An Interview with Jim Freeman: Unintended Consequences of Testing and Zero Tolerance?

1.28.10 - Michael F. Shaughnessy - The report actually comes out of a decade of work that we have been doing with communities across the country to eliminate the unnecessary criminalization of youth. Over that time, we have seen these two policies – high-stakes testing and zero tolerance – continually serve as barriers to learning and academic achievement.

An Interview with  Jim Freeman: Unintended Consequences of Testing and Zero Tolerance?

Michael F. Shaughnessy 1.28.10

Eastern New Mexico University

Portales, New Mexico

Jim Freeman is a Staff Attorney at Advancement Project, an innovative civil rights law, policy, and communications “action tank” in Washington, DC.  He is the Director of the Ending the Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track project and works with grassroots organizations from across the country on a variety of education reform efforts.  During his time at Advancement Project, Freeman has researched and co-authored a number of reports on issues of educational justice, and has also worked on voter protection, housing, and immigrant justice matters.  Freeman is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Harvard Law School, where he was an editor on the Harvard Law Review. Following law school, he served as judicial law clerk for the Honorable James R. Browning on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.  Freeman in a recipient of the prestigious Skadden Fellowship, sits on the Board of Directors of the Resilience Advocacy Project in New York, and is Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

In this interview, he responds to questions about a recent report.

1)    Jim, you have just authored a report about the drop out problem in the schools. What led to this report?

      The report actually comes out of a decade of work that we have been doing with communities across the country to eliminate the unnecessary criminalization of youth.  Over that time, we have seen these two policies – high-stakes testing and zero tolerance – continually serve as barriers to learning and academic achievement. However, we felt that too little attention was being devoted to the combined effects they were having on students, teachers, and schools in general.

2)      You seem to link “zero tolerance policies“ about behavior and all this annual yearly progress testing. How do these two interlink?

       I think they’re linked in a number of ways. Certainly, there are strong parallels in how they have developed. In fact, zero tolerance and high-stakes testing both share the same ideological roots. But they are also linked in practice, and together they have combined to seriously damage the relationships between schools and the communities they serve throughout the country. As we describe in the report, rather than helping to provide all students with enriching learning experiences, zero tolerance and high-stakes testing lead to an impoverished education for many young people. Ultimately these policies combine to needlessly punish young people and limit their opportunities to fulfill their potential and achieve their goals, rather than supporting students who are struggling or in need.

3)      In your report, do you evaluate how schools are treating/educating/ working with students who are, say below average—in I.Q. ( and I am talking here about 70-85 I.Q. ) and what should the schools be doing with these students who due to heredity or environment, can’t seem to keep up with the average curriculum?

       No, that really isn’t the focus of our report, though we do have some data in this report (and much more in previous reports) about the disproportionate impact of zero tolerance and high-stakes testing on students with disabilities.  And I do think the recommendations we make in the report are broadly applicable to all students.

4)      Jim, someone out there in this big world is this message that all kids HAVE TO , MUST, NEED TO, go to college. What impact does THIS message have on students and teachers alike?

      There are two messages here that tend to be confused.  One is that all students must go to college, which is not our position.  Our position is that all students must be provided a full and equal opportunity to get an education that would position them to go to college if they so choose.   In other words, all students should be able to stand on the stage with their diploma in their hands and decide whether or not college is the right choice for them without being denied that opportunity by their schools or circumstances. Too often that has not been the case, particularly for low-income youth of color.

5)      Now, in terms of zero tolerance policies, should not students and teachers, or even teachers AND students feel safe in a school and not need to worry about violent, aggressive, assaultive, destructive behavior?

      Of course students, teachers, and everyone at schools should feel safe.  The problem is that zero tolerance policies and practices are not actually accomplishing that goal; in fact, there is no evidence that zero-tolerance policies are effective at making schools safer. Indeed, research suggests that the opposite may be true, namely that such policies and practices actually make schools less safe. 

 Instead of zero tolerance, schools should be employing school safety strategies that have been proven effective, such as the prevention and intervention methods we describe in the report.  Beyond that, though, I should make clear that it’s not our position that exclusionary measures should never be used. On the contrary, they are necessary in some circumstances, such as when a serious crime has occurred. The problem is that they have increasingly been used as a response to non-serious student behavior.  In fact, as we describe in the report, the vast majority of exclusionary measures tend to be for behavior that could be better addressed through other means.

6)      Some schools have adopted these zero tolerance policies, because according to most teachers, the single most important reason, they feel for lack of good teaching are disruptive students who disrupt the educational process, and cause chaos in the classroom. Your thoughts?

      Actually, a recent study shows that the number one cause of job dissatisfaction for teachers is testing, which goes directly to the point of the report. But more broadly, it is certainly true that disruptive students can make life difficult for teachers. The question is what to do about it. As we describe in the report, zero tolerance has not been effective at promoting productive learning environments.  It is a mere temporary fix that ignores the root causes of the problem, fails to teach students appropriate behavior, and often results in more problems down the road for the teacher. As we talk about in the report, there are simply better ways of dealing with disruptive students that improve the quality of the learning environment and do not unnecessarily compromise students’ educational opportunities.

7)      Instead of adopting zero tolerance policies for students who bring guns, knives, weapons, karate sticks and the like to school, should schools be evaluating them for emotional problems or behavior disorders or conduct disorders?

      Yes, I think that is one step that schools should take. They should be using their discretion as educators to see how they can help those students while also protecting the rest of the school.  Sometimes that might mean that students will have to leave school, but it is both better for the student and for society if the student is not simply abandoned, which is frequently the case under zero tolerance policies.

But again, it’s important to point out that the overwhelming majority of suspensions, expulsions, and school-based arrests are a result of behavior far less serious than bringing weapons to school.

8)      Jim, one thing you may have neglected in your report is the fact that NCLB and all this testing is very rapidly pushing teachers into early retirement and some good teachers into other fields. Did you look at this at all in your report?

      We actually do address this point in the report. Our report is focused not only on the impact of these policies on students, but on everyone connected to the school. In our experience, these policies and practices create unhealthy learning environments for both adults and youth, pushing them both out of school.

      9)       Also, I look at data that suggests that parents are continually looking for other options for education for their kids- private schools, parochial schools, charter schools and the like. Is this an “unintended consequence“ of all this testing?

In many cases, I’m sure it is. For the huge number of parents who think that testing is hurting the quality of education at their school, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that they will seek out alternatives.  That should be a sign to address the problem for the students who remain in public schools, but thus far policymakers have been slow to recognize it and act on it. 

10)   I have to disagree slightly with your hypothesis that we have constructed a “ school to prison “ pipeline. I know many good kids who take the G.E.D. (I have personally tutored them) and then gone on to a community college, or gotten training in a technical or vocational school.  I know of many good JAG programs ( Jobs for Americas Graduates ) and some schools are providing some options and alternatives to make sure these kids get good mentoring, and are assisted perhaps to join the military and serve our country. Your thoughts?

       I don’t disagree with you that there are many students who, even after leaving school without a diploma, find their way to college or good jobs.  But it is undeniable that the risk of ending up in the justice system go way up for students who drop out or are pushed out of school.