School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior

School Resource Officers and Exclusionary Discipline in U.S. High Schools: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…However, because of their years of training and experience as law enforcers and status as sworn police officers, they may be especially quick to identify behaviors that could be categorized as illegal, potentially leading to more serious discipline for adolescents than if the SROs had never been involved (Hirschfield 2008;Hirschfield and Celinska 2011;Kupchik and Monahan 2006), particularly with vaguely defined offenses that are subject to interpretation such as disorderly conduct. Both ethnographic (Kupchik 2010) and large-scale quantitative studies (Na and Gottfredson 2011;Theriot 2009) have found this effect: schools with SROs tend to be more severe in their punishment of misbehavior that could be considered open for interpretation. Although the exact reasons this may take place are unclear, it suggests that the tension inherent in SROs' job descriptions may be associated with schools' overall rates of exclusionary discipline.…”

“…Alternatively, an SRO might view the same behaviors as ''disorderly conduct,'' potentially resulting in harsher school-based punishment and even involvement with the juvenile justice system. In fact, some scholars have suggested that this punishment of highly interpretable behaviors may be one mechanism by which SROs increase discipline rates (Na and Gottfredson 2011;Theriot 2009). Because implementing SROs into schools randomly has been unfeasible or unethical, there have been no randomized control trials to date examining any effects of SROs.…”

Visible School Security Measures and Student Academic Performance, Attendance, and Postsecondary Aspirations

“…The criminalization of school discipline may elicit negative expectancy or self-fulfilling prophecy effects among students, such that students labeled as criminal or suspect adjust their behaviors to align with those labels attributed to them (Warnick 2007;Watts and Erevelles 2004); several research studies lend support to this hypothesis (Kupchik 2010;Mayer and Leone 1999). In particular, non-violent student offenses that may be highly interpretable such as disorderly conduct or insubordination are often met with more severe punishment in schools with police (Kupchik 2010;Na and Gottfredson 2013;Theriot 2009). The criminalization perspective implies that visible security measures may have direct negative effects on adolescents' academic outcomes, given that youth may internalize negative expectancy effects arising from prison-like school settings drawing on penological rather than pedagogical procedures for dealing with students (Hirschfield 2008).…”

“…To date, we are unaware of any randomized controlled trials that have examined the effects of visible security measures on adolescents' academic outcomes, and few that have used quasi-experimental designs. Indeed, the limited research on this topic has largely focused on behavioral outcomes like arrests, weapon charges, and drug use (e.g., Jackson 2002;Na and Gottfredson 2013;Theriot 2009) with surprisingly little focus on adolescents' academic outcomes. One notable exception was a quasi-experimental evaluation of the New York City's Impact Schools program (Brady et al 2007), which found that schools with an increased police presence fared worse than comparison schools on school attendance rates as well as the proportion of students reading at grade level, at grade level for math, taking the SAT, and dropping out of school.…”

“…In summary, there is a relatively small body of research providing somewhat conflicting evidence regarding the overall effects of visible security measures on adolescents' academic outcomes. Indeed, most empirical studies have focused on the effects of visible security measures on adolescents' delinquency or victimization outcomes (e.g., Burrow andApel 2008 Jackson 2002;Theriot 2009), with no examination of a crucial indicator of adolescent well-being-namely, success in school.…”