Over the past two decades, the presence of police has increased in schools to the extent that students are arguably learning to live in a police state. Two recent articles underscore this trend and led me to the question that is the title of this post.
In a Truthout article last week, GS Potter describes “How Police Became Part of the Public School System and How to Get Them Out.” In the post, Potter uses the recent incident in South Carolina as an example of how police in schools are needlessly using force and goes on to describe the expansion of Student Resource Officers (SROs) from their inception in 1958 and their limited impact until the 1990s. Initially funded solely through small grants and local funds, SROs became a federal initiative beginning in the Clinton administration and expanding dramatically thereafter: :
In the 1990s, though, police presence in public schools nationwide grew exponentially. During this decade, both the National Association for School Resource Officers was formed, and the US Justice Department developed their COPS in Schools grant program. This federal support dramatically increased the number of law enforcement officers in classrooms across the country. For example, according to a report published in Justice Quarterly, “As of July 2005, COPS has awarded in excess of $753 million to more than 3,000 grantees to hire more than 6,500 SROs through the CIS program and more than $10 million to hire approximately 100 SROs through the Safe Schools/Healthy Students program.”
This huge outlay of federal funds continues, with the Obama administration seeking an additional $150,000,000 for the coming year to bring the total number of federally funded SROs to 17,000. The roots of the problem with this program are in the fact that there is no clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement officials and school officials and the fact that most SROs lack the ability to work with emotionally handicapped and diverse populations. Evidence of this inability emerge when one examines the statistics on those arrested by officers for misconduct in schools. Potter writes:
…according to a joint letter written by the US Department of Education and the Department of Justice, “certain racial or ethnic groups tend to be disciplined more than their peers.” Similarly, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights reports that Black students are suspended and expelled three times more frequently than white students, and that Indigenous students are also punished disproportionately. The report also states that students with disabilities “represent 12% of the student populations, but 58% of those placed in seclusion or involuntary confinement and 75% of those physically restrained at school…. Black students represent 19% of students with disabilities … but 36% of these students who are restrained at school …”
The unfair treatment received by disadvantaged students in the classroom has only been reinforced by law enforcement agencies that also have records of unfairly targeting members of disadvantaged populations in their communities.
Potter describes the impact of SROs on minority and disabled students in detail, but overlooks the subtle impact the poise presence has on the entire student body. The presence of SROs disempowers the administration in the school since their power to punish is small in comparison to that of the police. The presence of SROs also undercuts the Principal’s ability to create a culture of caring, a climate that could mitigate the need for any forceful discipline. Finally, the presence of SROs sends a message to students that the only means of having a safe environment is to have visible police presence everywhere.
After reading Potter’s blog post in Truthout, I found an article by Mak Ojutku in yesterday’s Jersey Post especially chilling. The report describes a partnership between the Jersey City School Board and the Jersey City Police “to create a new way for students, faculty, and parents to report inappropriate activity in and around city schools.” WeTip, a 24/7 hotline to the police department, will make it possible for students to report:
“…anything from school bullying to major crimes. Depending on the information provided, the tip will be forwarded to the district’s security office or the police department.
The article doesn’t explain who will make the determination as to whether an incident warrants intervention by the police… and as a high school disciplinarian for six years I can assure you that the police and schools have different standards when it comes to defining misconduct.
The article concludes with the numbers one should call to make a report:
The hotline can be reached at the following designated numbers: 1-800-78-CRIME, 1-855-86-BULLY, 1-800-47-DRUGS, and 1-800-HIT-N-RUN.
I think it’s time to call 1-800-PEACENOW, reduce the number of SROs and use the funds to bring in guidance counselors and social workers for students.
I just spent this past weekend at the reunion of the Class of 1965 from West Chester (PA) High School. Roughly 100 of us from a class of over 500 attended the $65/plate dinner, some coming from all of the country and some from around the corner where they’ve lived for decades. At a breakfast the next morning, one of my classmates who works implementing a medical technology information system he devised shared an observation from an older relative of his who was in his 80s: that our generation, the ones who came of age after World War II, lived in the best of times in all of the civilized world. Looking around the table at a group of classmates and their spouses who shared the experience of attending West Chester schools during the early 1960s, it was hard to refute. Our parents wanted us all to have better lives than they had and so they spent money to improve our schools and communities. The economy they worked in was almost always expanding and their incomes and well being rose with it. None of us wanted for food, clothing, or shelter and all of us around the table went to college and most of us has degrees beyond college… and those working were doing so by choice and those in retirement lived in communities of their choice. We all worked hard to get where we were now… but we all knew that the hard work would pay off eventually and with the system in place at the time it was true.
I’ve written many posts contrasting the era I was raised in with the era my grandchildren are experiencing. The future was perpetually bright for us. We grew up with a President who urged us to dream impossible dreams: to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, to put an end to poverty and racial intolerance, and stand firm for the principles that made our democracy the best form of government in the world. When he was struck down by an assassin in our sophomore year his successor picked up those aspirations and kept the spirits of our country high. Most of us who graduated in 1965 were oblivious of our military’s increasing presence in Southeast Asia or the racial tensions simmering in the cities: we only saw the bright future that lay ahead for us if we worked hard and get a good education.
Looking back on the past 50 years I see that we might have been the last class to graduate from high school full of optimism. The cloud of Viet Nam, the racial discord, the inability of our government to provide the resources needed to help people get out of poverty, and the disappearance of manufacturing jobs diminished the hopes and opportunities of future classes of graduates. And yet I see some evidence of hearts and minds changing. After decades of the War on Drugs we are beginning to realize that addiction is a disease and not a moral problem. We DID elect and African American to the highest office— not once but twice. We are graduating a higher percentage of students from high school. And we are witnessing the legitimate candidacy of an avowed New Deal “democratic socialist” who seems to be intent on restoring the system to the way it was before Americans became convinced that “government is the problem”. I hope for the sake of my grandchildren that in the near future the blessings of the Class of 1965 are restored: that they, like my classmates, have a sense that the adults in the community want them to succeed and those elected to leadership positions give them visions for a peaceful and harmonious future.
Today’s NYTimes Upshot section, purportedly dedicated to providing mathematical analyses to social problems, ran an article today on charter schools that included a flawed analysis by education professor (and charter advocate) Susan Dynarski. The article proclaims that charters work in urban areas but do not work so much in suburban regions.
Ms. Dynarski makes one significant error in her analysis: There is selection bias built into the lottery! The lottery requires a level of parent engagement that separates parents who care about their child’s education opportunity from those who do not. The best test would be to disaggregate the test scores of “lottery losers” from the classmates attending public school and compare that group of students with charter students. My hunch is that the children of engaged parents in public schools will do as well as children attending charters. The “secret sauce” that everyone is seeking is parent engagement… and the route to achieving that is to support the parents in poverty not the billionaires who are funding the charter school movement.
The recent horrific events in Paris are serving as a backdrop for much of my reading of late, and two articles I just completed resonated in light of the killings last weekend. Taken together in the context of the terrorism in France they chart a course for public education in our country.
Earlier this month the New Yorker featured an article by Malcolm Gladwell titled “The Thresholds of Violence: How School Shootings Spread“. In typical Gladwell fashion, he takes one case involving a school shooter who was caught by police before he was able to complete the slaughter he planned and uses it to explain the root causes of an emerging trend. In this case the trend is school shootings and the explanation is a decision theory concept concept called “Thresholds”. The term was coined four decades ago by Stanford psychologist Mark Granovetter who sought to answer this question:
What explains a person or a group of people doing things that seem at odds with who they are or what they think is right? Granovetter took riots as one of his main examples, because a riot is a case of destructive violence that involves a great number of otherwise quite normal people who would not usually be disposed to violence.
Granovetter used the term “threshold” to answer the question:
A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them. In the elegant theoretical model Granovetter proposed, riots were started by people with a threshold of zero—instigators willing to throw a rock through a window at the slightest provocation. Then comes the person who will throw a rock if someone else goes first. He has a threshold of one. Next in is the person with the threshold of two. His qualms are overcome when he sees the instigator and the instigator’s accomplice. Next to him is someone with a threshold of three, who would never break windows and loot stores unless there were three people right in front of him who were already doing that—and so on up to the hundredth person, a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyone around him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.
Gladwell convincingly asserts that school shootings are proliferating because individuals with a high threshold are contemplating school shootings because in he universe they live in they believe everyone is contemplating the same action. Returning to the riot metaphor Granovetter used to explain the threshold theory, Gladwell concludes his article with this chilling paragraph:
In the day of Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters profiled in depth in the article), we could try to console ourselves with the thought that there was nothing we could do, that no law or intervention or restrictions on guns could make a difference in the face of someone so evil. But the riot has now engulfed the boys who were once content to play with chemistry sets in the basement. The problem is not that there is an endless supply of deeply disturbed young men who are willing to contemplate horrific acts. It’s worse. It’s that young men no longer need to be deeply disturbed to contemplate horrific acts.
In the context of Gladwell’s conclusion and the events last weekend where radicalized young men engaged in acts of terror in Paris, last Sunday’s NYTimes article by Julie Scelfo titled “Teaching Peace in Elementary School” describes a broader but critically important roles for public education. Scelfo describes S.E.L., a recent trend in elementary education that is clearly for more important to the well being of our children and our nation than anything we measure using standardized achievement tests:
In many communities, elementary teachers, guidance counselors and administrators are embracing what is known as social and emotional learning, or S.E.L., a process through which people become more aware of their feelings and learn to relate more peacefully to others.
Feeling left out? Angry at your mom? Embarrassed to speak out loud during class? Proponents of S.E.L. say these feelings aren’t insignificant issues to be ignored in favor of the three R’s. Unless emotions are properly dealt with, they believe, children won’t be able to reach their full academic potential.
Worse, based on Gladwell’s assertions and the evidence we can see around us in the world, if these feelings are ignored our schools will perpetuate the climate where “boys who were once content to play with chemistry sets in the basement” might contemplate school shootings or be radicalized. Ever since Columbine we’ve spent billions on surveillance cameras and hiring SROs. Ever since 9-11 we’ve spent even more on personnel and computer technology to keep us safe from terrorists. And during that same time period we’ve spent every marginal dollar available to schools on testing and test preparation. It’s time to spend more on peace and less on armaments and surveillance.
I generally support the notion that decisions are best made closest to the action and, therefore, generally support the idea that State and Local school boards should be delegated as much latitude as possible in setting policy and determining the program of studies for their schools.
I generally oppose the imposition of academic standards based on the desires of businesspersons because they tend to focus on workplace skills and diminish the value of the humanities.
But I also strongly support the notion that we need a common set of facts to draw from if we want to have an informed electorate: we need to have a common understanding of history and accept the rarity that scientific facts change and when they change whole theories change with them.
As I’ve written previously in tho blog, the Common Core is a good idea that was poorly executed… and idea that should be– indeed MUST be– recast. In a post where I proposed an education platform for the 2016 presidential campaign I offered this recommendation for the Common Core:
- Revise the Common Core: Recent actions by state legislatures (g. Texas) and local school boards (e.g. Jefferson County, CO) underscore the need for a common set of standards for education. The Common Core, underwritten by extraordinarily wealthy businessmen, was developed in response to this legitimate need. Unfortunately, the Common Core was developed without any meaningful input from classroom teachers and, to make matters worse, once it was issued the authors of the Common Core were not responsive to the revisions recommended by teachers, academics, and child psychologists. We should not scrap the Common Core because we need to make certain that students across the country learn the facts about health, science, and history. But instead of unilaterally imposing these standards from Washington, we should use the Common Core as the basis for the development of a standard curriculum for each state. If elected I will require each state to create Standards Teams to use the Common Core as the basis for the creation of a rigorous but realistic set of State standards. The Standards Teams will include curriculum content experts from state universities, representative classroom teachers, and developmental psychologists.
Stories like this one about the Texas school board from the Christian Science Monitor reinforce the need for a national set of standards. The headline and subheading say it all:
Texas rejects allowing academics to fact-check public school textbooks
Texas’ education officials rejected allowing university experts fact-check textbooks approved for the state’s 5.2 million public-school students.
And why might some fact checking be needed? This anecdote explains:
The Board of Education approves textbooks in the nation’s second-largest state and stood by its vetting process — despite a Houston-area mother recently complaining that a world geography book used by her son’s ninth grade class referred to African slaves as “workers.”
This is the same group who do not allow teaching on climate change, evolution and other myriad scientific facts that are contrary to their cultural norms. It is important in this day and age that we face inconvenient truths and weigh evidence carefully. But when children are being taught that African slaves were “workers” it is difficult to see how they will understand the root causes of the civil rights movement and why Black Lives Matter.
The reauthorization legislation before Congress effectively hands all curriculum decisions back to states. I am dismayed that children in some parts of this country will graduate from high school with gaps in their scientific knowledge and warped perspectives on history.
I trust the Mathbabe’s analytics… and the short answer to her question is: “mostly yes”!
Originally posted on mathbabe:
Yesterday I looked into quantitatively measuring the rumor I’ve been hearing for years, namely that charter schools cherrypick students – get rid of troublesome ones, keep well-behaved ones, and so on.
Here are two pieces of anecdotal evidence. There was a “Got To Go” list of students at one charter school in the Success Academy network. These were troublesome kids that the school was pushing out.
Also, I recently learned that Success Academy doesn’t accept new kids after the fourth grade. Their reasoning is that older kids wouldn’t be able to catch up with the rest of the kids, but on the other hand it also means that kids kicked out of one school will never land there. This is another form of selection.
Now that I’ve said my two examples I realize they both come from Success Academy. There really aren’t that many of them, as you can…
View original 362 more words