Protecting American Education

It’s not often that a six-year-old can claim to be a spokesperson for education reform, but spokesperson is exactly what Zachary Christie of Newark, Del., has become. Over the past month, Christie has harshly criticized the unfairness of his school’s zero-tolerance policies, and for good reason—Christie himself was recently suspended from school for bringing in a Cub Scout tool that can be used as a knife, fork, or spoon. This seemingly innocuous item violated the district’s no-tolerance policy on weapons; Christie may now have to serve 45 days in reform school.

Zero-tolerance policies have always come under fire for being too strict. Christie’s case illustrates just why more flexibility may be necessary; the consequences seemed to far outstrip the crime. Indeed, although zero-tolerance policies are necessary measures for ensuring the safety of America’s schools, fairness requires that the punishments assigned for violating these policies be discretionary.

In Christie’s school district, the zero-tolerance policy is clear: Weapons are not allowed in school “regardless of possessor’s intent.” Although many have claimed that, in Christie’s case, intent should have been taken into account, the district’s injunction is an essential one in creating a secure school environment. When students bring knives or any other implements that can be used as weapons into school, they are engaging in inherently unsafe actions. Even if, as in Christie’s case, the weapon is innocently brought in out of excitement or pride, dangerous situations can result. Christie could have taken out the knife in anger during a fight, or another student could have stolen it from him; in both cases, his intent in bringing the weapon into school may have been completely innocent but still could have culminated in a risky situation. Zero-tolerance policies are necessary to keep students safe from any such contingencies; they cannot be invoked or revoked on the basis of the possessor’s intent or the specific conditions of the case.

Nevertheless, Christie’s parents and other members of the community are right to express outrage at the facts of the case. Christie is only six years old, and he brought the knife in because he wanted to show off his new Cub Scout tool at lunch. The rationale behind suspending him and potentially sentencing him to a month and a half in reform school seems highly questionable: Christie is not a student with violent or disruptive tendencies, so the question remains as to which aspects of his behavior need to be “reformed.”

While the suspension may have been justified, the only additional disciplinary measure merited by the case was to inform Christie of his school’s rules, since he has not shown any pattern of disobeying them once he understands them. In fact, sending Christie to reform school will likely achieve precisely the opposite effect desired, actually hindering his education by forcing him to miss 45 days of regular class instruction. Although violations of zero-tolerance policies should certainly be punished, the precise nature of the punishments applied needs to be discretionary to account for students’ intentions, personal situations, and, most importantly, educational needs or interests.

Christie’s case in Delaware is reflective of a dangerously increasing trend in school suspensions and zero-tolerance policies. Twelve percent of students in Baltimore schools were suspended during the 2006-2007 school year, and 40 percent of high-school freshmen in Milwaukee faced suspensions over the same period. Blanket applications of zero-tolerance policies and the suspensions or expulsions associated with them are keeping too many kids out of school unnecessarily. Administrators need to be constantly vigilant about how they apply these policies and discipline students—otherwise, safety in the educational environment will come at the cost of education itself.

Peter M. Bozzo ’12, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Eliot House.