Research at four high schools in two different parts of the U.S. (Southwest and Mid-Atlantic) helped Professor Aaron Kupchik develop an unflattering picture of school discipline in America. Schools are much safer now than they were 15 years ago, yet discipline tactics still grow harsher. Too often, Kupchik notes, school officials rigidly enforce rules, rules created in reaction to highly publicized school shootings, without considering how to help troubled kids.
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, zero tolerance policies and even strip searches of students. Kupchik is an associate professor in the University of Delaware Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice.
He proposes current strategies are excessive and counterproductive and offers alternatives. Kupchik recommends removing police from full-time assignment at most schools and involving students in the rule-making process, among other solutions.
Some of what he has to say:
Q: Police and security officers are now present in the majority of high schools. Why do you think they often don’t belong there?
A: “When we put police officers in a school, we’re asking them to do things they’re not trained to do. We’re asking them to be counselors. They’re no counselors. They can’t keep students’ confidence by law. They’re trained as police officers in conflict and how to stem conflict by being aggressive.”
Q: What’s wrong with zero-tolerance policies?
A: “The point of zero tolerance is that there is no discussion. Yet, we know that the best way to promote safety in schools is to have discussion about things.
““It’s a way of saying, we don’t care what the circumstances are and we’re not going to discuss the circumstances.”
Q: What did you see as a common theme in the schools you observed for this book?
A: “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.”
Source: University of Delaware
