The development of zero-tolerance policies in schools throughout the United States might be one cause for the increased use of out-of-placement disciplinary consequences because the term has broadened since the beginning of its use. Zero-tolerance policies grew out of drug enforcement policies established in the 1980s at the federal and state levels (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Zero tolerance became a term used from the 1980s on to refer to policies in which all offenses were severely punished, and by the late 1980s schools were beginning to form zero-tolerance policies that included the suspension and expulsion of students for certain offenses (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Examples of student behaviors that were categorized into zero-tolerance policies included drug possession, participation in gang activity, and student possession of weapons. Over time, however, school districts began developing zero-tolerance policies across the United States for behaviors such as tobacco use or possession, school disruption, and other less serious and less violent behaviors (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). According to Blomberg (2004), Chicago Public schools reported an increase in school suspensions (in-school suspension and out‑of‑school suspension combined) by 51% the year following the adoption of a zero-tolerance discipline policy.

The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act has also played a key role in the continued development of zero-tolerance policies. The National Association of School Psychologists (2007) cited the NCLB requirement of states to “adopt a zero‑tolerance policy that empowers teachers to remove violent or persistently disruptive students from the classroom” (p. 1). This policy reflects an attempt to uphold school districts' accountability for safety in public schools across the United States (Byrd, 2001). However, specific guidelines for the development of zero-tolerance policies are not provided in the NCLB and might account for the variance present among zero-tolerance policies in schools.

An example of variability in zero-tolerance policies can be observed in a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 1998). In this study, the NCES examined 1,234 public schools including elementary, intermediate, and high schools from across the United States and the District of Columbia. Survey data were collected from school administrators regarding the number of disciplinary actions assigned to students and the percent of schools that adopted zero-tolerance policies for four specific offenses, including: (a) possession or use of a firearm; (b) possession or use of a weapon (other than a firearm); (c) possession, distribution, or use of alcohol or drugs including tobacco; and (d) physical attacks or physical fights. The NCES (1998) determined that 79% of schools adopted zero-tolerance policies for school violence, 79% for tobacco, 87% for alcohol, 88% for drugs, 91% for weapons other than firearms, and 94% for firearms. Disciplinary actions reported by school administrators included the assignment of expulsion, placement in a disciplinary alternative education program, and extended out-of school suspension. The most recent data available from the NCES (2009) indicated that despite the intent of zero-tolerance policies to keep schools safe and reduce serious misbehavior in schools, the number of disciplinary actions reported by schools for physical aggression, insubordination, and the possession of firearms or other explosive devices has not changed to a measurable degree since the 2003‑2004 school year.

Although legislation has provided guidelines for student discipline and specific offenses, a more important aspect to consider is the application of these guidelines in schools and school districts (Kralevich, 2007). School administrators, leaders, and other school staff must be familiar with the current legislation and the implications of these mandates to maintain consistency of educational law with school policy and discipline implementation. These mandates provide guidelines not only for when and how long students receive consequences in specific school disciplinary sanctions, but also for how these programs are implemented and have influenced how programs are set up for students.

The adoption of zero-tolerance policies by schools continues to be a controversial topic in education as these policies have been shown to be broad and loosely defined, leaving them open for interpretation (Verdugo, 2002). Verdugo (2002) also explained that the ambiguity inherent in zero-tolerance policies fails to take into account the intent of student behaviors and context surrounding behavior incidents. Researchers have suggested that zero-tolerance policies might not be effective in reducing serious behavior and might actually increase the likelihood of future suspensions of students and lead to academic failure and student dropout (Skiba & Peterson, 2000; Verdugo, 2002).

As previously discussed, in-school suspension has been utilized in education as a disciplinary consequence for many years. The use of in-school suspension was a school consequence that served as a compromise to the criticism of out-of-school suspension (Troyan, 2003). In-school suspension programs might vary from campus to campus; however, these programs incorporate several common components (Short, 1988). These components include (a) the placement of the student upon arrival to school in a separate classroom away from their peers and regular educational environment, (b) a certified teacher, educational assistant, or both to oversee the student(s) in the in-school suspension classroom, and (c) lunch in isolation.

Four variations of in-school suspension have evolved over the years and include punitive, academic, therapeutic, and individual in-school-suspension programs (Morris & Howard, 2003). Main differences in the four programs are the amount of support staff and interaction time between the staff and the student during the student's placement in the in-school suspension program (Morris & Howard, 2003). However, the punitive model of school discipline that began in the late 1960s and early 1970s continued through the 1990s in schools across the United States and is still the most often utilized program in schools today (Amuso, 2007; Morris & Howard, 2003).

One major concern with in-school suspension programs is that students miss educational opportunities for learning because their environment is solitary and isolated. In most in-school suspension classrooms, students work independently on teacher-assigned work and are not allowed the opportunity to ask questions about content or receive remedial instruction when needing further assistance with school assignments (Short, 1988). The Commission for Positive Change in the Oakland Public Schools (1992) expressed further concern with in-school suspension programs when it concluded that in-school suspension negatively impacted student self-esteem and increased the likelihood of students choosing to drop out of school.

At one time, out-of-school suspension was reported as one of the most frequently utilized school consequences (Breunlin, Cimmarusti, Bryant-Edwards, & Hetherington, 2002; Christle, Nelson, & Jolivette, 2004; Raffaele Mendez & Knoff, 2003). Although in more recent years in-school suspension has been utilized as an intervention in lieu of out-of-school suspension, many schools use out-of-school suspension in response to zero-tolerance policies and to remove students in an effort to maintain a safe school environment (Amuso, 2007). Out-of-school suspension was originally intended as a way to punish students and to alert parents of student misbehavior (Taras et al., 2003). The suspension of the misbehaving student also protected school personnel and other students at the same time (Taras et al., 2003). The assignment of out-of-school suspension as a school consequence is sometimes seen as a very straightforward consequence because the student is simply required to be absent from school for a designated period of time (Amuso, 2007).

One major concern with assigning students out-of-school suspension is that many times students who are suspended from school are students whose academic achievement is low. Upon returning to school after an out-of-school suspension, many students who are suspended find that they have missed so much work that they cannot catch up. This frustration might be the final push leading students to drop out of school, worsening the critical issue of student dropout rates (Blomberg, 2004; Connecticut State Board of Education, 2007). Additionally, suspending students might reinforce the undesired behavior instead of reducing the behaviors because suspension results in the students being out of the general educational environment (Schreur, 2006).

Although an increased use of in-school suspension in lieu of out-of-school suspension continues, the establishment of state guidelines has also helped address some of the issues and concerns with out-of-school suspension. In Texas, for example, the number of days a student can be suspended for an offense is three school days (Kemerer & Walsh, 2000). However, a student can be suspended repeatedly without limit for separate behavioral infractions.

An assignment to a school district’s disciplinary alternative education program is considered a higher level of consequence than an assignment of in-school suspension or out-of-school suspension (Kralevich, 2007). School districts have utilized alternative schools to address misbehavior for many years. Kemerer and Walsh (2000) believed the increase of alternative school placements to be a result of Senate Bill 1 in Texas that called for schools to assign students to alternative schools for specific offenses. Regardless of the reason, disciplinary alternative education programs are still a common disciplinary practice used in schools (Christle et al., 2004; Texas Education Agency, 2009a).

Some student misbehaviors such as terroristic threats, drug offenses, and alcohol offenses result in a student’s automatic placement to a disciplinary alternative education program as required by legislation (Kemerer & Walsh, 2000). However, students might also be placed in a school district’s disciplinary alternative education program at the discretion of school administrators for offenses that violate the school’s code of conduct (Kemerer & Walsh, 2000; Texas Education Agency, 2009b). Although no restrictions exist on the maximum amount of time students can stay in an alternative program, students usually stay 30 to 45 school days (Carpenter-Aeby, Salloum, & Aeby, 2001; Rose, 2001).

Educators and stakeholders also have concerns with the assignment of students to alternative educational programs for student misbehavior. One concern is teacher training. Most educators are certified in one particular subject area and are not prepared to teach students in a disciplinary alternative education program setting (Wolford, McGee, & Ritchey, 1996). Teachers at alternative schools are not required to be certified in the content area in which they teach. They may be certified teachers, but in areas other than the ones they are teaching (Lehr & Lange, 2003).

Another concern with disciplinary alternative education programs is the challenge of working with students who attend these programs. Many students are placed in alternative education programs for chronic disruptive behavior, refusing to accept other consequences, incorrigibility, violence, and other behaviors (Carpenter-Aeby & Kurtz, 2000; Dunbar, 1999). However, disciplinary alternative education programs do offer services that students otherwise might not receive, such as supervised counseling, social work intervention, and non-traditional schedules that might provide benefits for students who exhibit behavior problems in the traditional school setting (Duke & Griesdorn, 1999; Franklin, 1992; Kemerer & Walsh, 2000).

However, some researchers have reported more optimism for the outcome of students who attend disciplinary alternative education programs because the disciplinary alternative education program provides an educational environment for learning in which problematic behavior is simultaneously addressed (Kemerer & Walsh, 2000). Schools districts are required to offer academic instruction in the areas of English language arts, math, science, social studies, and self-discipline within the disciplinary alternative education programs (Kemerer & Walsh, 2000). Therefore, students have access to the same major content areas offered at general education campuses. However, not all elective courses are always available in a disciplinary alternative education program. Students might not have access to the same elective courses that they had access to at their regular education campus.