Turning off fhe School-to-Prison PipelineHarry Wilson

Zero-tolerance practices of exclusionary discipline fuel school failure and push studentsinto the justice system. Inclusive school climates with restorative practices foster academicsuccess leading to positive life outcomes.

The causal link between educational exclu-sion and criminalization of youth is called

the school-to-prison pipeline. This is a byproduct of"zero tolerance" polices which have been widelydiscredited by research (APA, 2008; Skiba, 2or4).However, these practices are still widespread inthe United States and have been exported world-wide (Wacquant, 1999). School failure and ex-clusion predict poor life outcomes and are im-plicated in the mass incarceration of boys andyoung men of color. Still, these are not insolubleproblems as educators and policy makers are dis-covering effective strategies to engage instead ofexclude these students.

A Culture of IncarcerationWhile home to only 5% of the world's popula-tion, the U.S. has 25% of the world's prisoners. Ac-cording to the Criminal Justice Fact Sheet, prisonpopulations have quadrupled since 1980 (NAACP,2014). Persons of color make up the majority of thispopulation with African-Americans locked up atsix times the rate of whites. The United States hasbecome a culture of incarceration, removing fromsociety people who present difficult problems, in-cluding conditions caused by disability and addic-tion. Prisons spawn a new generation of future pris-oners: there are more than two million childrenwith at least one incarcerated parent, and theseyouth are five times more likely to end up in prisonthemselves (Murray & Farrington, 2005). Schoolsare a significant contributor to the current prisoncrisis with more than half of incarcerated individu-als entering prison without a high school diploma.

In the late 80s and early 90s, a rise in high-profileviolent and drug-related crime, particularly in ur-ban areas, was hyped by predictions that we wereraising a generation of "super predators." Fearing

the worst, jurisdictions raised penalties for juvenileoffenders. Boot Camps became a popular remedywith an emphasis on a heavy dose of coercive dis-cipline. Later research showed that the vast major-ity of "Boot Campers" subsequently wound up inprison (Lutze & Bell, 2005).

Legal scholar Michelle Alexander (2012) from TheOhio State University describes how zero toleranceschools effectively funnel students of color fromschools to jails. Schools have adopted the samestrategies as courts and seek to remove studentswhose problematic behavior "gets in the way oflearning." Harsh disciplinary procedures, school-based police officers, mandatory reporting of be-havioral incidents, andthe use of school exclu-sion as a punishmenthave become common-place. School referralsto police and juvenilejustice have soared eventhough national crimetrends have been on thedecline for over two de-cades (OJJDP, 2012).

The very policies that schoolsadopted to manage behavior

and increase achievement arefostering failure and feedingthe school-to-prison pipeline.

Zero Tolerance in SchoolsZero tolerance is a political-media même that castsall social problems as issues of security (Wacquant,1999). By definition, zero tolerance refers to strict,uncompromising, automatic punishment to elimi-nate undesirable behavior. This notion had its rootsas urban police were given carte blanche to makearrests for the smallest offenses and to removehomeless people in hopes of reducing more seri-ous crime (Wacquant, 1999). While this contradictsprinciples of trust building central to communitypolicing, severe measures become popular whenfear of crime is high.

When applied to schools, the zero tolerance men-tality totally contradicts the principle of "zero re-ject" which underlies U.S. special education law.Suspension and expulsion are "exclusionary dis-cipline" policies which remove the student fromnormal education opportunities because of ruleinfraction. In the justice system, zero tolerance ledto severe penalties for criminal acts. Mirrored byschools, discipline policies mandate predeterminedpunishments for specific offenses (James & Freeze,2006). This precludes educators from focusing onthe individual needs of the student since securitybecomes sacrosanct.

The justification for zero tolerance was fed by theperception that the public was being flooded by acrime wave (Potter & Kappeler, 2006). Constant at-tention to school shootings also sparked a fervor toprofile troublemakers. One response was the GunFree Schools Act passed by Congress in 1994. This re-quired schools to enforce zero tolerance of dangerous

weapons by expelling students and making court re-ferrals if they brought a gun, explosives, or commit-ted arson at school. Schools were forced to complywith the act or risk losing federal funding.

Before long, schools escalated the range of reasonsfor suspending and expelling students to includeviolating policies about alcohol, tobacco, drugs,

fighting, insubordina-tion, dress code, and"disruptive behavior."Removal for rule-break-ing became the defaultposition under the myththat this made schoolsmore secure (Kupchik,2012). An Ohio fifthgrader was recently sus-pended from his ele-mentary school for three

days because he pointed his finger "in the shape ofa gun" and pulled an imaginary trigger while play-ing with his friends; the letter from the principalto the parents cited his finger as a "level 2 lookalikefirearm" (Bush, 2014).

Ironically, the very policies that schools adoptedto manage behavior and increase achievement arefostering failure and feeding the school-to-pris-on pipeline (Christie, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005).These include school policing, widespread stu-dent searches, and strict rules with consequencesdictated by school discipline handbooks. Miss-ing school contradicts the core goal of schools-achievement—and high-stakes testing furtherplunges students into failure, grade retention, anddropping out of school.

Exclusion and suspension have become standardtools for schools to demand obedience and com-pliance. Incidents once handled by a trip to theprincipal's office are dealt with by police and thejustice system, contributing to the climate of sus-pension and exclusion (Kupchik, 2012). Teach-ers with poor classroom management skills turnto exclusionary tactics to essentially eliminatethe problems and only teach those who "want tolearn" or will conform. Some had predicted thatzero tolerance policies with inflexible rules wouldeliminate bias and uneven administration of dis-cipline, yet the opposite occurred. Zero tolerancepolicies caused imbalance as minority studentswere significantly more likely to be "pushed out"of schools and into the juvenile justice system (Ev-ans & Didlick-Davis, 2012).

50 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com

Challenging Zero ToleranceAdvocates for abolishing zero tolerance are tak-ing their argument to state houses and school dis-tricts across the nation. Excessive use of exclusionhas become a national concern in both educationand juvenile justice reform. In 2011, EducationSecretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General EricHolder introduced a new initiative at a meeting ofthe Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (of which the author wasa member). They announced a new partnershipcalled the Supportive School Discipline Initiativeto address the school-to-prison pipeline and relateddisciplinary policies. Attorney General Holder stat-ed, "We need to ensure that our educational sys-tem is a doorway to opportunity and not a point ofentry to our criminal justice system." By bringingtogether government, law enforcement, academic,and community leaders, the goal was to ensure fairdiscipline policies which are not obstacles to futuregrowth and achievement.

This initiative led to extensive longitudinal researchwith Texas middle school students entitled: BreakingSchools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Disci-pline Relates to Student's Success and Juvenile JusticeInvolvement (Council of State Governments JusticeCenter, 2oir). More than a million records were col-lected on three different cohorts of seventh gradersfor a period of three years. Then each cohort was fol-lowed through the twelfth grade. The records werecross-checked with other child welfare and juvenilejustice records across the state.

It is important that the entirecommunity, both professionalsand students, share a common

vision for their school.

The Breaking Schools' Rules study revealed that ex-cluding students was an extreme yet common prac-tice, with 54% of all students experiencing at leastone in-school suspension and 31% of all studentsspending on average two days at home at least oncein their school career. The study further foundthat students with one suspension event were fivetimes more likely to drop out. And, students whowere suspended as a disciplinary action were nearlythree times more likely to have a juvenile justicecontact in the following year. Perhaps the moststartling statistic in the Texas study was that thismassive level of exclusion was discretionary. Only3% of exclusions were for behaviors where state

law mandated suspension or expulsion—and therewere no racial differences on the incidence of theseserious offenses. However, gy% were at the discre-tion of educators—and children of color were sig-nificantly more likely to be removed.

This same pattern was reported by the NationalEducational Policy Center at the University ofColorado (Eosen, 2011) as schools increasinglyhave suspended students for nonviolent offenses.In the words of the Eos Angeles superintendentJohn Deasey, "It's not violence, weapons—it'sdefiance" (Rojas, 2011). While there are many ef-fective ways to handle defiance, exclusion onlyfurther damages the bond between students,families, and school staff. Those smaller numbersof students presenting serious emotional and be-havioral problems need interventions tailored tomeet their needs if they are to become responsi-ble, contributing citizens.

Pathways to ChangeSince zero tolerance policies have been common-place for two decades, they will not disappear justbecause researchers or federal officials declare thepractice an abject failure. A generation of teach-ers and parents have been told these punitivemethods are necessary to keep control and main-tain safety. Removing exclusionary practicesfrom the educator's tool box will require seriousstaff development and often a change in personalphilosophies. Research has shown that educatorscan prevent students from entering the pipelineby establishing relationships of mutual trust,building a caring learning environment, and ap-plying positive behavioral approaches to preventand respond to problem behavior (Coggshall,Osher, & Colombi, 2013). However, some schooldistricts are entrenched in what they know andresist new ideas. Others try to be evidence drivenbut grasp for various interventions without de-veloping their own culturally competent theoryof change.

An effective new model for creating change is theprofessional learning community (Dufour, Dufour, &Eaker, 2008; Hannay, Ben Jaafar, & Earl, 2013). Edu-cators in positions of authority become knowledgeleaders instead of managers. A key goal is to developpersonal and professional knowledge about effectiveteaching and learning. It is also important that theentire community, both professionals and students,share a common vision for their school. This enablesschools to better engage students and develop moreeffective classroom management practices.

spring 2014 volume 23, number 1 | 51

To build a professional learning community, educa-tors need ongoing opportunities to engage in pro-fessional dialogue about their practice and assessevidence about what works. Eliminating zero tol-erance involves personal as well as system change.Putting student needs first is primary. This requiresnew ways of responding to disruptive behaviorso these problems become learning opportuni-ties—both for students and staff. There is now arich body of scientific and practical evidence aboutwhat works to move schools beyond folk psychol-ogy (Hattie & Yates, 2013).

The evidence is clear:policies that seek to exclude

students from our schools andthe educational process are not

in the public's best interest.

Beyond teacher and administrator efficacy, strat-egies for system change are designed to turn offthe school-to-prison pipeline. Schools can engagemany different community stakeholders, includ-ing representatives from the juvenile court, countygovernment, law enforcement, social services, par-ents, and citizens. Working together, participantslearn about the social and financial costs of push-ing students out of the schools and identify positivealternatives which help all students learn and grow.

Four Steps to Cut Off theSchool-to Prison-Pipeline1. Eliminate Zero Tolerance

The evidence is clear: policies that seek to excludestudents from our schools and the educational pro-cess are not in the public's best interest. The harm ofremoval is too great a cost as children, families, andcommunities are being systematically torn apart.Zero tolerance is outmoded and all remnants shouldbe eliminated. Even existing federal policy relatedto weapons in school allows for mitigating circum-stances which permit discretionary enforcement.

2. Personal Efficacy and Systemic Change

School administrators and teachers are embrac-ing the need for new training in building positiveschool climates. These changes enable individu-als to explore their personal theories of behaviorand management so that a caring community canbe created within classrooms and schools. Bestpractices employ culturally sensitive models that

challenge students to excellence rather than forcecompliance. These are essential steps toward end-ing exclusionary practices that feed the school-toprison-pipeline.

3. Community Support

There is a reciprocal connection between the qual-ity of schools and the vitality of a community. Thepower of schools to strengthen and change the so-ciety is a core principle of building a democracy.The entire community can be enlisted in efforts toeliminate the pipeline. This can include parents,teachers, libraries, boosters, service clubs, youthdevelopment organizations, faith groups, and oth-ers in a position to directly support students andschools. Other groups that benefit indirectly fromquality schools include the courts, law enforce-ment, realtors, businesses, and senior citizens.

4. Youth Engagement

Students in Michigan created a community advoca-cy group named Youth Voice (2014) which organizedstudent rallies and marches in Detroit and acrossthe state, drawing attention to the school-to-prisonpipeline. Mentored by community organizers andlaw students, these brilliant young people have theirown stories to tell about being excluded from schoolfor minor infractions or in some cases a simple mis-understanding between teacher and student. YouthVoice has presented at statewide conferences to enlistother communities in learning how to advocate forthe elimination of zero tolerance policies. Throughtheir own research on best practices, students arehelping schools embrace Restorative Practices to re-solve issues peacefully and productively.

ConclusionTim McDonald (2013) of Australia notes that schoolsthroughout the Western world are under increas-ing pressure to lift standards of achievement—whileat the same time encountering growing numbers ofstudents who are difficult to teach. Educators havedifficulty making sense of the plethora of theoriesand programs competing for their attention. He sug-gests that an effective model needs to meet a few basicstandards. Schools must organize around the needsof students. A positive school climate is essential toengage students. High quality instruction is needed ifstudents are to develop the competence necessary inthe 2ist century. Further, the school must have posi-tive strategies for dealing with challenging behavior.He concludes, "The universal needs identified by theCircle of Courage provide a solid foundation to devel-op positive classrooms and schools" (p. 77).

52 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournai.com

The Circle of Courage keeps the focus on four pow-erful life outcomes: Belonging results with positiveconnections to teachers and among peers. Masteryenables students to develop talents and strengthsand solve problems. Independence involves oppor-tunities to develop self-control and responsibility.Generosity is grounded in the core value of respect,in other words, becoming my brother's keeper.

Harry Wilson, MA, is a Senior Fellow at ICF Inter-national in Washington, DC. He serves on the boardof the National Network for Youth and co-founded theFederal Mentoring Council. In his role as AssociateCommissioner for the Family and Youth Services Bu-reau he represented HHS on the Coordinating Councilat OflDP and led the President's Mentoring Children ofPrisoners initiative. Harry spent the first two decades ofhis career at Starr Commonwealth in Michigan in vari-ous roles including youth worker, trainer, and adminis-trator. He can be contacted at Harry.Wilson@icfi.com

References

Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration inthe age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.

APA. (2008). American Psychological Association TaskForce: Are zero tolerance policies effective in theschools? An evidentiary review and recommendations.American Psychologist, 63(9), 852-862.

Bush, B. (2014). Boy points finger like gun, gets suspended.Columbus Dispatch, March 23, 2014.

Christie, C, Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breakingthe school to prison pipeline: Identifying school riskand protective factors for youth delinquency. Excep-tionality: A Special Education Journal, 13(2), 69-88.

Coggshall, J., Osher, D., & Colombi, G. (2013). Enhancingeducators' capacity to stop the school-to-prison pipe-line, fami/y Cowrfiîeview, 51(3), 435-444.

Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2011). Break-ing schools' rules: A statewide study of how school disciplinerelates to students' success and juvenile justice involvement.New York, NY: Author.

Dufour, R., Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting profes-sional learning communities at work: New insights for im-proving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Evans, M.P., & Didlick-Davis, C. (2012). Organizing to endthe school-to-prison pipeline: An analysis of grassrootsorganizing campaigns and policy solutions. e-Journal ofEducation Policy. Retrieved from http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/Fall-2012/

James, S., & Freeze, R. (2006). One step forward, two stepsback: Immanent critique of the practice of zero toler-ance in inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclu-sive Education, 10(6), 581-594.

Hannay, L., Ben Jaafar, S., & Earl, L. (2013). A case study ofdistrict leadership using knowledge management foreducational change. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, 26(1), 64-82.

Hattie,J., & Yates, G. (2013). Visible learning and the science ofhow we learn. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kupchik, A. (2012). Homeroom security: School discipline in anage of fear. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Losen, D. (2011). Discipline policies, successful schools, and ra-cial justice. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.

Lutze, F., & Bell, C. (2005). Boot camp prisons as masculineorganizations: Rethinking recidivism and program de-sign. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(3/4), 133-152.

McDonald, T. (2013). Classroom management: Engaging stu-dents in learning (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia:Oxford University Press.

Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprison-ment: Effects on boys' antisocial behaviour and delin-quency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry, 46{i2), 1269-1278.

NAACP. (2014). NAACP Criminal justice fact sheet. Retrievedfrom http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

Potter, G., & Rappeler, V. (2006). Constructing crime: Perspec-tive on making news and social problems. Long Grove, IL:Waveland Press.

OJJDP. (2012). Statistical briefing book. Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/

Rojas, R. (2011, October 6). Zero-tolerance policies push-ing up school suspensions, report says. Los AngelesTimes. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/o6/local/la-me-ioo6-discipline-2oiiioo6.

Skiba, R. {2014). The failure of zero tolerance. ReclaimingChildren and Youth, 22(4), 27-33.

Wacquant, L. (1999). The ideology of insecurity: This puni-tive wind comes from America. Le Monde Diplomatique,April.

Youth Voice (2014). Harriet Tubman Center: Youth Voice.Detroit, Ml. Retrieved from http://tubmanorganizing.org/pro j ects/youthvoice/

spring 2014 volume 23, number 1 | 53

Copyright of Reclaiming Children & Youth is the property of Reclaiming Youth Internationaland its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.