With
recent shootings such as Columbine, Red Lake Massacre, and Sandy Hook adults
believe that an increase in both discipline and surveillance is a good way of
crime prevention at schools and subdue the fear of perceived crisis. In
“Homeroom Security”, Aaron Kupchik argues that the zero-tolerance stances that
schools have taken actually hurts youth more than it helps them. Kupchik
argues that students feel ignored because they have no say; instead of putting
effort into punishing them we should try to stop the problem before it
escalates to crime. Students misbehaving and committing crimes are most likely
only going to get worse with these policies. Kupchik also argues that students
who are at risk (low income etc.) are more likely to be affected by these policies.
I agree with Kupchik that by having police officers, metal detectors, and
detection dogs it will drive students to commit crime more, rather than prevent
them from doing it.
With
these random school shootings people demanded action be taken. The public
response has been to instate “zero-tolerance policies, which require schools to
suspend or expel any student caught violating a rule and often don’t allow for
extenuating circumstances or exceptions”(Kupchik 13). With these policies, it
doesn’t matter the circumstance or if it’s your first offense, the student will
be punished regardless. Many punishments include expulsion or suspension; the
reason why some of these policies could be counterproductive is that some of
the crimes committed can be very minor. Some students have even been arrested
for misbehaving and by doing that we are placing them in the criminal system.
Policies
like these can also add to the achievement gap. The achievement gap is the
large difference in success and achievement on standardized tests that exists
between Caucasians and some minorities. This is a concern because “students of
color are more likely to be arrested as a result of a school-based incident and
funneled into the criminal justice system” (Kupchik 19). Even Kupchik comments
on how students of color are more likely to be subject to these policies
because adults find their behavior more threatening. Instead of just talking
about what needs to be changed, Students will be taken to jail and their record
could be ruined. In the article “With Police in schools, more children in
court” by the New York Times it states that not only are students being
taken to jail for things that they could easily be dealt with by school
officials, but that “black students are receiving criminal misdemeanor
citations at four times the rate of white students.”
Like Coleman’s subcultures, schools are places
in which youth have created their own world that excludes adults. Schools are
supposed to be a safe space for youth, but instead if they walk around and
there are officers everywhere then they will feel unsafe and defensive. In
Mexico there are officers at every street corner, and this makes people feel
unsafe, as though any minute something bad is going to happen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/education/with-police-in-schools-more-children-in-court.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
Yocelyn’s essay was very well-written and thought-provoking. She succinctly summarized Kupchik’s arguments and tied her argument together with interesting and relevant real-world examples of school shootings and police presence in Mexico. I particularly found it interesting how she mentioned the New York Times article that evidenced the racial disparity in youth discipline that Kupchik proposes. I agree with her statement that harsh disciplinary policies may attribute to the achievement gap, as non-white students tend to be given more punishments, which increases the institutional mistrust that is already bred in low income areas by the ‘code of the street’. Furthermore treating youth like criminals is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Harding’s book also mentioned a case study of a boy who faced possible jail time for defending a friend who was being harassed by a security guard in school. If youth are harassed by law enforcement in schools they may feel alienated and uncomfortable in their school, which makes it harder for them to achieve. Youth may not want to deal with the harassment and so avoid school. Therefore although ‘zero-tolerance’ policies aim to make schools safer and more conducive to learning, they tend to marginalize and discriminate against non-white male students.
ReplyDeleteVery well presentation Yocelyn and great summary of the “Homeroom Security.” I have to agree the point Yocelyn brings about zero-tolerance stance and how instead of helping youth it hurts youth. Many of these policies have one component in common: zero tolerance. While it is clear that protecting the safety of students and staff is one of school leaders‘ most important responsibilities, it is not clear that zero tolerance policies are succeeding in improving school safety. In fact, some evidence based on non-experimental studies suggests that these policies actually may have an adverse effect on student academic and behavioral outcomes. I agree that tough zero-tolerance policies and increased involvement of law enforcement in schools can awake the school. However, they can increase the attack in education and potentially damage students. I really like how Yocelyn brings the point of students of color being affected the most. I believe that zero tolerance policy in public education continues to be fed by distrust in youth, diminished rights and freedoms of youth compared to adults in public schools, and racism is reflected in widespread stereotypical images of student of color youth as super predators and creating a culture of criminality. Overall, great analysis Yocelyn and reference to the New York Times.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think that Yocelyn summarized many of the great ideas that were presented in Kupchik's book. I agree with Yocelyn when she talks about an increase in school security measures such as stricter rules and matal detectors as well as mandatory locker checks and other practices increase the amount of misbehavior seen in schools. I think the reasons for this could be that these practices frames kids as criminals, which creates kind of a self fullfilling prophecy in itself. For example, a kid could be reprimanded and searched and made to be felt like a ccriminal so they respond by acting the part they've been labeled. I agree that it would be harder for those who come from a more urban background because the overwhelming authoritative environment will create a cycle of continuous punishments and suspensions or expulsions. This will in turn effect the rate of attendance for those students who are on the fringe in terms of behavior and grades.
Yocelyn wrote a compelling blog essay that outlined well Kupchik's main points. By speaking to the zero tolerance policy she illustrate that though our current school system segregates youth from adults, it is still very much an adult centered space where youth have little to no voice. I found it interesting that when interviewed, students of color were often inclined to say that they felt severe punishments were appropriate and seemed to feel very responsible for “crimes” or breaking of rules they committed and that they deserved the consequences such as not going to college. I think that this kind of thinking is rooted in institutional racism that youth of color are born and socialized into. If one grows up thinking that they are “bad” or criminals in the making it would make sense that they would feel they deserve strict policing and consequences. Youth of color discrimination in the school system sets them up to not only have difficulty in schools but also to be more likely to be incarcerated. I think that Kupchik did a good job of showing how public education is deeply tied to the prison industrial complex.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I would have liked to read a little bit more about Mexico’s officers affects on citizens.
I found Yocelyn analysis of Kapchik appealing. It is disconcerting to see how in an attempt to create safe school environments we have unintentionally turned schools into policing zones where youth are being introduced into the juvenile justice system at a young age. Growing up in a school, which embraced zero tolerance policies, I witnessed firsthand the negative effects of these policies. It is crucial to note, however, that these policies not only mark youth criminally but also-- as was the case in my hometown-- these zero tolerance policies open a window of opportunity for administrative staff to remove “bad” students to alternative educational institutions. Consequently, the policing of schools perpetuates institutional mistrust on behalf of youth who see themselves as constantly being attacked.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe policing schools can have a detrimental effect, I also see how schools under a constant threat of violence see these policies as necessary in providing a safe school environment. Thus, one must ask where do we draw the line in the policing of schools.
I think Yocelyn’s essay touched a lot of key arguments made by Kupchik. I agree that the zero-tolerance policy does actually hurt youth more than it helps them. Instead of teaching youth proper ways to behave and molding them into adults, they are treating them as criminals and criminalizing normal childhood behavior. I find it interesting how students of color are more threatened by this policy. Although there is a zero-tolerance policy, it seems that more students of color are punished. Kupchik gives an example of this. Marlon Morgan was arrested for wearing is cap sideways while others wore it sideways too. Kupchik describes him as a good kid, but he was still arrested. This added to the achievement gap that Yocelyn mentioned. It can also be very threatening to youth with disabilities. Those with attention deficit disorders can disrupt class involuntarily because of their condition. However, the zero-tolerance policy holds no exceptions and those that disrupt class will be punished. Once youth are charged for their crimes, it can stay on their record. This can affect their future and jeopardize their ability to advance into higher education. This ultimately paves the way for them to become actual criminals.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Yocelyn's essay on Kupchik's book "Homeroom Security" and the zero-tolerance stance that schools use as an attempted deferent/punishment. I thought her points did a good job in summarizing the book as well as adding another layer of analysis. I appreciated her real world connection to the streets of Mexico and the added connection she made with Coleman and his writings. It was useful to point out how we are, in effect, criminalizing our youth and in our attempts to prevent a criminalized society, we are instead perpetuating this notion by putting youth in an environment that they do not feel safe and trusted. If they do not feel like they can place their trust in their environment they will seek to construct their own, and this I think is linked with gang development.
ReplyDeleteYocelyn gave a thorough summary of Kupchik’s arguments in Homeroom Security about the flaws of the discipline system in public schools. I think she rightly pointed out that rigid discipline practices like the zero-tolerance policy can often times be counterproductive. For example, Kupchik describes cases of students being punished under the zero-tolerance policy due to excessive absences. This embodies the counterproductive nature of the zero-tolerance policy because the student is being punished with expulsion for not being in school. This highlights how the policy is more focused on administering punishment than getting to the root of the problem.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, though, Kupchik explains that the zero-tolerance policy was originally aimed at disciplining students who brought weapons to school. Those students who brought weapons to school were expelled, which seems reasonable given the gravity of the crime. However, the problem starts when the zero-tolerance policy is extended to include non-violent and non-criminal violations. This “one-size-fits-all” disciplinary system can perpetuate and cause even more problems.
-Kristi Huynh