I. Introduction
The education system in the modern, American public high school represents a pillar of upward mobility. Education has long stood as a symbol and mechanism for those of less fortunate backgrounds to put in the time and effort in order to better their social status and living conditions. And while the discussion on the education system is always seamless when concerning the opportunity provided to those students who make good grades and behave well in the classroom, the discussion becomes more disconcerting when the topic centers on the discipline of students who break the rules of society or the education system. Much like the prison system, the public school justice system has long rested on zero tolerance policies (Zehr,
…show more content…
A change is needed in the education system to prevent the further degradation of minor and lower income students. Restorative justice techniques have trouble finding their way into public schools because of long standing theories regarding criminal justice, discipline, and general conflict resolution theory. Teachers and public school administrations, as well as state and federal educational policy-makers, need to find a way to incorporate restorative justice techniques into school systems as an alternate method to zero-tolerance policies (Claim #1) because restorative justice methodologies disciplines the student in an encouraging manner while also supporting a reintegration (or first time integration) of the student into the educational community (Data #1); this will cause a reduction in suspension and expulsion rates in public schools, further degrading the school-to-prison pipeline (Data #2). Students should be encouraged to draw closer to education, not further away (Warrant), and restorative justice practices would not only discipline the individual, but enhance the entire student body by fortifying the students’ emotional connection with his or her school (Backing). This is not to say restorative justice is the only method of punitive action, nor that some cases would not require zero-tolerance procedures (Qualifier #1).
There have been several reports on zero tolerance policy, including one from the American Psychological Association, that indicate that these policies fail to reach their goal (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). These reports have concluded that there should be a change in either how zero tolerance policies are applied or enact alternative policies for these offenses (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). The APA along with other reviews are not the only source of shift in opinion about zero tolerance policies (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). The United States Department of Education has even publically shown opposition against these policies recently (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). However, these policies are easier to rely on in the event of a school shooting, violent acts in school, or some other incident (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). It is easier to implement zero tolerance policies during these events because they are already in place and the guidelines are more simple to follow. The guidelines require all offenses result in expulsion or suspension, regardless of the offense or degree of the crime (Sheras and Bradshaw, 2016). Implementation of these policies also creates an environment of safety in the public’s eyes, which helps increase the school’s approval during the tragic event (Sheras and Bradshaw,
Zero tolerance policies arose during the late 1980’s in response to a rising tide of juvenile arrests for violent offenses and the expanding view of youth as dangerous. During this time discipline in educational settings became much more formal and rigid. Discretion was removed from teachers and administrative staff in favor of broadly instituted policies, which often involved law enforcement and arrest. In 1994 Congress passed the Gun-Free Schools Act, which forced states to pass laws mandating expulsion for a minimum of one year for bringing a weapon to school in order to receive federal education funds. By the mid 90’s roughly 80% of schools had adopted zero tolerance policies beyond the federal requirements and in response the federal government began to increase funding for security guards and other school based law enforcement officers and equipment. These changes occurred primarily between 1996 and 2008 and mirrored changes in the juvenile justice system to more closely emulate the adult system.
In the 2011-2012 school year, New York City imposed 70,000 suspensions, and arrested hundreds of students, many for non criminal behavior (“New York City’s”). This is a direct ramification of the school to prison pipeline. The school to prison pipeline is “...the policies and practices that are directly and indirectly pushing students of color out of school and on a pathway to prison, including, but not limited to: harsh school discipline policies that overuse suspension and expulsion, increased policing and surveillance that create prison-like environments in schools, overreliance on referrals to law enforcement and the juvenile justice system, and an alienating and punitive high-stakes testing-driven academic environment.” (“Discipline”),
Schools that are low performing have the highest rates of suspension and expulsion and the lowest graduation rates. According to Mississippi Today, “the dropout rate for students fell slightly to 11.8 percent in 2016, the lowest in five years.” If I were to eliminate funding as a barrier, zero tolerance policies would still exist- especially in public school systems in the South, amidst people of color. Zero tolerance policies are obstacles put in place for small infractions performed by students, which can lead to disciplinary actions such as: corporal punishment, detention, and suspension. These small infractions may be in the form of getting up without permission, excessive talking, etc. Schools should offer more alternative measures, which counsel students on their misbehavior and give the student an opportunity to amend his or her actions. These methods fall under a restorative justice model. Community organizations, like Nollie Jenkins Family Center, have proposed alternatives such as peer mediation and conflict resolution to help keep youth in a learning environment, off the streets, and away from a life of crime. A case study performed by Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program, discovered that after counseling students for infraction their number of juvenile arrests and suspension “dropped by 54%.” This could potentially be a catalyst in bending the moral arc in the direction of justice,
The School-to-Prison Pipeline presents the intersection of a K-12 educational system and a juvenile system, which too often fails to serve our nations at risk youth. For most students, the pipeline begins with inadequate resources in public schools. Overcrowded classrooms, a lack of qualified teachers, and insufficient funding for "extras" such as counselors, special education services, even textbooks, lock students into second-rate educational environments. This failure to meet educational needs increases disengagement and dropouts, increasing the risk of later court involvement (Bennett-Haron, Fasching-Varner, Martin, & Mitchell 2014). Even worse, 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 (Cramer, Gonzales, & Lafont-Pellegrini 2014). Lacking resources, facing incentives to push out low-performing students, and responding to a handful of highly-publicized school shootings, schools have embraced zero-tolerance policies that automatically impose severe punishment regardless of circumstances. Under these policies, students have been expelled for bringing nail clippers or scissors to school (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson 2005). Rates of suspension have increased dramatically in recent years from 1.7 million in 1998 to 3.1 million in 2010
The School-to-Prison Pipeline refers to the school policies and procedures that drive many of our nation’s schoolchildren into a pathway that begins in school and ends in the criminal justice system. Behavior that once led to a trip to the principal’s office and detention, such as school uniform violations, profanity and “talking back,” now often leads to suspension, expulsion, and/or arrest. Today, largely as a result of “zero tolerance” policies that mandate harsh punishments for even minor misbehavior in
In recent years, public schools have been accused of participating in the school to prison pipeline. The school to prison pipeline refers to the growing incarceration of youths, resulting from the zero tolerance policies implemented in schools. Therefore, I decided to do my research based on the school to prison pipeline to understand what these accusations mean and their consequences. My research will be divided into three main categories; what is it and how the pipeline became common practice, how it affects the United States, and some solutions to the problem. So far, my claim is that the public schools unintentionally started to connect more students with the judicial system because of growing concern over crime. But when it became known
What practices can educator, administrators, and policy-makers implement that will likely reduce disparities in the education and criminal systems? Methods The purpose of Wilson writing this article is because he wants to stop the school-to-prison pipeline system. “The article discusses the zero-tolerance practices of exclusionary discipline which contribute to school failure and push students into the justice system in the U.S” (49). According to wilson, inclusive school climates with restorative practices promote academic success.
As a major source of referrals to the juvenile justice system, eliminating the use of zero tolerance policies by public school administrators is a critical step in ameliorating detrimental effects on minority adolescents and in efforts to close the school-to-prison pipeline. Currently, research suggests zero tolerance policies are ineffective at increasing school safety and that suspending or expelling students puts them at higher risk for dropping out of school and committing delinquent acts [citation-Black]. Nonetheless, minor disciplinary problems should not involve law enforcement.
In the most recent years, the relationship between educational institutions and the juvenile justice system which was once created to protect children, has displayed an ultimatum for minors through “zero tolerance” policies which results in sending individuals through the school to prison to pipeline. Studies have shown that these zero tolerance policies are not beneficial to students or the educational environment that should be guaranteed to children. Opponents argue that the policies promote safety, but through this research it can be concluded the policies actually increase danger. Studies demonstrate the factors that affect the enforcement of these policies which include media, the sociopolitical atmosphere, and the racial disproportionality, yet there are valid solutions for this issue that can be explored.
Rebecca London, a research professor at UC Santa Cruz, explains about how the zero tolerance policy plays a critical role in developing the school-to-prison pipeline. The zero tolerance policy was implemented in 1990 in hopes to reduce the amount of criminal related activity in schools (London 2017). Because of the policy, many minor or small infringement of the school rules criminalized at-risk students. For example, students were punished heavily for carrying nail clippers, having over the counter medications, and even cutting the lunch line (London 2017). Students who partake in any of the examples or anything similar will be suspended or face tougher consequences than normal discipline actions compared to a privileged school. By punishing
The school-to-prison pipeline in the United States is a figure of speech used to describe the increasing patterns of interaction students have with the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems as a consequence of procedures used by many school systems. A specific procedure would be the zero tolerance policies and the use of officers in schools. Currently in today’s American schools many children of color are being unfairly judged and treated by the public school systems zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies have been implemented in schools in the last 20 years that include inserting school resource officers in schools and cracking down on all behavior that any authority figure may deem as a form of bad behavior. The policy is based upon deterring future misbehavior and is central to the philosophy of zero tolerance, and the effect of any punishment on future behavior is what defines effective punishment (Skinner, 1953). Zero tolerance policies causes the school environment to feel more like a prison and ultimately leads to black and Latinos being judged and guided to the prison system. A zero-tolerance policy orders predetermined penalties or punishments for specific wrongdoings.
The ever-growing problem that is occurring in public schools around the country is the school to prison pipeline epidemic. The school to prison pipeline is a term used to describe how students are being pushed out of public school and into the criminal justice system. This epidemic is a result of the education system’s zero tolerance policy that enforces harsh punishments for misbehaving students. Although its goal was to eliminate misbehavior, studies have shown that the increased disciplinary actions have resulted in a modified school environment, police in school
According to Black (2015), “Approximately three million students per year have been excluded from school and deprived of their statutory and constitutional rights to education.” (p.81). The zero-tolerance policy was made in efforts to protect all students' safety and to maintain an effective learning environment that is free from drug, weapons, violence, and school disruption. However, Black’s research indicated that, as implemented, zero tolerance policies are related to a number of negative consequences and are ineffective in the long run (2015). Besides students receiving harsh discipline for minor infractions in school, the crucial downfall of the policy is the increasing rates of school dropout and juvenile prison admissions. Where do
The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.