Henry 1

Introduction

Over the past several years there has been an ever-growing concern about

violence in the schools. This specter gains greater national prominence each time there is

a school shooting (or an attempted school shooting), though other concerns that do not

necessarily receive the national spotlight also garner the attention of parents and school

boards everywhere (e.g., bullying). Due to events such as these, there is a perception

among the populace that not only is the violence within schools escalating in severity

(from the schoolyard bully of yesteryear to the assault weapon brandishing students of

today) but that it is increasing in sheer volume as well. In order to combat such perceived

widespread violence, schools across the country have instituted zero tolerance policies on

a range of violations with the intentions of stemming the tide.

The concept of zero tolerance is not one that is original to the field of education;

rather, it finds its national origins in the battle against drug trafficking. As such, as a

national policy it has had a relatively short life, beginning in the mid-1980’s. It was used

to confiscate boats possessing any amount of drugs as well as any vessels used to

smuggle illegal drugs into the country from South America and the Caribbean. The

policy was contagious, eventually finding its way into the public education system via

certain districts in California, New York, and Kentucky (Skiba and Knesting 2001). This

early incarnation of zero tolerance in education was directed at the ever-increasing

problem of violence within the school, but within a few years the policy had expanded to

include such behaviors as smoking. However, after incidents such as the Columbine

school shootings garnered the public’s attention and condemnation, Congress acted to

pass the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, designed to apply the concept of zero tolerance

Henry 2

in such a way to dissuade students from bringing guns to school. While originally

directed toward the exclusion of firearms from school campuses across the nation,

subsequent amendments to the Act have added any device that might be used as a

weapon. The states and local districts have further expanded the scope of zero tolerance,

and recent statistics show that “94 percent of all schools have zero-tolerance policies for

weapons or firearms, 87 percent for alcohol, and 79 percent for violence or tobacco”

(Skiba and Knesting 2001, 20).

Yet is such a policy appropriate given the nature of the environment it is being

implemented in? Supporters of the policies obviously argue in the affirmative, that such

action may be lamentable but is nonetheless indispensable in dealing with the situations

facing modern day schools. Critics offer a different viewpoint, one that is characterized

as being racially and economically discriminatory in practice as well as inflexible in its

application. There is no shortage of cases that can be used as anecdotal evidence for the

failings and, all too often, the absurdity of zero tolerance policies. In order to better

understand the context of this policy, one must understand how the policy fits into an

overarching theoretical framework that can offer an explanation for how and why the

policy came into being in the first place.

Using a variety of theoretical lenses may provide the most robust analysis for any

type of policy, and this examination of zero tolerance is no exception. Therefore, in order

to gain a more thorough perception, three frameworks will be utilized. First, a rational

choice approach (namely, what has been called by many the “policy cycle” or the

“stages” heuristic) will be used in order to paint the initial picture of the process. The

benefit of such an approach is the simplification of the events surrounding the

Henry 3

conceptualization of the problem and the implementation of the solution, even if, as some

scholars have argued, the simplistic approach has “outlived its usefulness” (Sabatier

1999). Still, such a framework does provide the analyst with the requisite vocabulary for

examining the policy process. Second, a political framework (namely, the “multiple

streams” approach) will be employed, which will offer a contrasting analysis for the

rational choice perspective. The lack of emphasis on events occurring in a particular

order is often beneficial for the policy analyst simply because the steps often occur out of

order. Finally, a normative analysis will be used in order to ascertain the reasoning for

why such draconian measures have been resorted to in the realm of public education. It

should be noted here that such analysis is often volatile in its offerings because so much

is based upon the individual values held by the researcher or by society at large (or any

subsection of it). Still, it can offer insights that may be lacking in the other frameworks,

and therefore it holds the promise of being advantageous for a more robust

understanding.

Rational Choice Perspective

In order to examine this policy from a rational choice perspective, it is necessary

to understand what the principle concepts of the theoretical framework first. The rational

choice theory of policy is also known by other names, notably the stages or steps

heuristic and the policy cycle, due to its emphasis on the series of stages that potential

policies go through en route to becoming enacted. Scholars have long identified six steps

in the policy process: initiation, estimation, selection, implementation, evaluation, and

termination (Brewer 1974; Sabatier 1999). In the initiation stage, the problem is

identified and more importantly defined. Several solutions will be offered at this point as

Henry 4

well, though many if not most of them will be a poor fit with the identified problem.

Next, during the estimation stage the possible solutions are appraised, with an emphasis

on weighing the costs and benefits of each. In so doing the total range of options is

narrowed. Third, the selection stage is the point at which one of the solutions from the

already narrowed range is chosen by whoever possesses the authority to do so, whether it

is one person or a group of people such as a committee or legislature. The

implementation stage follows the selection stage, and is marked by the execution of the

selected solution by the agencies affected by the decision. Fifth, the evaluation stage is

the period when the outcomes of the implemented policy are reviewed in regards to its

successes, failures, or both. While this stage is considered crucial by most scholars of the

policy process, most grant that it is a “rare commodity” in the process (Brewer 1974,

241). Finally, the policy reaches the termination stage. This can be somewhat of a

misnomer, since the policy is not necessarily ended. Rather, this is the point at which the

evaluations are used in order to tweak the policy so that it may function in a more

efficient manner, though it certainly may refer to the removal of outdated or irrelevant

policies.

Further, the rational choice framework makes certain assumptions regarding the

policy process and the actors involved within it. First, it is assumed that the agreed upon

policy is the value-maximizing, or best, option available from all of the possible solutions

available, and it is chosen by an actor with a unitary set of values (Malen and Knapp

1997; Brewer 1974). In the case of the Gun-Free Schools Act, Congress acted as the

unitary actor under this perspective. The conference report passed the House by a vote of

262-132 and passed the Senate by a vote of 77-20 (“Bill Summary and Status” 2004).

Henry 5

The elected officials in each chamber shared the same set of core values: to see a

reduction in the types of school violence encapsulated by the events of Columbine (the

problem that was identified in the initiation stage). It is presumed that this set of values is

also held by those states and school districts that have also enacted these types of zero

tolerance policies. The zero tolerance policy enacted by Congress was straight forward in

its assumption of being the best policy in respect to reducing school violence: if you

remove guns (and later, all weapons) from the school campus, the level of violence will

decrease.

Second, rational choice makes other assumptions about the actors who are

involved in the policy process. Actors are assumed to have access to a complete set of

knowledge and information regarding the problem that is being considered, especially

during the estimation stage when the solutions are being narrowed and weighed. The

actors are also assumed to have access to all of the possible solutions that may be utilized

in response to the identified problem, both good and bad, as well as all of the possible

outcomes for each possible solution being considered. The actors are also assumed to

possess enough time to fully investigate the options. Finally, and perhaps most

importantly, the actors are assumed to possess the mental faculties with which they may

accurately and precisely distinguish between the possible solutions in order to arrive at

the best option for the identified problem. In the case of the Gun-Free Schools Act,

proponents of the rational choice perspective would point to the deliberation within the

subcommittees and committees of Congress as proof that the most complete body of

information was considered in the selection of the final policy. Since the Congress is

composed of 535 members, these proponents would also argue that while no one member

Henry 6

could possess all of this information or all of the possible solutions, the body as a whole

would (the “rational public” model), with the evidence being in the numerous

amendments (other solutions) offered during the process (Sidlow and Henschen 2004).

According to the statistics previously cited in Skiba and Knesting (2001), there is

strong evidence that the policy is being implemented in accordance with the underlying

intent of the policy-makers: universally. Because the Act included a provision that

mandated that the states allow that the chief administrative officer of each district to

modify any expulsion under the Act on a case-by-case basis, this could explain the six

percent of districts that do not have a zero tolerance policy currently in place.

Nonetheless, 94 percent is a significant number, and it is underscored by the expansion of

the policy to other types of disallowed behavior. The Gun-Free Schools Act has also

undergone further changes as time has passed. As noted earlier, the original bill only

covered firearms (hence its name), but over time legislators have added amendments

aimed at expanding its scope to include all weapons. In addition, as the policy flowed

down from the national level to the individual states and school districts, the policy was

further expanded to include many other types of unacceptable behavior and actions.

Proponents of the rational choice perspective would point to this course of action as being

in line with the stages heuristic; that is, so far in the analysis the policy has progressed

through the stages in the manner set forth. At this point in the policy’s life it can be

found in the evaluation stage, where it is being tweaked, expanded, and contracted to fit

with the observed successes and failures of the policy.

The rational choice perspective also assumes that the actual outcomes of the

policy will be in congruence with the preconceived outcomes developed during the

Henry 7

estimation stage. According to Senator Diane Feinstein of California, zero tolerance gun

policies do have the desired effect of reducing the number of guns in the schools which in

turn will lead to a reduction in school violence. Feinstein cites statistics for both the Los

Angeles and the San Diego school districts, where the number of expulsions based on

students carrying guns to school dropped 65 percent and 50 percent respectively in the

academic year 1993-1994 (Feinstein 1994). Indeed, the number of expulsions nationwide

also appears to have dropped over time since the passage of the Act, but there is some

concern with the accuracy and even the quantity of the data provided by the states (Skiba

and Knesting 2001).

However, some argue that there have been unintended consequences associated

with zero tolerance policies across the nation, and such a proposition undermines the

assumptions of the rational choice perspective. Keeping in mind the discretion that the

chief administrative officers of each district possess in regards to the final decisions over

expulsion, researchers have found that zero tolerance expulsions have been

disproportionately applied toward children from lower socioeconomic status as well as

from minority groups, particularly African-Americans (Skiba and Knesting 2001; Ayers,

Dohm, and Ayers 2001). In addition, while the school districts and legislators may see

the overall numbers as vindication for their course of action, some behavioral

psychologists believe that the harsh disciplinary actions dictated by zero tolerance

policies serve only to escalate the actions of those students already predisposed to such

disruptive behavior (Skiba and Knesting 2001).

The criticisms that have been lobbed at the rational choice perspective over the

years apply to this analysis as well. First, the assumption that the policy-makers have

Henry 8

perfect knowledge regarding the subject they are forming policy for seems to be

overstating the actual state. Knowledge itself is inherently imperfect and subject to bias,

and to assume that a person (or even a group of people) is able to possess all of the

pertinent information on a subject in unrealistic. Second, the actors involved in policy

making do not have an adequate amount of time to fully investigate the already limited

options developed during the initiation and estimation stage. As anyone familiar with the

workings of Congress knows, elected representatives are subject to a large number of

external pressures, not the least of which is time. The number of issues before any given

session of Congress can be staggering, and the time set aside for debate is necessarily

limited. Thus, it is possible (and perhaps more accurately, probable) that there is not

enough time available. Third, the apparent unintended consequences that are being

discovered by scholars and researchers also seem to indicate that the rational choice

framework may be a poor fit for the analysis of zero tolerance policy, since the previous

assumptions force adherents of rational choice to believe that the outcomes of a policy

must have been foreseen. Finally, those who have pointed out the weaknesses of rational

choice are quick to call attention to the fact that it is of no usefulness when it comes to

describing and predicting causal conditions. It is a backward looking theoretical

framework in that almost every action can be considered in some way rational, reducing

the theory to essentially a tautology. Critics of rational choice would likely agree with

Sabatier’s assertion that “the stages heuristic has outlived its usefulness” and needs to be

replaced (Sabatier 1999, 7).

It should be noted here, however, that the perspectives of the above analysis are

based on what has come to be known as “pure” rational choice. Scholars who have seen

Henry 9

the inherent difficulty with the economic model and its assumptions have made strides

toward reforming the theory as opposed to discarding it altogether. The best example of

this school of thought is what has come to be known as “bounded rationality,” as

expressed by Bryan D. Jones in Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded

Rationality and Governance (2001). The premise of this revised framework is that actors

still make the best (rational) choice based on their knowledge, even though the

knowledge, time, and mental faculties they possess are limited (bounded). It may be

throwing out the baby with the bath water to agree with Sabatier’s pronouncement of

inadequacy, but it is equally important to recognize the limitations of the framework and

try to develop it further in order to provide the most robust explanation possible.

Political Perspective

The rational choice perspective, then, offers some insights on the development of

zero tolerance policy, but it also leaves some gaps in its explanation. The rational choice

perspective was one of the first frameworks developed for analyzing the policy process,

and much of its language (implementation, evaluation, and so on) is evident in all of the

other frameworks. Still, it is useful for those who analyze policy to utilize different

theoretical lenses in order to gain the most robust understanding possible. A second

perspective that can be beneficial to the policy analyst is the political perspective. For the

purpose of this analysis, a particular variation of the political perspective will be

employed: Kingdon’s (1995) multiple streams theory. But first, the political perspective

in general (as well as the multiple streams perspective in particular) must be summarized.

The central tenet of all political policy frameworks is that public policy is a mean

by which resources may be allocated while maintaining the legitimacy of the overall

Henry 10

system (Malen and Knapp 1997). Specifically, it focuses on the balance of power

between political elites and the competition of their varied ideas and solutions. The term

“political elites” applies to those people who have power and influence in the policy-

making process, and can include such actors as members of Congress, high ranking

members of the executive branch, interest group lobbyists, and high ranking bureaucrats.

It is important to note here that the competition between these elites is rarely, if ever, won

by a particular group. What this means in practical terms is the competition is perpetual,

with policy shifts (even returns to past policy choices) occurring constantly. This

constant competition and change also results from the ever-changing coalitions and

alliances that must be built. The old adage of “politics make strange bedfellows” offers a

clichéd but nonetheless accurate description of the process, and may perhaps be best

showcased in the alliance between the conservative president George W. Bush and the

liberal senator Edward Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind Act. While the two share

little in common ideologically, they hammered out what was considered by most

observers a compromise bill (though like any good compromise, it has left all sides

upset). The ultimate aim of any policy from the political perspective is to reinforce the

legitimacy of the overall government system and institutions that passed it or

implemented it. Because legitimacy is one of the primary concerns of any government, it

makes sense that it would not pass any type of policy that would undermine what

legitimacy it already holds and in fact will try to implement policies that serve to instead

underscore that legitimacy.

While the focus on legitimacy is not explicit in Kingdon’s theory, it is an implicit

assumption. More important, he offers a framework for how the competition between the

Henry 11

elites operates, and how particular policies eventually come to be passed and

implemented. His multiple streams theory proposes that three distinct and independent

“streams” flow in the policy process: a problems stream, a policies stream, and a politics

stream. The problems stream contains those issues that present challenges that the

government may need to address, though some of these challenges fail to make it on the

agenda. The policies stream contains various solutions which are constantly being

refined (evaluated). The politics stream contains such external events and influences as

changes in administrations or Congress, the national mood, and interest group campaigns.

It is important to understand that the solutions that exist within the policies stream are not

formulated with respect to any particular problem. They are merely the pet policies of

various actors who wait for the right moment in political time to attach them to a

particular issue. Kingdon asserts that policy is made when a policy window opens, and in

turn the policy window opens when there is either a crisis or a change in the politics

stream. These windows are only open for a short period of time. Further, the three

streams must be coupled together by a policy entrepreneur (elected official) who can

guide the three streams through an open policy window. Without the entrepreneur those

who advocate certain policies must wait for a later opportunity in order to enact their

preferred policy.

As previously mentioned, zero tolerance policy was originally conceived as a

method to combat the flow of illegal drugs into the country (Skiba and Knesting 2001).

It was a popular program among certain policy-makers and became for them somewhat

of a panacea. Thus, it wasn’t long until what had originally been a drug interdiction

program became a general policy for many school districts on a wide range of issues.

Henry 12

Casella (2003) points out that the implementation of the various zero tolerance policies in

the education system was closely correlated with the implementation of other types of

policy designed to reduce the amount of violence and guns on school campuses. This

underscores Kingdon’s assertion that various actors in the policies stream favor pet

policies, working to get their particular policy choice implemented in different arenas (cf.

the advocate of public transportation who sees it as a solution to everything from

pollution to traffic congestion to drunk driving). However, their mere recommendation to

enact such a policy is not enough.

In the early 1990’s, there was a change in the national mood in regard to the

perceived problem of violence on school campuses and this change provided an

opportunity for a policy window to open. It is hard to disagree with the desire for less

violence, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, or other undesirable acts and substances on school

grounds, so this commonly held value worked to the benefit of those who desired to

expand the reach of zero tolerance policy. As with almost any significant legislation,

various amendments were offered, some of which were accepted and some of which were

declined (“Bill Summary and Status” 2004). Discussion of how bills become law is

beyond the scope of this analysis1, but it is still necessary to point out that during the

process compromises must be made in order to secure passage. These compromises often

take the form of formal amendments in the legislation process. In the case of zero

tolerance as it was implemented in the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, the compromises

made on the floors of the House and Senate were aimed at other aspects of the bill, not

1 Needless to say, the “textbook” definition of how a bill becomes a law is not as accurate today as it may have been one hundred years ago. For a revealing look at the current route most legislation takes, see Barbara Sinclair’s Unorthodox Lawmaking (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000).

Henry 13

the zero tolerance aspect (i.e., the Goodling Amendment designed to clarify the Act’s

federal mandates, direction, and control in regard to schools’ curriculums).

When discussing the outcomes of zero tolerance policy, it has been shown that the

effects have not necessarily been the ones foreseen by the policy-makers; in fact, there

have been several unintended consequences as well. While supporters of the policy saw

it as a way to not only combat violence but to also work in a preemptive (deterring)

manner, critics have argued that the policy unfairly targets minority and the lower

socioeconomic strata (Casella 2003; Brown, Losen, and Wald 2001; Ayers, Dohm, and

Ayers 2001). This has led such groups as the American Bar Association to call for the

removal of zero tolerance policies in education systems (Henault 2001). Still, with

occurrences such as the tragedy at Columbine, zero tolerance policy remains entrenched

in the policy manuals of a vast majority of school districts across the nation. Keeping in

mind the overall goal of policy in the political perspective (legitimacy for the system as a

whole), it is understandable why zero tolerance policy has been maintained despite its

obvious criticisms. The rescinding of a policy that, rightly or wrongly, is associated in

the public’s mind with reducing violence in schools would not serve to maintain the

legitimacy of the government. In addition, because the actors involved are interested in

sustaining their power, rescinding zero tolerance policy presents an unacceptable risk for

most policy-makers. Nonetheless, it can be expected that as the scholarly research on the

failings of zero tolerance policy begins to be widely disseminated in the public discourse,

the coalitions of power among the elites will shift once again, possible spelling an end for

this policy.

Henry 14

In contrast with the rational choice perspective, the political perspective provides

more explanatory power in general. For instance, the rational choice perspective follows

a very rigid steps approach; there is not an opportunity for the events that occur in a later

step to take place any earlier. The political perspective is far less rigid. The political

perspective also presents a researcher with an explanation for why similar policies seem

to recur in apparently different arenas (in this case, drug interdiction policy and school

violence policy). For many of the actors (particularly the bureaucrats), a particular policy

may appear to be a universal fit for any problem, and they will therefore attempt to

implement that policy whenever a window opens. There remains an interdependence

between these actors and others in the system (particularly the elected officials, often in

Congress), because without the policy entrepreneurs open windows will quickly close

with no enactment of the policy. Thus, the balance of power constantly shifts between

differing and sometimes surprising coalitions of actors. As the actors in the policies

stream meet with resistance from other actors in the system regarding their preferred

policy, they will ally themselves with still other actors who may see an opportunity to

gain power by advocating the particular policy. Currently, the zero tolerance coalition

remains intact, but should there be a change in the national mood, which can be

influenced by a concentrated interest group campaign against zero tolerance, the coalition

will dissolve and a new one advocating a new remedy will take its place.

However, just as one particular policy is not the panacea for all the world’s

problems, the political perspective also is not the end-all framework for analyzing policy.

One of its most glaring deficiencies is in its inability to identify what a “good” policy is.

Advocates for the political perspective might argue that a policy that garners the support

Henry 15

of a strong coalition fits the definition of good policy, since compromises are often a

necessity for the enactment of any policy. Yet do the policies that are enacted, even with

compromises, by the majority coalition always make good policies? It would not take

any effort to point to such past policies as segregation and anti-sodomy laws in order to

underscore the fact that a majority coalition will not always select the best possible

outcome (the policy goal of the rational choice perspective). Granted, the idea that

shifting coalitions of power will eventually lead to a shift in the policy also, but such a

framework provides no protection against a reverse shift to the old policies. Thus, there

is a danger in this outlook given that can quickly devolve into a “might makes right”

perspective. This is a second criticism of the political perspective: the primary emphasis

on power. Power, and the constant attempt to gain control of it, cannot be ignored in the

study of policy formation, but a primary emphasis on it provides no inherent safeguards

against the misuse of it. Advocates might argue that there are implied restraints on the

pursuit or use of power embedded in the governmental structure or the political culture of

the society, but there is nothing in the theory that prevents these restraints from being

either ignored or changed. Again, the apparent challenge seems to lie in what makes

good policy, and that will be the focus of the final section of this analysis.

Normative Perspective

In the last phase of this multiple perspectives approach to zero tolerance policy,

the normative approach will be undertaken. As with the rational choice and political

perspectives before it, this lens offers insights that can be overlooked by other

perspectives. However, unlike the other perspectives, the normative lens places the main

emphasis on norms and values, which are present in the others but not the central focal

Henry 16

point. This approach provides an important viewpoint for the evaluation of any policy

because it acknowledges that policies can both reflect the current social norms and values

as well as alter them (Malen and Knapp 1997). Due to this focus on norms and values,

the normative approach also provides the researcher with a fuller understanding of the

range of values that are competing with one another in every policy. Green (1994) points

out that all policies incorporate and try to balance these competing goals, with the

understanding that as any one goal receives value-maximizing attention the others will

see a decline in their value attainment.

In the normative perspective actors are seen as value seekers as well as value

promoters; that is, policy-makers attempt to determine what values are best for their

community and then design policies that incorporate these values. When trying to

determine what values are best, they will often look to the values and norms that they

hold themselves, which are often the ones that are held by many in their respective

community. Thus, when a policy problem arises it is not seen as an opportunity to

maintain the legitimacy of the government as it is in the political perspective, but rather it

is seen as almost a clash of conflicting values. Actors, then, will attempt to evaluate the

various policy questions that surround the problem in order to establish what indeed

constitutes the best set of values. Because of this, the purpose of any policy from the

normative perspective is to promote and protect societal values in two ways: first

shaping what the concept of a good society should be and second creating the right

environment for this concept to take hold (Malen and Knapp 1997). In the case of zero

tolerance policy, the actors (policy-makers in Washington, D.C. first and later state and

local school boards) shared a value that is hard to disagree with, that there should not be

Henry 17

any gun related violence on the campuses of schools in the nation. This was a value that

was also shared by almost all of society.2 Evidence of this can be seen in some of the

research that has been conducted on zero tolerance: nine out of ten principals surveyed

for one particular poll stated that tough discipline policies, such as zero tolerance, were

“absolutely essential for keeping schools safe” (Holloway 2001, 84).

As noted above, the other policy process perspectives incorporate the concept of

values, though not to the degree that the normative approach does. Values and norms are

the central tenet of the normative approach. With this in mind, it is then easy to

understand that the actual process by which policy is made is of little importance in the

normative perspective. In other words, how policy is made is not nearly as important or

crucial as the values and norms behind it. To illustrate, consider the two other

perspectives utilized in this analysis. The rational choice model is a step by step process

through which problems are identified, alternatives are considered and weighed, and the

chosen policy is evaluated against its own performance. Even without focusing on the

value-maximizing goal of the rational choice model it is easy to see that in each of the

steps values play a pivotal role. When comparing and evaluating alternatives (as well as

when a problem is first identified), the various alternatives are weighed according to what

is considered of value to society. Those alternatives that do not maximize or protect this

set of values are rejected (Malen and Knapp 1997). In a similar fashion, the political

model is value-laden as well. For instance, when there is a change in the national mood

due to a perceived crisis or emergency, it is caused by an act which conflicts with the

2 The use of the term “almost” is necessary because gun related violence has occurred on school campuses nationwide, though it is important to realize that these acts are committed by an extremely small percentage of society as a whole.

Henry 18

values held by the society.3 In the policies stream, the pet policies held by the various

policy-makers are based on their value set as well as the norms of the society, otherwise

the policies would never stand a chance of being adopted.

Not surprisingly, the outcome of a policy, when viewed from a normative

perspective, is evaluated based on how it has worked to conform to the values and norms

of the society as well as how it has worked to reinforce those values and norms already

held. A good policy is one that produces and supports the concept of the good society

that has already been agreed upon by the policy-makers (Malen and Knapp 1997). With

zero tolerance policy, the policy-makers concluded that a good society was one that was

without violence in schools; one way of achieving this goal was to introduce the Gun-

Free Schools Act of 1994. The zero tolerance aspect of that Act was quickly applied to

other areas of school violence as well as disciplinary areas such as alcohol and tobacco.

As Green (1994) emphasized, a good policy question utilizing the normative lens takes

into account the set of nested values surrounding the question while also showing these

values’ mutual inconsistency. It would serve the analysis well at this point to highlight

some of the conflicting values surrounding the implementation of zero tolerance policies.

First and foremost, the previously mentioned desire to provide a safe environment

for children is the most obvious value/goal wanted by the policy-makers. A second

value/goal for policy-makers was to provide equity in the application of the policy, a

“one size fits all” policy (Bireda 2000; Brown, Losen, and Wald 2001; Ayers, Dohm, and

3 Even in the case of natural disasters this holds true. When a hurricane or tornado destroys the homes and possessions of a group of people, the thought of otherwise productive people being homeless runs counter to the values held by the American society; thus, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) steps in to assist in the rebuilding of homes and businesses. While some might argue that people who choose to live in areas like Florida or Oklahoma that are prone to such disasters invite such losses, the debate serves to underscore the normative perspective that there are conflicting and competing values that need to be chosen between.

Henry 19

Ayers 2001; d’Oliveira 2004; Henault 2001). Third, a more productive learning

environment could be produced if the “trouble-makers” were removed, leaving only the

well-behaved children (d’Oliveira 2004; Morrison et al. 2001; Essex 2001). This is not

intended to be an exhaustive list of the conflicting values surrounding zero tolerance

policy. Still, even with these three values one can observe how seeking to maximize any

one of them will reduce the maximization of the others. Now that some of the values

have been identified, the outcome of zero tolerance policy can be examined to see

whether some sort of balance between these goals has been achieved. First, the safety

level of school campuses is still debatable due to sketchy data (Skiba and Knesting 2001).

Policy-makers such as California Senator Diane Feinstein (1994) cite these statistics

nonetheless to underscore the success of the policy is supporting this value, but some

studies are beginning to show that zero tolerance policies are not producing safer school

environments (Skiba, Rausch, and Ritter 2004). Second, several recent studies have

shown that there is little equitable treatment in the application of zero tolerance policies.

Brown, Losen, and Wald (2001) found that in 1998-1999, “African American students

accounted for 33 percent of all those suspended and 31 percent of all those expelled yet

made up only 17 percent of all students” (74). Bireda (2000) cites a 2000 Harvard study

that found, among other things, that black and Latino students are more likely to face the

harshest disciplinary actions (zero tolerance actions), twenty-five percent of black male

students were suspended at least once in a four year period, and predominantly black and

Latino school districts are more likely to have zero tolerance policies than other districts.

Third, an Indiana study has found that the higher rates of suspension and expulsion

usually associated with zero tolerance policies actually leads to a worsened school

Henry 20

climate and lower academic achievement (Skiba, Rausch, and Ritter 2004). Thus, it

would appear from the research since zero tolerance policies have been implemented that

the societal values sought have not been achieved or protected.

Shen (1995) notes, “Normative perspectives intend to make explicit the values

embedded in a policy and, therefore, make people more conscious of the possible result

of a policy” (87-88). This is the theory of action associated with the normative approach.

As previously noted, the values associated with zero tolerance policies are evident to

those who study it and due to this the intended outcomes can be readily understood. This

does not imply, of course, that the intended results will be the actual observed results, as

evidenced in the normative analysis of zero tolerance above. The processes involved in

the making of policy (regardless of how one views the order or procedures of the

processes) are both shaped by values and shape values. This happens whether it is during

the identification of the problem (after all, problems are only perceived as such if they

run contrary to the established values and norms of a society) or during the evaluation of

the outcomes (Malen and Knapp 1997). The arrow of causality therefore runs in both

directions.

The normative approach offers the researcher significant insights into zero

tolerance policy. Understanding the values and norms associated with a particular policy

is critical for understanding why particular policies are initially chosen. Social scientists

have long noted that American culture is inherently conservative; that is, there is a

premium placed on stability, security, and the status quo, for better or for worse. This is

not to say that there are not segments of the American society that do not desire change,

but those segments have historically been small and unable to achieve the broad change

Henry 21

that they have desired. This fact helps in comprehending the high value that is placed on

the absence of violence of any kind on school campuses across the nation. Knowing this

fact also aids the researcher in understanding why zero tolerance policies have enjoyed

widespread implementation in school systems and acceptance in the general public.

However, the normative approach falls short when it needs to explain the continuation of

zero tolerance policies when the empirical evidence seems to indicate that they fail in

supporting and protecting the agreed upon values. Here the political perspective may

offer some insight. Certain policies, regardless of their success, are clung to by the

people who populate the policies stream. These policies are seen by their proponents as

something slightly less than a social panacea (though some of these proponents probably

do see their pet policy as being the cure-all for society’s ills), and thus should be

implemented for a wide range of problems. The rational perspective could also be

beneficial here. Zero tolerance policies as spelled out in the Gun-Free Schools Act of

1994 have only been in effect in most schools for ten years. More time may be needed to

allow for reliable data to be collected, assimilated, and analyzed in order for the

evaluation stage to take place. Further, that stage could already be underway, but in a

similar vein not enough time has passed that would allow the researcher to observe the

alterations that come from this stage. The normative approach, then, finds its strength in

supplementing the other perspectives by emphasizing the value of values.

Conclusion

The growth of zero tolerance policies provides a researcher an opportunity to

analyze the factors that contribute to the growth of a policy. In the preceding pages, a

multiperspective approach was taken so that the results of each might be compared and

Henry 22

contrasted. In the rational choice perspective, the policy making process is seen as a

series of progressive steps or stages, each building off of the previous. Policy-makers are

assumed to possess perfect information and perfect decision making capabilities, as well

as ample time to consider all of the possible policy directions. Given these assumptions

(and many more) it is expected that policy-makers will then act in rational ways and

make rational choices. However, this does not assume that the outcome is rational, only

the steps and decisions along the way (Bates 1981). While it has been criticized by many

scholars opposed to the rigidity of the framework and the unrealistic assumptions, the

model has provided policy scholars the language and terminology that is associated with

the policy sciences.

In the political perspective, the policy process is seen as a method by which the

current regime or set of institutions can further legitimize itself. This is the goal of the

actors in this model, and under this assumption the adage of “politics make strange

bedfellows” makes sense. There is a balance of power in this framework as well, and the

actors are constantly trying to maintain it. In Kingdon’s (1995) multiple streams

approach, three streams (problems, policies, and politics) occasionally merge under

optimum conditions. When this occurs, a resourceful policy entrepreneur can guide the

streams through an open policy window in order to form a policy. Members of the

policies streams tend to have pet policy initiatives that they see as a universal cure-all for

almost any problem, and they will attempt to couple their preferred policy to problems as

they arise in the problems stream.

In the normative approach, the policy process is about values and norms. While

values and norms are present in each of the other frameworks at various points, they are

Henry 23

not emphasized to the same extent as they are in this model. To underscore this

prominence, the normative perspective is not concerned with the actual nuts and bolts of

the process itself; thus, how a policy is formed is nowhere near as important as why a

policy is formed. Actors in this model are seen as both value makers as well as value

protectors. In this manner policies can establish, alter, or protect existing values and

norms. The arrow of causality can run in either direction: policies can set values or

values can set policy.

The strength of the multiperspective approach lies in that no one theoretical

framework answers all questions equally well. If such a unifying theory existed, policy

scholars could shift their focus to other questions. However, it does not and researchers

face theories that are limited in their analytic power. The world is complex, and

accordingly the problems that scholars study are complex as well. Since the goal of most

theories is to provide a parsimonious look at the world, some things will be unaccounted

for. Thus, combining two, three, or more of these lenses offers the advantage of a

shifting focus. For instance, the rational choice perspective might offer the researcher

insight into what policy-makers are thinking at a particular stage in the process, though

the processes in real life may not occur in the exact order prescribed by the theory (some

of the stages may not even occur at all!). To compensate for this, the researcher may use

the use of the political perspective, which may offer a more realistic approach to how the

actual process takes place. Finally, in order to further strengthen the analysis, the

normative perspective may be included in order to evaluate the weight of the values of

the policy-makers as well as the norms of the society that the policy will be implemented

Henry 24

in. What this provides is a more robust analysis; the weaknesses of any one framework

are supplemented by the strengths of another.

Such is the case with this analysis of zero tolerance policy. Some of the lenses

failed to adequately explain how the policy either came into being (i.e., the rational

choice approach) or what constituted a good policy (i.e., the political perspective).

Certainly some of the perspectives offered more overall than others, and perhaps in the

total analysis of this paper the political approach offered the greatest insight. From the

historical background of the case, it seems clear that there were those who favored zero

tolerance as an ideal solution to whatever problem surfaced; if it worked in drug

interdiction then it should work in reducing the perceived threat of violence on school

campuses. The qualifier “perceived” is used here deliberately, as the quantitative

research noted in the above analysis indicates that violence has not been, nor is, an

endemic problem facing the school system. With this in mind, the use of the symbolic or

organizational perspectives might have produced further insights; however, the use of the

normative lens to augment the other perspectives provided most of the same insights and

arguably the most important ones. Zero tolerance policy is designed to provide safety on

school campuses and in so doing to also protect the legitimacy of the overarching system.

The results of the first purpose are sketchy at best, but in regard to the second it seems to

have performed well. Though there are grumblings from certain segments of the

population, the policy seems to be entrenched for the time being and for as long as there

is the perception of a lack of safety on school campuses. The future of zero tolerance will

likely borrow a phrase popularized by the Clinton Administration about affirmative

actions: fix it, don’t end it.