Criminalizing the Classroom -- The NYCLU's Testimony Given Before NYC Council

Testimony Submitted By Donna Lieberman On Behalf Of The New York Civil Liberties Union Before The Education Committee, The Juvenile Justice Committee And The Public Safety Committee Of The New York City Council On The Policing Of The New York City Public Schools

October 10, 2007

Click here to download the report (PDF).

• Download now: Know Your Rights with Police in Schools (PDF) • Students, Educators and Advocates Call for an End to Aggressive, Excessive Police Presence in NYC Public Schools

My name is Donna Lieberman. I am the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union on whose behalf I present the following testimony.

More than a year ago, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) began receiving episodic reports of abusive conduct by police officers and school safety agents assigned to the New York City public schools. We received one report involving teachers who called a local precinct to ask for assistance in breaking up a fight. By the time police arrived the fight was resolved and the situation was calm. But the police arrived at the school with the swagger and aggressiveness of street thugs. They began yelling at the children and directing profanity at both students and teachers. When one teacher asked the police not to curse at the children the cops threatened him with arrest. And when a second teacher rallied to support the first teacher, the police arrested both teachers and paraded them out of the school in handcuffs. We received another report of a school safety agent arresting a student for disobeying his directive that the student not wear a hat in the school. We heard of a school principal who was arrested for objecting when a school safety agent entered a classroom to arrest a student in a circumstance where the arrest was not required by any exigent circumstance.

We heard many other similar stories. Consequently, during the summer of 2006, we decided to look more closely at the role of police and School Safety Agents (SSAs) in schools and we ended up undertaking a nine-month survey of the matter. The survey involved interviewing and reviewing forms from more than 1,000 students; examining public documents; interviewing teachers, administrators and union representatives; as well as on-site visits to schools.

We concluded our survey in March, 2007 with the publication of a report entitled Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-Policing of New York City Schools. I am submitting this report, prepared jointly by the NYCLU and the Racial Justice Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, along with my written testimony because the report amply and accurately documents the development of current policing practices in the New York City schools and problems arising out of such practices.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that in undertaking our study of the schools and in preparing our report, we started with the unassailable proposition that students and teachers are entitled to a safe educational environment that is conducive to both teaching and learning. But in our study of that environment, five principal observations emerged.

First, we found that too often school safety agents failed to appreciate the difference in environment between the street-corner and the schools. Too often police officers and school safety agents (SSAs) brought into the schools the thugishness and aggressiveness of the street-corner. And, in this respect the police presence in schools detrimentally affected the school environment and undermined the very sense of security and the safe learning environment that they were brought into the schools to protect. We concluded, in this respect, that this behavioral pattern pointed to a deficiency in training and that neither police officers nor SSAs had been trained to understand properly the special environment of the schools. Second, we found that SSAs, who are assigned to the schools to assure safety and security, too often exceed their authority by either enforcing school rules regarding dress or cursing that have nothing to do with security, or by making up their own rules like imposing a ban on bringing food, cameras or even required school supplies into the building. Third, we found that when administrators and teachers tried to control the excesses of some SSAs, they were not infrequently rebuffed by the SSAs who insisted that, since the SSAs report to the NYPD and not to the school administrators, the administrators had no authority to tell them what to do. Fourth, we found that the roving detector program was often a flashpoint for conflict and that the program routinely wasted enormous amounts of classroom time. Fifth, we found that students and parents had no meaningful way to complain about the abusive practices of SSAs.

Accordingly, our report suggested four basic remedial proposals: first, authority over school safety must be restored to school administrators; second, school safety agents had to be trained in the special environment of the schools; third, police should be in schools only to address legitimate security concerns and other disciplinary matters should be left to school administrators; fourth, a meaningful complaint process must be developed to permit parents and students to report abusive behavior by SSAs.

Subsequent to the issuance of our report, we learned of another study conducted, in 2006, by the American Psychological Association (APA) that confirmed some of our concerns. The APA found that zero tolerance policies have been ineffective in reducing violence in schools and have instead increased disciplinary problems and drop out rates in middle schools and high schools, and have led to an over-representation of students of color in school discipline processes. The report also found that zero tolerance policies have increased the number of referrals to the juvenile justice system for minor infractions that were once handled by educators in the schools, which leads to the creation of a school-to-prison pipeline. The report concluded with recommendations for alternatives to zero tolerance policies.

Finally, I feel compelled, before I close, to discuss the lack of transparency on the part of both the NYPD and the Department of Education with respect to these matters. The NYCLU has submitted two FOIL requests to the NYPD and a FOIL request to the Department of Education regarding school safety matters. Following numerous letters and phone calls, the NYCLU received a partial response to the NYPD FOIL requests. We have yet to receive any of the documents we requested in the FOIL submitted to the Department of Education.

On June 26, 2006, the NYCLU sent a FOIL request to the DOE asking for documents pertaining to the Impact Schools Initiative, metal detectors, school governance, incidents in schools and procedures for handling complaints regarding police activities in schools. The NYCLU has yet to receive any of these documents from the Department of Education.

The NYCLU sent a FOIL request to the NYPD on July 11, 2005, and requested written guidelines for the handling of complaints concerning school safety personnel; all such complaints received by the NYPD and their dispositions; and all materials used in training school safety personnel and members of the NYPD present in NYC public schools. The NYCLU sent a second FOIL request on June 26, 2006 for documents relating to the Impact Schools Initiative, metal detectors, school governance and protocols on the handling of complaints against school safety agents and police officer misconduct in schools.

The NYCLU received a procedural response from the NYPD on July 19, 2005 indicating that “a determination” would be made on the FOIL request by November 18, 2005. The NYPD informed the NYCLU on October 13, 2005 that the NYCLU’s request would be expedited, and during a December 8, 2005 phone call, the NYPD informed the NYCLU that it would send several documents, including Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) statistics on the number of complaints filed against school safety personnel, and an IAB report on dispositions of complaints filed against school safety personnel. In a letter dated November 16, 2005, the NYCLU renewed its request to the NYPD.

On December 26, 2006, the NYCLU received an incomplete response to its two outstanding FOIL requests. The NYCLU received the following information, most of which is publicly available: two news releases from the mayor’s office relating to Operation Impact and Operation Spotlight; the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between the NYPD and Board of Education; selections from the NYPD Patrol Guide; selections from the Police Academy School Safety training guide; and the NYC Joint Committee on School safety report for the 2004-2005 school year.

Most of the NYCLU’s requests are still unmet, including the IAB data and reports on the number of complaints filed against school safety personnel. It is important for the City Council to gather such information in its efforts to evaluate policing practices in the schools.

It should be noted that some data has now been produced, but not to the NYCLU. In a June 11, 2007 letter from NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly to Councilmember Robert Jackson the following data was provided:

• There are more than 5,000 SSAs in the schools
• There are approximately 200 armed police officers in the schools.
• Since 2002, the NYPD has received 2,670 complaints against SSAs. Of those, 722 have been substantiated, yielding a substantiation rate of 27 percent.
• Since 2002, the NYPD has received 38 complaints against armed police officers in the schools. Two have been substantiated.

A substantiation rate of 27 percent should be a cause for concern on the part of the police commissioner. Yet we have heard no such expressions of concern about this matter from his office.

Thank you for the opportunity to address these committees. As the City Council moves forward in its consideration of these matters, I urge that you read our enclosed report. It raises important questions and offers what we believe to be useful remedial suggestions.

Printer-friendly Version