Another Study--Another Wrongheaded Conclusion

The Philadelphia Inquirer leads with the following paragraph in an article about the Philadelphia schools: "Though city public schools are often dangerous places, the Philadelphia School District's zero-tolerance approach to discipline makes schools less safe and less effective at educating students, according to a report released Thursday." Naturally, the wire services picked it up, and it was repeated as gospel truth by such truth-tellers as the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Context is vital, and the agenda behind a study is equally important. Most of us have read about just how foolish zero-tolerance policies can turn out to be. There have been multiple examples of outrageously draconian punishment for such violations as a student giving a friend an aspirin (zero-tolerance drug policy) or a boy scout coming to school with a Swiss Army knife (zero-tolerance weapons policy). For such excesses, most of us conservatives have condemned mindless zero-tolerance policies because they punish behavior that has nothing to do with the purpose of the policy. Considering how overpaid administrators and teachers tend to be these days, we have a right to expect that they could at least exercise a little judgment.

So at first blush, the Philadelphia study might not seem too far out. But on reflection, look at who conducted the study, and consider what agenda they might have and what real expertise they might bring to the topic. The study was put together by Youth United for Change, a local student organizing group (no comment necessary), the Advancement Project, a Washington-based "civil rights" organization (even less comment necessary), and the Education Law Center in Philadelphia (a radical group of "children's advocates").

And what did the study conclude? I'm probably insulting your intelligence by giving you the answer, but I'll risk it. "The report says the policy too often targets black and Latino students." Those over-the-top examples I reminded you of in the second paragraph occurred in suburban schools, and were examples of poor judgment and bad administration of policy. Philadelphia schools are among the worst of the urban schools--academically and violence-wise. And considering the hefty majority of public school students who are black and Latino at the urban school locations, it's really not much of a surprise that blacks and Latinos are disciplined in higher numbers than whites (and Asians).

It's like reporting that 80% of criminals arrested in South Central Los Angeles are black, and therefore being targeted by unsympathetic police. Never mind that about 80% of all people of every color who live in South Central Los Angeles are black. The statistic is true, the conclusion is ludicrous.

So is it numbers alone that causes these leftist organizations to draw their conclusion? I would have to say yes. Looking beneath the numbers and percentages, it's necessary to look at the type of activity that was followed by discipline, and ask if it was the type of activity for which the policy was designed. Forget aspirins and Swiss Army knives. These violations were of several distinct types, and would draw discipline even in suburban schools where administrators are using genuine judgment and discretion. Knives carried on campus were not Swiss Army or penknives--most were switchblades. "Disruptive behavior" included destroying school property and physically threatening or menacing administrators, teachers or other students. Suspensions and expulsions for fighting included beating other students senseless, and use of baseball bats and other dangerous weapons.

The discovery of racism and unfairness is the heading, the body and the conclusion of the study. The actual reasons for discipline are buried in footnotes and back-page statistics. In fact, this study indicates that the Philadelphia schools are overly-tolerant, considering what level the "violence" has to reach before a student is actually suspended or expelled.

In fact, within the body of the study, a conclusion disguised as a fact rears its ugly editorial head: "District students are too often punished harshly for minor infractions (minor?), and suspensions, expulsions and transfers are overused according to the study's authors who represent groups being opposed to zero tolerance," says the Inquirer. The Inquirer neglects to mention that the study's authors actually have the same agenda as many radical groups--strict numerical equality. If two blacks are disciplined for an offense, and only one white is disciplined for the same offense, it's the result of systemic racism.

This is not really about zero tolerance, which has been much abused. It is about using zero-tolerance policies as a straw man for those who simply feel that discipline is being used as a substitute for feel-good group therapy, and it therefore unfairly targets "minorities" in urban schools. It's a false premise, and a false conclusion. The Inquirer says "this study comes amid a national debate on how best to stem violence in the public schools." I thought the debate was over years ago. We decided to get the thugs and education-disrupters out of the schools. Bringing up zero-tolerance is nothing more than a red herring.

For all its bravado, the study only reinforces the notion that zero-tolerance is just a starting place for administrators to make reasonable determinations. It does not prove, in any way, shape or form, that zero-tolerance, for all its abuses, "makes schools less safe (ridiculous)" or "less effective at educating students (a dubious conclusion subject to logical attack on multiple fronts)." Like its big brothers in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, the Inquirer has once again announced an editorial conclusion supported by a highly-skewed study and called it "news reporting."