When most people think of gun violence in schools, they may recall the deadly mass shootings that have shocked the nation in recent years. Yet as Everytown for Gun Safety reports, the majority of school gun violence incidents derive from disputes, typically among students who habitually carry guns. Why do students bring guns to school? And how do schools respond?
Our latest Blacklight investigation explores these questions. Part One details how schools’ zero-tolerance response to student firearm possession fails to address the root causes of gun carrying. Part Two details the search for alternative responses that aim to do so more effectively.
Here are the key takeaways from our reporting.
Perceptions of safety drive student gun carrying
Research has shown that feeling unsafe at school or in one’s neighborhood is a common reason for youth gun carrying. A study based on a survey of 348 recent high school graduates found that participants who carried a gun in their neighborhood were more likely to bring a gun to school, and that feeling unsafe at school or feeling the need to avoid certain places within campus were other significant predictors for gun carrying.
“If students had places in their school that they felt like they had to avoid, because they were uncomfortable going [there], or they were worried about an interaction, that increased their likelihood of carrying a gun. On the other side of the findings, if students felt safe in their school, they rarely carried a gun,” explained Sarah Britto, study co-author and a professor at California State University, Dominguez Hills.
Related: Five things to know about the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’s first year
A zero-tolerance response is the norm
Since 1994, a federal law called the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) has required schools to suspend students for at least one year if they are in possession of a firearm on campus. Although administrators have the option to modify this suspension when handling individual cases, many adopted a zero-tolerance approach following the law’s passage, making a year-long suspension the norm across the country.
Decoteau Irby, a professor at University of Illinois Chicago, explained that the passage of
the GFSA coincided with the wave of “tough on crime” policies under President Bill Clinton.
“All of these mostly anti-gang type measures, War on Drugs-type measures eventually crept into and found their way into, first, around schools, and then actually into school settings,” he said.
Exclusionary discipline fails to address root causes
Research shows that this type of exclusionary discipline is harmful for students, and fuels the school-to-prison pipeline. For example, the use of suspension increases students’ likelihood of future suspension, and is also linked to lower graduation rates and an increased likelihood of contact with the criminal legal system.
Exclusionary discipline also fails to address the reason why a student brought a gun to school, which risks leaving underlying issues unresolved, experts say.
“Just saying to a student, you can’t come to school for X period of time, that in itself is ignoring the root of the problem,” said Jadine Chou, Chicago Public School’s Chief of Safety and Security from 2011 to 2025.
Restorative practices offer an alternative approach
As the harms of exclusionary discipline have become established, some schools have sought alternative interventions to address misbehavior. Under Chou, Chicago has invested in restorative justice, an approach to misbehavior focused on repairing harm and promoting accountability, rather than simply or only punishing offenders. This approach necessitates a focus on the root causes of gun carrying.
“Possession of a weapon is very serious. However, the construct of restorative practices still applies. Because we have to understand: why did that student carry a weapon, either into the building or onto school grounds?,” Chou explained.
A study of the impact of Chicago’s restorative justice program found that Chicago schools that used restorative practices saw an 18% reduction in out–of-school suspensions, a 35% reduction in in-school student arrests, and a 15% reduction in out-of-school student arrests, in addition to an improvement in school climate.
New York City’s restorative programs remain limited
New York City’s Department of Education (DOE) has also introduced restorative practices to its schools in recent years. To address weapons possession, DOE policy states that in addition to a suspension, schools may use restorative practices, or other interventions like counseling. But the Department has left it up to schools to choose if they want to use these strategies.
Michaela Shuchman, a Skadden legal fellow at Bronx Legal Services working to reform and replace exclusionary discipline practices in NYC schools, said that she hasn’t encountered schools using these methods.
“If it’s something to do with a fight or something, or [a student] bringing a weapon because of a threat or something like that, then there needs to be some sort of mediation, restorative justice practices, in order to heal the harm that has been done, which I’m just not really seeing,” she said. “Instead, a student just comes back, and they’ve been punished, but none of the work has been done interpersonally to resolve that issue between the student and other people.”
Shannon Chaffers is a Report for America corps member and writes about gun violence for the Amsterdam News. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one; please consider making a tax-deductible gift of any amount today by visiting https://bit.ly/amnews1.