Are ‘zero tolerance’ policies effective?

Is your ‘zero tolerance’ statement an enforceable policy or wishful thinking?

Many schools display ‘zero tolerance’ messaging - whether referring to bullying, vaping, smoking, cheating, disrespect, vandalism, or other antisocial behaviour undermining teaching and learning, or issues concerning inappropriate conduct amongst staff, such as harassment. And yet, schools continue to be plagued by bullying, cheating, vandalism and so on - indicating a rather wide berth of tolerance, contrary to notices posted in halls, corridors, classrooms and staff-rooms.

Is it too unkind to suggest that ‘zero tolerance’ policies aren’t worth the paper they’re written on?

The intention of a ‘zero tolerance’ phrase is to communicate integrity in an institution - to declare lines that won’t be allowed to be crossed - to signal a set of values and morality - and to send a strong message about discipline. But an unenforceable claim betrays those very values, suggesting instead that morality, or discipline, is a relative thing, subject to a number of factors that move goalposts all too easily.

‘Zero tolerance’ for unacceptable behaviour sounds promising - but is it realistic?

‘Tolerance’ is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as, “a sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own” and “the act of allowing something”. When we declare to pupils that we have a zero tolerance policy on bullying, for example, we aren’t explaining what we refuse to have sympathy for or what we won’t allow. We assume the phrase is self-explanatory, but it isn't.

Secondly, it is an untruth: we do have sympathy. We do allow many of the behaviours that we haven’t identified or articulated clearly enough, that constitute something like bullying - or disrespect, or harassment, or cheating. We let these words speak for themselves, as if we all agree what they are. As if all children and staff know what they mean in the same way.

And we do indulge pupils.

Our reasons for sympathy and indulgence are many and varied - from age to context to past behaviour to remorse to provocation to disability to mental health to parent pressure to lack of evidence to circumstances, and more. But ‘zero’ means ‘the absence of all magnitude and quantity’. As in none. Not once. Not ever. Nil. If we can’t guarantee this, why do we say it?

How does ‘zero tolerance’ play out?

It’s an uncomfortable but necessary question. When we issue statements like ‘zero tolerance’ we’re often ignoring legislation that doesn’t support it. What are the penalties implied in ‘zero tolerance’? And how will they be enforced?

Contradictions in what we say and do sets us up for failure in our quest to teach and model prosocial behaviour, so it’s worth re-evaluating whether we can stand by our claims.

Further, when we choose what we declare ‘zero tolerance’ for, it must apply to behaviour that has real-world impact. A uniform infringement does not harm society, but assault does.

To take “zero tolerance” from hollow intention to enforceable policy, create a more considered framework - one that consists of explicit expectations and clear consequences that are consistently applied to behaviours that have been specifically identified and communicated as intolerable to the whole school, supported by relevant legislation and restorative justice.

‘Zero tolerance’ in and of itself, is hyperbole.

We are routinely lax with children and adolescents who transgress, for many reasons, mostly legitimate ones. We incorporate forgiveness, rehabilitation and second-chances. Instead of masking our wish for compliance with a slogan, we have to be more precise in our approach to undesirable conduct.

This is not to say that the ‘zero tolerance’ phrase has no place or shouldn’t be used. It is to ask: has it been couched in procedure that proves it true?

Unpack the complexity of behaviour policies & identify solutions to ensure a hostile-free learning environment - request a Teacher Training Lab workshop or presentation.