Fox Lane High School has a diverse student population in all respects of the term, and it’s time that all students have the ability to maximize their school experience. Though Fox Lane is a great school that us students are privileged to attend, there are policies that need to be changed so that the school supports all of its students to the best of its ability, allowing students to feel safe and comfortable in their learning environments. There are three policies in particular that need to be amended. These vital changes include: reforming the punitive policy of drug abuse, creating and clarifying policies to help prevent and punish discrimination, and disarming school resource officers on our campus and forming positive engagements with them. I understand that we are dealing with complicated matters and none of these policy changes should be taken lightly, however empirical data is in favor of the proposed changes as opposed to our current state of affairs.

The first policy change proposed is the reform of our current drug policy. The National Institute of Drug Abuse reported that drug use and abuse among high school students rose from 2018-2019, specifically with the vaping of nicotine and marijuana, binge drinking, and general marijuana use. Despite Zero Tolerance Policies and exclusionary practices as a solution, drug use is still on the rise. This shows that the goal of punitive drug policies, made to prevent students from drug abuse through fear of retribution, is failing.  Nationwide, there is a movement to end zero tolerance policies supported by studies that have concluded that the best way to end student drug abuse is through proper education and rehabilitative solutions. Suspensions as a punishment to drug use not only fosters a hatred for the school from the affected student, but it also removes positive adult interaction, counseling opportunities in school, and productivity during the day. This leads to greater chances for at-risk behavior. Rather than receiving punitive punishment, students should be referred to either a school or outside psychologist and/or a rehabilitation program to help the student become clean from the substance they are abusing. Another recommended course of action from the school is a buyback program or an anonymous drop-off. As an incentive for students to go clean, the school should offer to buy drugs and drug paraphernalia from students to dispose of for market price. This way, students who were contemplating quitting before may feel more inclined with the knowledge that they aren't losing any more money as a result of their unhealthy habit. If this is not something the school would like to sponsor, an anonymous drop off would allow students to dispose of drugs or drug paraphernalia in a safe manner. Suspending a student due to possession of drug paraphernalia or drugs does not help reform them and aid them in their journey to stopping their substance, but rather pushes them farther from society and alienates them from their communities' support networks that could have helped them.

Recently it is becoming more clear that discrimination is an issue among the student body. There are accounts of students, regardless of race, being permitted to use the N-word in English classes by white teachers, fostering the comfortability of non-black students' use of the racial slur. There have also been more direct and derogatory attacks on specific students such as calling nonbinary students “that” (in reference to them as an object rather than a person”) and black students being called monkeys or gorillas. Discrimination is widespread and often unpunished. Many students report hearing the use of the N-word by non-black students during lunch periods or in the hallways in the presence of monitors and without retribution. The school has also neglected to respond to videos of current students using the N-word and other derogatory slurs. Our school currently has a disciplinary system for students who violate the vague “NON-DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI-HARASSMENT IN THE DISTRICT” policy,  it does not list the retribution any offender might receive. Though there is clarification of a Civil Rights Compliance Officer, they are not stated on the website and the whereabouts of this person are not well known by the student body, which makes it harder to access available resources. Through the efforts of the student representatives on the School Board, plans for a anti-discrimination student committee has come to fruition. Our proposed system of punishment is as follows: For a first offense, a student would receive 1-3 days of in-school-suspension. This record could potentially be expunged if the student showed progress and change through volunteering, education, and other such efforts. For a second offense, or an offense that is clearly defined as highly derogatory and discriminatory, a student would receive a week of out-of-school suspension. For second offenders, their record could not be expunged. This would deter students from future offenses and show that their actions do have consequences. The school needs to make it clear that ignorance will not be tolerated. For students who act in a discriminatory manner for a third time, the repercussion should be expulsion. By that point the student has shown reluctance to grow and has ignored their 2 other chances to renounce their ignorance. This system will be called the 3 strike system, and will show students and staff that their actions have consequences.

The third and final policy change is the disarming of the SRO from Fox Lane Campus, and rather making a connection between the officer and the student body. Empirical data supports that SRO’s have negative effects on the student body, and that overall the school would benefit from the removal of the SRO. Tom Mowen, a criminal justice researcher at Bowling Green University states that, “For someone to suggest that SROs prevent school shootings is absolutely unfounded in terms of science. There’s no support for that statement at all.” Though there is not an extreme amount of research done on SRO’s and their abilities to prevent school shootings, it is estimated that SRO’s are successfully able to disarm 1% of school shooters, which actually means that SRO’s are more likely to flee the scene of a school shooting then protect students. This statistic comes from a 2018 Washington Post analysis of nearly 200 incidents of gun violence on campus. The data found only two times where a school resource officer successfully intervened in a shooting. SRO’s are also not shown to have significant effects on school crime or safety either. The idea that SRO’s prevent crime and make schools safer is unsupported by data. The reason that I, at this time, am not advocating for complete removal, is because it is apparent after a student poll of approximately 9% of the student body, that that is not in the best interest of the entire student body.  45% of respondents stated they are sometimes or never comfortable with SRO’s on campus, 69% stated they would feel more comfortable if SRO’s were disarmed or were indifferent to this. Only 20% of students advocated for complete removal, and 42% said they would prefer to keep SRO’s, though 31% stated they would prefer an alternative. The second most agreed upon item on the form was that 58% of students had never interacted with an SRO. Many students were also not aware that our school has 4 SRO’s listed on our website that are involved with the school. Though 64% of respondents stated their interaction with SRO’s had been positive, 17% described them as uncomfortable and unhelpful. Some specific responses I want to point out are as follows :  “It was intimidating and it felt unneeded to an extent. It just made me overall feel like I’m guilty of something I haven’t done.”,  “awkward. he was trying to be threatening and it made me feel ridiculously uncomfortable, as it was odd that a man who was hired to “protect and assist” kids was trying so hard to scare them.”, and “Awkward, scary and unnecessary.”. To help bridge this gap between students and SRO’s, I propose that there should be an assembly at the beginning of the year where all 4 SRO’s introduce themselves and state what their job is on campus. There may also be a town hall style Q&A between students and all of the SRO’s. Putting aside my own biases, these are recommendations based on what the student body wants.

These changes would be a positive step forward for both our school and our county. Though certain policies will not be new to our area, like disarmed SRO’s, we would be pioneering innovative policies like a drug buyback system which would encourage surrounding schools to do the same. This will establish our school as innovative and student-centered, which might make our school more attractive to prospective students. These policies are a great first step in making sure our school is a more comfortable and equitable environment for every student.