In Homeroom Security, Aaron Kupchik
delineates the effects of contemporary school discipline. According to the
Department of Health and Human Services, in 2010, there were about 17 school
associated violent deaths and 828,000 nonfatal violence at school among
students between the age of twelve and eighteen. The statistics of school
violence are staggering in which tightening school security should be
beneficial for the safety of students. Yet, Kupchik argues that prevention
measures are counterproductive because the security measures do not address the
root cause of school violence. I agree with Kupchik that the punishment
practices “ ignore real problems in an attempt to punish rather than correct
misbehavior (5).” There is a strong emphasis on enforcing the rules, and
teachers and administrators have systematically ignored why the students
misbehave. It may not be intentional, but it is important to identify the
risk-factors for youth violence. these are students- not criminals.
At-risk
students face a greater risk to be punished in school. Kupchik points to the
uneven distribution of punishments and states, “ low- income students and youth
of color are more likely than middle- income and white youth to be punished in
school (8).” The racial disparity in school discipline is apparent, and there
should be new guidelines on school punishment and student- teacher relations.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has called
attention to “ school- to- prison pipeline” since it is pervasive throughout
the entire educational system. Contemporary school practices disproportionately
target students of color and those with disabilities; they are far too often
suspended, expelled, or arrested for minor violations such as disrupting the
class and school uniform violations. Education Secretary Arne Duncan wrote that
data show black students were three times more likely than whites to be
suspended or expelled (Bratu 2014). These disadvantaged youth are most likely
raised from poor and violent neighborhood, and these harmful practices increase
the chances for those who are suspended or expelled to be involved with the
juvenile and criminal justice system. Youth
are exceptionally susceptible to negative influences in their environment, and
they could not afford to be denied of an education. In lecture, Professor
Morrill mentioned that students who are academically at risk would become
morally at risk by which it aligns with “ school- to prison pipeline”. Hence,
the zealous policing efforts only worsen their problems and strip away their
opportunities for a brighter future. Effective discipline is necessary;
however, it is important to address the devastating affects of unfair school
practices especially when they are depriving youth of opportunities for
education.
Kupchik, Aaron. Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear. New York, NY: New York UP, 2010. Print.
Bratu, Becky Obama administration takes aim at cutting racial disparity in school discipline, NBC News, Jan 8th, 2014.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/08/22231509-obama-administration-takes-aim-at-cutting-racial-disparity-in-school-discipline?lite
I agree that teachers now have a stronger emphasis on enforcing the rules rather than the root of misbehavior. I think this is partially because teachers have become more divested in their students live as class sizes grow and security in school increases. Just as students internalize the heightened security in their schools, so do teachers. As security measures become heightened, teachers become more preoccupied with the safety of students than their education. Combine this with the fact that most misbehavior are acts of defiance, a subjective offense, and we have room for marginalization. The “at risk youth” you mention often are the ones marginalized by the disciplinary action of teachers. These youth are also more likely to come from more fragmented backgrounds, which affects the likelihood of a student to misbehave. Blanket measures do little to eradicate misbehavior because they do not address the root of the cause. It would be more effective to understand the different backgrounds of students or even the local area and implement these findings into security measures.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting about this blog post, was the inclusion of the alleged “school to prison pipeline” that is being increasingly recognized in urban communities. In this post, however, the author situated the discussion of this theory within the context of Kupchik’s comment on how schools fail to effectively address the cause of youth violence. I would like to expand this framework, and ask whether the increased security and surveillance methods used in schools contribute to the likelihood that youth will fall into criminal lifestyles. Kupchik argues that the increased security measures in schools are potentially detrimental to the school experience for many youth, especially those who are repeatedly targeted by authorities who enforce the security policies. Is it possible that school manufacturing of criminals could be influenced not just by inability to understand youth, but also the treatment of youth while they are in schools?
ReplyDeleteThe schools Kupchik describes resemble police states. Youth are effectively treated like prisoners as soon as they enter into the school. If all youth know is how to be treated like and act like prisoners, there is little motivation for them to break this cycle. By putting youth in a prison environment, we are training them to be more comfortable in prison than in freedom.