. They are searching for alternatives.
The Ottawa public board, for instance, has launched a student-run conflict resolution program.
It is now just a pilot project, but down the road a principal could allow offending students a choice between serving a suspension or going through peer mediation. The Catholic board is also taking an interest in the approach.
It’s possible that we are now in the midst of a social swing away from zero tolerance. In the U.S., some schools are taking part in “collaborative rule making,” where students work with the school to write their own rules. It appears to be a success, despite some initial skepticism among administrators.
Rather than drafting overly lax rules, students are writing up sensible, and sometimes strict, policies. Not only does it become a lesson in civic democracy, but students come away with a much better understanding of the rules.
Zero tolerance undermines the kind of alternatives that students and educators are interested in at the local level.
How does a principal tell offending students they can choose conflict resolution when a provincial law calls for a mandatory suspension?
Teachers may choose not to suspend students, but if the law says it is so, then it’s up to the principal.
While the schools got the message, students and some educators seem to be sending a message of their own. Maybe it’s the province’s turn to have a listen.