AMONG the many responses to the distressing outbreaks of gun violence in American schools have been calls both to arm teachers and to increase police presence in schools as a deterrent to crime.
While the calls to arm teachers given the recent massacres of innocent students have received considerable pushback from teachers, the calls for more police and security guards to be placed in schools are seemingly part of a broader trend towards securitisation of education.
Before starting to discuss this issue it is important to make a distinction between what we usually refer to as security guards in a school whose usual task is to guard the school from theft or vandalism and keep school premises generally safe and a newer phenomenon of what are known as in the American context as “School Resource Officers” (SROs) being present in schools. SROs have a different set of tasks to what we usually think of as school guards.
Matthew T. Theriot in an article titled: ‘School resource officers and the criminaliSation of student behaviour’ which appeared in the Journal of Criminal Justice explains some of the key tasks of SROs and points out that: “School resource officers in the United States (also known as school police officers or school liaison officers) typically are employed by a local law enforcement agency and assigned to work in a school or schools.”
They perform traditional law enforcement functions like patrolling school buildings and grounds, investigating criminal complaints, handling students who violate school rules or laws, and trying to minimise disruptions during the school day and at after-school activities.
Critics of school policing programmes, such as Dara Lind writing for Vox, point to the growing phenomenon both of school guards on school grounds during school hours and SROs and to the fact that, “the schools that are most likely to have a daily enforcement presence on school grounds are the schools with the most poor students.”
Furthermore Lind points out that, “there is a correlation among all public schools between students; race and the presence of an SRO or security guard. The more non-white students a school has, the more likely it is to have a full-time SRO or private security guard on campus.”
Finally, and this point is critical, Lind argues: “Students at policed schools were much more likely to get arrested than students at unpoliced schools, but they weren’t any more likely to actually be charged in court for weapons, drugs, alcohol, or assault.”
In other words according to Lind, “students at policed schools were much more likely to get arrested in cases where there wasn’t enough evidence to actually charge them with a crime.”
Criminalisation of what otherwise may have been simply school behaviour issues which are usually best handled through school disciplinary systems is one of the most egregious and unintended consequences of increased securitisation in schools.
The promise of schooling especially to the disadvantaged has been that it provides a ladder to improvement and opens opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to advance themselves and better their lives.
The results of educational opportunity for disadvantaged students translates into increased participation in higher education and ultimately into a more socially inclusive and just society.
It is therefore pertinent upon all of us who have an interest in education and especially in the impact that education has on social inclusivity and justice to take a close look at the issue of increasing securitisation in schools.
T. Theriot makes the case clearly and eloquently. He writes: “As police and school security become more and more omnipresent at schools, school resource officers, teachers, principals, and all school staff need to be mindful of the negative consequences associated with punitive disciplinary strategies and criminal arrests.
For most youth, especially those from lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, education is an invaluable resource to insure a brighter future. To deny them an education because of a minor classroom disturbance or hallway disruption is unacceptable, unfair, and may permanently limit their prospects for a better life.”
This discussion has drawn upon the American example to illustrate the trend of securitisation of schools and its potential to negatively impact on students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
It also brings to mind the tensions between the promise of education to the poor as providing a ladder of opportunity and the way in which some policies can possibly derail this.
For those of us concerned about the social justice mission of higher education, what occurs in the pre-tertiary levels of our education system is not irrelevant to that mission.
Policy trends which may stem from our attempt to address very real problems in schools and may be implemented with the best of intentions may despite all of this have very real and negative impacts on disadvantaged students, the very cohort to which education can offer so much.
James Campbell is a lecturer in Education in Australia. He can be reached via jamesca@deakin.edu.au