The School to Prison Pipeline

The Role of Culture and Discipline in School

Nathern Okilwa, Muhammad Khalifa, Felecia Briscoe, Nathern Okilwa, Muhammad Khalifa, Felecia Briscoe

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781787143425
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Multicultural Education

This edited volume focuses on the role that school climate and disciplinary practices have on the educational and social experiences of students of color. Drawing from quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical studies, it brings to bear a number of topics such as racialized school experiences; criminology, discursive deviance and punishment and carceral studies; urban studies; school administration and leadership; and, a number of critical theorist frameworks. Practical insights are offered to assist administrators, teachers, school counsellors, and other school and non-school based professionals on how to address not only disparities in school discipline, but also create and promote an inclusive, affirming positive school culture and climate. With applications in disciplinary studies and criminology, leadership studies, critical race theory and other critical frameworks, this volume is a valuable resource advancing new theoretical concepts.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Nathern S. Okilwa, Muhammad Khalifa and Felecia M. Briscoe

ABSTRACT

This introduction chapter provides context to the ubiquitous nature of school discipline disproportionality, which has morphed into what is now commonly known as school-to-prison pipeline (STPP). A sample of major studies on school discipline research is presented to highlight the breadth and depth of the impact of discipline disparity on racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse students, low-income students, and students with disabilities. We also address how the interaction between implicit or explicit racism and discipline policies and practices exacerbates STPP. We acknowledge the efforts made by school systems to reverse the STPP trend through interventions such as restorative justice and positive behavioral intervention and support (PBIS). We posit that principals and teachers are critical agents in reforming the pervasive STPP trajectory. Finally, this chapter provides a synopsis of the rest of the chapters contained in this book.

Keywords: School-to-prison pipeline; discipline disparity; racial and linguistic minorities; interventions; principals; teachers

The concern about discipline disparity by race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and disability has increasingly become part of the academic discourse over the last decades. Major research studies have established the persisting nature of disproportionality in discipline (Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen & Gillespie, 2012; Skiba et al., 2011; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002; Wallace, Goodkind, Wallace, & Bachman, 2008). In other words, minoritized students – such as Black, Latino, culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, refugees and immigrants, and low-income students, among other subgroups – are more likely to be referred, suspended, expelled, and arrested while in school; moreover, they are more likely to be academically impacted by the disciplinary action that they endure. For instance, the 2011 landmark statewide study in Texas, “Breaking Schools’ Rules,” examined suspension and expulsion of nearly one million public secondary school (7–12 grades) students who were followed up for at least six years (Fabelo et al., 2011). The study established a number of important findings: approximately 60% of public school students were suspended or expelled, at least once, between grades 7 and 12; when students were suspended or expelled at least once, the likelihood that they repeated a grade, dropped out of school, and/or got involved in the juvenile justice system increased significantly; African Americans and students with disabilities were disproportionately suspended or expelled to a higher degree compared to their peers without disabilities; and suspension and expulsion rates varied with school. Another study by Losen and Gillespie (2012) found a disproportionately higher suspension rates for African Americans, 17%, in K12 schools compared to 8% for Native Americans; 7% for Latinos; 5% for Whites; and 2% for Asian Americans. Other findings of their study include the following: More than 13% of all students with disabilities were suspended, which is approximately twice than that of their peers without disabilities; more so, 25% of African American students with disabilities were suspended at least once in 2009–2010 school year; additionally, African Americans and students with disabilities were more likely to be suspended repeatedly in one school year. And a final consideration in the context of school suspensions is the strong link between low-income and CDL students. Low-income students, especially those who are also minoritized in other ways, are suspended from school more frequently than middle- and high-income students (Atkins et al., 2002; Skiba & Knesting, 2001).

Overall, the studies seem to suggest that racially minoritized students are most likely to bear the brunt of disproportionalities in school discipline. In their study “Race is Not Neutral,” Skiba and colleagues (2011) examined office referrals of 364 elementary and middle schools and found that African American students are two times (elementary) and four times (middle school) likely to be referred to the office for problem behaviors than their White peers. In addition, for similar problem behaviors, African American and Latino students are more likely to be suspended or expelled than their White peers. These large-scale studies, outlined above, are only a sampler representation of many other studies that reveal the ubiquitous nature of discipline disparity in schools across the United States. The impact on educational and life outcomes of racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse students and students with disabilities is hard to ignore. The insidious part of discipline disproportionality is how the educational opportunities of some youth are squandered, and often these youth are funneled into the juvenile and criminal justice system. These realities gave birth to what we now know as the school-to-prison pipeline (STPP) phenomenon. Therefore, the purpose of this book is to highlight how the STPP has emerged through a complex interaction between the institutional culture of schools, discipline policies and practices, and the various agents (school leaders, teachers, students, and parents). To achieve this purpose, this book presents an examination of the scope and impact of STPP from a variety of perspectives: experiential testimonials from victims of STPP, systemic and institutional structures and cultures that bolster STPP, and a discussion on potential alternatives to disrupt STPP coupled with a measure of critique of the implementation of these alternatives.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE (STPP)

STPP has come to signify the pervasive pattern of students being pushed out of the mainstream educational contexts into increased contact or involvement with the juvenile justice system (Advancement Project, 2005; Children’s Defense Fund, 2007; NAACP 2005; Wald & Losen, 2003). The NAACP Legal Defense Fund defines STPP as the “funneling of students out of school and into the streets and the juvenile correction system [perpetuating] a cycle known as the ‘School-to-Prison-Pipeline’, depriving children and youth of meaningful opportunities for education, future employment, and participation in our democracy” (NAACP, 2005, online). The interaction between implicit or explicit racism and discipline policies and practices exacerbates STPP. As previously stated, research indicates that African American students are more harshly punished than their White counterparts for similar violations, which leaves another explanation, that which is rooted in bias, of how discipline policies are implemented. As Witt (2007) notes:

Some of the highest rates of racially disproportionate discipline are found in states with the lowest minority populations, where the disconnect between white teachers and black students is potentially the greatest. White teachers feel more threatened by boys of color. (www.chicagotribune.com)

In particular, the historical fear of African American masculinity among White Americans (especially White women) extends to the classroom and hence, negatively influences teacher perception and interaction with these students (Harry & Anderson, 1994). In their study about teacher–student racial matching efforts, Downey and Pribesh (2004) found that teachers (both White and African Americans) generally rated African American students as poorer classroom citizens, who exhibit more problem behaviors (e.g., argumentative, involved in fights, exhibiting anger) and lesser efforts in learning (e.g., the ability to be attentive, persistent with tasks, display of eagerness to learn) compared to White students in both kindergarten and eighth grade. Other studies indicate that White teachers view Black male students as older and less innocent than White male students (Goff, Jackson, Di Leone, Culotta, & DiTomasso, 2014). Such dehumanizing-biased perceptions of African American students underlie the immediate responses (reprimand or disciplinary sanctions) teachers meted out at any sighting of what teachers may consider aggressive or inappropriate behavior by African American boys.

In addition to the biased disciplining of students of color, the federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which mandated a one-year suspension for students who brought a firearm to school, heralded the implementation of “zero tolerance” in schools. According to Skiba and Peterson (1999), zero tolerance policies were meant to “deal out severe punishment for all offenses, no matter how minor, ostensibly in an effort to treat all offenders equally in the spirit of fairness and intolerance of rule-breaking” (p. 373). Despite the policies being “zero tolerance,” it is clear that schools have a great discretion in how they interpret and implement the policies (Dunbar & Villarruel, 2004). Unfortunately, the wide net of zero tolerance policies have tended to catch and inequitably punish CLD students as well as students with disabilities for minor infractions such as shooting rubber bands, taking water pistols to school, pointing a finger in a game of cops and robbers, truancy, defiance, disrespect, chasing or running in the halls, and profanity (Cornell & Mayer, 2010; Skiba et al., 2002; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Irby (2014) adds, the school discipline net has widened and as evidence shows, schools disproportionately apply it to African American and Latino students. There is further evidence to indicate that teachers more often refer African American and Latino students to the office for subjective discipline issues (e.g., defiance, disrespectful, argumentative) than they do for White students (Irby, 2014; Skiba et al., 2002). In comparison to White students, African Americans are subjected to more severe punishment for less serious infractions, which only aids to further isolate and alienate them from the educational process (Skiba et al., 2002). Isolation and alienation are often associated with increased school disengagement and eventual dropout (Balfanz, Byrnes, & Fox, 2013; Skiba et al., 2011). Often, African American and Latino students experience higher dropout rates than White students (Fine, 1991; Finn, 1989). Dropping out of school is a major warning sign of potential involvement with the juvenile justice system (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005). All this suggests that it is not only a question of zero tolerance but a question of zero tolerance for whom? Clearly, zero tolerance policies criminalize minor infractions of school rules (more so for students of color), and the presence of police officers in schools has made the transition from student (school) to criminal (juvenile justice system) quite seamless. And indeed, racialized application of zero tolerance and other discipline policies take their toll on the academic success of CLD students. Isolation and alienation are often associated with increased school disengagement and eventual dropout (Balfanz et al., 2013; Skiba et al., 2011). Often, African American and Latino students experience higher dropout rates than White students (Fine, 1991; Finn, 1989). Dropping out of school is a major warning sign of potential involvement with the juvenile justice system (Christle et al., 2005).

EFFORTS TO REVERSE STPP TRENDS

Some schools and school districts are engaged in reform efforts in order to change persistent STPP trends. For some, it is a true acknowledgment of national discipline disproportionality and has a negative impact on students’ future, whereas for others it is perhaps a response to the Office of Civil Rights mandate – to account for existing disproportionality and to take measures to correct it. Skiba et al. (2011) suggest that effective discipline systems rely on graduated or tiered models where serious consequences are reserved for serious offenses such as possession of illegal drugs, alcohol, or firearms, sexual battery and assault, physical attack, and hazing. Restorative justice and positive behavior intervention and support (PBIS) are two alternative approaches to zero tolerance discipline practices that are gaining momentum across the country. As much as these discipline alternative approaches have drawn interest from schools and school districts, there is increasing critique (Irby, 2014; Irby & Clough, 2013; Okilwa, 2015). For instance, restorative justice can be considered as an “after-the-fact” approach – a remedial approach – that is rooted in the criminal justice system with a focus on repairing harm caused by an offender and giving voice to the victim (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001). Thus, this restorative justice was not originally used to restore justice to people who had been unfairly penalized by the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is traditionally known to dispense consequences or punish wrongdoings. This is not oriented toward establishing and remediating its own wrongdoings or crime. Further discussion of restorative justice or discipline is presented in Chapter 6 of this book entitled “‘What Are We Restoring?’ Black Teachers on Restorative Discipline.” With regard to PBIS, although it is a tiered program intended to manage behaviors according to severity, Irby (2014) suggests that if PBIS is not culturally responsive, then it will replicate the same disproportionate discipline. According to Irby, there is a tendency for the majority of CLD students and those with disabilities to be fast tracked to Tier 3 (most punitive level) of PIBS intervention. In addition, Skiba and colleagues (2011) suggest, discipline policies should encourage culturally responsive practices in order to create a positive school environment and climate for all students. The concept of culturally responsive pedagogy or teaching or practices is hailed as a critical component of bridging the learning processes and the experiences of most marginalized students (Gay, 2002a, 2002b; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002) with the potential of reducing the discipline disparity. In particular, culturally responsive teaching connects students’ cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles to academic knowledge and intellectual tools in ways that legitimize what students already know (Gay, 2002a, 2002b). In essence, culturally responsive teaching activates students’ funds of knowledge, thereby increasing academic engagement and achievement, which in turn alleviates problem behaviors. A further look at PBIS is presented in Chapter 7 of this book entitled “Can PBIS Build Justice Rather Than Merely Restore Order?” Thus, we wonder: Is PBIS meant to benefit schools or students? Can it be effective when being used by biased educators? And what elements are needed in PBIS to make it a culturally responsive intervention?

THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL AND TEACHERS

The research suggests that a number of oppressive practices that contribute to STPP can be identified, reduced, and contested by strong leaders and leadership teams (Khalifa, 2012; Khalifa, Gooden, & Davis, 2016). Social justice-oriented school leaders have to understand that any reform effort needs to be consistent with the assumption that discipline disproportionality cannot be separated from pedagogical practices, teacher–student interactions, classroom management, curriculum design, school–family partnerships, and school programming (Cornell & Mayer, 2010). For example, the principal has to be intentional about their recruiting and hiring practices, targeting teachers who are oriented toward social justice. Discipline disproportionality often originates from teacher–student classroom interactions where most discipline referrals are first issued (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008, Skiba et al., 2002). Hiring right is not enough, teachers do not acquire cultural competence by accident; the school principal is obligated to provide relevant professional development to include topics on race and racism, culturally responsive pedagogy, etc. (Khalifa, 2011). Also, hiri...

Table of contents

• Cover
• The School to Prison Pipeline: The Role of Culture and Discipline in School
• Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview
• Chapter 2 The Indignities on Which the School-to-Prison Pipeline Is Built: Life Stories of Two Formerly Incarcerated Black Male School-Leavers
• Chapter 3 Resisting the School-to-Prison Pipeline Utilizing Guidance from the Frontlines: Chicano Student Experiences as a Source of Knowledge and Strength
• Chapter 4 Discipline and Punishment: How Schools Are Building the School-to-Prison Pipeline
• Chapter 5 Pathologizing the White “Unteachable”: South London’s Working-Class Boys’ Experiences with Schooling and Discipline
• Chapter 6 “What Are We Restoring?” Black Teachers on Restorative Discipline
• Chapter 7 Can PBIS Build Justice Rather Than Merely Restore Order?
• Chapter 8 A Systems Theory Analysis for Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Using Disability Rights Laws to Keep Children in Schools and out of Courts, Jails, and Prisons
• Chapter 9 What We Can Do Right Now: What Needs Further Research?
• About the Editors and Contributors
• Index