The School-to-Prison Pipeline

By: Jun Jang and Joli Dou

Edited By: Christina Vo

Illustrations By: Alexus Lee

On May 14th, 2020, a black student was detained by the Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan, a motion for her release being declined by the judge this past Monday. Her heinous crime? Failure to complete her homework when her school transitioned to remote learning amongst the COVID pandemic. Just a few years prior, another black student from Michigan was arrested for a minor misunderstanding between himself and his teacher about a note he had jokingly written. These cases are just a few instances of a long-lasting phenomenon known as the school-to-prison pipeline, a term used to describe the various aspects of administrative policies and enforcement practices that push students, usually members of minority populations, out of schools and into direct contact with the criminal justice system.

A Failing Education System

The school-to-prison pipeline has been in existence since the start of schools as institutions, with its origin being deeply rooted in the extreme deficiencies of our education system. Budget cuts to education, in particular, have dramatically increased the influence of the pipeline, fostering inadequate learning environments for students around the nation. In 2017, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed data from the United States Census Bureau and determined that “Twenty-nine states provided less overall state funding per student in the 2015 school year (the most recent year available) than in the 2008 school year, before the recession took hold.” Such cuts lead to underfunded programs that are unable to meet students’ needs, overcrowded classrooms that prevent teachers from being able to engage with students meaningfully, and an overt lack of general resources such as counselors, extracurriculars, and textbooks which serves to hinder the educational development of students, to name a few effects.

When students are deliberately set up to fail, what recourse is there for them to fall back upon? For many, the only reasonable option becomes dropping out in favor of entering the workforce early, a decision that not only becomes costly in the future, but also increases their chances of interacting with the juvenile justice system, and eventually the criminal justice system. Analysis of data by EduationData.org found that 4.7% of high school students dropped out in 2017, compared to the 3.5% recorded in 2007. It also found that nearly 83% of incarcerated persons were high school dropouts, with over 60% of high school dropouts being rearrested for repeat criminal activity.

To make matters worse, schools are actually incentivized to push students with poor test scores towards dropping out. The ACLU notes how “schools may actually encourage dropouts in response to pressures from test-based accountability regimes such as the No Child Left Behind Act, which create incentives to push out low-performing students to boost overall test scores.” When high school dropouts were asked about whether their schools attempted to prevent their dropping out, only 37% responded that their schools tried to talk them into staying. An even smaller percent of dropouts, 24%, responded that their schools offered to help them with their personal problems, a clear indication not only of how schools try to drive some students out, but also how limited their counseling personnel are in cases where students may need them.

“Zero-Tolerance” Policies and their Consequences

In the 1990s, the gravity of societal events swung the pendulum from in-school discipline to harsh criminalization. With a limited amount of qualified staff, and in the aftermath of the rise of school shootings and the Guns-Free School Act, many school authorities turned towards drastic disciplinary measures to ensure the safety of their campuses. Ever notice how breaking the smallest of rules while in school could result in seemingly unwarranted punishments? Something as asinine as running in the halls could result in referrals to school authority figures - the principal, deans, law enforcement, etc - while ownership of innocuous banned items (perhaps a stick of gum or a Sharpie) could result in detentions and, in many cases, suspension/expulsion. These “zero-tolerance” policies were implemented while keeping the broken window theory of policing in mind, under the assumption that cracking down on smaller infractions would prevent higher-profile crimes from ever occurring in the first place. The shift was reflective of the general “tough-on-crime” mindset society had adopted, with the logic behind the War on Drugs, which created draconian policies like three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing, also being adopted into the realm of educational discipline. Disciplinary action was undoubtedly on the rise, with suspension/expulsion becoming a favorite punishment for students deemed guilty of any offense, regardless of severity.

Since the 1970s, the suspension rate of students of all races has nearly doubled, due to its widespread usage as a consequence for offenses that “previously hadn’t warranted them - talking back to teachers, skipping class, or being otherwise disobedient or disruptive” (The Justice Policy Institute). The suspension/expulsion of students removes them from a stable learning environment that could be used to aid them in their struggles, instead placing them in a situation where, with no access to coursework and constructive activities, dropping out becomes a more viable (and attractive) option. A 2012 study conducted by John Hopkins University reported that suspension increased the chance of a student dropping out from 16% to 32%, with each additional suspension afterwards raising that chance by another 10%. For students that choose to stay in the school system following their first suspension, they suffer an associated consequence that makes it harder for them to avoid becoming the subject of future disciplinary action: their disciplinary record. Authority figures, especially law enforcement, are more likely to be wary of students that have a history of misbehavior, making it more likely for students that’ve been suspended once to be on the receiving end of further encounters with disciplinary action - an increase in referrals for disobedience, greater suspicion as suspects for serious crimes, etc. This increase in swift judgement without due process is incredibly dangerous when considering how law enforcement has a part in taking students out of schools and throwing them into prisons.

Into the Juvenile Justice System

Where zero-tolerance policies become easy routes for students to end up in the criminal justice system, this is how they’re enforced by law enforcement and the juvenile court. Campus police officers, also known as student resource officers (SROs), have been integral to the expansion of the pipeline, serving as the primary source of contact between students and prisons. In 1975, SROs were present in a mere one percent of U.S. schools. Following Columbine, Santana, and other high-profile crimes, that number had jumped to 69 percent in 2007. These officers were initially hired for the sole purpose of keeping the students safe, but, in the past few years, the opposite has been true, with many groups, including the Justice Policy Institute and the ACLU, noting how “Police in schools...can create an environment that makes learning difficult, and in some cases...have created the violence that they are supposed to prevent” due to their lack of training in regards to interacting with youth. Rather than focusing on the serious crimes they were supposed to prevent in schools, SROs have transitioned to aiding the school system in the enforcement of their zero-tolerance policies, arresting, detaining, interrogating, and restraining students for the most minor of offenses. A 2011 report from the Justice Policy Institute by JPI Associate Director Amanda Petteruti found that “when schools have law enforcement on site, students are more likely to be arrested by police instead of discipline being handled by school officials.” In particular, at schools with SROs, the rate of arrests for disorderly conduct was nearly five times those of schools without. As Petteruti writes, “This leads to more kids being funneled into the juvenile justice system, which is both expensive and associated with a host of negative impacts on youth.”

Once in the hands of law enforcement, youth are thrown into the juvenile justice system, developing a permanent record that makes it easier for repeat offenses to be punished with even harsher consequences. Juvenile courts first arose in the late 1800s as part of the Progressive movement to “Americanize” immigrants into a socially desirable mold. These courts were the incarnation of the white-savior complex; they were designed to “save” poor, immigrant children whose parents were inadequate moral caregivers. The movement shifted family structure, drawing a sharp line between adults and children; “children” were innocent, vulnerable, and dispossessed of autonomy. By combining this denial of agency with the legal doctrine of parens patriae, or “the State as parent,” juvenile courts were established. There were no juries, no lawyers, and no meaningful standard of proof, conditions that still remain today. The ACLU maintains that youth that become involved in the juvenile justice system have their procedural protections denied in court, to the extent that “in one state, up to 80% of court-involved children do not have lawyers.” The system, which is heavily skewed against the student, results in disciplinary measures that remove students from normal learning conditions, placing them in environments fundamentally structured to keep youth away from success. Probation officers retain the same shortcomings as their SRO counterparts, making it entirely plausible for a student to be charged repeatedly for “violating their provisions” with relative ease. Alternative schools are ineffective at making up for the ineptitudes of traditional schooling, with over half having graduation rates of lower than 50% (EducationData.org). Juvenile detention centers are perhaps the greatest link between schools and the adult criminal justice system, being a literal precursor to a life in prison. While keeping all the consequences associated with suspension/expulsion, juvenile detention centers also notoriously lack the resources necessary to keep students engaged in constructive activities and the like. With a focus on isolation over all else, students that go through the juvenile justice system end up behind their peers both academically and socially, with their “delinquency,” preventing connections that otherwise would have been fostered naturally. Stuck in a negative feedback loop, “High school students who come in contact with the courts are more likely to drop out. Two-thirds to three-fourths of youth who were confined in a juvenile justice facility withdrew or dropped out within a year of re-enrolling; after four years, less than 15 percent of these youth had completed their secondary education” (The Justice Policy Institute).

Enforcement Bias, the BIPOC Community, and Mental Disabilities

Studies have shown over the years that the US education system remains one of the most unequal in the world, and the school-to-prison pipeline is no exception to that trend. Though the pipeline is, in and of itself, a very prevalent issue that needs to be addressed, it’s ramifications for BIPOC students and students with disabilities makes it’s gradual abolishment a vital priority for those fighting for equitable education. BIPOC students tend to be on the lower side of the socioeconomic spectrum, attending schools in low-income areas that feel the effects of underfunding to much more severe extents than schools in affluent, majorly white neighborhoods. Per the Center for American Progress, “More than 35 percent of public school revenue comes from property taxes that favor and stabilize funding in wealthier areas, while other communities must rely on more volatile state revenues,” which is why “predominantly nonwhite school districts across the country annually receive $23 billion less than their predominantly white counterparts.” Teachers in low-income schools tend to be less qualified than their counterparts in “elite” schools, while police presence tends to be much heavier. This combination enables zero-tolerance policies to prosper, penalizing BIPOC students harshly for their socioeconomic status.

Implicit bias on the side of administrators and SROs also plays a role in allowing the school-to-prison pipeline to disproportionately affect BIPOC communities, becoming enforcement bias as they racially profile students and act upon their preconceived notions of how certain groups behave. An ACLU report found that “Nationally, Black students are more than twice as likely as their white classmates to be referred to law enforcement,” and that “Black students are three times as likely to be arrested as their white classmates.” Latinx students followed closely behind, being “1.5 times more likely to be suspended and twice as likely to be expelled as their White peers,” according to a report by the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). The Black Women’s Justice Institute reported in 2017 that black girls were more than six times more likely to receive a suspension than white girls, making up 43% of law enforcement referrals despite making up a mere 16% of female students. Enforcement bias had a hand in all of the aforementioned statistics; it was reported by the Justice Policy Institute that “black students were more likely to be disciplined for more subjective reasons, such as disrespect,” as opposed to white students, who were only disciplined for offenses with solid evidence - drug use, possession of a weapon, etc. Latinx youth were “three times more likely to be suspended, expelled, and referred to court than White youth who commit[ted] the same infractions,” emphasis on the same infractions (NCLR). The system is especially designed to target black girls, who are forced to adopt one of two identities - good or ghetto - when they enter the school environment. As the African American Policy Forum explains, “When Black girls do engage in acts that are deemed ‘ghetto’ or a deviation from the social norms that define female behavior according to a narrow, White middle-class definition of femininity, they are deemed nonconformative and thereby subject to criminalizing responses.” These inherent beliefs of those in power affect BIPOC communities in a way that serves to keep them chained to the school-to-prison pipeline instead of providing them the means to advance in their education.

Students with disabilities are amongst one of the most vulnerable populations that are pushed through the pipeline by law enforcement. “Overall, students with disabilities were nearly three times more likely to be arrested and referred than students without disabilities (and this disparity increases up to tenfold in some states), and the risk is multiplied in schools with police,” reported the ACLU in 2020. When school authorities are given the ability to bypass procedural due process, punish students for “acting disrespectfully,” and ultimately remove them from a safe learning environment, it’s unsurprising that BIPOC students with disabilities are the ones most at-risk when faced with modern school disciplinary policies. The 2014 Civil Rights Data Collection reported a number of startling statistics in regards to the disciplinary actions leveled against those with disabilities:

• Students with disabilities are more than twice as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension (13%) than students without disabilities (6%).

• With the exception of Latino and Asian-American students, more than one out of four boys of color with disabilities (served by IDEA) — and nearly one in five girls of color with disabilities — receives an out-of-school suspension.

• Students with disabilities (served by IDEA) represent a quarter of students arrested and referred to law enforcement, even though they are only 12% of the overall student population.

• Students with disabilities (served by IDEA) represent 12% of the student population, but 58% of those are placed in seclusion or involuntary confinement, and 75% of those are physically restrained at school to immobilize them or reduce their ability to move freely. Black students represent 19% of students with disabilities served by IDEA, but 36% of these students who are restrained at school through the use of a mechanical device or equipment designed to restrict their freedom of movement.

Long-Term Repercussions

Nonviolent activities like truancy and “disruptive behavior” earn wealthy white students laughs and perhaps an offhanded rebuke by the teacher; for black students, these are crimes that could cost them far into adulthood. Up to 75 percent of incarcerated teens withdraw from high school, and dropouts, they are 3.5 times more likely to face criminal arrests than high school graduates. Factor in the racial skew in juvenile criminalization, and the issue becomes clear. Today, 68 percent of imprisoned males do not have high school diplomas, and over 60 percent of the incarcerated population is made up of black and Latino inmates. Furthermore, the stigma of a criminal record and lack of a diploma often serve as barriers to socioeconomic opportunities for students following juvenile detention. For BIPOC students who are already systematically disadvantaged, there are few ways out of the criminal justice system’s web once they are caught.

Rupturing the Pipeline

When our society is more willing to defend unborn children than we are to provide for their welfare once they are born; when we claim that BIPOC parents have failed as caretakers after we as a society have failed them, is that not the cruelest form of irony?

The continued presence of juvenile courts is symptomatic of our savior-complex society. Similar to the white-savior complex, the parental-savior complex denies personhood and autonomy. While minors do deserve unique protections, a system based on the assumption of minors’ inherent lack of responsibility is more patronizing than protective. We, as a society, must shatter the 19th century-Progressive, child-savior illusion that juvenile courts can create meaningful change.

This is not to say that criminal courts are a preferable alternative. It is precisely because we acknowledge the critical shortcomings of the CJS that we must rupture the pipeline that feeds it. We must plug the gap in education funding for BIPOC students, and divert the flow of social control from the States back to communities and families. We must make the switch from juvenile courts and SROs to tutoring and counseling, costing seven times as less. As Deborah Stipek, the Dean of Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education, writes, “We have the tools to sever the school to prison pipeline. We need to use them. Educate, don’t incarcerate.”

Works Cited

Bustamante, Jaleesa. “High School Dropout Rate.” EducationData.org, 23 September 2019. https://educationdata.org/high-school-dropout-rate/

Chatterji, Roby. “Fighting Systemic Racism in K-12 Education: Helping Allies Move From the Keyboard to the School Board.” Center for American Progress, 8 July 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/news/2020/07/08/487386/fighting-systemic-racism-k-12-education-helping-allies-move-keyboard-school-board/

Copeland, Camden. “The Dangers of the ‘School-to-Prison’ Pipeline.” Public Policy Initiative, Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania. 13 Aug. 2015. https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/831-the-dangers-of-the-school-to-prison-pipeline

Duncan, Arne. “Civil Rights Data Collection Data Snapshot: School Discipline.” U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, 21 March 2014. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf

Elias, Marilyn. “The School-to-Prison Pipeline.” Teaching Tolerance, 2013. https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/spring-2013/the-school-to-prison-pipeline

Feld, Barry. “The Transformation of the Juvenile Court.” 75 Minn. L. Rev. 691 (1991). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7277/3eecbd735328536073f4ad96911d2fb5aca7.pdf

Hanson, Kathryn and Stipek, Deborah. “Schools v. prisons: Education’s the way to cut prison populations.” The Mercury News. 15 May 2014. https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/05/15/schools-v-prisons-educations-the-way-to-cut-prison-population/

Hughes, Zerline & Jason Fenster. “School Resource Officers are a Waste of Resources, Says New Report.” Justice Policy Institute, 15 November 2011. http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/3178

Jones, Elizabeth Pufall. “The Link Between Suspensions, Expulsions, and Dropout Rates.” America’s Promise Alliance, 5 September 2018. https://www.americaspromise.org/opinion/link-between-suspension

Kaba, Mariame. How the School-to-Prison Pipeline Works. Teen Vogue, 10 Oct 2017. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-the-school-to-prison-pipeline-works

Leachman, Michael et al. “A Punishing Decade for School Funding.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 29 November 2017. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishing-decade-for-school-funding

Losen, Daniel J. & Russell J. Skiba. “Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis.” Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/Suspended_Education.pdf

Morris, Monique. “Race, Gender, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline.” African American Policy Forum, 2012. http://schottfoundation.org/sites/default/files/resources/Morris-Race-Gender-and-the-School-to-Prison-Pipeline.pdf

Nelson, Libby & Dara Lind. “The school to prison pipeline, explained.” Justice Policy Institute, 24 February 2015. http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/8775s-expulsions-and-dropout-rates#:~:text=That%20same%20study%20found%20that,percent%20to%20a%2032%20percent.&text=Further%2C%20in%20a%202014%20study,schools%20having%20higher%20dropout%20rates.

Resendes, West. “Police in Schools Continue to Target Black, Brown, and Indigenous Students with Disabilities. The Trump Administration Has Data That’s Likely to Prove It.” American Civil Liberties Union, 9 July 2020. https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/police-in-schools-continue-to-target-black-brown-and-indigenous-students-with-disabilities-the-trump-administration-has-data-thats-likely-to-prove-it/

Sallo, Marlene. “School-to-Prison Pipeline: Zero Tolerance for Latino Youth.” National Council of La Raza, 2011. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/pdo/ppw/pubs/documents/zerotolerance_factsheet22011.pdf

“School-to-Prison Pipeline.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline

Whitaker, Amir et al. “Cops and No Counselors.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/report/cops-and-no-counselors