Pros And Cons Of Police Officers Working In Schools

The use of police in schools has been on the increase since the shootings at Columbine High school in 1999. However, over the last 10-12 years the increase is due mainly to available government funding. These “Special Police” are now called “School Resource Officers” (SROs). While the proponents of the SRO program believe that the presence of a Police officer represents all that is right and moral and what our children should aspire to be.

In the most recent years, the relationship between educational institutions and the juvenile justice system, which was once created to protect children, has displayed an ultimatum for minors through “zero tolerance” policies that result in sending individuals from school to prison to pipeline. Studies have shown that these policies are not beneficial to students or the educational environment that should be guaranteed to children. Opponents argue that the policies promote safety, but through this research it can be concluded that the policies actually increase danger. Studies demonstrate the factors that affect the enforcement of these policies which include media, the sociopolitical atmosphere, and the racial disproportionality, yet there

In the article “The School-To-Prison Pipeline” by Marilyn Elias talks about the presence of officers in schools and their zero tolerance policy. Officers are allowed to “stop, frisk, detain, question, search and arrest schoolchildren on and off school grounds” (229). This may seem harsh and intimidating but it can also

The school to prison pipeline continues to be one of the huge issues in an education system. In 1990s, zero-tolerance policies, which is “a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against undesirable behaviors or possession of items” (“zero”), have been adopted in various education system in the U.S. The purpose of these zero-tolerance policies was to prevent minor crimes that could become serious crimes, such as violation, murder, negligence, terrorism and more. Thus, many students get prosecuted and sent into the juvenile justice system because of this policy. Under this circumstance, schools should accept exception and consider the reason why they broke the rule. Also, students should not be given heavy punishments

The school-to-prison pipeline in the United States is a figure of speech used to describe the increasing patterns of interaction students have with the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems as a consequence of procedures used by many school systems. A specific procedure would be the zero tolerance policies and the use of officers in schools. Currently in today’s American schools many children of color are being unfairly judged and treated by the public school systems zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies have been implemented in schools in the last 20 years that include inserting school resource officers in schools and cracking down on all behavior that any authority figure may deem as a form of bad behavior. The policy is based upon deterring future misbehavior and is central to the philosophy of zero tolerance, and the effect of any punishment on future behavior is what defines effective punishment (Skinner, 1953). Zero tolerance policies causes the school environment to feel more like a prison and ultimately leads to black and Latinos being judged and guided to the prison system. A zero-tolerance policy orders predetermined penalties or punishments for specific wrongdoings.

In the most recent years, the relationship between educational institutions and the juvenile justice system which was once created to protect children, has displayed an ultimatum for minors through “zero tolerance” policies which results in sending individuals through the school to prison to pipeline. Studies have shown that these zero tolerance policies are not beneficial to students or the educational environment that should be guaranteed to children. Opponents argue that the policies promote safety, but through this research it can be concluded the policies actually increase danger. Studies demonstrate the factors that affect the enforcement of these policies which include media, the sociopolitical atmosphere, and the racial disproportionality, yet there are valid solutions for this issue that can be explored.

Zero tolerance policies arose during the late 1980’s in response to a rising tide of juvenile arrests for violent offenses and the expanding view of youth as dangerous. During this time discipline in educational settings became much more formal and rigid. Discretion was removed from teachers and administrative staff in favor of broadly instituted policies, which often involved law enforcement and arrest. In 1994 Congress passed the Gun-Free Schools Act, which forced states to pass laws mandating expulsion for a minimum of one year for bringing a weapon to school in order to receive federal education funds. By the mid 90’s roughly 80% of schools had adopted zero tolerance policies beyond the federal requirements and in response the federal government began to increase funding for security guards and other school based law enforcement officers and equipment. These changes occurred primarily between 1996 and 2008 and mirrored changes in the juvenile justice system to more closely emulate the adult system.

Schools around the nation are contracting polices officer to patrol their schools and students. Police officers are known as School Resource Officer’s (SRO’s) like if given them a different name would matter, instead of being resourceful they are up holding the law in harsh ways. There are many SRO’s in schools and this has led to high number of arrests and criminal charges, instead of keeping a safer environment for the children it is becoming a hunting ground (Schept, Wall, & Brisman). Before when a child did something wrong they were given detention, standards, a parent-meeting or maybe even sent to the office, but now the student are sent to the police officer in their schools. Once they are sent to her/him they are punish in such a different way where they can be expelled, suspense or even taken to jail.

Zero tolerance policies are the catalyst for the School-to-Prison pipeline. The problem with zero tolerance policies rely on several different factors. Even though, the vision for zero tolerance policies is clear in the sense that safety is a main priority, A ten year study of zero tolerance policies conducted by the American Psychological Association concluded that the use of these overly harsh policies "did not improve school safety." Since these policies are not increasing school safety it is a clear indicator that change in disciplinary methods is necessary. Additionally, these overly harsh policies create racial disparities mainly focused on minorities. The reason for these racial disparities particularly arise from implicit bias. Unfortunately, student of color and minorities are disportionately represented in suspensions, expulsions, and arrests. Exclusionary discipline principles disproportionately lead the youth, particularly minorities, from classrooms to court and prisons. Racial disparities within school’s disciplinary actions is clear when looking at discipline rates. The Civil Rights Data Collection, gathered by the US Department of Education, graphed suspension rates and disparities in a national test sample during 2012. Figure 1 portrays the ratio of white students that constitute for a little more than half of students enrolled in school while black and hispanic students constitute for less than

Sometimes, the SROs programs have negative impacts on student’s life. Before, student misconduct was held by the teachers, but now it is controlled by the law enforcement in school (Beger 2002). For example, “five students were suspended and charged with crime for tossing peanuts at each other on a school bus” (Beger 2002:123). Schools have accepted the strict and high-security measures to protect students, but would result in diminishing the rights of students (Beger 2002). Students are searched without suspicion, especially the minority communities (Beger 2002). The unreasonable searches diminish the rights of students, which protect them from unreasonable search under the Charter of Rights and Freedom. It is clear that police in schools may impact negatively if the police officers conduct an unreasonable search based on class, racism, and gender. The result of zero tolerance in school leads more students’ school-to-prison pipeline, which results in more youth in prison. The zero-tolerance policy accepted in school to expel any students who involved in any illegal or misconduct behavior (Beger 2002). However, if the students feel that the police in schools and rules of school are fair and just, then eventually students will follow the rules and provide safer school surroundings (Beger 2002:127). Because the main reason of SRO is to prevent the drug issue, violence, shooting, threat, and maintaining law in school.

In recent years, public schools have been accused of participating in the school to prison pipeline. The school to prison pipeline refers to the growing incarceration of youths, resulting from the zero tolerance policies implemented in schools. Therefore, I decided to do my research based on the school to prison pipeline to understand what these accusations mean and their consequences. My research will be divided into three main categories; what is it and how the pipeline became common practice, how it affects the United States, and some solutions to the problem. So far, my claim is that the public schools unintentionally started to connect more students with the judicial system because of growing concern over crime. But when it became known

The School-to-Prison Pipeline refers to the school policies and procedures that drive many of our nation’s schoolchildren into a pathway that begins in school and ends in the criminal justice system. Behavior that once led to a trip to the principal’s office and detention, such as school uniform violations, profanity and “talking back,” now often leads to suspension, expulsion, and/or arrest. Today, largely as a result of “zero tolerance” policies that mandate harsh punishments for even minor misbehavior in

There have been several reports on zero tolerance policy, including one from the American Psychological Association, that indicate that these policies fail to reach their goal (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). These reports have concluded that there should be a change in either how zero tolerance policies are applied or enact alternative policies for these offenses (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). The APA along with other reviews are not the only source of shift in opinion about zero tolerance policies (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). The United States Department of Education has even publically shown opposition against these policies recently (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). However, these policies are easier to rely on in the event of a school shooting, violent acts in school, or some other incident (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). It is easier to implement zero tolerance policies during these events because they are already in place and the guidelines are more simple to follow. The guidelines require all offenses result in expulsion or suspension, regardless of the offense or degree of the crime (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). Implementation of these policies also creates an environment of safety in the public’s eyes, which helps increase the school’s approval during the tragic event (Sheras and Bradshaw,

The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.

School violence has become of the most pressing educational problems in the United States. Gang violence and high profile shootings across the nation cause concern within schools. Communities struggle to understand why these events take place and how they can be prevented. The overwhelming response to solve the issue of violence in schools is the increasing societal pressure to execute zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is driven by the educational philosophy, policies, and practices of school communities. Stakeholders expect schools to be a safe place for staff and for students. Stakeholders assume that a positive classroom environment, safe students, and school enjoyment are conditions necessary to create a positive climate where learning takes place. This assumption can be backed with research. A calm classroom environment, teachers’ management of disruptive behavior, and students’ view of school safety are factors that have been found to directly correlate with student achievement in the classroom (Ma & Willms, 2004). Safety and a feeling of not being threatened during school hours have been found to be important to students’ achievement. Failure to remove a disruptive or an unruly student from school has been found to have a negative impact on achievement and creates a great risk to school staff and students (Garbarino et al., 1992). Teachers cannot teach and students cannot learn in an