An overview of zero tolerance policies in U.S. public schools and how such policies have become controversial. Zero tolerance began as a U.S. Customs Service policy in the 1980s, and was eventually borrowed by schools to address increasing violence among students. One catalyst for zero tolerance was the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado. Articles discuss how zero tolerance delivers the same severe punishments to all students—no matter how minor or severe the misbehavior. Because of zero tolerance policies, students have been arrested or expelled for actions as simple as giving a friend some Tylenol or bringing a knife in a lunch box. Articles also discusses the history of zero tolerance policies, the views of those who support and oppose zero tolerance, and incidents that have occurred as a result. Ways to address the shortcomings of a zero tolerance policy are suggested. The policy was put in place for schools in urban areas, who served kids of low economic status, or who were considered minority. With this policy being put in place, this caused for the rate of school suspension and students being expelled increased. The policy not catering to the right of a free education and equitable treatment of children, allowed these children to now become statistics and known as a failing population. When I begin to pinpoint the important information in the journals I realized that the many journals targeted minorities. The policy came about because of the increase in less serious incidents in schools, and the challenges for teachers and decision makers. The journals went on to say that the increase in hate filled words, drugs, and alcohol on school campuses designed the zero-tolerance policy. Instead of policy makers finding ways to reach out to these communities they are finding ways to humiliate them. I feel that the policy was set up to hurt children versus build them up. If the students are acting out at school, and being suspended, what good is that for the child? They now are out of school, roaming the streets, and getting involved in gangs, drugs and alcohol. “For example, in 1999, 13% of high school students said they were the targets of hate-filled words and 36% said they were the targets of hate graffiti. Also, drug use remained at levels that should stabilize national concern: In 1993, 5% of high school students said they had used alcohol on school grounds in the past 30 days and 5% registered the same response in 1999. Furthermore, marijuana use increased slightly between 1993 and 1999, 6% in 1993 and 7% in 1999” (Verdug, 2002). There are a few reasons why this information should concern instruction leaders. In any case, research recommends that understudies occupied with less genuine sorts of conduct will probably take part in more genuine conduct as they age and travel through the educational framework. The greatest issue with zero tolerance in schools is that these approaches treat each individual similarly, paying little mind to their age, purpose, history of conduct, or particular needs. This is risky on the grounds that kids can be considered in charge of violations that they had no goal of submitting. Everybody is punished extremely on the off chance that they commit an error, in spite of the way that they won’t not being to blame. For example, a casualty of tormenting might be given an indistinguishable discipline from the domineering bully, while attempting to battle in a demonstration of self-protection. Under a zero tolerance policy, both the bully and the victim will be punished because violence is impermissible according to the school rules. This shows that there really is no tolerance with violence. Children are punished regardless of the reason why they acted a certain way. Although much data hasn’t been developed to discuss the zero tolerance policy on students who may have a mental disability, but they seem to be the students who are suspended or expelled. Being that a number pf these children are facing emotional, behavior, or psychological issues they seem to either not be diagnosed properly, misunderstood, or not medicated. Studies show that 73% of youth with serious emotional disorders who did not graduate were arrested within 5 years. Researchers have said the “it is estimated that juvenile justice facilities are tree rimes more likely to have youth with emotional disabilities than public schools” (Teske, 2011). In a recent presentation I attended with a mental health organization, they informed us that the number one place for those of mental disabilities are jails. There ae not many mental health facilities in our nation, and the ones we have are full or don’t take the time to treat patients. There are also not enough agencies who take the time to advocate and fight for these individuals. A lot of the times these individuals end up in the situation they are in because parents fail to catch the warning signs of disorders, there aren’t enough resources at hand to educate people on mental health, and some people just never receive the help they need. When it comes to the way the zero tolerance policy affect social work practice, I believe it makes the social workers job more complex. When it comes to school social workers they already spread thin, so when situations like this take place it really sets them back. They have to take out time to talk to the child and to seek out some resources or solutions that will help that child improve. A lot times these children are sent to social workers because the teachers get fed up and have zero tolerance for that child, I believe if some type of approach was used or if a plan was put in place for the teachers to follow it would make everything easier on the social worker. Many school social workers have a number of schools they service and many of the school have the same issues. social workers are not able to spend to much time on special cases like this because of how demanding these cases can be. Often times the school steps in and takes over and end making the decision on what happens to the child. Supporters of zero tolerance say strict strategies are important to protect the learning condition for students. Defenders report it doesn’t make a difference why a specific control was broken. There ought to be no exemptions under any conditions and children ought to get genuine outcomes for damaging the strategies. Supporters additionally say zero tolerance arrangements gets kids ready for this present reality. All things considered, the cop more often than not couldn’t care less in the event that you were speeding since you were late for work, regardless you violated the law. Also, your supervisor may not mind what excuse have for being late. You won’t not get paid for the time you missed, paying little respect to whether you had a punctured tire or you stalled out in movement. Advocates additionally say zero resilience diminishes bias in light of the fact that there isn’t space for subjectivity. Because a student is smart or has guardians who are included with the school, there won’t be any space for mercy when the guidelines are broken The greatest issue most evaluator have around zero resistance approaches is that they don’t work. In 2008, the American Psychological Association distributed a report that closed, “Zero resistance has not been showed to enhance school atmosphere or school well being.” The team who directed the investigation communicated worry that zero resistance approaches were pointlessly keeping kids from getting a government funded instruction and making numerous youngsters confront legitimate charges for moderately minor offenses. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics likewise released an announcement criticizing zero tolerence arrangements. The report communicated worry that such strategies are unsafe to students since understudies who get suspensions and explusions are 10 times more prone to drop out of secondary school. Students who are sent home might not have a grown-up to direct their activities and they may turn out to probably take part in illicit movement. There are numerous other options to zero tolerance strategies that can help keep kids in school while showing them significant life lessons.Obviously, brutality prevention is a standout amongst other approaches to keep everybody in an educational system safe.Restorative equity projects and group interventions might be better mediations for first-time wrongdoers. Deciding results on a case-by-case premise can anticipate excessively cruel outcomes. Out-of-school suspensions and removals could then be held for repeat guilty parties who represent a genuine risk to educational systems. The zero-tolerance policy was created to help students, but it is doing the complete opposite. As a future educator and social worker I feel that we are put in place to reach those students who are lost. If a child is in a community full of negative impacts, why would we leave them out there to be pulled in? There should be programs put in place to grab these child and nature them. It takes for everyone to come together to make it happen. We can’t continue to tear our world apart. As future social workers and advocators we have to prepare to reach our policy makers in our communities to first bring awareness to the issue and get help for our children in these communities, who are being hurt from the zero-tolerance policy.