From One Extreme to the Other

- by Jesse Ryckman

Overreaction and knee-jerk responses must be standard operating procedure for school boards these days. In a we-don’t-know-what-else-to-do response to drugs and violence in public schools, education bureaucracies across America instituted zero-tolerance policies punishing all infractions however minor and without regard to extenuating circumstances. As an example, Aaron Kupchick, in his book, Homeroom Security, cites the case of a six-year-old Latino boy who was arrested and taken to court for telling his teacher in an angry outburst that he would bring “a gun and a bomb” to school. The judge immediately dismissed the case and complained about seeing “a Niagara of cases like this due to [counterproductive] zero-tolerance policies.”[1] And we’ve all heard of the cases where kids have been suspended for pointing their fingers in the shape of a gun or for bringing a Nerf gun to school for a class project.[2]

Zero tolerance policies initially began in 1994 as the result of a mandate by the federal government. Although the federal mandate applied only to firearms, most states took it a step further and applied the rule to include anything that could be used or perceived as a weapon.[3] These zero-tolerance polices are now often derided as zero-intelligence policies for all the good they do.[4] According to Kupchick, these ineffective one-size-fits-all policies are a response to “fear and general insecurities rather than careful, evidence-based deliberation.”[1] They often ignore real student problems and generally cause more problems than they fix. The ACLU and other civil rights advocates stated that the policies “lead to a school-to-prison pipeline that discriminates against minority students.”[3] Attorney General Eric Holder said, “A routine school disciplinary infraction should land a student in the principal’s office, not in a police precinct.”[5]

With the increasing unintended consequences of yet another federal mandate, in January of this year the Obama administration urged schools to abandon zero-tolerance policies. Based on the premise that zero tolerance policies discriminate against minorities, the administration “recommended” that schools should handle all disciplinary issues internally, and to make sure that minority students were not disciplined in numbers disproportionate to their race. (The “recommendation” came with a threat that schools would face “strong action” if they ignored it.)[5]

Not wanting to be impertinent (or loose federal funding), the second largest school district in the United States, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) took immediate action. Great! But what did they do? Well, it’s somewhat hard to believe, but in what is being called “ground-breaking action” by the Los Angeles Times, the LAUSD school board decided to virtually eliminate punishment altogether! Yes, really. The new policy bans suspensions of students for “willful defiance.”[6] That means that if a student says to a teacher, “F--- you, I’m not turning off my cell phone, and you can kiss my a--,” well, the student can no longer be suspended. Can’t wait to see what the unintended consequences of this policy will be.

Like I said at the beginning, overreaction and knee-jerk responses must be standard operating procedure these days. Kupchick attributed the zero-tolerance policies to “fear and general insecurities rather than careful, evidence-based deliberation.” Who was it that said, “The more things change, the more they stay the same?”

From too much discipline to none at all. From one extreme to the other. Just before the introduction to his book, Kupchick quotes Will Rogers: “The schools ain’t what they used to be and never was.” Boy, ain’t that the truth!

Sources:

1. Kupchick, A. [2010]. Homeroom security: school discipline in an age of fear. New York, NY: New York University Press.

2. http://www.delawareonline.com/story/life/family/2014/04/07/guns-public-health-issue-even-kids-know/7436459/

3. Kaitlyn, J. [2013]. How federal zero tolerance policies failed to promote educational success, deter juvenile legal consequences, and confront new social media concerns in public schools. Journal of Law & Education, Fall2013, Vol. 42 Issue 4, p739-749.

4. http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/10/06/zero-tolerance-is-zero-intelligence/

5. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-recommends-ending-zero-tolerance-policies-in-schools/#the-rundown

6. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/14/local/la-me-lausd-suspension-20130515