Connection between police and school policies (Research Paper Sample)

Name:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Connection between police and school policies
Abstract
In the recent two or three decades, the Congress has admittedly achieved significant progress in terms of enacting policies that are meant to better the larger American society. However, since it reauthorized the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) as the NCLB (no Child Left Behind) policy, startling revelations have been put forward in what is commonly referred to as the School-to-Prison path or pipeline. This entails the utilization of educational practices plus policies that have the consequence of pushing students, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, out of schools plus toward the juvenile justice systems. In its entirety, the phenomenon has proved quite damaging to learners, families as well as the larger American community. In addition, it has proved terrifically costly in terms of drained human potential and in dollars as the entire nation grapple with the increasing costs of justice system amidst unrelenting economic challenges. So far, too little is given to the pipeline crisis as well as its causes.
Introduction
The swelling of the pipeline phenomenon can be attributed to a number of policies. In fact, it is easy to question whether the unending cases of juvenile incarceration have something to do with police and school policies. Nevertheless, as the country works towards realizing the ESEA, one cannot help but look into the manner in which NCLB policy may have contributed to the pipeline issue. The key question is whether it eventually went against police policies meant to keep juveniles out of trouble with the law. Essentially, the policies surrounding the NCLB act were designed to hold schools responsible over student performance as well as pay special attention to differentials in results through factors such as socioeconomic status (Linda, p 240-252). However, the policy in general focused its answerability framework virtually exclusively on learners’ standardized test performance plus placed punitive sanctions on under pressure schools without offering adequate resources to enhance performance. In essence, it failed to address considerable resource plus funding disparities among national schools. In turn, the policy has the effect of encouraging struggling schools to meet target through narrowing curriculum as well as de-prioritizing the educational prospects of many students. Without a doubt, the get-tough perspective to accountability has seen more learners being left even further at the rear and thus feeding the pipeline via the dropout crisis. Similarly, policing policies in a community tend to assume the get-tough approach. More so, this is the case when dealing with minors. Often severe plus punitive in nature, police policies are intended to be applied not considering the situational conditions, gravity of behavior or mitigating circumstances. This has led to what is generally termed as zero tolerance approach in dealing with juveniles, and particularly those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. In all, such policies do not improve the mess the country is already in but rather exacerbate it. Disadvantaged families are left to rue the entire school and police systems as more and more juveniles join the pipeline.
Main
Throughout the United States, police have assumed a leading role in delinquency deterrence. They have employed an array of policies and strategies relying on their deterrent powers, the relationship with schools, a community as well as other juvenile justice agencies. School is possibly the most significant institution playing a crucial role in delinquency deterrence. This is because connection to school is critical as a factor in preventing juvenile delinquency. What is more, school alienation by policing policies has been found to be a key aspect in the emergence of both juvenile delinquency plus society violence. Indeed, it has led to what is commonly referred to as police in schools. This phenomenon relates to a scenario full-time law enforcement personnel work as school resource officers, and work closely with administrators plus staff in developing delinquency prevention policies and or programs. Thus, zero tolerance aspects of discipline are often found in school and police policies. However, this should be alarming considering that there is widespread evidence suggesting that such approaches are largely unsuccessful in attaining the intended outcomes. For instance, NCLBs use of narrow plus test-based accountability tools may not result to widespread and far-reaching school improvements. In addition, zero-tolerance approach widely adopted by law enforcement personnel has not shown to make the community safer and it is regretful how it can improve academic achievement when applied in learning settings (American Psychological Association, p 852-857). In fact, it could be having the undesirable effects of depressing students. In short, even a simple cost-benefit analysis exposes the failure of such policies.
The rather infamous school-to-prison pipeline relates to a set of policies and or practices that make the criminalization plus incarceration of youths and juveniles more likely. This also includes making the attainment of higher education less likely. In addition, it is the highlighting of punitive impacts, student exclusion as well as police policies intervention over students’ education right. While it has affected more students than ever before, it fall hardest on those from disadvantaged socioeconomic background including students of color plus those with disabilities. This leads to the issue of minority exclusion, and it is a challenge that is prevalent even in modern United States’ society. Nevertheless, the pipeline functions both directly plus indirectly. Via the misapplication of zero tolerance policy in relation to discipline, schools directly can send juveniles into criminal justice system through criminalizing various student behaviors. In turn, police policies are known for zero tolerance approach with the aim of deterring juveniles from engaging in law-breaking activities. Nevertheless, a variety of school policies have led to tremendously severe disciplinary practices that have resulted in many arrests plus referrals of students to juvenile justice system. As mentioned earlier, the police in general assume the zero tolerance approach in dealing with criminal justice matters. It is worth noting that many –if not most- of school-based apprehensions are for offenses that pose no serious threat to safety in the environment (American Psychological Association, p 852-857). In fact, most of them can be addressed through a tutor or any other designated professional within the school environment. However, they are falling to the police hands and juvenile justice systems in which zero tolerance policies define the means of handling any individual.
Indirectly, schools policies push students into the pipeline via policies as well as related practices that curb their opportunities to learn. Ultimately, this makes many students more likely to drop out learning institutions thus increasing the chances of being in contact with juvenile justice system. Such policies are associated with such practices as expulsion, out-of-school suspension, high-stakes testing as well as referral to substitute learning environments with inferior educational programs. This is accompanied by the failure to have proper mechanism to re-integrate learners returning from expulsions plus placements in the justice system. All in all, school policies such as NCLB supposedly lead to improved achievement but at the same time disadvantages students by creating an extremely narrow characterization of educational success. The focus is heavily on standardized mechanisms as metrics for accountability plus attaching high-stakes outcomes to the result of tests. Admittedly, this does not bond well with the intended purpose of improving education throughout the country because juveniles with average learning skills are disadvantaged. The kind of pressure resulting from hard-tacking policies ultimately gives schools a perverse reason to facilitate and or encourage the removal or departure of low-performing students. In most cases, students from poor socioeconomic backgrounds suffer more because of limited options associated with limited resources.
On the other hand, the policies in some police departments may lead to biased practices. Research has indicated that police polices can be characterized through their professionalism –knowledge plus skills- and bureaucratization. Policies of police systems that are highly bureaucratized lead to high emphasis on regulations and rules in terms of conduct plus practice. Worth noting is that such systems lead contribute to unprofessionalism and most likely insulated from the subjects they serve. In most cases, police policies –as part of organizational policy- are influenced by the views of police decision makers. Nevertheless, a number of experts have cited that law enforcement personnel and related policies tend to have a stereotyped perception of the poor as troublemakers. In fact, illiterate juveniles in disadvantaged areas must be kept under the wraps and as a result lower-class neighborhoods are subjected to increased police scrutiny than well-off areas. This means that juvenile residents from such regions face a proportionately increased chance of detention. For instance, there is a considerable body of literature showing that police are more likely to arrest youthful in males in poor neighborhoods. Thus, according to Siegel and Welsh (p 315-317), it is not surprising that juveniles of regions with low socio-economic status have a considerably greater chance of getting police records than those from higher socio-economic regions. Although are likely t...