Throughout the
first three chapters of Homeroom Security, Kupchik explains why school security
has increased and how the intersection of law enforcement and school discipline
has created a school-to-prison pipeline by transferring much of the responsibility
of discipline from the hands of teachers and school administrators into the
hands of the criminal justice system. This system then escalates minor problems
of student misbehavior into major criminal problems with harsh punishments that
may have lasting effects on the student even after exiting school. Ironically,
though these changes are reminiscent of Parens Patriae doctrine and originally sought
the best interests of students, Kupchik’s description of current school
discipline practices unveils how schools have not only failed to act in the
students’ best interests, but have also robbed students of protections that buffer
them from injustice.
Certainly, increases
in campus police security and zero-tolerance policies originally intended to
protect students. Kupchik explains, it “offends our sensibilities to think that
[youth] are exposed to violence when in school,” and that increased
pro-security policies arose from increased concerns for student safety
(Kupchik, 3). Indeed, states began adopting zero tolerance policies only after
Congress, acting to protect students, required states to do so to receive
federal funding (Parker). Unfortunately, these policies have failed to either
protect students from violence or to act in the best interest of students.
Kupchik reveals that the Columbine massacre occurred even with security
measures such as surveillance cameras and security guards in place (Kupchik,
30). Furthermore, Kupchik cites several studies throughout his book indicating
that zero-tolerance policies are not effective in reducing student misbehavior,
while Parker additionally explains how students suspended under zero tolerance
policies are in fact more likely to be suspended again, drop out of school, or become
involved in the juvenile justice system—all outcomes that clearly are not the
best for students.
Although rulings
from cases such as Goss v. Lopez have
instituted procedural requirements designed to protect students from arbitrary
or excessive punishment, Kupchik suggests that current school discipline
systems have in fact made it so that these procedural safeguards are not always
in place. He explains how easier access to police officers increases the
likelihood that students will be arrested at school (Kupchik, 115), or that “schools
and police will partner in ways that put students’ rights in jeopardy”
(Kupchik, 112). The large volume of cited infractions then makes it even less
likely that schools will provide due process requirements that they already
find “too cumbersome or time-consuming,” especially when parents and students
are not “sufficiently versed in the law to demand [them]” (Kupchik, 20). Indeed,
the sheer volume of preschool students suspended throughout the 2011-12 school
year suggests that this must be the case (Parker). Students today are thus left
with neither the protection of a benevolent state nor the rights of an active
citizen; as the court declared in the ruling of In re Gault, youth have again been assigned the “worst of both
worlds.”
Jackeling Chang spoke about how schools have failed to act in the best interests of youth. Kupchik mentioned that parents often express their anger toward the government on teachers and the administration because that is as close as they will get to the government. Yet Kuchick has proved through different studies that the purpose of schools were not to benefit the youth but rather as a means of social control, to maintain the capitalist social structure. The reason for their choice to govern through crime is because schools have been overburdened with socializing, nurturing, providing, protecting, and teaching youth. They have to please the government while appeasing social anxieties. In reality schools have not failed our youth, more accurately, we as a society have failed youth. Schools should not be doing the duties of parents, of the government, or of every citizen in our country. The social inequalities that schools reproduce were and are initially produced by our society. Blaming the government or blaming schools is only an escape, its passing your responsibility and failures to others. The enforcement of individuality and living according to your own standards is in essence enforcing an egocentric society. Each out for their own interests and happiness. Blaming capitalists is easy to do, yet disregarding the benefits that they provide to society as a whole is enjoyed. Social mobility may be slow and difficult but possible.
ReplyDeleteJacqueline does a great job explaining Kupchik’s approach to the issue. It seems that Kupchik believes that the education system and the government tend to take reactionary measurements rather than preventive measurements. The intensification of schools security systems, post Columbine massacre, proves that the education system did not have any substantial plan prior to the incident to prevent such a terrific tragedy, but rather take excessive measures after the harm is done. According to Kupchik: “rules are enforced for their own sake, with no corresponding attempt to solve underlying problems” (Kupchik 11). It is crucial to realize that understanding the roots of the problem is paramount. Increases in campus police security and zero-tolerance policies have done more harm than good, and I certainly agree with Jacqueline that the current security measurements leaves students with “worst of both worlds.”
ReplyDeleteJacqueline very well explains the first three chapters of Homeroom Security and highlights key points that Kupchik tries to point out. The increase of security guards at school was originally intended to make students feel safer, however ultimately became a violation of their rights. This evidence is shown in the beginning of chapter 3 when Kupchik tells the story of seventeen-year-old Biko who attends Samuel J. Tilden High. This story along with other reports of New York City public schools details stories of abuse of students and school staff by officers put at their school to make them safe. I think Jacqueline makes a very strong argument when linking her essay to Goss v. Lopez, being that these laws and security systems are meant to protect our youth, but in reality it is doing them more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteWhen students are forced to pass through metal detectors each morning before entering homeroom and subjected to discipline from law enforcement on school grounds, it sends them a message. They are being told that they are expected to act in such a way that requires surveillance from law enforcement whether it be by committing serious crimes or acting mischievously. This goes back to “youth as not quite adults” by showing that adults do not believe that youth are developed enough to restrain themselves. Being surrounded by this stigma, students have an activated schema of violence that sometimes leads them to act violently. This in turn contributes to the “pipeline” you mention above. “Zero tolerance” policies deprive some students the option of rehabilitation but jumps straight to severe measures. These policies throw them into a cycle, which you allude to above in regards to suspension, that leads to the demise of the youth as a citizen. Combine this with the not so present procedural safeguards and students are left, as you say, in the “worst of both worlds.”
ReplyDeleteThis essay does a very good job of highlighting some of the important points made by Kupchik in Homeroom Security. Despite the intention of increased discipline and law enforcement in schools being to help students, it may very well be doing harm instead. There is certainly a point at which security becomes excessive. As in the Arum study, although schools with more than average discipline were often perceived as fairer, schools with excessive discipline weren't. Indeed, not only could this be harming student perceptions of law enforcement but also their rights. Goss v. Lopez is certainly a good example of some of the issues being discussed here. In this case students were suspended without being allowed to exercise their rights to a hearing with regard to the incident. Many, if not most, students, however, would not even know their rights had been violated in such a case and with increased presence of police at schools student rights may be surpassed in other ways, while punishment becomes more frequent. The ruling in the Goss v. Lopez case (for the students) is likely not enough to protect students from excessive punishment.
ReplyDeleteThe author does a great job of explaining Kupchik's main ideas in Homeroom Security, which draws attention to the increase of surveillance agents, such as police officers and security guards, in schools. Schools introduced law enforcement to schools in the effort to create a safer environment. The author points out that new parameters requiring their excessive presence becomes a violation of hard won youth and student rights. Police officers in schools are the most visible agents of the state. If these law enforcement agents are perceived as harsh, their legitimacy could be questioned leading to a dysfunctional learning environment. The author makes a connection to Goss v. Lopez, in which students won protections from excessive and arbitrary punishment. This leads me to to think about how law enforcement acts within the context of a school environment. Do they employ the same tactics as they would in a downtown Berkeley area or in the Berkeley Hills? Remember, Goss v. Lopez came about as a response to a protest about Black History Week, so does race impact how police officers react to student rule-breaking, further fulfilling the school to prison pipeline? The author does a great job pointing out the main ideas. I would like to learn if there is an impact of race in interactions between officers and students of color as in Goss v. Lopez.
ReplyDeleteJacqueline does a very good job in explaining how the increased security systems in schools are perhaps not the best thing for students. She gives examples to back up the fact that they do not necessarily increase the safety of students by citing Kupchik's example of Columbine High School having had security guards in place when the school shooting happened. The other reasons she gives for increased security not being the most helpful thing for students, such as students who become suspended under this system are more likely to become repeatedly suspended than to reform, further validate her argument. I also quite enjoyed how she tied in the passing of student discipline into the hands of the authorities as relating to Parens Patriae because it helps to see how the many different things we have studied throughout the course tie in together. Overall, I find that Jacqueline clearly and concisely presents her argument that the increase in school security is not a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the essay does a great job of encompassing the main points Kupchik covers in the first three chapters of Homeroom Security. I would like to highlight how important it was that Kupchik didn't completely disregard the positive aspects of heightened security policies in schools. He states that these security policies may help teenagers develop a positive relationship with the police and therefore shape their future perceptions of authority. He simply states that the negative aspects of the intensified policies that have affected schools regarding security outweigh the benefits. The fact is that these policies,such as installing security cameras, metal detectors, and police officers, are simply ways to enforce punishment. These are means for an administrator to observe a crime and then punish the student for it. However, these policies overlook the root causes of the problem. By simply punishing a student, the school does little in helping the individual reflect and reform his or her own actions. Along with the fact that the increase in security has been a historical trend preceding school massacres such as Columbine and have minor successes, these policies do not address the root causes of the problems in schools.
ReplyDeleteThis essay does a great job touching on the various conflicting ideas that Kupchik presents throughout the book. The essay discusses the interstitial and contradicting ideas between youth as rights holder and youth as independent. As mentioned, cases had granted youth procedural rights that are revoked "in the best interest" of their immediate protection within school grounds. These school grounds are a place of historical paradox as we have seen this location as enforcing youth as rights holder as a result of youth being treated as complete dependents. The fact that policies and enforcement of such negatively impact youth, demonstrates how important the role of authority is. Those in charge make all decisions and have most of the power deciding these issues, but creating a one fits all, no tolerance rule, is unethical and ignorant of the progress of youth history in regards to the Justice System which we have seen, does not truly enforce justice for all equally.
ReplyDelete