View source for School-to-prison pipeline

{{short description|Tendency of U.S. adolescents from disadvantaged backgrounds to become incarcerated}}{{Globalize|date=June 2023|2=US}}
{{Use American English|date=April 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=November 2022}}
In the [[United States]], the '''school-to-prison pipeline''' ('''SPP'''), also known as the '''school-to-prison link''', '''school–prison nexus''', or '''schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track''', is the disproportionate tendency of minors and young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds to become incarcerated because of increasingly harsh school and municipal policies. Additionally, this is due to [[educational inequality in the United States]]. Many experts have credited factors such as [[school disturbance laws]], [[Zero-tolerance policies in schools|zero-tolerance policies and practices]], and an increase in [[police in schools]] in creating the "pipeline".{{sfn|Heitzeg|2009}} This has become a hot topic of debate in discussions surrounding educational disciplinary policies as media coverage of youth violence and mass incarceration has grown during the early 21st century.{{sfn|Heitzeg|2009}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McGrew |first1=Ken |title=The Dangers of Pipeline Thinking: How the School-To-Prison Pipeline Metaphor Squeezes Out Complexity |journal=Educational Theory |date=June 2016 |volume=66 |issue=3 |pages=341–367 |doi=10.1111/edth.12173 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Richardson |first1=John |last2=Judge |first2=Douglas |title=The Intergroup Dynamics of a Metaphor: The School-to-Prison Pipeline |journal=Journal of Educational Controversy |date=1 January 2013 |volume=7 |issue=1 |url=https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol7/iss1/9/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mora |first1=Richard |last2=Christianakis |first2=Mary |title=Feeding the School-to-Prison Pipeline: The Convergence of Neoliberalism, Conservativism, and Penal Populism |journal=Journal of Educational Controversy |date=1 January 2013 |volume=7 |issue=1 |url=https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol7/iss1/5/ }}</ref>
The term ''school–prison nexus'' in place of ''school-to-prison pipeline'' is sometimes used to challenge the idea of a unidirectional pipeline that begins in schools in order to show that schools work within a web of institutions, policies, and practices that funnel youth into prisons. Moreover, it may no longer operate as a "pathway" to prison but instead as a ''de facto'' prison.<ref>{{Cite news|first1=Subini|last1=Annamma|first2=David|last2=Stovall|date=July 14, 2020|title=Do #BlackLivesMatter in schools? Why the answer is 'no.'|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/07/14/do-blacklivesmatter-schools-why-answer-is-no/|access-date=October 17, 2020}}</ref>
The current climate of [[mass incarceration]] in the US increases the contact the incarceration system has with the US education system. More specifically, these patterns of [[criminalization]] translate into the school context.{{sfn|Heitzeg|2009}} Specific practices implemented in US schools over the past 10&nbsp;years{{when|date=June 2021}} to reduce [[violence in schools]], including zero-tolerance policies and an increase in [[school resource officer]]s (SROs), have created the environment for criminalization of youth in schools. This results from patterns of discipline in schools mirroring law-enforcement models.
The disciplinary policies and practices that create an environment for the US SPP to occur disproportionately affect [[disabled]], [[Latin Americans|Latino]], and [[African Americans|Black]] students, which is later reflected in the rates of incarceration. Between 1999 and 2007, the percentage of Black students being suspended has increased by 12&nbsp;percent, while the percentage of white students being suspended has declined since the implementation of zero-tolerance policies.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hoffman |first1=Stephen |title=Zero Benefit |journal=Educational Policy |date=13 September 2012 |volume=28 |issue=1 |pages=69–95 |doi=10.1177/0895904812453999 |s2cid=143745629 }}</ref> Of the total incarcerated population in the US, 61&nbsp;percent are Black or Latino.<ref name="NAACP Criminal Justice Fact Sheet"/>
== History ==
[[File:U.S. incarceration rates 1925 onwards.png|thumb|350px|A graph of the incarceration rate under state and federal jurisdiction per 100,000&nbsp;population 1925–2008 (omits local jail inmates). The '''male incarceration rate''' (''top line'') is roughly 15&nbsp;times the '''female rate''' (''bottom line'').]]
For the half-century prior to 1975, the [[Incarceration in the United States|incarceration]] rate in the US was fairly constant at roughly 0.1&nbsp;percent of the population, as indicated in the accompanying figure. The overall incarceration rate in the US has grown rapidly and steadily since 1972, rising by six to eight percent per year until 2000. Growth rates declined in the first decade of the 2000s and peaked at 506 per 100,000 in 2007 and 2008. From its peak in 2009 and 2010, the population of state and federal prisoners decreased slightly in 2011 and 2012. However, the incarceration rate, including those in jail, in 2012 was 707 per 100,000&nbsp;people, which was more than four times the rate in 1972.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/4|title=Read "The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences" at NAP.edu|year=2014|doi=10.17226/18613|isbn=978-0-309-29801-8|s2cid=155470810 |language=en}}</ref>
== Causes ==
{{See also|Zero-tolerance policies in schools}}
Exclusionary disciplinary policies, specifically zero-tolerance policies, that remove students from the school environment increase the probability of a youth coming into contact with the incarceration system. Zero-tolerance policies have led to the mistreatment of students' situations and strict disciplinary action which greatly impact the students' future, causing them to go to [[juvenile detention center]]s or prison.<ref name=":5" />
Approximately 3.3&nbsp;million suspensions and over 100,000&nbsp;expulsions occur each year. This number has nearly doubled since 1974, with rates escalating in the mid-1990s as zero-tolerance policies began to be widely adopted. Rising rates of the use of expulsion and suspension are not connected to higher rates of misbehaviors.{{sfn|Heitzeg|2009}} Risky behaviors is something suspended students will most likely engage in.<ref name="auto">{{Cite journal|title = School suspension and the school-to-prison pipeline|journal = International Review of Law and Economics|date = 2015-08-01|pages = 98–106|volume = 43| issue = 10|first1 =Alison|last1 = Cuellar|first2 = Sara|last2 = Markowitz|doi = 10.1016/j.irle.2015.06.001}}</ref> Zero-tolerance disciplinary policies have been adopted across the country.<ref name="auto"/>
Research is increasingly examining the connections between school failure and later contact with the criminal justice system for minorities.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rocque |first1=Michael |last2=Paternoster |first2=Raymond |title=Understanding the antecedents of the 'school-to-jail' link: The relationship between race and school discipline |journal=The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |date=2011 |volume=101 |issue=2 |pages=633–665 |jstor=23074048 }}</ref> Once a child drops out, they are eight times more likely to be incarcerated than youth who graduate from high school.<ref name=jstor24871277>{{cite journal |last1=Schept |first1=Judah |last2=Wall |first2=Tyler |last3=Brisman |first3=Avi |title=Building, Staffing, and Insulating: An Architecture of Criminological Complicity in the School-to-Prison Pipeline |journal=Social Justice |date=2014 |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=96–115 |id={{ProQuest|1713975672}} |jstor=24871277 }}</ref> Studies have found that 68&nbsp;percent of all males in state and federal prison do not have a high school diploma.<ref name=Amurao>{{cite web |title=Fact Sheet: How Bad Is the School-to-Prison Pipeline? |url=https://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/tsr/education-under-arrest/school-to-prison-pipeline-fact-sheet/ |website=Tavis Smiley, PBS |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130324072508/https://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/tsr/education-under-arrest/school-to-prison-pipeline-fact-sheet/ |archive-date=24 March 2013 |first1=Carla |last1=Amurao }}</ref> Suspensions and expulsions have been shown to correlate with a young person's probability of dropping out and becoming involved with the criminal justice system. According to the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], "Students suspended or expelled for a discretionary violation are nearly 3 times more likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice system the following year."<ref name="auto1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic|title=School-to-Prison Pipeline [Infographic]|website=American Civil Liberties Union|language=en|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref> However, it is unclear if the factors determining the risk of dropping out are not wholly or partially the same as the factors determining the risk of incarceration as an individual likely to enter the criminal justice system is also likely to encounter difficulties within the education system.
From 1980 to 2008, the number of people incarcerated in the US quadrupled from roughly 500,000 to 2.3&nbsp;million people.<ref name="NAACP Criminal Justice Fact Sheet">{{cite web |title=Criminal Justice Fact Sheet |url=http://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/ |website=NAACP |date=May 24, 2021 }}</ref> The graphic to the right shows the uniqueness of this practice in comparison to other countries across the globe, with the US incarcerating a larger portion of its population than any other country in 2008. The US holds 25&nbsp;percent of the world's prisoners but only has five percent of the world's population.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = The School-to-Prison Pipeline: The Business Side of Incarcerating, Not Educating, Students in Public Schools|last = Porter|first = Tracie|date = 2015|journal = Arkansas Review}}</ref>
== Disparities ==
{{See also|Youth incarceration in the United States}}
School disciplinary policies disproportionately affect Black and Latino youth in the education system. Ultimately, this means that they are more likely to be suspended, expelled, or arrested;{{sfn|Heitzeg|2009|p=8}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Theriot |first1=Matthew T. |title=School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior |journal=Journal of Criminal Justice |date=May 2009 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=280–287 |doi=10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.008 }}</ref> a practice known as the discipline gap. This discipline gap is also connected to the [[Achievement gaps in the United States|achievement gap]]. The US Department of Education [[Office for Civil Rights]] issued a brief in 2014 outlining the current disparities. Black students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than white students.<ref name="auto1"/> The [[Advancement Project]] found that "In the 2006-2007 school year, there was no state in which African-American students were not suspended more often than white students."<ref name=ssrn2658513/> On average, five percent of white students are suspended, compared to 16&nbsp;percent of Black students.{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}<ref>{{Cite web|publisher=U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights|date=March 21, 2014|title=Civil Rights Data Collection – Data Snapshot: School Discipline|url=https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230804030431/https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf |archive-date=Aug 4, 2023}}</ref> Black students represent 16&nbsp;percent of student enrollment, 27&nbsp;percent of students referred to law enforcement, and 31&nbsp;percent of students subjected to a school-related arrest. Combined, 70&nbsp;percent of students involved in "In-School arrests or referred to law enforcement are Black or Latino."<ref name="NAACP Criminal Justice Fact Sheet"/><ref name=Amurao/><ref name=NYCLU20080123/> The majority of these arrests are under [[Zero-tolerance policies in schools|zero-tolerance policies]].
Disparities were found in the implementation of zero-tolerance policies in relation to minor offenses. In 2010 in [[North Carolina]], Black students were punished for the same minor offenses, specifically cell phone, dress code, disruptive behavior, and display of affection by more than 15&nbsp;percent for each category of offense than white students. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, {{"'}}Zero-tolerance' policies criminalize minor infractions of school rules, while cops in school lead to students being criminalized for behavior that should be handled inside the school. Students of color are especially vulnerable to push-out trends and the discriminatory application of discipline."<ref name="auto1"/> Additionally, "The Council of State Governments Report found that black students were more likely to be disciplined for less serious 'discretionary' offenses, and that when other factors were controlled for, higher percentages of White students were disciplined on more serious non-discretionary grounds, such as possessing drugs or carrying a weapon."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Losen |first1=Daniel J. |title=Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, Racial Justice, and the Law |journal=Family Court Review |date=July 2013 |volume=51 |issue=3 |pages=388–400 |doi=10.1111/fcre.12035 }}</ref>
A 2009 study reported that the racial disparity in rates of school suspensions could not be explained solely by racial differences in rates of delinquent behavior and that this disparity in turn was "strongly associated with similar levels of disproportion in juvenile court referrals".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nicholson-Crotty |first1=Sean |last2=Birchmeier |first2=Zachary |last3=Valentine |first3=David |title=Exploring the Impact of School Discipline on Racial Disproportion in the Juvenile Justice System |journal=Social Science Quarterly |date=December 2009 |volume=90 |issue=4 |pages=1003–1018 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00674.x |doi-access=free }}</ref>{{Non-primary source needed|date=August 2019}} Similarly, a 2010 study found that Black students were more likely to be referred to the office than students of other races and that this disparity could be partly, but not completely, explained by student behavior and school-level factors.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rocque |first1=Michael |title=Office Discipline and Student Behavior: Does Race Matter? |journal=American Journal of Education |date=August 2010 |volume=116 |issue=4 |pages=557–581 |doi=10.1086/653629 |s2cid=146677121 }}</ref>{{Non-primary source needed|date=August 2019}} According to Fordham Law Review Online, "In the juvenile justice system, black girls are the fastest growing demographic when it comes to arrest and incarceration."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=Leah |title=Disturbing Disparities: Black Girls and the School-to-Prison Pipeline |journal=Fordham Law Review Online |date=8 March 2019 |volume=87 |issue=1 |url=https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flro/vol87/iss1/11 }}</ref> A 2014 study found that, although Black students were more likely to be suspended, this disparity "was completely accounted for by a measure of the prior problem behavior of the student" and concluded that "the use of suspensions by teachers and administrators may not have been as racially biased as some scholars have argued".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wright |first1=John Paul |last2=Morgan |first2=Mark Alden |last3=Coyne |first3=Michelle A. |last4=Beaver |first4=Kevin M. |last5=Barnes |first5=J.C. |title=Prior problem behavior accounts for the racial gap in school suspensions |journal=Journal of Criminal Justice |date=May 2014 |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=257–266 |doi=10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.01.001 }}</ref> Another 2015 study using a national high school dataset concluded that "misconduct and deviant attitudes were important factors in predicting the receipt of [[out-of-school suspension]]s though results indicated that Black students did not generally misbehave or endorse deviant attitudes more than White students did".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Huang |first1=Francis L. |title=Do Black students misbehave more? Investigating the differential involvement hypothesis and out-of-school suspensions |journal=The Journal of Educational Research |date=12 December 2016 |volume=111 |issue=3 |pages=284–294 |doi=10.1080/00220671.2016.1253538 |s2cid=151780912 }}</ref>
These interdisciplinary policies and practices disproportionately impact students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds such as, Latino and Black. It also been noted that students of minority groups were vulnerable to expulsions and that Black girls are also highly criminalized for being absent from a schooling context. Dorothy E. Hines and Dorinda J. Carter Andrews have argued that increasing rates criminalization of Black girls, disciplinary enforcements such as harsh policies, and bans against "various student offenses" can be illuminated through (a) zero-tolerance policies including various forms of surveillance measures, (b) policing of their bodies as criminals, and (c) penalizing "bad" girl attitudes."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hines-Datiri |first1=Dorothy |last2=Carter Andrews |first2=Dorinda J. |title=The Effects of Zero Tolerance Policies on Black Girls |journal=Urban Education |date=15 February 2017 |pages=004208591769020 |doi=10.1177/0042085917690204 |s2cid=152108747 }}</ref>
Schools with a higher percentage of Black students are more likely to implement zero-tolerance policies and to use extremely punitive discipline, supporting the [[racial threat]] hypothesis.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Welch |first1=Kelly |last2=Payne |first2=Allison Ann |title=Racial Threat and Punitive School Discipline |journal=Social Problems |date=February 2010 |volume=57 |issue=1 |pages=25–48 |doi=10.1525/sp.2010.57.1.25 |s2cid=34144560 |s2cid-access=free }}</ref>
In addition to racial inequities, there are extant disparities and overlap of students with disabilities in the juvenile system.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last=Warren |first=Mark R. |title=Willful defiance: the movement to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline |date=2022 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-761150-0 |location=New York, NY}}</ref> This disparity is exacerbated by students of color being disproportionately represented among students with diagnosed disabilities.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Krezmien |first1=Michael P. |last2=Mulcahy |first2=Candace A. |last3=Leone |first3=Peter E. |date=2008 |title=Detained and Committed Youth: Examining Differences in Achievement, Mental Health Needs, and Special Education Status |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/20/article/251763 |journal=Education and Treatment of Children |volume=31 |issue=4 |pages=445–464 |doi=10.1353/etc.0.0029 |issn=1934-8924}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Strassfeld |first1=Natasha M. |last2=Cherng |first2=Hua-Yu Sebastian |date=2022 |title=Services for Juveniles With Emotional Disturbances in Secure-Care Settings: An Exploratory Analysis of Racial Disparities and Recidivism |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01987429211046552 |journal=Behavioral Disorders |language=en |volume=47 |issue=4 |pages=257–269 |doi=10.1177/01987429211046552 |issn=0198-7429}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Turnbull |first=Ann P. |title=Exceptional lives: practice, progress, & dignity in today's schools |date=2019 |publisher=Pearson |isbn=978-0-13-498433-9 |edition=9th |location=Hoboken, New Jersey}}</ref>
== Current policies maintaining the link ==
=== Zero-tolerance policies ===
Zero-tolerance policies are school disciplinary policies that set predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses. By nature, zero-tolerance policies, as any policy that is "unreasonable rule or policy that is the same for everyone but has an unfair effect on people who share a particular attribute", often become discriminatory.<ref>{{cite web |title=Indirect Discrimination |url=https://humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12049 |website=Australian Human Rights Commission }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Indirect discrimination |url=https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/ |website=Citizens Advice }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cunneen |first1=Chris |title=Zero tolerance policing: how will it affect indigenous communities? |journal=Indigenous Law Bulletin |volume=4 |issue=19 |date=March 1999 |pages=7–10 |url=https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=990808684;res=IELAPA }}</ref> The zero-tolerance approach was first introduced in the 1980s to reduce drug use in schools. The use of zero-tolerance policies spread more widely in the 1990s. To reduce gun violence, the [[Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994|Gun Free Schools Act of 1994]] (GFSA) required that schools receiving federal funding "must 1) have policies to expel for a calendar year any student who brings a firearm to school or to school zone, and 2) report that student to local law enforcement, thereby blurring any distinction between disciplinary infractions at school and the law".{{sfn|Heitzeg|2009}} During the 1996–1997 schoolyear, 94&nbsp;percent of schools had zero-tolerance policies for firearms, 87&nbsp;percent for alcohol, and 79&nbsp;percent for violence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Curtis |first1=Aaron |title=Tracing the School-to-Prison Pipeline from Zero-Tolerance Policies to Juvenile Justice Dispositions |journal=Georgetown Law Journal |date=1 April 2014 |volume=102 |issue=4 |pages=1251–1277 |ssrn=2785848 }}</ref>
Over the past decade,{{when|date=June 2021}} zero-tolerance policies have expanded to predetermined punishments for a wide degree of rule violations. Zero-tolerance policies do not distinguish between serious and nonserious offenses. All students who commit a given offense receive the same treatment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Roberge |first1=Ginette D. |year=2012 |title=From Zero Tolerance to Early Intervention: The Evolution of School Anti-bullying Policy |journal=eJournal of Education Policy |url=https://in.nau.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2018/08/From-Zero-Tolerance-to-Early-Intervention-ek.pdf |id={{EBSCOhost|90374260}} |s2cid=36087744 |s2cid-access=free }}</ref> Behaviors punished by zero-tolerance policies are most often nonserious offense and are punished on the same terms as a student would be for bringing a gun or drugs to school. In 2006, 95&nbsp;percent of out-of-school suspensions were for nonviolent, minor disruptions such as tardiness.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tyner |first1=Artika R. |date=June 2014 |title=The Emergence of the School-to-Prison Pipeline |journal=GPSolo EReport |volume=3 |issue=1 |url=http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2014/june_2014/the_emergence_of_the_school-to-prison_pipeline.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626151021/http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2014/june_2014/the_emergence_of_the_school-to-prison_pipeline.html |archive-date=26 June 2015 }}</ref> In 2006–2007, "out-of-school suspensions for non-serious, non-violent offenses accounted for 37.2% of suspensions in Maryland, whereas only 6.7% of suspensions were issued for dangerous behaviors".<ref name=ssrn2658513>{{cite journal |last1=González |first1=Thalia |title=Keeping Kids in Schools: Restorative Justice, Punitive Discipline, and the School to Prison Pipeline |journal=Journal of Law & Education |date=April 2012 |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=281–335 |id={{ProQuest|1008167526}} |ssrn=2658513 }}</ref> In Chicago, the widespread adoption of zero-tolerance policies in 1994 resulted in a 51&nbsp;percent increase in student suspensions for the next four years and a 3,000&nbsp;percent increase in expulsions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Giroux |first1=H. A. |title=Mis/Education and Zero Tolerance: Disposable Youth and the Politics of Domestic Militarization |journal=Boundary 2 |date=1 September 2001 |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=61–94 |doi=10.1215/01903659-28-3-61 |s2cid=154129377 }}</ref>
The most direct way these policies increase the probability of a youth coming into contact with the incarceration system is through their exclusionary methods. Suspension, expulsion, and an increased risk of dropping out all contribute to a youth's increased chances of becoming involved with the incarceration system. Suspension removes students from the structure and supervision provided through schooling, providing opportunities for youth to engage in criminal activities while not in the school environment. Other factors may include "increased exposure to peers involved in antisocial behavior, as well as effects on school performance and completion and student attitudes toward [[antisocial behavior]]".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hemphill |first1=Sheryl A. |last2=Herrenkohl |first2=Todd I. |last3=Plenty |first3=Stephanie M. |last4=Toumbourou |first4=John W. |last5=Catalano |first5=Richard F. |last6=McMorris |first6=Barbara J. |title=Pathways From School Suspension to Adolescent Nonviolent Antisocial Behavior in Students in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, United States |journal=Journal of Community Psychology |date=April 2012 |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=301–318 |doi=10.1002/jcop.20512 |pmid=24049218 |pmc=3774047 }}</ref> Suspension can lead to feelings of alienation from the school setting that can lead to students to feel rejected, increasing chances of relationships with antisocial peers. Relationships with peers have strong impacts on student behavior, demonstrated through [[differential association theory]]. Students are more than twice as likely to be arrested during months in which they are forcibly removed from school.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Healy |first1=Cheryl |title=Discipline and Punishment: How School Suspensions Impact the Likelihood of Juvenile Arrest |url=http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2014/03/26/discipline-and-punishment-how-school-suspensions-impact-the-likelihood-of-juvenile-arrest/ |work=Chicago Policy Review |date=26 March 2014 }}</ref> Students who have been suspended are three times more likely to drop out by the 10th grade than students who have never been suspended. Dropping out makes that student three times more likely to be incarcerated.<ref name=NYCLU20080123>{{cite news |title=The Impact of School Suspensions, and a Demand for Passage of the Student Safety Act |url=https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/impact-school-suspensions-and-demand-passage-student-safety-act |work=New York Civil Liberties Union |date=23 January 2008 }}</ref>
=== Policing in schools ===
Zero tolerance policies increase the number of [[School resource officer|SROs]] in schools, which increases the contact a student has with the criminal justice system. Students may be referred by teachers or other administrators but most often zero-tolerance policies are directly enforced by police or SROs.{{sfn|Heitzeg|2009}} The practice of increasing the number of police in schools contributes to patterns of criminalization.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Stereotype and School Pushout: Race, Gender, and Discipline Disparities |last=George |first=Janel A. |date=2015 |journal=Arkansas Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=101–129 |url=https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wordpressua.uark.edu/dist/0/285/files/2015/05/ArkLRev-68-1-101-129-George.pdf }}</ref> This increase in SROs has led to contemporary [[school discipline]] beginning to mirror approaches used in legal and law enforcement. Zero-tolerance policies increase the use of [[Offender profiling|profiling]], a very common practice used in [[law enforcement]]. This practice is able to identify students who may engage in misbehavior, but the use of profiling is unreliable in ensuring school safety, as this practice over identifies students from minority populations. There were no students involved in the 1990s shootings who were Black or Latino and the 1990s school shootings were the main basis for the increase in presence of police in schools.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force |title=Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations |journal=American Psychologist |date=December 2008 |volume=63 |issue=9 |pages=852–862 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852 |pmid=19086747 |hdl=2027.42/142342 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Data shows that people of color with disabilities are the most affected by the SPP.<ref>{{cite web |date=2015-05-18 |title=School-to-Prison Pipeline |url=https://dredf.org/legal-advocacy/school-to-prison-pipeline/ |access-date=2022-03-20 |language=en-US}}</ref>
A Justice Policy Institute report (2011) found a 38-percent increase in the number of SROs between 1997 and 2007 as a result of the growing implementation of zero-tolerance policies.<ref name=jstor24871277/> In 1999, 54&nbsp;percent of students surveyed reported seeing a security guard or police officer in their school; by 2005, this number increased to 68&nbsp;percent. The education system has seen a huge increase in the number of students referred to law enforcement. In one city in Georgia, when police officers were introduced into the schools, "school-based referrals to juvenile court in the county increased 600% over a three year period". There was no increase in the number of serious offenses or safety violations during this three-year period.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Brady |first1=Kevin P. |last2=Balmer |first2=Sharon |last3=Phenix |first3=Deinya |title=School—Police Partnership Effectiveness in Urban Schools: An Analysis of New York City's Impact Schools Initiative |journal=Education and Urban Society |date=June 2007 |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=455–478 |doi=10.1177/0013124507302396 |citeseerx=10.1.1.1014.5314 |s2cid=144961015 }}</ref> In 2012, 41&nbsp;states required schools to report students to law enforcement for various misbehaviors on school grounds.<ref name=ssrn2658513/> This practice increases the use of law enforcement professionals in handling student behavior and decreases the use of in-classroom (nonexclusionary) management of behaviors.
In 2014, the [[United Nations Human Rights Committee]] expressed concern with increasing criminalization of students in response to school disciplinary problems and recommended that the US government "promote the use of alternatives to the application of criminal law" to address such issues. The committee also noted its concern with the use of [[corporal punishment in schools]] in the US.<ref name=HRC110Session>{{cite report |title=Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the United States of America |date=2014-04-23 |publisher=United Nations Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/USA/CO/4 |at=para. 17 |url=http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fUSA%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en}}</ref> In the second [[Universal Periodic Review]] of the US's human rights record, the government avowed taking "effective measures to help ensure non-discrimination in school discipline policies and practices".<ref name=UPRAddendum>{{cite report |title=Report on the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: United States; Addendum – Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review |date=2015-09-14 |publisher=Human Rights Council (United Nations). A/HRC/30/12/Add.1 |at=para. 18 |url=http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session30/Pages/ListReports.aspx}}</ref>
In March 2010, at the Carver Primary School in the lower [[South Side, Chicago]], several first-grade students were handcuffed, and told that they were going to prison and would never see their parents again, after they talked in class.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110902095349/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-first-grader-handcuffed-0831-20110831,0,3999803.story Lawsuit accuses security guard of handcuffing first-graders for talking in class], Chicago Tribune, August 31, 2011</ref><ref>[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/first-graders-handcuffed-_n_943646 First Graders Handcuffed At Chicago School, Told They Were Going To Prison: Lawsuit], Huffington Post, December 6, 2017</ref>
In November 2011, at Orange River Elementary School in Florida, an assistant principal called the police after a girl kissed a boy.<ref>[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police-called-for-12-year_n_1107863 Police Respond To 12-Year-Olds Kissing At School], Huffington Post, November 22, 2011</ref><ref>[https://www.khq.com/news/cops-summoned-to-elementary-school-after-girl-kisses-boy-in/article_db0a68d7-a2aa-572d-b4d1-3cf6908ace71.html Cops Summoned To Elementary School After Girl Kisses Boy In Physical Ed Class], NBC KHQ, November 22, 2011</ref>
In February 2010, the principal of a junior high school in [[Forest Hills, Queens]], New York, called police after a 12-year-old student used a green magic marker to write, "I love my friends Abby and Faith. Lex was here 2/1/10 :)" on a desk. A police officer handcuffed the girl and took her to the police station.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/new.york.doodle.arrest/index.html Girl's arrest for doodling raises concerns about zero tolerance], CNN, February 18, 2010</ref><ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-middle-schooler-alexa-gonzalez-arrested-handcuffed-for-doodling NYC Middle Schooler Alexa Gonzalez Arrested, Handcuffed... for Doodling!], CBS News, February 8, 2010</ref><ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna35257428 NYC student arrested for doodling on desk], Associated Press, February 5, 2010</ref>
In October 2010, at [[Southern Lee High School]] in [[Lee County, North Carolina]], a 12th grade honors student, who was taking college-level classes, was charged with [[misdemeanor]] [[possession of a weapon]] on school grounds and suspended for the rest of the school year, after she brought a [[paring knife]] to school. The student had mistakenly taken her father's lunch box to school, which looked the same as her own lunch box. The school found the knife while searching the lunch box for illegal drugs, which the student did not have.<ref>[https://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8845676/ Lunchbox mix-up leads to charges for Sanford student], WRAL, December 30, 2010</ref><ref>[https://abc7chicago.com/archive/7873331/ Honor student won't be allowed to return to school], ABC 7 Chicago, December 31, 2010</ref>
In 2014, in Lynchburg, Virginia, an 11-year-old Black [[autistic]] boy was charged with a misdemeanor disorderly contact for kicking a trash can. Some time later, this same kid was walking to join other students, and the same officer that reprimanded him for the trash can grabbed him, pushed him to the floor, and arrested him. As a result, the officer charged him with felony assault on a police officer.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-12-11 |title=Public Integrity reporting leads Virginia to decriminalize its students |url=http://publicintegrity.org/inside-publici/newsletters/watchdog-newsletter/public-integrity-reporting-leads-virginia-to-decriminalize-students-school-to-prison-pipeline/ |access-date=2022-03-20 |website=Center for Public Integrity |language=en-US}}</ref>
==Robbins v. Lower Merion School District==
{{more|Robbins v. Lower Merion School District}}
In [[Rosemont, Pennsylvania]], [[Harriton High School]] lent students laptop computers by way of their One-to-One initiative program. Over 2,000&nbsp;students were given these laptops for school and home usage. Unbeknownst to the students and parents, the school district had webcams installed on each computer that were utilized to take images of students' activities while on the computer. The school district used these photos to attempt to incriminate students. In November 2009, the school's assistant principal falsely accused a student of selling illegal drugs after a school employee saw the student holding [[Mike and Ike]] candy while the student was at home.<ref>[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124043452 Student Sues Over Alleged Webcam Spying], NPR, February 24, 2010</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210417221655/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03sat3.html About That Webcam], New York Times, April 2, 2010</ref><ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-probing-school-webcam-spy-case/ FBI Probing School Webcam Spy Case], Associated Press, February 19, 2010</ref>
==Events affecting the SPP==
# A large factor of the SPP is the disproportionate disciplinary actions taken against students of color. In recent years, the media has reported about some of these experiences.
# Examples of zero-tolerance policies and its role in SPP statistics.
In early 2018, a 14-year-old Black boy came to school with a new haircut. The haircut featured a design made with a razor. The student was pulled out of class one day at Tenaya Middle School in [[Fresno, California]], because of his haircut, which the school claimed violated their dress code. The child's mother claimed, "The vice principal told my son that he needed to cut his hair because it was distracting and violated the dress code." The child's mother claims she agreed to get her son a new haircut; she also said she was unable to immediately get an appointment due to a lack of Black barbers in her area. When her son arrived at school the next day, according to the child's mother, the school explained to her that he would face in-school suspension after returning with his haircut. The mother claims, "I requested that my son is issued a warning, to allow time to grow out his hair."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Matera |first1=Avery |title=A Middle School Suspended a Student Because of His Shaved Head |url=https://www.teenvogue.com/story/student-shaved-head-dress-code-suspension |work=Teen Vogue |date=21 March 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Bonhia |title=A Fresno honor student got a popular haircut, but school officials didn't like it |url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education-lab/article203981704.html |work=Fresno Bee |date=9 March 2018 }}</ref>
In early 2018, a Black male student at the [[Apache Junction High School]] in Arizona wore a blue bandana to school, which violated the dress code. His teacher called the police on him for not removing his bandana. He was then arrested and suspended for nine days.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Solé |first1=Elise |title=Arrested Teen Says His Teacher Called The Police On Him For Wearing A Bandana To School |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/arrested-teen-says-his-teacher-called-the-police-on-him-for-wearing-a-bandana-to-school_n_5b75a4a0e4b0182d49b1bab4 |work=HuffPost |agency=Yahoo! Lifestyle |date=16 August 2018 }}</ref>
In mid-2018, an 11-year-old Black girl, Faith Fennidy, was sent home from a private [[Roman Catholic school]] in [[Louisiana]] because she had hair extensions. The young girl had been wearing extensions to school for two years before a new policy was added. The policy prohibits extensions, clip-ins, and/or weaves. The child would have to adhere to the policy to attend school. The family chose to withdraw the student from the school; the student was not suspended or expelled.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Rosenblatt |first1=Kalhan |title=Louisiana girl sent home from school over braided hair extensions |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/louisiana-girl-sent-home-school-over-braided-hair-extensions-n902811 |work=NBC News |date=22 August 2018 }}</ref>
In 2012, at [[Baldwin County School District (Georgia)|Creekside Elementary School]] in [[Milledgeville, Georgia]], a six-year-old student, Salecia Johnson, was crying and flailing on the floor of her principal's office. The principal said she was inconsolable, had thrown various items, and had damaged school property during a tantrum. Salecia was handcuffed and transported to a police station. The child was initially charged as a juvenile with simple battery of a school teacher and criminal damage to property, but it was later decided the girl would not be charged because of her age.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Campbell |first1=Antoinette |title=Police handcuff 6-year-old student in Georgia |url=https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/justice/georgia-student-handcuffed/index.html |work=CNN |date=17 April 2012 }}</ref>
== Impact of COVID-19 pandemic ==
On March 11, 2020, the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) declared the [[COVID-19]] disease a global pandemic, resulting in school shutdowns across multiple countries, including the US.<ref>{{Cite web |title=WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020 |url=https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 |access-date=2022-03-24 |website=www.who.int |language=en}}</ref> Based on a report by [[UNICEF]], approximately 94&nbsp;percent of all countries enacted forms of [[remote learning]] to continue education for children in response to government closures caused by the [[COVID-19 pandemic]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Jones |first=Victor M. |date=2021 |title=COVID-19 and the "Virtual" School-to-Prison Pipeline |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/clrj41&div=18&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals |journal=Children's Legal Rights Journal |volume=41 |pages=105–134 |via=Hein Online}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-08-26 |title=COVID-19 and School Closures: Are children able to continue learning |url=https://data.unicef.org/resources/remote-learning-reachability-factsheet/ |access-date=2022-03-24 |website=UNICEF DATA |language=en-US}}</ref> Likewise, as a result of the pandemic, in the US, state and federal legislation either closed public schools and transferred to [[Virtual learning environment|virtual instruction]] or offered [[Blended learning|hybrid learning]], a mixture of face-to-face instruction and online learning. As school districts in the US encountered difficulty navigating requirements to provide education in remote settings, disciplinary practices continued to reflect aspects of the SPP with zero-tolerance policies just as harmful as those before the COVID-19 pandemic.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=From Zoom to Jail: Covid-19's Effects on the School-to-Prison Pipeline – American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law |url=https://jgspl.org/from-zoom-to-jail-covid-19s-effects-on-the-school-to-prison-pipeline/ |access-date=2022-03-24 |website=jgspl.org}}</ref> Since the nation's transition to remote learning, punishments including out-of-school suspension, juvenile detention, and police involvement have been enacted for minor infractions that have occurred in virtual learning environments.
* In May 2020, a 15-year-old Black female student with [[ADHD]] in [[Michigan]] was sent to a juvenile detention center for not turning in her online homework. The juvenile court concluded that her failure to submit her homework violated her probation and sentenced her to 78&nbsp;days in juvenile detention.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Cohen |first=Jodi S. |title=A Teenager Didn't Do Her Online Schoolwork. So a Judge Sent Her to Juvenile Detention. |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/a-teenager-didnt-do-her-online-schoolwork-so-a-judge-sent-her-to-juvenile-detention |access-date=2022-03-24 |website=ProPublica |date=July 14, 2020 |language=en}}</ref> She was later released after an adverse reaction from the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cohen |first=Jodi S. |title=Out of Jail and Back in School, Grace Finds Her Voice |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/out-of-jail-and-back-in-school-grace-finds-her-voice |access-date=2022-03-24 |website=ProPublica |date=October 31, 2020 |language=en}}</ref>
* In August 2020, Isaiah Elliot, a 12-year-old Black student with ADHD attending virtual school in [[Colorado]], was punished after being seen on his computer camera picking up a toy [[Nerf gun]]. Isaiah was suspended for five days by the school, which later contacted police to conduct a welfare check before notifying his parents.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Jankowicz |first=Mia |title=Colorado school officials called the sheriff and suspended a 12-year-old Black boy after he showed a toy gun in his Zoom class |url=https://www.insider.com/colorado-school-called-sheriff-black-boy-toy-gun-zoom-class-2020-9 |access-date=2022-03-24 |website=Insider |language=en-US}}</ref>
As before the pandemic, the "virtual" SPP continues to disproportionately impact racial minorities, predominantly African-American and Hispanic students from low-income backgrounds, and students with disabilities. There are more than 48,000&nbsp;youth confined in facilities in the US on any given day.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Rowe |first=William |date=2020-07-02 |title=COVID-19 and Youth in Detention |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2020.1835184 |journal=Child & Youth Services |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=310–312 |doi=10.1080/0145935X.2020.1835184 |s2cid=229935847 |issn=0145-935X}}</ref> According to a report by the [[NAACP]], {{As of|2020|lc=y}}, "African American children represent 32% of children who are arrested, 42% of children who are detained, and 52% of children whose cases are judicially waived to criminal court."<ref name="NAACP Criminal Justice Fact Sheet" /> Additionally, students with disabilities account for 8.6&nbsp;percent of the student population in the US but represent 36&nbsp;percent of incarcerated youth.<ref name=":3" /> Because students of color and students with disabilities are disproportionately incarcerated, they represent a large number of youth at risk for contracting COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. On that note, infectious diseases are severely concentrated in both adult and juvenile correctional facilities. [[The Marshall Project]] reported that most juvenile prison facilities have more than 80-percent infection rates.<ref name=":4" /> Moreover, approximately "15% of jail inmates and 22% of prisoners—compared to 5% of the general population—are reported having tuberculosis, Hepatitis B and C, HIV/AIDS, or other STDs."<ref name="NAACP Criminal Justice Fact Sheet" />
==Controversy over efforts to reduce racial disparities==
In 2014, the [[Obama administration]] issued guidance that urged schools to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions, especially of minority students, thereby stemming the school-to-prison pipeline. During the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump administration]], in December 2018, Secretary of Education [[Betsy DeVos]] rescinded these guidelines.<ref>{{cite web|last=Camera|first=Lauren|date=18 December 2018|accessdate=2 March 2021|title=White House: Scrap Obama-Era School Discipline Guidance|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2018-12-18/white-house-scrap-obama-era-school-discipline-guidance}}</ref> In doing so, she cited research by John Paul Wright and four coauthors that purported to show that the disparate rates of suspensions and expulsions were due not to racism but rather to prior poor behavior by Black students.<ref>{{cite web|last=Camera|first=Lauren|date=28 March 2019|accessdate=2 March 2021|title=The race research cited by DeVos|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-03-28/the-controversial-race-research-devos-used-to-revoke-school-discipline-guidance}}</ref><ref name="wright">{{Cite journal|last1=Wright|first1=John Paul|last2=Morgan|first2=Mark Alden|last3=Coyne|first3=Michelle A.|last4=Beaver|first4=Kevin M.|last5=Barnes|first5=J. C.|date=2014-05-01|title=Prior problem behavior accounts for the racial gap in school suspensions|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235214000105|journal=Journal of Criminal Justice|language=en|volume=42|issue=3|pages=257–266|doi=10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.01.001|issn=0047-2352}}</ref>
Lead author [[John Paul Wright]] has advocated for the fringe view that Black people evolved to be genetically inferior to white people.<ref>{{cite book|last=Wright|first=John Paul|editor-last1=Walsh|editor-first1=Anthony|editor-last2=Beaver|editor-first2=Kevin M.|title=Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research|chapter=Inconvenient Truths: Science, Race, and Crime|year=2009 |publisher=Routledge|pages=137–153|isbn=9780415989442|quote=Evolution can produce many forms of adaptations, but it cannot produce equality.... Evolution, however, provides a powerful mechanism to understand the development of human races and the distribution of traits and behaviors within and across races. It helps to explain why races would appear and under what conditions races would appear. It helps to explain why certain traits would be beneficial and why these traits, such as a higher IQ, would be unequally distributed across races. Moreover, evolutionary theory helps to explain why race-based patterns of behavior are universal, such as black over-involvement in crime. No other paradigm organizes these patterns better. No other paradigm can explain these inconvenient truths.}}</ref>{{rp|151}} In the study cited by DeVos, Wright ''et al.'' assumed that teachers' reporting of behavior was accurate and unbiased. They concluded that "the racial gap in suspensions was completely accounted for by a measure of the prior problem behavior of the student—a finding never before reported in the literature".<ref name="wright"/> However, other scholars have found implicit bias and racial discrimination in teachers' interpretation of behavior of Black students as more threatening than similar behavior by white students.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=McCarthy|first1=John D.|last2=Hoge|first2=Dean R.|title=The social construction of school punishment: Racial disadvantage out of universalistic process|journal=Social Forces|volume=65|issue=4|year=1987|pages=1101–1120|doi=10.1093/sf/65.4.1101}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gilliam|first1=Walter S.|last2=Maupin|first2=Angela N.|last3=Reyes|first3=Chin R.|last4=Accavitti|first4=Maria|last5=Shic|first5=Frederick|title=Do early educators' implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions?|journal=Yale University Child Study Center|volume=9|issue=28|year=2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Okonofua|first1=Jason A.|last2=Eberhardt|first2=Jennifer L.|title=Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young students|journal=Psychological Science|year=2015|volume=26|issue=5|pages=617–624|doi=10.1177/0956797615570365|pmid=25854276|s2cid=206587768}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Owens|first1=Jayanti|last2=McLanahan|first2=Sara S.|title=Unpacking the drivers of racial disparities in school suspension and expulsion|journal=Social Forces|year=2020|volume=98|issue=4|pages=1548–1577|doi=10.1093/sf/soz095 |pmid=34017149|pmc=8133760|doi-access=free}}</ref>
Education researcher Francis Huang found other methodological flaws in the study by Wright ''et al.'', such as sample bias (comparison between a sample of 4,101&nbsp;students and a reduced sample of 2,737&nbsp;students who were not representative of the earlier sample) and their use of the Social Skills Rating Scale as a proxy for evaluating prior behavior.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Huang|first=Francis L.|title=Do Black students misbehave more? Investigating the differential involvement hypothesis and out-of-school suspensions|journal=The Journal of Educational Research|year=2018|volume=111|issue=3|pages=284–294|doi=10.1080/00220671.2016.1253538|s2cid=151780912}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Huang|first=Francis L.|title=Prior problem behaviors do not account for the racial suspension gaps|journal=Educational Researcher|volume=49|issue=7|year=2020|pages=493–502|doi=10.3102/0013189X20932474|s2cid=222111088}}</ref> Correcting for sample bias in the study by Wright ''et al.'' led Huang to conclude that their data confirmed what earlier researchers had found regarding racial disparities in punishment that could not be accounted for by actual differences in behavior.
== Alternative approaches ==
{{More citations needed section|date=April 2019}}
===Restorative justice===
The use of [[restorative justice]] in schools began in the early 1990s with initiatives in [[Australia]]. Restorative justice models are used globally and have recently been introduced to school disciplinary policies in the US as an alternative approach to current punitive models, such as zero tolerance.<ref name=ssrn2658513/> The focus is on ensuring that students understand and learn from their behavior as well as take responsibility for their actions and participate in steps that aim to repair the harm done to relationships between the student and the school environment. Programs, such as restorative circles, restorative meetings, restorative youth courts, and peer mediation, are being used as alternatives to zero-tolerance policies and harsh disciplinary practices.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schiff |first1=Mara |title=Can restorative justice disrupt the 'school-to-prison pipeline?' |journal=Contemporary Justice Review |date=6 April 2018 |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=121–139 |doi=10.1080/10282580.2018.1455509 |s2cid=150107321 }}</ref> The idea behind these programs is that students should be encouraged to participate in their punishments and school administration should refrain from using suspensions and expulsions for minor offenses. The goal of restorative programs is to keep students in school and to stop the flow of students from schools to the criminal justice system.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Hopkins |first1=Belinda |title=Restorative Justice in Schools|journal=Support for Learning |date=16 May 2003 |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=144–149 |doi=10.1111/1467-9604.00254 }}</ref>
Some challenges to the use of restorative justice in schools are lack of time and community support. It requires balancing the time needed for mediation with the other demands of education in one school day. Scholars acknowledge that, to achieve proper, unbiased mediation, it will require training, support, and review. It is also crucial that an entire community—students, parents, teachers, staff, coaches, etc.—are convinced it is a better alternative and willing to work together.<ref name=":0" />
Steven Teske, a juvenile court judge in [[Clayton County, Georgia]], created the School-Justice Partnership model in 2003, known as the "Clayton County Model" or, informally, "The Teske Model", to reduce the arrests of students involving minor offenses by using a collaborative agreement between schools, law enforcement, and the courts. The model has three main components: identifying minor offenses not subject to referral to the court, defining the roles of school police and school administrators to avoid using police as disciplinarians, and creating restorative practices and education programs in lieu of arrests. It took aim at zero-tolerance policies which do not consider situational context or individual circumstances. The model's application in his county resulted in a 67-percent decline in referrals to juvenile court. Despite concerns by some that a softer approach would yield school safety issues, the data shows an increase in graduation rates of approximately 20&nbsp;percent and an eight-percent decline in suspensions. The method has spread across the US with some notable cities such as [[Birmingham, Alabama]], and [[Wichita, Kansas]], seeing similar improvements.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Zausch|first=Nicholas|date=2018|title=Spotlight on the Teske Model: An Alternative Approach to Zero Tolerance Policies|url=https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=clrj|journal=Children's Legal Rights Journal|volume=38|issue=1|pages=1–4}}</ref>
===Editorial policies of major media===
{{See also|United States incarceration rate#Editorial policies of major media}}
Beginning especially in the 1970s, the mainstream commercial media in the US increased coverage of the police blotter, while reducing coverage of investigative journalism.{{Citation needed|date=June 2020}}
Advertising rates are set based on the audience. Because [[Fascination with death|"if it bleeds, it leads"]], the media were able to accomplish this change without losing its audience.
Beyond this, the growth of [[private prisons]] increased the pool of major advertisers who could be offended by honest reporting on incarcerations and the SPP: it makes financial sense to report on this only to the extent that such reporting is needed to maintain an audience.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first= Gary W. |editor1-last= Potter |editor2-first= Victor E. | editor2-last=Kappeler |title= Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News and Social Problems |year= 1998 |publisher= Waveland press | isbn=978-0-88133-984-0}}{{page needed|date=July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Sacco|first1=Vincent F|title=When Crime Waves|date=2005|publisher=Sage|isbn=978-0761927839}}{{page needed|date=July 2020}}</ref>
Media constructions have contributed to hysteria over youth violence and mass incarcerations. TV overrepresents violent crime and people of color as offenders. This creates a "culture of fear" and "[[mean world syndrome]]" that particularly works against Black or Latino males.{{sfn|Heitzeg|2009}}
==Mental health relating to the SPP==
Where there are undetected and untreated child mental health concerns, this can lead to unwanted suspensions and expulsions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Emmons |first1=Jennifer M. |last2=Belangee |first2=Susan E. |title=Understanding the Discouraged Child Within the School System: An Adlerian View of the School-to-Prison Pipeline |journal=The Journal of Individual Psychology |date=2018 |volume=74 |issue=1 |pages=134–153 |doi=10.1353/jip.2018.0008 |s2cid=149298907 }}</ref> When teachers include strategies to address the concerns found in students, it leads to students wanting to pursue their own academic achievement and success.
Students with diagnosable mental health problems suffer under zero-tolerance policies. Such policies aim to create safer [[Classroom|classrooms]] by removing potential disruptions, but many in mental health, social services, courts, or other related fields believe they fail in this goal and may result in less safe schools and communities. School is considered a protective factor against "delinquent conduct" and removing students from such an environment harms their ability to succeed.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Teske|first=Steven C.|date=2011-04-18|title=A Study of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: A Multi-Integrated Systems Approach to Improve Outcomes for Adolescents|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00273.x|journal=Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing|volume=24|issue=2|pages=88–97|doi=10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00273.x|pmid=21501285|issn=1073-6077}}</ref>
An American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force report found that "students with disabilities, especially those with emotional and behavioral disorders, appear to be suspended and expelled at rates disproportionate to the representation in the population".<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Skiba|first1=Russell|last2=Reynolds|first2=Cecil R.|last3=Graham|first3=Sandra|last4=Sheras|first4=Peter|last5=Conoley|first5=Jane Close|last6=Garcia-Vazquez|first6=Enedina|date=2006|title=Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e516602012-001|access-date=2020-12-11|website=PsycEXTRA Dataset|doi=10.1037/e516602012-001}}</ref>
Zero-tolerance policies also fail to account for neurological development in youths. Studies show that the brain is still "under construction" until at least age 25. Youth are more likely to take risks, act impulsively, and exercise poor judgment. When these actions result in their involvement with the criminal justice system, they are punished rather than taught how to develop.
One issue in improving mental health services in school and interrupting the SPP is that schools are unequipped to identify disorders and provide help for them.<ref name=":1" />
== See also ==
*[[List of U.S. states by incarceration rate]]
* [[List of countries by incarceration rate]]
* [[Prison–industrial complex]]
* [[Kids for cash scandal]]
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Heitzeg |first1=Nancy A. |title=Education or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies and the School to Prison Pipeline |journal=Forum on Public Policy Online |date=2009 |volume=2009 |issue=2 |id={{ERIC|EJ870076}} |url=https://forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer09/archivesummer09/heitzeg.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100827134754/https://forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer09/archivesummer09/heitzeg.pdf |archive-date=27 August 2010 }}
== Further reading ==
* {{cite news |last1=Sneed |first1=Tierney |title=School Resource Officers: Safety Priority or Part of the Problem? |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/30/are-school-resource-officers-part-of-the-school-to-prison-pipeline-problem |work=U.S. News & World Report |date=30 January 2015 }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Monahan |first1=Kathryn C. |last2=VanDerhei |first2=Susan |last3=Bechtold |first3=Jordan |last4=Cauffman |first4=Elizabeth |title=From the School Yard to the Squad Car: School Discipline, Truancy, and Arrest |journal=Journal of Youth and Adolescence |date=14 February 2014 |volume=43 |issue=7 |pages=1110–1122 |doi=10.1007/s10964-014-0103-1 |pmid=24526497 |s2cid=207207810 }}
{{-}}
{{Youth empowerment}}
[[Category:Education in the United States]]
[[Category:Imprisonment and detention in the United States]]
[[Category:Juvenile justice system]]
[[Category:Juvenile delinquency]]
[[Category:Metaphors referring to objects]]