School security tactics too aggressive, prof says
Aaron Kupchik


UDaily is produced by Communications and Marketing
The Academy Building
105 East Main Street
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716 • USA
Phone: (302) 831-2792

11:52 a.m., July 20, 2010----“We don't listen to kids.”

Email E-mail
Delicious Print

According to Aaron Kupchik, associate professor in the University of Delaware Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, that is at the heart of what is wrong with today's school discipline tactics.

“We're so wedded to these rules and very harsh punishments that we've forgotten how to use rules to help kids,” Kupchik said.

In his recently published book, Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear, Kupchik examines disciplinary practices in schools, practices that include assigned police officers, drug-sniffing dogs, metal detectors, armed security guards, surveillance cameras and zero tolerance policies.

Kupchik spent time inside four schools in two states observing teachers, administrators and students. Two of the schools are located in the Southwest and two are in the Mid-Atlantic region. In each state, one school's student body is mostly middle-class white students and one school's population is composed of mostly lower-income minority students.

Kupchik found discipline was doled out similarly in all four schools.

“When students got in trouble, the people in charge of discipline didn't ask questions about why they got into trouble or didn't try to solve their underlying problems,” he said.

Instead, disciplinarians followed what Kupchik calls excessive and counterproductive strategies for dealing with students' misbehavior, one of the worst of which is the popular notion of zero tolerance, policies that assign a certain punishment to an infraction regardless of circumstance.

Kupchik argues that while the sentiment behind zero tolerance is admirable -- treating students equally -- in practice it becomes irrational. He points to cases nationwide of students receiving suspensions and even jail time for infractions such as wearing a certain T-shirt or pushing a hall monitor.

“Tolerance used to be something good we wanted to teach students, and now we'll have zero of it in our schools,” Kupchik said.

What are abundant in schools are security officers. According the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2007, 68.8 percent of 12 to 18 year olds reported that either a security guard or police officer was assigned to their school.

While noting their necessity in schools with serious violence problems, Kupchik says he believes that in the majority of American schools, police officers are a negative presence. He notes officers' skill sets do not translate well to a school environment, saying their methods for dealing with conflict are often aggressive, and that can escalate situations, potentially turning non-violent, minor situations into violent scenes ending in arrests.

Homeroom Security outlines suggested strategies, rooted in empirical data, for making schools safer. Among them: mandatory tutoring rather than suspension, since students often act up in class when they have trouble understanding lessons, and involving students in rule creation.

Today, schools are notably safer than they were two decades ago. National statistics show rates of violent crime and victimization on the decline. Yet, school discipline tactics trend in the opposite direction, increasing and becoming harsher.

Kupchik hopes his book will spark policy debates, with decision makers listening to proposed solutions and the ones they affect -- the kids.

Homeroom Security is published by New York University Press. Research contributed to the book was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

See more of what Kupchik has to say in this YouTube video.

Article by Andrea Boyle