Tennessee events.

Zero Tolerance Policies and Blacks in Tennessee Schools

compiled by Lewis Loflin

Zero tolerance policies in Tennessee again expose where the problems are concentrated: among racial minorities and "special education" students that, no surprise, are over represented with minorities. The Kingsport Times-News editorial from 2003 did a good job at reporting the facts and rejected political correctness. While it's true only 1 percent commit "zero tolerance" offences, even that small percent in combination with other problems can create total chaos.

Here I'll add additional material and update for 2010.

Summery: The problem like every other state is non-Asian minorities in particular blacks (African Americans). At 17% of the population they make up almost 50% of those in prison and 40% of those committing zero tolerance offences. This stems not from racism, but self-inflicted behavior. From 1999 to 2010 the levels have remained the same or have grown worse.

In a 2010 updated report nothing has changed except one factor: the huge growth in Hispanics that wasn't even mentioned in 2003. Before anyone starts yelling racism there is good news. Unlike black that are over represented based on their percent in the population, Hispanics score well with whites in being under-represented. But what is bazaar is the number of "disabled" students that commit "zero tolerance" offences. (What exactly do they mean by 'disabled'?) To quote,

There was a disproportionate number of zero tolerance offenders among the disabled student population, which encompasses both special education students and students with physical disabilities. This was true for the state as a whole, Hamilton County Schools, MNPS, and Shelby County Schools.

MNPS had the largest proportion of disabled zero tolerance offenders. Approximately 24 percent of zero tolerance offenders in MNPS were classified as disabled, although MNPS' disabled population made up only 12 percent of the student population in 2007-08.

Around 19 percent of Hamilton County's zero tolerance offenders were classified as disabled, although they comprised only 15 percent of the total student population.

Did they mean disabled as in being in a wheel chair or mentally slow or retarded? These students only made up 20% or so of offenders.

See http://www.comptroller1.state.tn.us/Repository/RE/ZT2010Report.pdf

Here is a quote that's no surprise from something called The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems:

More than 15% of Tennessee students are identified as disabled. At the state-level, students identified as Black are only slightly more likely than their White counterparts to receive special education services...

...when state-level patterns of identification in specific categories are examined, students identified as Black are more than 3 times more likely than their White peers to be identified as intellectually disabled, and they are approximately 20% more likely to be identified as emotionally disturbed...students identified as Black or American Indian are more likely to be placed in the most restrictive settings.

Students identified as CLD and those identified as disabled consistently perform less well than their peers on statewide assessments, and are less likely to enroll in AP courses, be identified for gifted/talented programs, or graduate high school. Students identified as Black and students with disabilities are also disproportionately subjected to disciplinary consequences, including suspension, expulsion, and placement in alternative schools.

Again they are trying to play the race card instead of being realistic. They are not asking if the classifications are true and it seems they are, but want to make things more racially level. Black students with disabilities do score lower and drop out more because that is the normal outcome. They go on to whine about urban area funding and how more funding will fix the problem. No it won't and that hasn't been proven anywhere.

Again they blame this on race and poverty when in fact the majority of poor kids in Tennessee are white and black poverty is often self-inflicted. Let's further quote this group:

The 1970s was a time of bussing, such as the court-ordered desegregation Plan Z in Memphis City Schools, and "white flight" in which the White residents of urban areas, particularly Memphis, increasingly moved out of the city and into suburbs, in addition to placing their children in private schools.

From 1970 to 2000 the proportion of White residents was nearly reduced by half. The urban decay that followed has had lasting implications for urban educational systems. Today, the city's schools remain highly segregated.

Tennessee's economy is the 18th largest in the nation, dominated by the technology and transportation industries. Traditionally, the state's per capita income has fallen below national and regional averages. As of 2005, it was $30,952, just 89% of the national average.

Median household income for people identified as Black was the lowest of any group in the state at $27,166, while White residents earned an average of $38,189.

Even at the same level of education, people identified as Black earn less than their White peers. The overall unemployment rate was 4.9%, but for Black males it was nearly 12%, and in Memphis, where the majority of the state's Black residents reside, it was nearly 6% overall. Additionally, nearly 45% of Black households were headed by females, compared to only 14% of White households...

Tennessee's poverty rate also exceeds the national average at 14.9%, with more than 21% of children classified as living in poverty. When examined by race, it is apparent that residents identified as Black or Hispanic are 2 to 2.5 times more likely to live in poverty that those identified as White.

What's more, the poverty rate in Shelby County, where Memphis is located, is more than 19%. Additionally, people identified as Black are nearly 30% less likely to own homes, which has important implications for the accumulation of wealth via equity and the passage of wealth from one generation to another.

Furthermore, Black males are substantially more likely to die from injury or violence...

First of all who wants to send their children to schools blacks often reduce to war zones? Anytime the police step in to deal with the massive crime and lawlessness of black communities, the left yells racism and profiling. That chaos is the natural result of groups such as blacks that make stupid choices. Nearly 47% of the prison population compared to 17% of the total state population in Tennessee is black.

Now I'll say what they don't. That lower family income, crime, failure, etc. is due to stupid black women and useless black fathers that produce that 45% of black households headed by single black women. In addition, those black males "substantially more likely to die from injury or violence" are at the hands of other black males. Who wants their children in the middle of this?

This leads us right back to where the problem with "zero tolerance" and who is behind much of the problem. It's not white racism, but the chosen behavior of black people. White residents earn more because they often have two or more incomes, something those 45% of black female headed households don't have. As for the statement, "Even at the same level of education, people identified as Black earn less than their White peers" they presented no proof of that claim I could find.

Their report can be read at http://nccrest.org/Profiles/TennesseeProfile-Sept25.pdf. As of March 2013 the document has been removed.

Report provides clues about curbing school violence, drug use

Kingsport Times-News September 13, 2003

If Tennessee's zero tolerance law was supposed to reduce violence and drug activity in the state's schools, it's been a dismal failure.

In just three years, the number of times Tennessee students attacked their teachers, brought weapons to school or took drugs has increased 10.8 percent.

Since the 1999-2000 school year, zero-tolerance offenses grew from 3,651 incidents to 4,047 last year. Worse, the nearly 11 percent spike in offenses has occurred while the total school population has barely budged - up 0.68 percent over the same period.

These disturbing figures come from a report issued by the comptroller's Office of Education Accountability.

"Though zero tolerance policies begin with the good intention of creating safer schools," the report notes, "it is not always clear that the results have been successful." The study also observes that zero tolerance policies "may be falling out of favor among some educators and education researchers."

With increases like these, it's little wonder the educational community is having second thoughts. With documented instances of violence and drug use increasing ten times faster than the school population, parents are bound to demand some action, and who could blame them?

State education officials attribute at least part of the increase in zero tolerance incidents to better reporting. While that's probably true, it doesn't really get us any closer to addressing the violence and drug use the report documents.

At the risk of a little politically incorrect profiling, the focus for reducing violence and drug use among Tennessee school students would seem reasonably clear.

The report shows, for example, that less than 1 percent of all students attending Tennessee schools actually committed zero tolerance offenses during the three years examined. That means that most of the problems in state schools - as in life generally - come from a small minority of the population.

It follows that if school officials want to reduce violence and drug use, they should closely monitor these already identified zero tolerance offenders. Who are the major offenders? For starters, school officials need to concentrate their efforts on boys rather than girls. The report indicates nearly three-quarters of zero-tolerance offenders are male.

The report also found that special education students and black students are violating zero tolerance policies at a rate much higher than their actual representation in the school population would otherwise suggest.

For example, although black students are 24 percent of student enrollment statewide, 37 percent of all zero tolerance violators last year were black.

Similarly, special education students committed nearly 25 percent of all zero tolerance offenses, but actually represent only about 16 percent of the total student population. White students, by contrast, make up 72 percent of student enrollment statewide but account for 60 percent of all zero tolerance offenses.

The report also finds that students in the 9th grade are three times more likely to commit a zero tolerance offense than students in other grades. And, finally, students in the state's largest urban areas are far more likely to commit zero tolerance offenses than rural students.

Taken together, these statistics point to the need for some counseling and other appropriate intervention, such as drug counseling targeted to those groups which have shown themselves to be the overwhelming source of zero tolerance offenses.

While all students need to hear and absorb educational information about violence and drug use, it's clear from these statistics that 4th grade girls in rural schools should not be a priority.

While schools continue to be safer, statistically, than the homes students come from, violence in our schools is a serious problem. National statistics indicate approximately 20 percent of high school students regularly carry some sort of weapon on a regular basis.

Across the nation, approximately 900 teachers are threatened with bodily harm and nearly 40 teachers are physically attacked during an average school day.

On that same, average day, 2,000 students report being physically assaulted. We all want safe schools. This report - disturbing as it is - gives education officials some vital help in accomplishing that worthy goal.

Highlights from 2003 report:

Although zero tolerance policies were implemented to deter students from committing specific offenses, zero tolerance offenses have increased at a significantly faster rate than student enrollment. Statewide zero tolerance offenses increased from 3,651 in 1999-2000 to 4,047 in 2001-02, an increase of 10.85 percent over the three-year period. In comparison, the number of students in Tennessee public schools during that same time rose only 0.68 percent from 894,397 in the 1999-2000 school year to 900,510 in the 2001-02 school year.

Less than one percent of all students attending Tennessee schools committed zero tolerance offenses during each of the three years examined. Approximately 0.4 percent (or about four in 1,000) of Tennessee students account for the zero tolerance offenses committed over each of the three years examined. (See page 8.) More than half of all zero tolerance offenders were returned to school or placed in alternative schools from school years 1999-2000 through 2001-02.

A significant number of students continue to be expelled without placement-the number remained relatively constant at approximately 20 percent for each of the three years examined. This figure is important because students whose education is disrupted for a period of time may have difficulty catching up and may eventually drop out of school rather than fall further behind.

Drug offenses continue to be the largest category of zero tolerance offenses. In 1999- 2000, drug offenses accounted for 53 percent of all zero tolerance offenses.

Most zero tolerance offenders are male...they consistently account for approximately 75 percent of all zero tolerance offenses.

African American students and special education students continue to be disproportionately represented among zero tolerance offenders. The percent of zero tolerance offenders within both of these student populations exceeds the percentage they comprise in the total school populations.

Analysis indicates that Tennessee's urban school districts account for a disproportionate share of zero tolerance violations. Urban zero tolerance offenses per 1,000 students far exceed the non-urban districts.

Most of the urban systems have expelled a significant percentage of their zero tolerance offenders without placement.

Drug offenses comprise the largest category among four of the five urban systems.

The zero tolerance gender gap is also clearly evident in urban areas.

African American students represent a higher percentage of zero tolerance violations in most urban systems than they represent in the general school population.

Almost half of all zero tolerance offenses occur in grades 8, 9, and 10.

The special education population is disproportionately represented among the zero tolerance population.

The above is from http://www.comptroller1.state.tn.us/repository/RE/zerotoler2003.pdf Note the link is dead as of March 2013.

[ Crime ] [ Homepage ] [ Electronics ] [ Anti-White Racism ] [ Donate ] [ Religious Themes ]

» Home » E-Mail » Donate » Crime » Hobby Electronics
» Environmentalism » Racism » Religion » Bristol VA/TN

Gateway Pages for this website:
» Archive 1 » Archive 2 » Archive 3 » Archive 4 » Archive 5
» Archive 6 » Archive 7 » Archive 8 » Archive 9