Go to school. Get suspended. Get expelled. Go to prison. It’s a progression that’s proven prophetic for a troublingly large percentage of students of color in underfunded American public schools. Starting as early as preschool, this prison feed-in system is widely known as the school-to-prison pipeline. Characterized by a triumvirate of in-school police, harsh zero-tolerance policies, and cuts to school funding, the school-to-prison system affects tens of millions of public school students, disproportionally all students of color as well as students of color who have diagnosed disabilities and/or identify as LGBTQIA—1 in 4 black students with disabilities are suspended at least once, in comparison to 1 in 11 white students with disabilities. Black male students of low-income families living in high-stress households in high-crime neighborhoods are the most punished, despite the fact that white students engage in disruptive behavior at the same rate as Black and Latinx students, even when controlling for class and disability.
“It’s crystal clear that Black students, especially boys, get it worse,” writes Jacqui Greadington, chair of the National Association of Education’s Black Caucus in a 2015 article entitled, “The School-to Prison Pipeline: Time to Shut It Down.” Though Black people make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population, they are the greatest percentage of people in prisons and jails. For many, the school-to-prison pipeline’s vicious cycle of systemic oppression and economic exploitation starts with the public school gateway to prison as a misunderstood and under-supported youth.
The school-to-prison pipeline is fueled by:
School Resource Officers or SROs: SROs are trained police placed in public schools. These officers are meant to protect and provide law-related counsel to students, staff, school administration, and the community in which the school is situated. Some community activists see the presence of SROs as a promise of safer schools, while others argue they pose a psychological threat, creating a hostile school environment. And in several tragic cases, they have not been able to protect the students they’re meant to serve: a 25-year-old family member of a student walked into a Baltimore high school and allegedly shot a special education assistant; a shooter murdered 17 high school students in Parkland, Florida. Many community task forces are asking for change, lobbying to allow school districts to allocate money toward better-trained SROs, faculty, school psychologists, and social workers, as well as funding to enforce preventative discipline and rehabilitative practices.
Zero-Tolerance Policy: Written into school handbooks in the 1990s as a weapon-safety regulation, zero-tolerance policies require school officials to implement consistent, harsh punishment—usually suspension or expulsion—to students who display certain disruptive behaviors. Many have argued zero-tolerance policies are an irresponsible response that overlook the root causes of disruptive students and their behavior. Strict disciplinary procedures have proven to have an overall negative effect on students and a disproportionately negative effect on minorities. A 2002 study found that Black students are 31% more likely to receive discretionary discipline action than a white student committing the same offense, and that Black and Latinx students are more likely to be disciplined for minor infractions like disrespect or disruption.
Public School Funding Cuts: Investment in K-12 schools is vital for communities and the US economy to thrive. Funding has declined dramatically in many states over the last decade. Some of the most severely affected states have also cut income tax rates, weakening their main revenue source for funding schools. Deep education funding cuts compromise the employment of future working citizens of color and the overall U.S. economy by diminishing the quality of schools which, in turn, may have a damaging effect on the future of those who fall victim to the school-to-prison pipeline.
Schools have increasingly shied away from holistic intervention and counseling that encourages a partnership between school administration and family, and have instead become heavily reliant on suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement to punish students. These methods actually increase the likelihood of a student getting funneled into a system of imprisonment, unemployment, dependence on social welfare systems, and further criminal activity.
Restorative practices have become an integral part of the national education landscape. These practices promote mediation and agreement rather than punishment. In January 2014, the Department of Education and Department of Justice issued guidelines that explicitly recommend restorative practices as a better alternative to zero-tolerance policies that lead to the school-to-prison pipeline. Initiatives in schools across the country are exploring a wide range of outcomes, including restorative practices and their effects on graduation rates, academic achievement, social competency, alcohol and drug abuse, and bullying.
The Restorative Justice Model is broken down into three guiding principles: Prevention and Climate Control; Clear, Appropriate and Consistent Expectations and Consequences; and Equity and Continuous Improvement. Restorative DC—a network of educators, police, agency officials, community-based organizations, youth workers, and social advocates—is dedicated to the student restoration process and destabilizing the school-to-prison problem. In partnership with the Department of Human Services and the DC Office of Attorney General, Restorative DC is dedicated to providing restorative alternatives through intensive, site and individual-specific supports to around one dozen DCPS and public charter schools. As Betsy Johnson, a middle school teacher in Montgomery County, MD who co-facilitates an NEA GPS Network community group about school-to-prison pipeline issues, says, “No one wants to put it on the table, but when we have those courageous conversations, when we deal with structural racism, and when we do look inward at our own biases and differences, we can begin to heal.”
—Mari Andrea Travis