Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear

Introduction: Too Much Discipline

1 Introduction Too Much Discipline A six-year-old Latino boy, Albert, was led into the courtroom by a bailiff.1 Albert was very quiet, timidly answering the judge’s questions in a soft voice as he stood before the judge along with his mother and aunt. Albert attended first grade at a local school, and had been arrested for threatening a teacher: his teacher refused to give him his “treats,” so Albert said he would bring “a gun and a bomb” to school. This prompted the school to call the police and have him arrested. With no argument from the prosecutor, the case was dismissed by the judge, who then complained about how he had been receiving “a Niagara of cases like this due to zerotolerance policies,” which he called “counterproductive.”2 Iwrote this field note about Albert while doing research for a previous book about prosecuting youth in juvenile and criminal courts; his case led me to be curious about school discipline and security. Of course, any child who threatens violence, especially life-threatening violence on such a large scale, should be reprimanded and taught that such threats are inappropriate. The school should also talk to the child’s parents, both to let them know about the problem and to determine whether the child has access to weapons. But it seems unlikely that any child of that age could understand the full implications of such a threat. The judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney in this case agreed, as indicated by the fact that they quickly and readily agreed to dismiss the case, and also by the fact that they criticized the school for calling the police to arrest Albert. Another way to look at this case is to say “better safe than sorry,” and to argue that any threat of such large-scale violence should lead to an arrest because there is always some chance that he could follow through with it. 2 | Too Much Discipline But this position assumes that there are no costs to the school’s actions— that there is no harm in responding aggressively, only in not responding aggressively enough—which is dangerously naive. Even though the case was dismissed, one has to wonder how this experience will affect Albert as he matures. He certainly appeared scared. Will he be intimidated by and shy away from teachers, school administrators, or police? Teachers at Albert’s school undoubtedly discussed the incident, and it is possible that they might have feared Albert after his arrest and treated him differently—as troublesome and potentially violent—throughout the rest of his academic career. And how might his fellow classmates treat him—with fear and awe or as someone to steer clear of? Each of these possibilities could substantially shape his future life by reducing his attachment to school and increasing the likelihood that he becomes delinquent in the future.3 One might also wonder how Albert’s mother and aunt, who came to court with him, were influenced by the incident, and whether they became more cynical about the police and the school. Moreover, Albert’s arrest commanded time and resources from the school, the police, and the courts, each of which is already overburdened, especially in impoverished urban areas like the one where Albert lives. Considering the potentially harmful consequences of certain reactions to students’ misbehavior, it is clear that the full effects of events like this need to be brought to light. That is the aim of this book: to think critically about the full effects of contemporary school discipline.4 Most schools across the United States now respond more aggressively to misbehavior than in years past. Zero-tolerance policies, which require punishments for any violation of a certain rule regardless of the severity of that violation, are an important element of the new world of school discipline. For example, Albert may have attended school in a district that has a zero-tolerance rule for threats of violence, meaning that any threat of violence must be reported to the police as a criminal offense. In this scenario, the district probably had in mind older students who have a higher potential for real violence, but no matter, the zero-tolerance rule requires school administrators to follow the rule with a “one size fits all” approach that does not allow them to distinguish between different degrees of seriousness or between juveniles of different ages. U.S. schools have indeed drawn up more zero-tolerance rules recently, but they...