Many people agree with zero-tolerance policies in schools. However, some people disagree with these policies. What is the MOST logical argument against having a zero-tolerance policy?
Sometimes students should automatically be suspended if they make a bad choice.
Sometimes students deserve
* to be bullied or harassed by other classmates.
Some students will go
* unpunished because they are not caught by a teacher.
Some students will be
O punished because they make an error that meant no harm.
1 answer
The most logical argument against having a zero-tolerance policy is that it does not account for the individual circumstances and context of each situation. Zero-tolerance policies result in automatic punishments, such as suspension, regardless of the severity or intent of the offense. This approach fails to differentiate between minor infractions and more serious offenses, and does not consider factors such as the student's motive, intent, or previous disciplinary history. Consequently, this can lead to unfair punishment and the potential for students to be treated disproportionately for their actions. Additionally, zero-tolerance policies do not address the underlying causes or provide opportunities for rehabilitation or growth. Instead, they focus solely on punishment without considering alternative methods of discipline or restorative justice practices that may be more effective in teaching students valuable lessons and promoting positive behavior.