September 1998

We are all aware that school violence in the 1997-1998 school year was often punctuated by acts of violence that were tragic, horrifying, and involved behavior on the part of young children which was seemingly inexplicable. The events in Jonesboro, Arkansas; Springfield, Washington; and Pearl, Mississippi; have brought a new dimension to school violence. Thanks to the glorification of bizarre violence by the entertainment industry, poor parenting, and perhaps, the copycat phenomenon, we were witness to gullible young children, each with multiple serious psychological problems, seeking vengeance for their misery (or perhaps an end to their lives) in the commission of violence against those they perceived to be there tormentors: teachers, fellow students, and/or their parents.

At the end of the school year school administrators, teachers, parents, legislators and police executives were left wondering what to do to contain some students' violent behavior. It is well that all of the interested parties are concerned about school violence, because the underlying causes have not changed during the summer, and undoubtedly will, once again, find expression in our schools in the coming year.

There is a tendency to overreact to matters of violence in our public school system. We must remain mindful, however, that while violence is a very serious problem, we have not reached a point of universal crisis. A few unusual acts of violence should not be construed to indicate that similar problems will occur in all schools at a rate which far exceeds historical levels. There is no question that violence in our schools occurs far more often than it should--just as it does in our society. The bigger question is why have we allowed behaviors, which lead to violence, to enter the schools, and what should law enforcement do to help restore order?

It is not possible to pinpoint when societal changes began to have a negative influence on our schools. For the sake of discussion, I will offer my opinion that the negative impact began around 1970. Prior to that time, American schools were relatively peaceful, mostly free of violence, and under the firm control of teachers and school administrators. In those days, America was not nearly as wealthy as it is at the present time; neighborhoods were relatively stable; few children were exposed to illicit drugs; most had two parents at home; and the influence of both music and the mass media in children's lives was relatively positive. Schools were somewhat smaller, financed largely by local tax revenues, and considered by almost everyone, as critical to the future success of every student.

Prior to 1970, it was generally accepted if you were disciplined in school for your behavior you could count on being further disciplined when you arrived home. In brief, student behavior was modified by the fear of parents, teachers, neighbors, and possible failure on their part if they didn't receive a diploma. Most importantly, there was an unwritten understanding between parents, teachers, and administrators that, when in school, the teachers had the same authority as a parent over the child. No one questioned the legitimacy, or common sense, of the "in loco parentis" philosophy. There was never a debate about the necessity for parents, teachers, and the community to work together to mold the character and personality of what everyone knew was a lovable, but ignorant child. "Children should be seen and not heard" was a universal belief, and needless to say, children had few, if any, "constitutional rights" or allies in the twelve-year struggle to turn them into civilized, knowledgeable, decent individuals, capable of earning a living.

Spawned by the advent of high technology, our society began to change the way in which a living was earned, and in the process, became a very wealthy society. Where in the past we worked with our muscles, we now began evolving into a society that earned its living by using brain power. As has been pointed out by many experts, when you change the way you work, you also set into motion enormous cultural, economic, and social change.

For the past forty years we all have seen great change in the adherence to traditional values; a desensitization of our tolerance for abnormal behavior; and a significant loss of respect for traditional authority, rules, and regulations. It should not be surprising to anyone that these changes have had great influence on both our children and the educational system--just as they have on every other aspect of our lives.

Permit me if you will--an old grade school principal--to say that the comparison of many school systems today with the same system in 1970, is enough to make you wonder about the future well-being of our society! While it is quite correct to hold children responsible for their actions, I would argue that they really haven't changed that much. Kids are still kids, and like all kids will take advantage of any situation and push the rules as hard as they can. If they learn disrespect and anger in a home with no rules, then it is inevitable that they will bring this attitude with them when they leave home. If children encounter no resistance to their behavior outside the home, the behavior will continue. Obviously this has been the case in our public school system.

Another significant change is found in the relationship between parents, teachers, and school administrators. There no longer exists between them a coalition of equals committed to mold the lives of children. Parents now defend their child's bizarre behavior in school, often with the aid of an attorney. Seeking, if you will, someone else to blame for their complete failure as parents. School administrators and school boards cower in the face of lawsuits, alleging that teachers have abused their students or violated their constitutional rights to equal protection. Teachers--out on the proverbial limb--are looking for some common sensical support in dealing with the "brats." They look around and find that they have little support, and are, in fact, alone. Consequently, many of them refuse, or ignore, the obligation to impose discipline in the classroom or the hallways.

It is not surprising that students have little respect for either the school, the curriculum, their teachers, or fellow students. In perhaps overly harsh terms, our public education system, from kindergarten to college, is a mess. We have allowed too many parents, teachers, and administrators to abandon their fundamental responsibility, which in turn, has produced large numbers of ill-trained children who are making life miserable, and education difficult, for the majority of good students and responsible parents. We should always bear in mind that well over 75% of teachers, students and parents are decent, responsible, hardworking individuals who are being shortchanged, victimized, and imperiled by the inability of school officials to set and maintain civilized behavioral standards for all students--particularly those who are disruptive.

The following statistics, while most likely not perfectly accurate, do give a skeletal glimpse of the scope of the problem of school violence. In August 1998, the annual National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reflected that among those 12-17 years of age, 11.4 % reported using some illicit drug within the past month. The drug of choice was marijuana with 9.4 % using it during the preceding year. In the school year, 10% of all public schools experienced one or more serious violent crimes defined as murder, rape, suicide, physical attack with a weapon, or robbery. There were 190,000 fights without a weapon. Over 6,000 students were expelled for bringing either a gun or an explosive to school. Over 76% of high school students and 46% of middle school students say drugs are kept, used, and sold on school grounds. The percentage of elementary school teachers who say students disrupt the classroom most of the time has increased from 48% in 1984 to 65% in 1997.

As expected the above problems are more prevalent in urban schools than rural; more likely to occur in large schools as opposed to smaller schools; and occur more frequently in high school than middle schools. While some teachers are afraid of the violence directed at them by disruptive students--particularly after school hours--most others have merely withdrawn from their parental role in the face of student disrespect, lack of support from administrators, and possible charges of student abuse. All but a few teachers have been forced into a position of, "Damned if they do and dammed if they don't," by parents, legislators, and school administrators whose misguided love and fear of litigation make them easy prey for the vultures in the legal profession. Those in the education and legal profession who fit this description are indeed a sorry lot as their misguided actions have indeed reduced the public school system in the United States to its lowest level of quality in its history.

Perhaps our first consideration should be that most school administrators and the public they serve, particularly in rural and suburban districts, will resist any law enforcement presence in their schools. There are several reasons for this resistance. First, schools have traditionally been considered by educators as sanctuary from the outside world. Little help was needed from outsiders to maintain discipline and order within the schoolhouse. Given this history, asking for help from any outside source would be the tacit admission that they had lost control and could no longer guarantee students' safety and education. In many schools systems the administrators are loathe to report serious violations of the law on the part of student. This is because of the incongruity of being in business to help children, and then having to turn around and label some of the angels as a criminal. Administrators have always feared the publicity that would result from such judgements.

Secondly, many educators consider police officers to be crude, unsophisticated, and uneducated. Since many of the local officers are graduates of these same local schools, it is again embarrassing to ask former students for help in regaining control. Asking "Old Bubba" for help, I surmise, would be an admission of professional inadequacy. Unfortunately, educators have failed to realize that the "Old Bubba" stereotype is long gone in the law enforcement world of today.

One way this conflict between police and educators has been defused is with the establishment of a school safety officer program--under the control of school officials, of course. The safety officer program is currently being used in the states of Washington, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, with a measure of success. I really have no criticism of the program per se, however, it is a program that is expensive for the school district, allows teachers and principals to improperly delegate their responsibility for maintaining discipline, and raises the bar of liability of school districts to a higher level.

We in law enforcement must also acknowledge that we have not been enthusiastic about enforcing laws within the schoolhouse. Instead, we have been content with spending our time on sundry traffic violations, funeral processions, and mind-boggling amounts of administrative work--all designed to maintain the status quo. Obviously, our vision, objectives, and priorities are in dire need of significant revision.

What all parties have to acknowledge is that law enforcement and the courts have jurisdiction over any crime, misdemeanor or felony, which occurs on school grounds. The schoolhouse is not a sanctuary for criminal activity, although many law enforcement and school administrators have treated it as such for most of our history. In the past both parties have been comfortable with this arrangement, largely because the serious violations were rare and the others were relatively minor and uncomplicated.

I do not have any particular quarrel with school officials handling minor matters on an informal, non legal basis. However, this practice takes the concurrence of parents, victims, student violators, and administrators. In recent years, this concurrence has broken down as violators take advantage of the fact that the procedures set up by school districts to handle expellable offenses are not conducted in accordance with the strict standards of the laws of criminal procedure. Thus, sharp lawyers are able to easily poke holes in the process.

While most of the behavioral problems in schools can be handled with a modicum of common sense, it is increasingly obvious that serious criminality is beyond the scope and ability of school districts to handle. For example, I do not consider drug use, the sale of illicit drugs, assaults with weapons, rape, robbery, or parental kidnapping matters that should be left to the discretion of school officials to either investigate, or decide, whether or not the matter should be reported to police.

Obviously, if the safety of school children is a prime concern of the community, then it is past time that law enforcement, the courts, and the school board reach an understanding as to the role of the police and the courts in the students' behavior at school during school hours. It is obvious that student criminality is becoming much more common, complex, and serious whether the school is located in a rural, suburban, or an urban setting. This behavior is far beyond the ability of school officials to either recognize or control.

Based on the above judgement I would suggest some consideration be given to the following suggestions. Perhaps it would be just as reasonable for all parties to sit down and discuss what other--or additional--responses would be appropriate for law enforcement agencies to make to assist schools in the maintenance of order.

The appropriate law enforcement agency should designate one, or more, officers to be the liaison between the department and all high and middle schools within the jurisdiction. These officers, working with administrators, school safety officers, or teachers should ensure that the school reports all serious offenses committed in the school to an appropriate law enforcement agency. Police should handle the investigation of such offenses and, if necessary, pursue the matter in the appropriate local court. Secondly, a formal procedure, which is designed to gather intelligence information about gang activity, identify students exhibiting a propensity for violence, and to gather information on illicit drug activities needs to be implemented and closely investigated by the police department. If necessary, proactive interviews with troubled students and their parents could be conducted to preclude violence.

Officers assigned to school duties should be very sensitive to the fact that teachers and principals have the primary responsibility to maintain order and discipline. These officers need to be mature, appropriately aggressive, and highly trained. It should be made very clear by police administrators that these officers are not trying to usurp the legitimate authority of school officials. Nor should the officers allow themselves to be used to enforce the usual rules and regulations of the school. Officers and teachers should have appropriate technology that would enable the officer to respond to a classroom crisis within minutes. Both parties need to understand their roles in what is, understandably, a very delicate administrative and political situation. Whether a police officer is stationed full-time in a school, or just periodically visits, would be a matter of negotiation.

Police departments, or regional police training facilities, need to offer teachers, school security officers, and administrators courses in criminal law, psychological profiling, criminal behavior, hostage negotiation, police procedure, and defensive tactics. Other courses can be specifically designed to meet the needs of teachers in maintaining classroom control. These courses should be made mandatory by both local and state school administrators.

All law enforcement agencies need to develop and practice a response to a school crisis. A standard of a one-minute response time should be established. Additionally, all school buildings and grounds should be kept as drug and weapon free as possible with frequent, random searches of lockers and school grounds. It would be preferable if these searches were conducted by school personnel. Last, truancy laws should be strictly enforced by law enforcement officials working in collaboration with school officials and juvenile courts.

Police labor organizations should work collaboratively with teachers' labor organizations, school boards, and school administrators to seek legislation that would allow school districts and teachers to do their job free from the harassment of frivolous law suits and the behavior of disruptive students.

Regardless of whether school administrators/teachers admit it, the behavior of students in our public schools is creating an environment in which violence has become a threat to the safety of students. In far too many schools the students do not fear the consequences of their actions. While school environment and student conduct is traditionally handled by school officials, it is obvious some administrators have allowed a situation to develop in which they can no longer ensure the safety of the children or employees under their control. It is equally obvious that there are psychological and social forces at work on families and children that can lead to explosive behavior, which is beyond anyone's ability to either control or predict. Since schools are an institution that is central to our lives, it is reasonable to assume that some of the explosive behavior associated with abnormal human tensions will occur in this arena--just as it is happening in another area central to our lives, the workplace.

Since the overall jurisdiction of community safety rests with law enforcement agencies, we have reached a point where we are going to have to diplomatically insist that school boards and administrators allow the legitimate law enforcement functions to operate within the school during and after school hours. This is a very difficult, complex problem, the solution of which will vary with every school involved. However, all parties involved--school officials, parents, students, and law enforcement--must place the children's' safety and well-being before any other consideration.

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401