Zero -Tolerance, Zero Results?

Alexandra Arkhangelskaya was climbing the stairs of the DeKalb subway station one spring morning when she felt someone tug on her school bag.

“Yo, heads up! Metal detectors,” said her friend. She grimaced. He ran off to warn others.

Arkhangelskaya had a cell phone that was usually hidden deep within her bag, but she realized the phone would stop her from getting through this morning’s surprise metal detectors. Deciding not to risk the chance of having her phone confiscated, she stopped by a local deli and asked the man behind the counter to hold on to her phone for her.

This is a common tactic for many of Alexandra’s peers.

Alexandra attends Brooklyn Technical High School, one of New York City’s specialized schools. It sees little crime, excellent test scores, and has a relatively high attendance rate.

Yet even these high-achievement schools are not immune to the stringent security tactics recently implemented in public schools. Like other schools in New York City, security officials at Brooklyn Tech every so often execute random metal detector screenings.

“It’s not like we’re criminals or anything. This seems really unreasonable. Such a waste of effort,” Alexandra said.

Brooklyn Tech students are among the more fortunate teens in the city, because drastic security protocols are applied only occasionally at their school.

But every morning, tens of thousands of students in the city are welcomed back to school with the beeping of metal detectors, the impatient faces of security guards, and an air of distrust. They are forbidden to bring in most electronic devices, including iPods and cell phones, which are often essential to students who commute to school over long distances. They are all too familiar with zero-tolerance policies, which mandate the application of harsh punishments to offenders, regardless of circumstance. These incidents often conclude with school expulsions or even, occasionally, jail time.

These measures are meant to prevent school violence. But in June of this year, the New York Civil Liberties Union released a study claiming that New York City schools can more effectively combat violence if they eliminate the high-tech security equipment and strict police discipline strategies that have become a normal part of school life for many New York City teens.

The New York City public school system is a place where School Safety Officers outnumber guidance counselors, and where students, some as young as five years old, have been handcuffed for non-criminal incidents including tardiness and writing on desks.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has introduced many controversial policies, especially the “Impact Schools” initiative. This program evaluates schools at high risk and heavily increases police presence, enforces zero-tolerance policies, and implements search procedures that include students having to submit to bag searches and pat-downs.

Some argue that these tactics are just an easy way for politicians and administrators to achieve instantaneous progress and results.

According to the NYCLU, these results can be achieved with less draconian measures. In its report, the NYCLU profiled six New York City public high schools that are within poor neighborhoods and have student bodies consisting predominately of minority groups.

All six schools have jettisoned some of the most aggressive security measures. They have thrown away zero-tolerance policies, rejected metal-detectors, and opted for a school-employed security staff with more accountability to school officials. They also promote conflict resolution programs and peer mediation while involving students in development and revision of the code of conduct.

According to the NYCLU, these tactics have worked and these schools have earned the label of “Successful Schools”.

NYCLU is not the only organization that has addressed this issue. For the past few years, various medical groups, including the American Psychological Association, have backed the nullification of zero-tolerance policies, which have become the standard in many public schools. They instead suggest alternative means of reducing school violence, many of which have been implemented in these “successful schools”.

“What is most important is that the schools provide comprehensive, instructive efforts that help both protect victims while addressing and promoting proper behavior,” said Jonathan Cohen, the president of the Center for Social and Emotional Education, an organization that helps schools infuse social and emotional instruction as part of academics.

As expected, many schools and organizations aren’t buying it.

The Department of Education and the New York City Police Department have denied the validity of CSEE’s claims. They provide their own statistics, stating that major crime within schools is down 9 percent in just this past school year in comparison to the previous year, and that crime is down 44 percent since the 2000-2001 school year. Additionally, metal detectors have helped confiscate several handguns in the last decade.

In some schools, violence is so endemic that it is deemed impossible to function without these precautions in order to ensure the safety of the students and staff.

“These measures are absolutely necessary. Less than five years ago, crime in New York City schools was rampant. There were homicides: students killing students, students killing teachers,” said Marcia Benjamin, a guidance counselor at Canarsie High School, a school labeled as a “failing school” and which will be fazed out until it is no longer one entity but rather five different schools. (The Department of Education is dividing up many schools in this way, in order to create more authority and accountability in individual schools.)

“Before zero-tolerance policies, there were seemingly no consequences. A lot of kids, after the hearings, would just be placed back in the same school. There was no other place to put them. It was a broken system. Now they are excluded from schools and placed appropriately,” said Benjamin. “Even now students still sneak in weapons,” but now, “a student can be taken into custody right away.”

Benjamin’s school had previously put into place some of NYCLU’s suggested solutions, but had not made them mandatory for students. They failed.

“A lot of success is found when certain programs are mandated. There is change in return when you involve students, teachers, parents,” she said.

Advocates on both sides of the issue agree that there’s no simple solution to school violence, and that any serious change will require the efforts of school administrators as well as the students they are charged with protecting.

Cohen says, “The question now is what is really going to engage youth and inspire them to take the higher road.”

Benjamin adds, “I think there will be changes. The most important is promoting tolerance and acceptance.”