The ethics of zero tolerance
| Published date | 01 February 2003 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310457411 |
| Date | 01 February 2003 |
| Pages | 24-36 |
| Author | Kevin Gorman,Patrick Pauken |
| Subject Matter | Education |
The ethics of zero tolerance
Kevin Gorman
Sylvania Northview High School, Sylvania Public Schools,
Sylvania, Ohio, USA, and
Patrick Pauken
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
Keywords Decision making, Ethics, Violence, Schools, Discipline, Legislation
Abstract “Zero tolerance” has become the international “buzz word” of the secondary building
administrator. As school violence has increased so have the legislative and regulatory policy-
making mandates calling for increased disciplinary consequences for inappropriate student
behavior. Ethical problem-solving and decision-making have taken a back seat to reactive discipline
by school officials. Media publicity has forced proactive principals to become reactive impulsive
decision-makers. In this article, Starratt’s three-part model for ethical school administration –
encompassing the ethics of critique, justice, and care – is applied to a fictional scenario and the
ethical dilemma that evolves. Recommendations for practice are offered in a proposed resolution of
the dilemma within the context of a central conclusion: if the school administrator of the twenty-
first century is to build and maintain an ethical educational setting where all students can learn,
zero tolerance cannot dictate the only outcomes for inappropriate student behavior.
Introduction
Safety and accountability have become the educational “buzz” words of the
new millennium (Houston, 2000). It seems that many public education
advocates and critics are more comfortable in a world of standardization.
Within the realm of academic and fiscal accountability, the demand for
standardization and a return to “the basics” has resulted in elaborate state and
federal systems of high-stakes testing, where the promotion and graduation of
students and the employment of teachers and administrators is often
contingent on the passage of specific exams (Pauken et al., 2001). Within the
realm of student safety, legislatures and school systems are taking a zero
tolerance philosophy and attitude toward the threat of violence in the schools.
Threats or comments that would have been handled with parent conferences,
detentions, or demerits five years ago are now reason for suspension,
expulsion, or police intervention (Dodd, 2000; Kennedy, 1999). Perhaps the
recent shift to zero tolerance is warranted after the string of news-making and
nerve-shaking violent events on school campuses over the past few years.
Compliance with accountability laws and enforcement of student discipline
codes are important, for sure. But school leaders run a great risk by engaging in
a wholesale shift of board policy and administrative decision-making toward
satisfaction of contractual and legal relationships and away from the
fulfillment of traditional and personal teacher-to-student relationships.
Consequently, we argue in this article that, even in an age of zero tolerance
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
JEA
41,1
24
Received May 2002
Revised September 2002
Accepted October 2002
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 41 No. 1, 2003
pp. 24-36
qMCB UP Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230310457411
To continue reading
Request your trial