ABOUT A MONTH after I became the interim chief executive officer of the School District of Philadelphia, in 2000, I was greeted with a damaging report by a subcommittee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives detailing rampant violence in the city's schools.
Violence is a serious problem that the district "attempts to downplay, if not conceal," the report asserted.
Now, a decade later, the Philadelphia Inquirer has placed a spotlight on the district once again in an updated and detailed encore, a multipart series on school violence.
Reports of violence in the city's schools aren't new now, nor were they a decade ago. Three decades ago, a 1980 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin article proclaimed "student beatings are up 24 percent in Philadelphia." Another article asked, "Can We Protect Our Teachers?"
Five years before that, extensive news accounts about violence documented an incident in which students kicked and beat a partially blind teacher.
Earlier still, in February 1971, the city was shocked when popular arts-and-crafts teacher Samson Freedman was murdered -- shot in the head as he walked out of Leeds Junior High School.
And in 1964, the superintendent of schools was so alarmed by attacks on teachers that he recommended they receive full pay if they missed school due to injuries suffered at the hands of students.
I have no doubt that in another decade or so, some media outlet or government agency will once again detail the problem of violence in our schools.
(It should be noted, by the way, that most violent incidents are concentrated in a minority of Philadelphia's 264 schools, and perpetrated by a small number of its 160,000 students.)
But it's not that nothing has been done about the problem over the years.
The district has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to curb violence in its schools, money that could otherwise go to classroom learning, improved technology, new roofs on old schools or better supplies in the classroom.
We have installed metal detectors in our high schools, surveillance cameras in hallways, hired a school police force that dwarfs the regular police forces of most municipalities, increased city police presence outside schools, built and (in some cases) privatized new alternative schools for disruptive students, introduced anti-bullying programs, and others on peer mediation and restorative justice, revamped disciplinary procedures and embraced bumper sticker-quality slogans like "zero tolerance." The list goes on and on.
Many parents have taken action on their own to protect their children: They've abandoned the city for the suburbs, flocked to charter schools perceived to be safer, or opted for parochial or private schools.
Yet reports of violence still spring up year after year like unruly weeds that strangle blooming flowers.
And it's not surprising.
We have the role of schools in "school violence" wrong.
Our schools are not the source of the problem, they are the repository.
Schools don't manufacture guns or produce and sell drugs. They don't make violent movies or television shows, write misogynist or violent lyrics to rap music or create single-parent homes with high unemployment. And yet, we expect our teachers, principals and administrators to right the wrongs of society.
It simply isn't going to happen.
There are many things a school district can and must do to fight violence: It needs to maintain accurate records, report incidents to the appropriate people and provide a safe learning and teaching environment.
But by focusing solely on the school district, we absolve others of responsibility: Parents who aren't providing -- or aren't capable of providing -- proper parenting; faith-based leaders who may have to do more to step into the parental and spiritual breach; corporate leaders who, with advertising dollars, support some of the violent programs on television; politicians who reach for quick sound bites rather than explore substantive solutions.
Then there's the respect issue.
When I visited schools as CEO, I would frequently ask teachers about the biggest change they'd seen in the last 20 to 30 years.
Most would respond that they were getting less respect from parents than they used to. And that was before today's teacher-bashing from politicians who preach law and order but thrive on ripping down the symbol of authority and respect in the classroom.
SO WHAT'S THE solution?
If I knew, I would've fixed the problem when that House report got dumped in my lap. But perhaps we'd be better off if, rather than suggesting putting armed city police in the schools or other quick fixes, our city leaders acknowledged that they don't know the answers either.
Maybe it's time for them to lead us all back to school, and engage us in an honest conversation to see if together we can't come up with some solutions that make these newspaper exposes a thing of the past.
Phil Goldsmith writes "The Gold Standard" column for It's Our Money (www.ourmoneyphilly.com). He was head of the school district in 2000-2001. This piece was originally published in the Philadelphia Daily News.
Police officers, armed security guards, surveillance cameras and metal detectors are now commonplace at schools across the country. They go hand in hand with zero tolerance polices adopted by school systems in the wake of highly publicized outbreaks of violence. In a new book, Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear author Aaron Kupchik argues that these polices need to be reassessed to include some flexibility and more common sense. Research at four public high schools helped shaped Kupchik’s argument. He compiled more than 100 hours of interviews with students, administrators, teachers and police officers assigned to each of the schools located in the nation’s Southwest and Mid-Atlantic regions. The University of Delaware Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice shared his perspective with JJIE’s Chandra R. Thomas.
First off, you’re Delaware based. What do you know about what’s happening in Georgia?
I’m really interested in the work of (Clayton County) Juvenile Court Judge Steve Teske. We met at a conference. He is very charismatic and he’s doing a lot of things to limit the school to prison pipeline. He’s trying to have a more common sense approach to reduce the number of kids getting arrested. He’s trying to deal with kids out there in a more approachable way. Legislatures across the country are reacting with policies that are based more out of fear rather than common sense. What they should be doing is recognizing a problem, collecting data and proposing solutions that work.
What inspired you to write the book?
I was doing work sitting in court when I saw the case of a 6-year-old who had been arrested. His teacher had taken away his treats and he threatened to blow up the school. It was ridiculous. Even the judge said it was ridiculous. We’ve been seeing more and more cases like that. So the book idea just grew from there.
In your research for the book, you studied four schools comprised of different racial and economic demographics. What did you take away from your observations?
I found surprising similarities between the four schools. There was a lot they did right, but I also found that many of the policies were counterproductive. Discipline is often taken so far that it gets in the way of academics. There’s so much emphasis on discipline that it becomes the focus of the school. It has become so central to what happens that we lose sight of the needs of the students. We need more flexibility when working with kids.
What’s an example?
Students acting up in class tends to be a big problem. A lot of the teachers told me that most of the time kids act up because they don’t understand the material. So kids acts up and what do we do? We kick them out of class. So they lose instruction time and understand the material even less when they return. Kicking them out might help the teacher at that moment but is that solving the real problem? I understand that the kid needs to be removed at that time, but why not follow that up with some after-school tutoring? What usually happens is that the (disruptive) student is put in in-school suspension where they’re supposed to do their schoolwork, but they usually do nothing.
What else did you learn?
Teachers tend to get very little training on classroom management. Some teachers are better at it than others. Why not have the teachers who are better at it, train those who aren’t? There are a wealth of resources available like that, that aren’t being taken advantage of.
One of your main assertions in the book is that the zero tolerance policies prevalent in schools now were primarily sparked in the 1990s by the federal government's Safe and Drug Free Schools Act. It required schools to implement zero tolerance for certain things like weapons.
Yes. A lot of schools started enacting these rules to get federal zero tolerance dollars. That’s when you began to see a lot of these cases where kids were getting in trouble for having something like Cub Scout knives and aspirin. That’s why zero tolerance policies are so problematic. Symbolically it creates a very undemocratic way of operating schools. Zero tolerance is supposed to be across the board to reduce disparities but it doesn’t work. A lot of the teachers and administrators I spoke to agreed that there is room for flexibility and interpretation in zero tolerance policies. The problem is that it sets a climate where we’re saying we won’t talk about it. You were caught doing something wrong and we won’t talk about it.
Many could argue that these policies are absolutely necessary to protect innocent students, especially in the wake of Columbine. What do you say?
I disagree that Columbine and cases like it should be used as a reason. Columbine is a horrible tragedy that we should learn from, but it should not be used as the basis for public policies. The research shows that school violence is actually quite rare. Schools are actually the safest place for children. You’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed in a school. School violence has been decreasing for the past 15 years. The number of deaths in schools has remained pretty steady – less than 20 per year. Let me be clear. There are some schools with violence problems, but that is incredibly rare. I’m not saying we should not punish kids when they misbehave, but we need to do it sensibly and in a way that addresses the real problems.
What do you propose?
Research shows that when there is a more democratic climate, where students feel that their voices are heard there tends to be less problems. Zero tolerance is the opposite of that. We need discretion for when a case comes up. We need a system that employs some common sense. We communicate a harmful message, a bad tone, to our students when that takes place. We are teaching them that the way to solve conflict is not to discuss it, just squash it. We’re teaching them an authoritarian approach as opposed to a democratic one.
Some would argue that the very zero tolerance policies and the placement of surveillance cameras and school resource officers in schools have contributed to the decrease. What’s your response?
There have been very few evaluations on the impact of those measures and the few that were done were not of very good quality. There is no evidence that these school policies have had an impact on school violence. In fact, there’s indirect evidence that they may have actually made it worse. Why? Because it tends to erode the things we know to help decrease school crime like a democratic environment where students feel heard.
What do you suggest should take place when a student does violate a school rule?
Children need to be dealt with seriously. For example if they bring in a drug, then they should be removed from school but they need to be put into drug counseling. We need to be asking ourselves what’s wrong with this child and focus on ways to change the behavior. The majority of kids are getting suspended for being disrespectful, not violent acts.
You say in the book that you want more counselors at schools. Why?
A lot of the guidance counselors say they’re so busy with scheduling and college placement that they don’t have the time to do anything else.
Isn’t that why school resource officers are in most schools now? Could they be trained to counsel students?
In a peaceful school, there should be more counselors and less police officers. Only schools with documented violence problems should have police officers on site. We’re asking these resource officers to be counselors to these kids but they’re not trained in that area. We need to have police officers being police officers and counselors being counselors. A police officer can’t create a completely safe space for children to talk. For one, they’ve been trained to respond differently and if they learn of a criminal act they have to act on that.
Have you seen any policy changes in schools recently or does it appear that the systems are basically content to sticking with these policies?
There have been some improvements. Louisiana passed a measure to focus more on counseling kids than punishment. And I was a member of a task force in Delaware that consulted the legislature on a measure that was passed to reduce the number of students arrested at school. Those are positive signs, but I’m not sure that they represent any changes in the whole country.
What do you hope to achieve with your book?
The best outcome would be for us all to look more critically at these policies. What we are doing has lots of problems and we tend to assume that zero tolerance keeps kids safe. It’s uncritically accepted and that’s a problem. I wish that we could just talk about it more. I hope we can create a forum for parents, teachers and administrators about how we can better protect our children.
Got a juvenile justice story idea? Contact JJIE.org staff writer Chandra R. Thomas at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thomas, a former Rosalynn Carter Mental Health Journalism Fellow and Kiplinger Public Affairs Journalism Fellow, is an award-winning multimedia journalist who has worked for Atlanta Magazine and Fox 5 News in Atlanta.