S. HRG. 112–848 

ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 12, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–95 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–166 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–848 

ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 12, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–95 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN 

RIGHTS 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS PAGE

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 3 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111 

Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 5 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 39 

Scott, Hon. Bobby, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia .... 5 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Davis, Hon. Danny, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois .... 7 

Delisle, Ms. Deborah, Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC .............. 9 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Hanes, Ms. Melodee, Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Deliquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of 

Justice ................................................................................................................... 12 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

DeWine, Hon. Michael, Attorney General for the State of Ohio, Columbus, 

Ohio ....................................................................................................................... 21 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Dianis, Ms. Judith A. Browne, Co-Director, Advancement Project, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 22 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

Ward, Mr. Edward, Blocks Together, Dignity in Schools Campaign, Chicago, 

Illinois ................................................................................................................... 25 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

Coulson, Mr. Andrew J., Director, Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom, Washington, DC .......................................................................................... 27 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

Teske, Hon. Steven, Chief Judge, Juvenile Court of Clayton County, Georgia, 

Jonesboro, Georgia ............................................................................................... 29 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES 

Questions submitted by Senator Al Franken for Hon. Deborah Delisle, Ms. 

Melodee Hanes, and Hon. Steven Teske ............................................................ 115 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Hon. Steven Teske to questions submitted by Senator Franken .. 118 

Responses of Hon. Deborah Delisle to questions submitted by Senator 

Franken ................................................................................................................. 122 

Responses of Ms. Melodee Hanes to questions submitted by Senator Franken . 131 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Advocates for Children and Youth; statement ...................................................... 136 

Advocates for Children’s Services, Legal Aid of North Carolina; statement ...... 139 

Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc.; statement .......................................... 148 

Alabama Youth Justice Alliance (AYJA); statement ............................................ 152 
Page

IV 

Alliance for Excellent Education; statement ......................................................... 154 

American Bar Association; statement by Laurel G. Bellows, President ............. 156 

American Federation of School Administrators, AFL-CIO; statement by Diann 

Woodard, President .............................................................................................. 163 

American Federation of Teachers; statement ........................................................ 164 

Anti-Defamation League; statement ...................................................................... 166 

Boston Parent Organizing Network (BPON); statement ...................................... 169 

Statement of Roger Dickinson, California State Assembly Assemblymember, 

7th District ........................................................................................................... 170 

California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye; statement ............................... 176 

The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth; statement ............................... 179 

Campbell County School District #1, Gillette, Wyoming; statement .................. 181 

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST); statement .................................. 183 

Center for Children’s Advocacy; statement ........................................................... 190 

Center for Community Alternatives, Inc.; statement ........................................... 193 

Center for Law and Education; statement ............................................................ 202 

Center for Law and Education; appendix .............................................................. 203 

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice; statement ............... 204 

Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc., statement ....... 211 

Child Care Association of Illinois; statement ........................................................ 216 

Children’s Defense Fund, Washington, DC; statement ........................................ 219 

Children’s Law Center, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky; statement ............................ 230 

Children’s Rights Clinic, Southwestern Law School; statement .......................... 241 

Christine Agaiby, JD, University of Northwestern Law School; statement ....... 244 

Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CFJJ), Boston, Massachusetts; statement ........... 246 

City of Santa Monica, California, Department of Community and Cultural 

Services; statement .............................................................................................. 253 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Washington, DC; statement ................................ 255 

Community Conferencing Center, Baltimore, Maryland; statement ................... 262 

Congressman Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott; appendix ................................................. 265 

Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, Bridgeport, Connecticut; statement ...... 268 

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA), Towson, Maryland; 

statement .............................................................................................................. 274 

Council of State Governments Justice Center; statement ................................... 278 

Countywide Family Development Center, Inc., Laurel, Mississippi; statement 288 

DC Lawyers for Youth (DCLY); statement ............................................................ 290 

Dignity in Schools Campaign; statement .............................................................. 295 

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. (DREDF); statement ........ 300 

Disability Rights Washington; statement .............................................................. 309 

District Attorney Don Quick, Seventeenth Judicial District, Brighton, Colorado; statement .................................................................................................... 313 

Education Law Center; statement .......................................................................... 324 

Family Court of the State of Delaware; statement ............................................... 327 

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids; statement ................................................................. 329 

Fighting for Our Right to Children’s Education (F.O.R.C.E.); statement ........... 333 

Florida State Conference of the NAACP; statement ............................................ 337 

Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); statement ............... 340 

Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSA Network); statement ................................ 345 

Ms. Geeta N. Kapur, Attorney and Counselor at Law, Durham, North Carolina; statement ..................................................................................................... 350 

Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice; statement ................................. 361 

Georgia Safe Schools Coalition; statement ............................................................ 369 

Harlem Children’s Zone and Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academy Charter Schools; statement ......................................................................................... 371 

Health and Disability Advocates, Chicago, Illinois; statement ............................ 379 

Howard University Graduate and Professional Students; statement ................. 387 

Human Rights Defense Center; statement ............................................................ 390 

Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission; statement .................................................. 399 

Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; statement ................... 400 

Judge Patricia Koch; statement ............................................................................. 406 

JustChildren, Legal Aid Justice Center; statement .............................................. 408 

Justice for Families: Families Unlocking Futures; statement ............................. 412 

Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota; statement ............................................. 417 

Juvenile Justice Initiative, Evanston, Illinois; statement .................................... 426 

Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL); statement ..................................... 432 

Juvenile Law Center; statement ............................................................................ 434 

Kentucky Protection and Advocacy; statement ..................................................... 440 
Page

V 

Labor/Community Strategy Center; statement ..................................................... 445 

Lambda Legal: Making the Case for Equality; statement ................................... 448 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; statement .............................. 454 

Learning Disabilities Association of America; statement ..................................... 462 

Legal Assistance Foundation (LAF); statement .................................................... 463 

Mansfield Institute for Social Justice and Transformation at Roosevelt University; statement ................................................................................................ 469 

Maryland Disability Law Center (MDLC); statement .......................................... 473 

Massachusetts Advocates for Children; statement ............................................... 477 

Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.; statement ................................ 478 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, Mayor R.T. Rybak; statement ...................................... 482 

Minnesota Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee; statement .............................. 486 

Mississippi State Conference NAACP; statement ................................................. 488 

NAACP; statement .................................................................................................. 490 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; statement .......................... 494 

National Association of School Psychologists; statement ..................................... 499 

National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO); statement ............. 504 

National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest); statement ..................... 514 

National Center for Learning Disabilities; statement .......................................... 518 

National Disability Rights Network; statement .................................................... 519 

National Education Association (NEA); appendix ................................................ 524 

National Education Association (NEA); statement ............................................... 527 

National Juvenile Justice Network; statement ..................................................... 532 

National Technical Assistance Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions 

and Supports (PBIS Center); statement ............................................................ 539 

National Urban League; statement ........................................................................ 544 

National Women’s Law Center; statement ............................................................ 550 

Niroga Institute; statement .................................................................................... 554 

Ohio Poverty Law Center (OPLC); statement ....................................................... 564 

Open Society Policy Center (OSPC); statement .................................................... 566 

Parents United for Responsible Education (PURE); statement ........................... 573 

Parents Organized to Win, Educate, and Renew—Policy Action Council 

(POWER-PAC); statement ................................................................................... 580 

Professor Aaron Kupchik, University of Delaware; statement ............................ 583 

Professor Joseph B. Tulman, Institute Director, Took Crowell Institute for 

At-Risk Youth; statement .................................................................................... 586 

Project NIA; statement ............................................................................................ 595 

Public Counsel Law Center and CADRE; statement ............................................ 602 

Racial Justice Initiative of TimeBanks USA; statement ...................................... 610 

Redeploy Illinois; statement ................................................................................... 613 

Restorative Schools Vision Project; statement ...................................................... 630 

Samantha Buckingham; statement ........................................................................ 633 

Representative sample: students, youth organizers, parents and other family 

members, teachers, school administrators, juvenile court personnel, and 

others .................................................................................................................... 642 

Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, Inc.; statement ............................................ 679 

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District; statement .................................... 682 

Schott Foundation for Public Education; statement ............................................. 683 

Schubert Center for Child Studies, Case Western Reserve University; statement ...................................................................................................................... 690 

South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center; statement ................................ 696 

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC); statement ................................................ 701 

Southwest Minnesota Private Industry Council; statement ................................ 711 

Student Advocacy Center of Michigan; statement ................................................ 718 

Texas Appleseed; statement ................................................................................... 719 

Texas Public Policy Foundation; statement .......................................................... 729 

The California Endowment; statement .................................................................. 739 

The Civil Rights Project (UCLA); statement ......................................................... 749 

The Equity Project, Indiana University; statement .............................................. 787 

The National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.; statement ............. 789 

United States Commission on Civil Rights; statement ........................................ 799 

United States Commission on Civil Rights; appendix I ....................................... 800 

United States Commission on Civil Rights; appendix II ...................................... 823 

VOYCE: Statement of Emma Tai, VOYCE Coordinator ...................................... 827 

VOYCE: Statement of Maria Degillo, VOYCE Organizer .................................... 831 

W. Haywood Burns Institute; statement ............................................................... 835 

Youth Advocate Programs, Inc.; statement ........................................................... 839 
Page

VI 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Submissions for the record not printed due to voluminous nature, previously 

printed by an agency of the Federal Government, or other criteria determined by the Committee, list: ............................................................................. 847 

ACLU, ‘‘Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline’’ ..................................................... 847 

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclulstatementlforlsjclsubcomml 

hearinglonlthelschoolltolprisonlpipelinel12l2012.pdf .............. 847 

Vera Institute Testimony ........................................................................................

http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/michaeljacobson-testimony-school-to-prison-pipeline.pdf ........................................ 847 
(1) 

ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in Room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin, Leahy, Franken, and Blumenthal. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. This hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

will come to order, and today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Ending the 

School-to-Prison Pipeline.’’ 

Good afternoon. My name is Dick Durbin. I am honored to be 

here with the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Pat Leahy. I 

chair the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights, and for those who are attending their first Congressional hearing, let me explain how we proceed. 

I will deliver a brief opening statement, then recognize my colleagues, starting with Senator Leahy. Next we will turn to witnesses for opening statements, and after their statements, Members of the Subcommittee will have some questions for the witnesses. I want to welcome those who have joined us in the hearing 

room, those watching the live online stream, and all those following 

the hearing on social media using the hashtag school, the number 

two, prison. 

We are pleased to have a large and enthusiastic audience for today’s hearing. It demonstrates the timeliness and importance of 

this issue. At the outset, I want to note that the rules of the Senate 

prohibit outbursts, clapping, or demonstrations of any kind at a 

public hearing. There was so much interest in today’s hearing that 

we moved to this larger room. If anyone could not get a seat in the 

hearing room, we have an overflow room with a live video feed. 

That room is on the fifth floor of this building, Hart Room 562. 

This is the first ever congressional hearing on what is called ‘‘the 

school-to-prison pipeline.’’ In the past, this Subcommittee examined 

other troubling aspects of our criminal justice system such as solitary confinement and racial profiling. Today, we discuss another 

trend. For many young people, our schools are increasingly a gate-
2 

way to the criminal justice system. What is especially concerning 

about this phenomenon is that it deprives our kids of their fundamental right to an education. 

Beginning in the 1990s, concerns about school violence, some of 

them very rightful concerns, and a growing awareness of bullying 

led many schools to hire police and institute zero-tolerance policies. 

This resulted in a dramatic increase in suspensions, expulsions, 

and even in-school arrests for misbehavior that had been judged to 

that point to be rather normal for school children. 

This school-to-prison pipeline has moved scores of young people 

from classrooms to courtrooms. A schoolyard fight that used to warrant a visit to the principal’s office can now lead to a trip to the 

booking station and a judge. Sadly, there are schools that look 

more like prisons than places for children to learn and grow. Students pass through metal detectors and police roam the halls. 

Suspensions, expulsions, and in-school arrests lead to kids being 

out of the classroom and a troubling increase in the number of 

young people sent to the juvenile justice system. According to one 

leading study, students who were suspended were twice as likely 

to repeat a grade and three times as likely to be involved with the 

juvenile justice system. Once kids enter that system, they are more 

likely to fail in school, which in turn increases their chances for arrest in the future. This is a cycle with increased public safety risks 

for everyone in the community, and the pipeline is expensive. The 

costs of policing schools and unnecessarily housing juveniles in detention are enormous. 

The racial disparities in this issue are stark. Nationally, African 

American students are three times more likely to be suspended and 

four times more likely to be expelled than their white peers, and 

more than 70 percent of students arrested in schools are African 

American or Latino. 

What is more, the disparities extend beyond race. Nationally, 

students with disabilities are suspended at more than twice the 

rate of students without disabilities, and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 

transgender youth are more likely to be disciplined and arrested 

than their peers. 

Let me be clear. We cannot blame teachers and school administrators for this pipeline. Teachers have one of the hardest, and in 

many ways least appreciated, jobs in America. We have got to give 

them the tools, the training, and the resources to keep our schools 

safe. With ever-shrinking resources, many public schools are just 

overwhelmed. 

I remember when Derrion Albert—I am sure Congressman Davis 

remembers this—was killed near his high school on the South Side 

of Chicago in 2009. It was a tragedy for his community and the entire city. In the aftermath of tragedies like that, our first instinct 

is to protect, and our number one priority has to be keeping our 

kids safe. The challenge is how to accomplish this without overdisciplining students into failure. 

Today our witnesses will explain how we can meet this challenge. 

Around the country, students, judges, educators, and police have 

instituted some really creative reforms. They have made our 

schools and communities safer, saving millions of dollars in re-
3 

duced incarceration costs and investing in a better future for our 

kids. 

My home state of Illinois is part of this movement. Redeploy Illinois, a bipartisan initiative, helps counties provide comprehensive 

services to at-risk youth. For an annual cost of $2.4 million, participating counties have reduced juvenile detention rates by more than 

50 percent, saving the state $40 million. And Chicago Public 

Schools are also taking steps to address the pipeline, reducing the 

length of automatic suspensions, encouraging what is known as restorative justice, which involves fellow students mediating conflicts. 

Just this summer, the CPS system announced a brand-new Student Code of Conduct to promote positive learning environments 

and limit unnecessary disciplinary action. Yesterday I spoke with 

our new CPS CEO, Barbara Byrd Bennett, and I am committed to 

working with her to build on these positive steps. 

I look forward to hearing more about the solutions to this problem during the course of this hearing, and now I want to recognize 

the Chairman of the full Committee, Senator Pat Leahy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and I appreciate you bringing the attention to this as you have in chairing the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Subcommittee. You 

have had a series of hearings that have really spoken to what 

should be the conscience of our Nation. And the issue of whether 

we are creating a school-to-prison pipeline is something of pressing 

national importance, no matter what part of the country you come 

from. 

I look forward to working with you on a number of hearings, including questions of sentencing and the way we sentence people, 

the mandatory minimums and others. I think if anyone looks at today’s New York Times, you see a 27-year-old woman for a rather 

minor crime, because of the laws, is given a life sentence. Oh, come 

on. What are we doing? Already, in our country, the United States 

has the highest reported rate of incarceration of any country. Any 

country. I mean, this is—something is wrong here. 

I am concerned that too young people are being funneled into the 

criminal justice system, and I think everybody here knows that 

when they are, their problems only multiply. Anybody who has 

been a prosecutor knows the importance of holding criminals accountable. But we also have to know what kind of a society do we 

have, and when we are talking about young people, we should be 

thinking about the best way to teach them to become responsible, 

contributing members of society as adults, but also to rehabilitate 

them away from lives of crime. That makes our communities safer, 

not just saying a ‘‘lock-them-all-up’’ attitude. 

Now, the Chairman has mentioned about young people from minority communities. By any standard, they are overrepresented in 

our juvenile justice and criminal justice systems. I have been fighting for decades because of my concern that too many runaway and 

homeless youth are still locked up for status offenses even though 

they did not commit any crime. I have consistently fought for new 

and effective juvenile justice legislation. I introduced the Juvenile 
4 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act. I will reintroduce it in the next Congress. We will keep fighting for these 

things. This would refocus attention on prevention programs, trying to keep children from being in the criminal justice system in 

the first place. 

Senator Durbin is absolutely right. These children should not be 

in adult prisons, and our legislation will help with that, especially 

when you are talking about at-risk youth, many times needing 

mental or drug rehabilitation, not prison. 

The Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act reauthorized a critical 

Federal grant program to help States and local communities address the needs of runaway and homeless youth in both urban and 

rural areas, youth who sometimes end up in jail not having committed any crime. In fact, President Bush signed this bipartisan 

bill into law in October 2008. There is the Second Chance Act, 

which Senator Durbin has been a champion of that. Congressman 

Davis, you know yourself, sir, from what you have seen how important that is. These can help keep children from being enmeshed in 

the juvenile justice system. 

We had a hearing in August of this year that I chaired talking 

about rising prison costs. This just pointed out that people are 

being incarcerated longer and longer, increased costs, an enormous 

strain on Federal, State, and local budgets, and it has not made 

anybody safer. So we ought to be trying to find out ways to keep 

children out of the criminal justice system, not add to it. 

Mr. Chairman, I will put my full statement in the record. I apologize for the voice, but I wanted to be here at least for this part just 

to say how proud I am of Senator Durbin for doing this. 

You know, these are the things that really affect every community, whether they are in large States like Illinois, small States like 

Vermont, large cities, small towns. It affects us all. As a Nation, 

we can do better. More importantly, as a Nation, for the sake of 

our own soul, we have to do better. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Leahy, thank you for being here and 

for your statement and for your leadership on the Judiciary Committee. 

Senator Lindsey Graham is my Ranking Republican Member. 

He has been fully cooperative in setting the agenda today but 

has a conflict and cannot attend this hearing. His staff is following 

it. He may have follow-up questions to our witnesses, but I want 

to personally thank Senator Graham for his personal interest. 

I also received an interesting phone call, which I will share with 

another colleague, from Senator-elect Chris Murphy of Connecticut, 

who expressed his interest in this issue as well. Soon he will be 

sworn in and an official part of the Senate, and I look forward to 

working with him to resolve some of the differences that we see 

during the course of this hearing. 

I would like to ask Senator Blumenthal, if he has an opening 

statement, I would give him that opportunity. 
5 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Just a few words. Thank you to you, Senator Durbin, for your leadership and your vision and your very vigorous leadership on this issue, and particularly to Senator Leahy 

for his chairmanship of the Committee and encouraging this step. 

And to all of the folks who are here today, your expression of interest in this very impressive way, I think, gives us heart that real 

progress is possible. And it is necessary progress. The two opening 

witnesses that we have before us today, I not only thank you but 

express my admiration to you for your work in achieving progress. 

And I look forward to continuing on this Subcommittee. I am 

very proud to serve on it with you, Senator Durbin, and thank you 

very much for giving me this opportunity. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Blumenthal. 

Our first panel, we are honored to be joined by two Members of 

the House and good friends: Congressman Bobby Scott and Congressman Danny Davis. Each of them will have five minutes for an 

opening statement, and we will go in order of seniority. 

Congressman Bobby Scott has represented Virginia’s Third District for almost 20 years. He serves on the House Committee on the 

Judiciary where he is the former Chair and current Ranking Member of the Crime Subcommittee. He is a long-time champion of civil 

rights and criminal justice reform. We have worked together in the 

past. 

Bobby, it has been a real joy for me to work with you on so many 

issues. Among many other efforts, I was pleased to work with you 

on the Fair Sentencing Act to finally reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. I am sorry it did not 

reach the number we were looking for, but I think we made some 

progress. Perhaps we can visit that again sometime soon. 

Now, Congressman Scott, I will give you a chance to say a few 

words before I introduce my Illinois colleague. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Representative SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Blumenthal, Chairman Leahy. I want to thank you for developing 

this hearing and for providing me with an opportunity to testify. 

I also want to thank you for your long record in human and civil 

rights, especially the issues that you mentioned. 

I am happy to be here with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Davis, 

who is testifying. We have been working in a bipartisan manner 

with our House colleagues to address the topic of today’s hearing, 

the school-to-prison pipeline or, as the Children’s Defense Fund 

calls it, ‘‘the cradle-to-prison pipeline.’’ 

The school-to-prison pipeline arises when overly harsh, nondiscretionary school discipline practices such as zero tolerance policies 

are applied to address even minor misbehavior through harsh disciplinary actions that are ineffective and often counterproductive. 

Research shows that these get-tough approaches to discipline not 

only reinforce bad behavior, but set up a progression from disciplinary proceedings to suspensions, expulsions, arrests, juvenile or 

criminal proceedings, jail, and then prison. 
6 

Minority students are much more likely to be subject to the pipeline than white students who commit similar infractions, and students with disabilities are more likely to receive one or more outof-school suspensions than those without disabilities. Not surprisingly, there is a high correlation between harsh school discipline 

and school dropout. If a student is not doing well in school and is 

acting out, the last thing the student needs is to be put out of 

school and end up at home or hanging out in the streets with no 

supervision and nothing constructive to do. 

As a result of the choices to use counterproductive school disciplinary strategies as well as codification of ineffective slogans and 

sound bites, the United States leads the world in incarceration of 

its children. I passed out, Mr. Chairman, a chart that shows where 

we are, just off the chart in terms of juvenile incarceration. The minority rate is even worse. In D.C., 98 percent of the incarcerated 

juveniles are minorities. 

The juvenile justice part of the school-to-prison pipeline is a feeder system for the adult incarceration where we also lead the world 

by far. We have a chart that shows the incarceration rate, number 

one in the world at over 700 per 100,000, and the minority rates 

just off the chart. These numbers are particularly egregious because 700 per 100,000 is way over what the Pew Research Center 

shows: 350 per 100,000, diminishing returns; anything over 500 is 

actually counterproductive, meaning that they contribute more to 

crime than reducing crime. 

It is clear that we need more than ever for our schools to be 

change agents for our students who are at risk of falling into the 

school-to-prison pipeline. The approach must be comprehensive and 

evidence based, starting with teen pregnancy prevention to reduce 

the number of babies born into dysfunctional families, prenatal 

care to reduce the incidence of mental retardation and learning disabilities, nurse visits and parental training to reduce child abuse 

and neglect, preschools so that children can start school ready to 

learn. In addition, we need policies which include school-wide positive behavior supports and programs that encourage college attendance so that we can replace the cradle-to-prison pipeline with a cradle-to-college-and career pipeline. 

Comprehensive strategies work. They not only reduce crime and 

other social pathology like teen pregnancy, but they also save more 

money than they cost. The Youth Promise Act follows this approach, and we would hope that you would give that consideration. 

Now, the question of can we afford these initiatives. The Pew 

study shows that incarceration beyond 500 per 100,000 is counterproductive, and if we were to reduce the African American rate, 

which is over 2,000 per 100,000, down to that level, we would have 

more than enough savings to fund any programs that we want. In 

fact, the chart on the back shows the arithmetic, that if you put 

the counterproductive incarceration money targeted to at-risk children, you could spent $5,000 per child every year. In ten states, 

that number is almost $10,000 per child per year that you are 

wasting in counterproductive incarceration. 

So, in closing, the research and evidence shows that Frederick 

Douglass was right when he said, ‘‘It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.’’ We need to stop wasting money 
7 

on counterproductive and ineffective slogans and sound bites. We 

need to invest in our children, and when we do, we will reduce 

crime and save money. 

I want to thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Scott appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Congressman Scott. 

Congressman Danny Davis has been in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1996 and before that was on the Cook County 

Board of Commissioners and on the Chicago City Council. He is the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of 

Columbia, Census, and the Archives. Danny has been a national 

leader when it comes to issues related to incarceration. He is the 

author of the Second Chance Act, which assists ex-offenders with 

reentry and helps prevent recidivism. I can tell you firsthand, I 

have been to his district, I have visited the churches and the centers where these ex-offenders come and try to rebuild a life. Danny 

Davis spends his life with them, helping them in that journey. 

Danny, I know this comes from the heart, so we appreciate your 

testimony today, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANNY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Representative DAVIS. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin, 

Chairman Leahy, Senator Franken, Senator Blumenthal, and other 

Members of the Subcommittee. I applaud you for holding this historic hearing to discuss the problem of and potential remedies for 

the school-to-prison pipeline. Given that minority men disproportionately experience exclusionary discipline, I and my colleagues in 

the Congressional Black Caucus, including Representative Bobby 

Scott, have advocated vigorously for over a decade that the Federal 

Government should lead the effort to address the overdisciplining 

of youth, a key factor involved in the educational crisis of African 

Americans, and especially African American men. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to testify today and, again, Senator Durbin, I must thank you for your leadership in raising one 

of the most profound, most pernicious, and most complex but most 

elusive issues of our day and in examining how do we really get 

at the school-to-prison pipeline that has helped cause us to become 

the most imprisoned nation on the face of the Earth. 

We all know that education is absolutely central to making it in 

modern-day society, and we know that the more time spent being 

instructed, the more likely one will be able to learn. The less time 

spent in instruction, the less likely one will be able to learn. 

Whatever comes from this hearing, we will all owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude because you will have helped put the spotlight on one of America’s most glaring but most elusive problems. 

We know that there are many important steps to address the 

problem of pushout. I briefly will highlight certain actions that I 

believe are critical based on my tenure in Congress and my work 

as Chair of the Education and Labor Task Force of the Congressional Black Caucus. 

To begin, we must view discipline as an indicator for identifying 

struggling schools and for directing supports to them. To do this, 
8 

we must first collect and examine discipline data. The Congressional Black Caucus strongly praised the Administration’s enhanced discipline variables within the Civil Rights Data Collection. 

The Civil Rights Data Collection is instrumental to understanding 

compliance with Federal civil rights laws. However, we must also 

use discipline data to direct supports to struggling schools prior to 

a civil rights violation. 

For this reason, I and other legislators champion bills to promote 

school-wide, evidence-based disciplinary systems such as positive 

behavior interventions and supports, social and emotional learning, 

and restorative justice programs. Research demonstrates that these 

programs improve school climate, academic performance, and student attendance, as well as to reduce discipline referrals, suspensions, expulsions, and out-of-class time due to discipline referrals. 

Given that minority men disproportionately experience exclusionary discipline, we cannot truly understand pushout or the success of interventions without examining discipline data by the 

interaction of gender, race, and ethnicity. I am much more likely 

to be suspended not just because I am male or not just because I 

am African American, but because I am an African American male. 

We must focus on the early years as well. It is unacceptable that 

African American male preschoolers are expelled at almost nine 

times the rate of African American girls, with white preschool boys 

being expelled at only four times the rate of their female peers. 

Further, to ensure that all public schools address systematic discipline problems, the authorizing entities for charter schools should 

integrate discipline issues in a substantive way into charter reviews and renewal policies. 

The executive branch also plays an important role in promoting 

better discipline practices. The Supportive School Discipline Initiative, the collaboration between the Department of Justice and the 

Department of Education, represents a critical step. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to share in this historic— 

and when I say ‘‘historic,’’ I mean historic—and meaningful hearing. So I thank you and all of your colleagues for the interest that 

you have shown, and I do believe that this moves us to another 

level, and I thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Davis appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Congressman Davis, thank you very much. 

And you are both welcome to stay. We have two excellent panels 

here that I think will make a contribution toward this conversation. And then, afterwards, we need to get back together so that 

this just is not a nice talk, but that we end up, as you said, Congressman Scott, taking a look at specific legislation. Let us see 

what we can do here to address this problem. Thank you, both of 

you, for the leadership that you have shown. And I am going to 

move to the second panel now, but I invite you to stay if you wish. 

I know you are busy, too. 

Representative DAVIS. Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. I will ask the witnesses for the second panel 

to please come to the table. They are representatives of the Obama 

Administration from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Edu-
9 

cation. We are about to hear more on the Administration’s initiative to address the school-to-prison pipeline on the Federal level. 

On another matter related to the safety of our children, just this 

morning our National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence 

presented its final recommendations. This is in addition to the Department of Justice’s National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention, which is the kind of multidisciplinary approach we need to reduce youth violence and improve public safety. I am pleased Chicago was one of the first cities to join that forum. 

Now, each of our witnesses here will have five minutes for an 

opening statement. Their complete written statements will be part 

of the record, and we are going to start, as is the tradition of this 

Committee, by swearing in the witnesses. And after your testimony, questions will be asked, and some written questions may be 

sent your way. So if you would not mind standing, please, and raise 

your right hand? 

Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Ms. DELISLE. I do. 

Ms. HANES. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that both 

witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

Deborah Delisle is the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education. She is 

responsible for Federal policy to assist State and local education 

agencies. She also serves as a principal advisor to Secretary Arne 

Duncan on all pre-kindergarten, elementary, and secondary education issues. Assistant Secretary Delisle has worked in the education field for 37 years, including tenure as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in Ohio. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBORAH DELISLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Ms. DELISLE. Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me 

to participate in this hearing. I am pleased to be part of this really 

important conversation and, on behalf of Secretary Duncan, I want 

to thank you, Senator Durbin and Members of the Subcommittee, 

for convening a discussion on an issue that affects the educational 

and life outcomes of millions of youth across our Nation. Your leadership on this issue, Senator Durbin, is commendable. 

I also appreciated hearing from Congressman Scott and Congressman Davis on this important issue, and I certainly hope it is 

one that we will continue to have in the near future. 

I welcome the opportunity to share with you the Department’s efforts to support all of America’s children by keeping them in school, 

engaged in learning, and, most especially, out of the judicial system 

as well as prison. This is clearly an issue of grave concern for all 

of us. 

Over the past 18 months, the Department’s efforts have been galvanized by findings from two distinct data collections: first, the 

2011 Breaking Schools’ Rules study, a longitudinal study by the 
10 

Council of State Governments that included more than one million 

public school students in the State of Texas; and, second, the Department of Education’s own 2012 Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC). Together, these two pieces reveal three very disturbing 

trends, and while you have heard about these already, they bear 

repeating: 

First, there is an overreliance on suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement as a means of managing student behavior; 

Secondly, the disproportionate impact of such practices on students of color, students with disabilities, and other subgroups; and 

last, the increased risk of juvenile justice involvement for students 

who are suspended or expelled. 

While many schools implement evidence-based supportive strategies to manage student behavior, it is clear that too many schools 

are overly reliant on discipline practices that remove students from 

schools. Based on data from the 72,000 schools that participated in 

the last CRDC study, released last spring, we estimate that over 

three million students were suspended out of school during the 

2009–10 school year. During that same timeframe, 108,000 students were expelled, and over 240,000 students were referred to 

law enforcement. 

The Breaking Schools’ Rules report helps place these figures into 

context. Nearly 60 percent of all Texas students studied were suspended or expelled at least once between seventh and 12th grade, 

and 15 percent of students were punished by suspension or expulsion 11 or more times during that same time period. 

It is also important to note that, according to research, the vast 

majority of such disciplinary actions are not related to guns, drugs, 

or violence; rather, they are used to discipline students for minor 

acts of misconduct, such as non-attendance, disobedience, or classroom disruption. 

School discipline practices which unnecessarily remove students 

from their classrooms directly conflict with our goal of helping all 

students to achieve college and career readiness. And until more 

schools recognize the essential relationships interconnecting social, 

emotional, and behavioral skills and student achievement, and 

until more schools provide students with behavioral supports that 

directly address misconduct, we will not be successful in creating 

learning environments that are both safe and productive for all of 

America’s children. 

We have demonstrated our commitment to improving climate 

and student supports in the Department’s budget request and signature initiatives. For example, the sole competitive priority of the 

Race to the Top District Competition, a $400 million investment, 

is designed to promote comprehensive, local reforms in our nation’s 

schools and is devoted to integrating public and/or private resources to augment student and family supports that address the 

social, emotional, and behavioral needs. 

As we continue forward, we are looking closely at multi-tiered behavioral frameworks, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions 

and Supports, to better inform our technical assistance as well as 

our financial supports. However we know that we must do more to 

ensure that school discipline practices improve for all of America’s 
11 

children. We are alarmed by the large disparities in the rate of disciplinary sanctions, particularly for students of color, students with 

disabilities, and male students. When African American students 

are more than three and a half times as likely to be suspended or 

expelled as their white peers, or students with disabilities are twice 

as likely to receive out-of-school suspensions as their non-disabled 

peers, as they are today, it raises substantial concerns. 

These concerns are reflected in our Department’s enforcement efforts and in the stories we have heard from the field, which demonstrate too often that students face discipline actions on the basis 

of their race. 

To give a specific example, an African American kindergartner 

was given a five-day suspension for setting off a fire alarm, while 

a white ninth grader in the very same district was suspended for 

one day for the same offense. 

To ensure that all students are treated equitably, as a Nation we 

need a multi-pronged strategy that encourages educators to 

proactively monitor their discipline practices for disproportionality, 

assess for root causes where disproportionality exists, and engage 

in a broad-based community effort to develop an action plan to root 

out discrimination in the administration of discipline. 

The Department’s Office of Civil Rights has intensified its enforcement activities and data collection to ensure that students are 

not disciplined more severely or frequently because of their race, 

their color, or their national origin. From 2009 to 2012, OCR 

launched 20 proactive investigations in schools with significant racial disparities in discipline based on data from the most recent 

CRDC. In addition, OCR has dramatically expanded the Civil 

Rights Data Collection System, so that, for the 2011–12 data collection, the Department is currently collecting data from all school 

districts in the country—approximately 17,000 in all. 

There is evidence indicating that school discipline practices have 

consequences beyond the school yard, as has been noted previously. 

According to the Breaking Schools’ Rules study, nearly half of the 

students who were disciplined 11 or more times were in contact 

with the juvenile justice system. In contrast, only two percent of 

the students who had no school disciplinary actions were in contact 

with the juvenile justice system. 

We also know that schools are critical partners for providing disconnected and vulnerable youth—such as homeless youth; children 

in foster care; trafficked youth; youth with mental, emotional, or 

behavioral disorders; children exposed to violence; and children of 

incarcerated parents—with the mental and behavioral supports 

that they need. 

The Department convened a November 19th summit of 80 participants from all over the country, including Federal partners 

scholars, researchers and practitioners with specialized knowledge 

of education in criminal justice facilities, to review a draft correctional education strategy and provide feedback. 

We are very pleased to work in partnership with our colleague, 

Melodee Hanes, and her incredible staff in the Department of Justice, and I look forward to her sharing the work in which we have 

been engaged as partners. 
12 

The challenge that lies before us is complex, as it requires careful consideration of seemingly competing factors. How do we keep 

our students safe while seeking school-based responses to misconduct? How do we transition school cultures into environments 

of support while addressing specialized needs often exhibited by 

our most challenged students? These are neither easy questions, 

nor are they simple to address. For sure, their answers lie in the 

best of our collective thinking and work and in the recognition that 

this is not a zero-sum game, because America’s children deserve 

nothing less than our collective energies, our best thinking, and, 

most especially, our commitment to equity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Delisle appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Secretary Delisle. 

Melodee Hanes serves as the Acting Administrator in the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. She has worked as an assistant county attorney in both 

Montana and Iowa. As a prosecutor, Ms. Hanes handled countless 

child abuse cases. She has taught at Drake University Law School 

and the District Attorneys National Advocacy Center. 

Ms. Hanes, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MELODEE HANES, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY 

PREVENTION, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. HANES. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and distinguished 

Members of this Subcommittee. Thank you so much for this opportunity to talk to you today about this critically important issue. 

The problem, to state it very succinctly, is the pervasive use of 

court referrals as a means of disciplining kids in school. I want to 

share with you the work that the Department of Justice is doing, 

along with our partners at the Department of Education, to address this very serious problem. But before I begin, I want to acknowledge a special guest that I brought with me today: Bob 

Listenbee, who is the co-chair of the Attorney General’s Task Force 

on Children Exposed to Violence. We have just come from the 

meeting of the Coordinating Council, as you referenced, and the 

recommendations were made to the Attorney General by this very 

important task force to address the pervasive problem of children 

exposed to violence in the Nation. These recommendations are significant and will have a major impact, including on our topic we 

are discussing today. So in the coming days, we will be disseminating the report to Members of Congress. 

As Assistant Secretary Delisle stated, a staggering number of 

children every year are suspended or expelled from public school. 

Millions of them. I do not know about you, but when I was in high 

school, that was the exception, and it was not the norm. 

Most remarkably, as she referenced, the Texas study found that 

only three percent of those suspensions and expulsions were for serious violations, such as drug use or gun possession, and a vast 

majority were for discretionary or minor offenses, such as truancy, 

dress code violations, classroom disruptions. As Secretary Delisle 

pointed out, the Texas study indicated that 15 percent of those mil-
13 

lion children were suspended 11 or more times, and what was important about the study, that 15 percent, those were children of 

color, and those were children with disabilities. 

The other thing that the study did, interestingly, was compare 

the school records with juvenile justice records. Those 15 percent 

were the kids that ended up in the juvenile justice system. 

So why is that correlation important, and why do I bring it your 

attention today—the issue of kids referred to the juvenile justice 

system from schools? It is important because in the research we 

have done and accumulated over the 40 years that OJJDP has 

been around, we have learned that the minute a child sets foot in 

the juvenile justice system, their chances of becoming an adult offender go up 50 percent. As soon as they enter the juvenile justice 

system, their chances of completing their education, their chances 

of getting a good job, their chances in life in general diminish significantly. 

We have learned that finding successful alternatives to referring 

kids to court or locking them up leads to much better outcomes for 

these children at much less expense. On the average, it costs about 

$10,000 a year to educate a child. The average cost to lock up a 

child in the United States is $87,000 a year. 

As soon as the Attorney General learned of this Texas study, he 

called for immediate action, and that was the beginning of the Department of Justice partnership with the Department of Education. 

And it was the birth of the Supportive School Discipline Initiative. 

The initiative has four primary goals: 

First, to develop a consensus among the experts about what the 

best practices and policies are that we know of that can be implemented and what we do not know—what do we need to find out. 

Second, to collaborate on research and data between the Department of Justice and the Department of Education. 

Third, we need to work together to develop guidance for local 

school districts and states to help them engage in the best practices 

that do not violate the civil rights of these children. 

And, fourth, our initiative emphasizes the need to educate the 

public about the necessity to have appropriate discipline procedures 

and alternatives to juvenile court referrals. 

The Department of Justice and our Federal partners are working 

very diligently to support this initiative, but I would be remiss if 

I did not talk to you about one other important partner that came 

and knocked at our door, literally, when we began this initiative. 

Private philanthropic enterprises, specifically Atlantic Philanthropies, knocked at our door as soon as we announced the initiative and asked if they could participate. But, frankly, to my surprise, it was not just, ‘‘Can we participate and be at the table? ’’ It 

was, ‘‘Can we contribute money? ’’ That does not happen to the Federal Government very often. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HANES. And so we were glad to bring this new partner to 

the table and invest with them, and I have to tell you, it has created in our world a whole new paradigm of public-private partnerships to achieve the same outcomes. 

So, like Education, we are very pleased that we have been able 

to accomplish a lot in 18 months. We are up and moving on the 
14 

consensus initiative, and that report will be final by December 

2013. At OJJDP, we invested $1.5 million last year in research to 

support looking at best practices and the correlation between discipline and juvenile court referrals. 

We have also been working diligently with the Department of 

Education to develop the guidance for local school districts and 

States. And, finally, we have steered other resources that we have, 

like our formula dollars. We have tried to steer those to States that 

engage in programs that find alternatives to detention and specifically those that reduce disproportionate minority impact on children of color and children with disabilities. For example, the Memphis City Schools used our OJJDP formula funding to implement 

a program to divert kids from school-to-court referrals—instead of 

sending them to court, finding after-school programs. As a result, 

they have reduced the number of youth transported to juvenile 

court by 52 percent. And I need to tell you, 85 percent of those kids 

that had been referred were kids of color. 

The State of Connecticut has made similar strides with their program aimed at reducing court referrals from schools and have reduced their referrals for African American youth by 60 percent. 

They have reduced their court referrals for Latin American youth 

by 64 percent. 

OJJDP was created by Congress in 1974 to provide national leadership to the States on juvenile justice. So we feel it is our mission 

to ensure that when children come into contact with the juvenile 

justice system—first of all, it is rare that they do. But, second, 

when they do, it is fair; and, third, when they leave the system, 

they are better off for it. It is beneficial to them for having touched 

the system. 

We have a vision at OJJDP of a nation of children that are 

healthy, that are educated, and that are free from violence. And it 

is our belief that this partnership and this Supportive School Discipline Initiative seeks to fulfill that mission and that vision. 

Thank you so much for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanes appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks for your testimony. As Senator 

Franken and Senator Blumenthal could probably tell you, as we go 

around, education is one of those issues that everyone claims some 

expertise. We have all been in classrooms, and we all have memories and experiences that we think are instructive and helpful. And 

so I am not going to dwell on what it was like in the good old days 

when I went to school other than to say I many times would have 

welcomed a police officer rather than a ruler-wielding nun in my 

class. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. At least I think I would have. 

But here is what I would like to ask and really get down to basics. How have things changed? Why have they changed? What is 

the difference? I mean, is it a difference in the students and parents and family relationships with teachers? Is it a difference in 

the threat to safety and order in schools which now includes the 

possibility of firearms, bullying, a lot of things that were not happening at least to the degree that they seem to be happening now? 
15 

Is it a difference in the resources in schools where, stretched to the 

limit, the teachers say, ‘‘Listen, I can either make a call to the police department or just let this continue, because I do not have the 

resources to deal with this, a social worker or any program to refer 

this student to’’ ? 

What has changed here that has led to this dramatic change in 

the reported numbers of referrals of students from schools into the 

criminal justice system? 

Ms. DELISLE. Senator Durbin, I think I probably went to the 

same school and remember the same ruler that you had, or, at 

least, I remember it being used too often. I think that ruler kind 

of demonstrates the big difference between then and now because 

that is not the type of classroom environment that is either supported or even tolerated, if you will, by parents and even by students. I think it is a really complex issue. 

But one thing I want to really emphasize here is that we know 

so much more about students’ social and emotional well-being. 

When I think back to my own educational trajectory, if you will, 

and I think about classrooms, I can think of very distinct individuals in my school who probably had some very severe social and 

emotional issues, and I don’t remember clearly people dealing with 

those. So the students were put out. So I do not know if students 

were put out less than they are now or students were just not 

going to school. 

But I do know that there is obviously a graver concern around 

the social and emotional well-being of students. But to that end, we 

have seen an increase certainly of students who come to school 

after witnessing or experiencing violence—and I think, you know, 

our meeting earlier today with the Department of Justice really 

brought to light the impact of violence on children and how they 

respond back, sometimes with violence themselves. 

There are more laws surrounding the protection of children. 

There are more laws around what can be done in a classroom or 

in a school. In some instances, there are fewer resources in schools. 

So when I think about having been a building principal as well as 

a superintendent, there were times when I had to make some very 

unfortunate budget reductions, and sometimes a guidance counselor or a social worker would have been cut as opposed to cutting 

a math teacher, for example. 

So I think it is a really complex issue, but I think it is one that 

we really need to address. I happen to be a big believer that what 

we offer to children tells them what it is that we value. So when 

we offer school climates that are conducive to being supportive of 

all students, that provide teachers with the tools necessary, such 

as positive behavior interventions and how to utilize those appropriately in schools, I think we are telling our children that we care 

enough about them to be proactive on the front end. 

Now, I think the good news is that there are many, many schools 

across this country who are really focusing on school climates and 

the importance of school climate in terms of helping kids to feel 

successful and comfortable. 

Chairman DURBIN. Ms. Hanes, I just recalled an instance where 

one of the schools in Joliet, Illinois, had a local policeman who was 

there every day. That is not uncommon in many schools, particular 
16 

in city schools. He was the best choice they could have had because 

he spent his weekends with the kids, taking them on field trips and 

really teaching them an attitude toward law enforcement they 

might not have ever had. So there can be a positive interaction, 

clearly, between the justice system and education. 

We know the abuses. Your group looks into them and reported 

on them today. But can you tell us how we can reconcile that and 

try to deal with these changes in circumstances that seem so stark? 

Ms. HANES. They do seem quite stark. I think it might help to 

look back a little bit at history and how we have treated children 

in the criminal justice system over the decades. And one thing that 

I think is relevant to your past question as well as this is that in 

the 1990s, we saw a significant uptick in the number of arrests in 

juveniles in this country, and it was a combination of a lot of 

things, but primarily the belief that there was more violent crime 

and that there was a problem with youthful offenders, and ‘‘tough 

on crime’’ was the belief, the right answer. And we have learned 

since that time when there was a significant uptick and significant 

negative experiences with youthful offenders and law enforcement 

that those outcomes are not good. And I think we are learning 

cyclically again that that is not the answer to respond in schools. 

We at OJJDP have, in fact, supported many mentoring programs, for example, combining law enforcement and youth, whether it is sporting programs or one-to-one mentoring programs specifically, to acclimate at-risk youth with the law enforcement world 

and demystify it and create a positive relationship and outcome. 

And I can tell you that we also have heard similarly good reports 

just like your Joliet police officer in many schools around the country. So we do not want to demonize school resource officers. We just 

want to see the best practices used and the best discipline practices. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this incredibly important hearing. You do this a lot. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. You use this Committee to raise awareness 

about issues that otherwise might not get the attention they deserve, and this issue deserves a tremendous amount of attention. 

And I want to thank both Congressmen Scott and Davis for their 

testimony and both of you. 

First, I want to share a story, if I could. There is a young man 

in Minnesota, from Wilmer, Minnesota, named Indiana—like Indiana Jones, but that is not his—to protect Indiana’s identity, that 

is not his last name, Jones. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I think Indiana is fine with this. He was kind 

of on the wrong path in life. He was expelled from school twice. He 

had run-ins with the law. He was on probation. He had a bunch 

of outstanding fines. Things were not looking good for him. But Indiana managed to turn his life around before it was too late. He 

just needed some support, and he got it from public and private organizations in Wilmer, in his community. Indiana participated in 

the Southwest Minnesota Private Industry Council’s Youth Program, which is a program for kids who are on probation. He got 
17 

his GED. He completed a job training program. And now he is not 

getting into trouble anymore. And not only that, but he is working 

at least 40 hours a week as a successful tire technician at Prairie 

Pride in Marshall, Minnesota. He is good at his job, and he is enjoying it. And not only that, he is getting more education. He has 

enrolled in school to learn auto mechanics. 

We have a lot of problems, and I know this, in our educational 

and juvenile justice systems. We fail too many kids, kids who are 

expelled and suspended from school, and for every story like Indiana’s, there are so many other tragic stories. But these stories do 

give me hope. A thousand kids in Minnesota participate in youth 

intervention programs every year, and I would ask unanimous consent to submit letters and testimony from some groups in my state 

who are working to stop this school-to-prison pipeline: the Minnesota Juvenile Justice Coalition, the Minnesota Juvenile Justice 

Advisory Committee, the city of Minneapolis, which has done a 

great job, the Southwest Minnesota Private Industry Council’s 

Youth Program. 

Chairman DURBIN. Without objection. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. A couple things here. Representative Scott 

talked about the cradle-to-prison, and, Assistant Secretary Delisle, 

you are advisor to the Secretary on early childhood. Am I right? 

Ms. DELISLE. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Boy, it seems like we know that this is something to catch earlier, and that the investment in early childhood— 

and I commend the Secretary for focusing on early childhood in the 

new Race to the Top stuff and the Promise Neighborhoods. 

What is the data on that? What is the data on kids who have 

a quality early childhood—education in terms of incarceration? 

Ms. DELISLE. I do not really have that data available right here. 

We could certainly get that for you, Senator. I think the one thing 

that we are really grappling with right now is to accurately define 

the context of quality, and most especially defining high quality for 

early learning. 

But one of the things we do know is that students who are engaged as four-year-olds in high-quality preschool programs are far 

more likely to be successful in school. So I know one of the Secretary’s deep priorities is to expand early learning across this country and have more available access to high-quality programs for all 

four-year-olds. And, in fact, we have been working on a proposal for 

that on that very issue. 

One of the things that we are learning out of our early childhood 

Race to the Top grants, as you indicated, is how communities can 

be best organized to provide a wide array of services to students 

and their families, not just a straight academic program but a 

multi-tiered system to reach our most vulnerable children. So we 

could certainly get you the data on how many——— 

Senator FRANKEN. I would love that, because my understanding 

is that kids who come out of a quality early childhood program 

have a far lower rate of incarceration. 

Ms. DELISLE. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. And significantly so. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 
18 

Ms. DELISLE. May I add one comment to that which I think is 

really critical? That is the importance of preparing all students to 

be successful in school. So many of those programs in which those 

children are engaged really focus on language acquisition, for example, and literacy skills. When students come into school and 

they feel like they can be ready to read, if they are not reading already, and they can count, they are far less likely to be behind 

their age mix or their counterparts, which also leads to students’ 

dropping out of school or getting into trouble when they, in fact, 

can engage in the content in that classroom. 

Senator FRANKEN. I want to follow that up a little bit in terms 

of, Ms. Hanes, you have talked violence and exposure to violence. 

Ms. HANES. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Some of that exposure to violence is at home, 

and what I understand is that exposure to trauma—Assistant Secretary Delisle is talking about sort of cognitive skills, but I am 

thinking about emotional skills and emotional trauma and what 

that does. And, you know, kids’ witnessing violence, not necessarily 

directly being abused but witnessing their mom, and how much are 

we maybe so focused on academic and cognitive achievement that 

we are not focused enough on the emotional skills and emotional 

development that children need to be successful in school and in 

life. And, you know, what role—and the Assistant Secretary can 

weigh in on this. What extent does not having mental health professionals, not having social workers, not having counselors in the 

school to address this—because in Minnesota we have a ratio of 

771 students per counselor, and the recommended ratio is about 

250:1. Speak to that, if you might, and I would like to hear from 

both of you. 

Ms. HANES. I can speak to the issue of children’s exposure to violence, and that was precisely what the task force findings were 

today. Research has clearly indicated children exposed to violence, 

whether in the home, whether they are victims or they just witness 

it, whether it is in school or it is in the community, those children 

suffer trauma, and the evidence is conclusive that those children 

do not do as well. Physically, they tend to have more health care 

problems and medical maladies, but we also know that those children are significantly at risk for compromising their education ability, for mental health issues, and that they are at greater risk to 

enter the juvenile justice system. 

And what we heard this morning from this task force was we 

have to pay attention to that, not only to the early childhood development but to what trauma, if any, children have sustained and 

without intervention that begets violence. And so it clearly needs 

to be addressed simultaneously. We cannot look at these issues in 

a vacuum. 

Senator FRANKEN. Before the Assistant Secretary gets to counselors and social workers, I just want to address that response, 

which is the Chairman talked about specific legislation. We have 

a piece called VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, that I wish 

we would get passed in the House, because when you talk about 

exposure, children’s exposure to violence, you know, it is really important to have transitional housing for women who are being 

abused, physically abused, so they can get out of the house and 
19 

have a place, because sometimes they stay with their abuser because they have nowhere to go. So we have specific legislation that 

is desperately waiting to be passed in the House. 

Assistant Secretary. 

Ms. DELISLE. Thank you, Senator. One of the things I really 

want to emphasize as well is that when we are talking about highquality early school programs, preschool programs, we are also 

talking about developing the whole child, including the social and 

emotional components. And one of the things we have been working on really quite deeply with many States, particularly those in 

the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant States, is the 

development of kindergarten readiness assessments. So we will 

have far more knowledge about students who enter kindergarten 

and where they are at developmentally, not just from numeracy 

and literacy, for example, but where they are in their social and 

emotional well-being as well. So I really want to emphasize that. 

You know, when I look at the numbers and the ratio, for example, of school counselors, as you mentioned, it is really determined 

by every single State. And I was always concerned as a district superintendent when I would look and think about the resources so 

vital to supporting that classroom teacher, because classroom 

teachers work really, really hard to meet the needs of their students. But, with increasing numbers of students in classrooms, 

they also do not always have the skills necessary such as counselors or social workers have. 

So it is very concerning to me to have one student to every 800 

or 900 counselors, and many, many schools do not have social 

workers as well. 

Senator FRANKEN. If we had one student to every 800 counselors, 

we would be in great shape. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. But my worry is the 800 kids to every counselor. 

Ms. DELISLE. I am sorry. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sorry. That was kind of—I used to be in 

comedy. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. DELISLE. I remember. I apologize for that. 

Senator FRANKEN. I apologize, too. 

Ms. DELISLE. So 900 students to a single counselor. Nine hundred students to a single counselor is cause for concern. I apologize. 

I am not in comedy. But one of the things——— 

Senator FRANKEN. I know. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Sorry. I could not resist. 

Ms. DELISLE. Do you want me to keep my day job? 

Senator FRANKEN. Keep your day job. 

Ms. DELISLE. Keep my day job, OK. 

One of the things that we really have to work hard through our 

agency, especially with the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, is 

to get more schools understanding this multi-level, communitybased approach so that they are not just looking at what the resources are available in a school, but they are also looking at what 
20 

resources are available in a community, so it becomes a community 

partnership with that school district. 

For example, in a school district in which I worked, there were 

often times when classroom teachers did not know what community 

supports were even possible for a family, so they did not have an 

idea of how to connect somebody to them. And so we have got to 

be better at doing that across our country in every single State and 

working with State departments of education, who work then with 

the local school districts to bring about what those supports are. 

In many of our grant programs, that is one of the things that we 

are really emphasizing, that it is a community-based approach; it 

just cannot happen in the classroom, and it just cannot happen 

within that school. 

Senator FRANKEN. And that is what the Promise Neighborhoods 

do. 

Ms. DELISLE. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. So spectacularly. 

Ms. DELISLE. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry to go over 

my time. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Franken. 

I would say to both witnesses, there was a discussion about the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative, and there is a report with 

guidance on school discipline practices that your Departments are 

developing. Will this guidance take the form of policy recommendations and guidelines to local jurisdictions? And can you give us an 

idea when this is going to be available? 

Ms. HANES. The answer is yes, it will take the form of policy recommendations and guidelines. And I do not want to promise a 

date. I can tell you that we are working diligently with the two 

agencies, and hopefully in the next couple of months that will be 

available. 

Chairman DURBIN. Great. Thank you both for your testimony. 

We appreciate it very much. 

Ms. HANES. Thank you so much. 

Ms. DELISLE. I appreciate the career counseling, too. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would ask the second panel to please come 

to the table and join us. And I would like to report that our overflow room is standing room only. We thank you all for your patience in following this hearing. There are 260 people in this hearing room and over 150 in the overflow room. This is clearly a topic 

of great interest, and we thank you all for being here. 

If you would each remain standing, we will dispense with the 

first part. I have seen Senator DeWine administer the oath so 

often, and now he can be part of receiving one. If you would all 

please raise your right hand? Do you affirm the testimony you are 

about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. DEWINE. I do. 

Ms. DIANIS. I do. 

Mr. WARD. I do. 

Mr. COULSON. I do. 

Judge TESKE. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you all very much. 
21 

It is great to see my friend and former U.S. Senator from Ohio, 

Mike DeWine, back before the Judiciary Committee. We came to 

the House of Representatives together a few years back, and many 

times over the years we have worked on a bipartisan basis on 

issues of human rights, from global AIDS to the humanitarian effort in Haiti. There is no Senator—there is no Senator—who has 

spent more time and dedicated more effort toward Haiti than Mike 

DeWine, and I appreciate it and thank you for your continuing interest. 

Former Senator DeWine has been serving as Ohio’s 50th Attorney General since January 2011. He previously served 12 years in 

the Senate, four terms in the U.S. House, and as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio. 

Attorney General DeWine, welcome back. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL DEWINE, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBUS, OHIO 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you very much. It is great to be back, great to see you and Senator 

Franken. I must tell you, being on this side of the room is a little 

different than being on your side. It makes me a little more nervous, I think. It should. I understand that. I understand that. I noticed. Thank you, Senator, for reminding me of that. 

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the testimony of the other witnesses so far, and I think I can probably have the most value 

added to this to go back when I was Lieutenant Governor under 

George Voinovich, and my job was to be in charge of the entire 

criminal justice agenda of the Voinovich administration. And when 

we took office—this was in 1991—we found that our Department 

of Youth Services, which is the State system where we sent the 

most problematic kids, was kind of in disarray and that, frankly, 

our whole juvenile system in Ohio was having real problems. 

Our State system, we had about 2,500 young people in it. We 

were at anywhere between 160 and 200 percent overcrowding. We 

did not have much programming, and part of the reason we did not 

have much programming is we were so overcrowded, we were just 

trying to deal with a number of people there. 

At the county level, in Ohio, we have really 88 systems. We have 

88 counties, we have 88 juvenile judges, and each one runs their 

own court. At the county level, the juvenile judges did not really 

have the resources to deal with these young people. And many 

times they faced difficult choices, no good choice at all, and that is, 

a kid would get in trouble and they would put him on probation; 

then he would come back, put him on probation. At some point, 

they said, ‘‘Well, what else are we going to do? ’’ And too often the 

local juvenile judge had no variations of options. Basically it was 

either send that kid to the State to be incarcerated and let the 

State worry about him or her, or put him back on probation. And, 

frankly, there was not a whole lot in between. 

The economic incentives were also all in one way. If they kept 

the kid at the local level and tried to deal with him or her, total 

cost was at the county level. If they sent him to the State, that 

total cost was for the State. So what do you think we got? We got 

160 percent overcrowding, and it was a system that not only was 
22 

a costly system, it was not a system that was really working very 

well. And so what we did is we came up with a solution. We got 

everybody together, and the other problem we had is our judges 

were mad at DYS and DYS was not happy with the judges, and 

no one was happy. And so we started putting meetings together. 

We put judges and the officials from DYS, and in essence, the 

judges said: You give us the money and we will handle most of 

these kids. We know how to deal with it. We know their families. 

We know them. They have been in our court before. But we do not 

have the resources to do the right programming. 

Long story short, we did it. The end result was that we had the 

money follow the child. Today we have about 550 kids in our State 

system, and I must tell you, those are the most problematic kids, 

and those are kids who probably in most cases clearly should not 

be at the local level. Very, very tough. 

But for the rest of them, they are being dealt with at the local 

level, and what that means is that the local judge can come up 

with what is appropriate. We like to think, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, that our 50 States are the laboratories of 

democracy. We talk a lot about that. Even a book was written on 

that that I read a few years ago. We like to think in Ohio that our 

88 counties are sort of the laboratories of experimentation as well 

and that one county can learn from another county. 

And what we found—and it should not have been a shock, because I started as an assistant prosecutor and dealt with a very, 

very good probate general court judge, Judge Hegler, a very innovative man. It should not have been a surprise to us, but what we 

found is when we let the money stay at the local level, sent that 

money actually back with that kid, these judges came up with some 

amazing programs. And it was programs that were tailored for that 

particular child. Some were residential, some were not residential. 

Some were intensive probation. A lot of them had significant educational components with them. We had Saturday schools, did all 

kinds of innovative things, and it worked very, very well. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeWine apears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator DeWine. I appreciate your 

testimony. 

Judith Browne Dianis is the co-director of the Advancement 

Project, a national civil rights organization that worked for years 

to end the school-to-prison pipeline. Previously, Ms. Browne Dianis 

was the managing attorney at the Washington, DC, offices of the 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. I thought you looked 

familiar. She is a graduate of Columbia University School of Law. 

She testified before our Subcommittee last year at our first hearing 

on restrictive state voting laws. 

Ms. Browne Dianis, thank you for joining us, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. BROWNE DIANIS, CO-DIRECTOR, 

ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. DIANIS. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Members of the 

Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today. And 

thank you, Chairman. Having testified before you on voting rights, 
23 

I want to especially thank you for your commitment to civil rights 

issues. 

My name is Judith Browne Dianis. I am co-director of Advancement Project, a multi-racial civil rights organization. Since its inception in 1999, Advancement Project has been part of a movement 

to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. Youth, parents, and local 

groups have been at the forefront of this movement. They are here 

today in numbers. They come from Chicago. They are here from 

Mississippi, Philadelphia, New York City, Buffalo, Ohio, Michigan, 

Louisiana, DC, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina. They are in the overflow room, and it is packed, from what 

I understand. They represent national coalitions called the Dignity 

in Schools Campaign and the Alliance for Educational Justice, and 

there are others here in support. Because of the work that they 

have been doing, the tide is starting to turn away from ineffective, 

exclusionary discipline and toward common-sense policies that 

work. 

In all the years that I have done this work, there is one particular case that stands out. Ja’eisha Scott was a five-year-old kindergarten girl in Pinellas County, Florida. When her teacher ended 

a jelly bean-counting game, Ja’eisha did not want to stop the game. 

She threw a temper tantrum. When the teachers could not control 

her, they decided to call in police. They took her into a room where 

Ja’eisha sat quietly, finally. When three police officers entered into 

the room, they pulled the five-year-old girl out of her seat, pushed 

her against a desk, put her arms behind her back, put handcuffs 

on her. They took her out to a police cruiser and shackled her at 

her ankles where she was left for hours, crying, until her mommy 

came to pick her up. 

Ja’eisha is seared in my memory. We all want high-quality 

schools that care about youth and give them real opportunities to 

succeed. Keeping students safe sometimes requires schools to take 

appropriate disciplinary action. However, across the country, students are being suspended, expelled, or even arrested for minor 

misbehavior, like being late to school or violating a dress code policy. These zero-tolerance policies lead to high dropout rates, low 

academic achievement, and too many young people pushed on a 

pathway to prison. 

We have a discipline crisis in this country that must be ended. 

Suspension rates nearly doubled in the past 30 years. Police are arresting students for behaviors like talking back. That is now disorderly conduct. Or writing on desks. That is called vandalism. 

In Florida, during the 2010–11 school year, two-thirds of schoolbased referrals to law enforcement were for misdemeanors, including disruption of a school function, disorderly conduct, or minor 

schoolyard scuffles. 

In May, an honors student in Houston, Texas, spent the night in 

jail because she missed class because she had to go to work to support her family. 

In 2007, a 13-year-old from North Carolina was handcuffed and 

removed from school for writing the word ‘‘Okay’’ on her desk. 

Treating students like criminals does not make sense. Zero-tolerance policies do not make our schools safer, and schools with high-
24 

er rates of suspension and expulsion appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school climate. 

Zero-tolerance policies are also expensive. Every dollar that goes 

into police, metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs, and surveillance 

cameras is a dollar that could have been used for teachers, guidance counselors, psychologists, and programs that support young 

people. Suspensions, expulsions, and arrests are disproportionately 

borne by young people of color, students with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth. 

Racial disparities are stark. These disparities are not the result 

of students of color acting out more. That is important. Students 

of color are actually far more likely than white students to be suspended for discretionary offenses like disrespect or disruption. 

These offenses, which are mainly in the eye of the beholder, leave 

room for implicit and explicit racial biases. 

This issue is not solely about misbehavior. Adults are often overreacting to young people, treating them like criminals. Let me be 

clear. I in no way want to contribute to the current culture of blaming teachers for all the ills of our schools. Many teachers use harsh 

discipline because they lack the needed tools and training. Additionally, the pressures of high-stakes testing often leave teachers 

with little time and few alternatives to exclusionary discipline. 

But we can end this school-to-prison pipeline and put young people on a track to success by focusing on preventing misbehavior 

and providing non-punitive, supportive, and effective interventions 

when misbehavior occurs. Through the ground-breaking advocacy 

of student groups like Padres y Jovenes Unidos in Denver, Youth 

United for Change in Philadelphia, VOYCE in Chicago, and others, 

school districts have started to limit unnecessary exclusionary discipline and address racial disparities. As a result, in Denver, from 

2003 to 2009, out-of-school suspensions dropped by 38 percent, and 

referrals to law enforcement dropped by 52 percent. 

In Baltimore, similar reforms have cut suspensions by 63 percent, resulting in a 12.4 percent increase in graduation rates for 

black students. 

Common-sense discipline that keeps young people on an academic track leads to improved educational outcomes and maintains 

safe environments. My written testimony provides detailed recommendations for congressional action. Through funding incentives, data collection and analysis, and redefining what makes a 

school high performing, Congress can encourage the use of best 

practices and data-driven reform to dismantle the school-to-prison 

pipeline. 

Chairman Durbin, thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

on this critical civil rights issue. Students flourish when they are 

in school, when their schools are healthy, nurturing places where 

they can be safe and where they can learn. Thank you for ensuring 

that every student has the opportunity to stay on the pathway to 

success and not become caught in the school-to-prison pipeline. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dianis appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you for your testimony. 
25 

Edward Ward is a sophomore honors student at DePaul University in Chicago. He majors in political science and works at the 

DePaul Christian Ministries. Edward Ward graduated in 2011 from 

Orr Academy in Chicago, and he was the high school salutatorian. 

He was raised on the West Side of Chicago, has been an active volunteer with Blocks Together, a community organization in West 

Humboldt Park. He is also a licensed minister at the Word of Life 

Christian Ministries. 

Edward Ward, thank you for joining us today, and please proceed 

with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD WARD, BLOCKS TOGETHER, DIGNITY 

IN SCHOOLS CAMPAIGN, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. WARD. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Again, my name is Edward Ward. I am 20 years old, from Chicago, Illinois. I am an 

Honor Roll student at DePaul University. 

I grew up on the West Side of Chicago. Poverty and violence are 

prevalent in my community. When I was 18, I witnessed a complete stranger’s killing mere feet from me in a neighborhood restaurant. 

A few years back, I was stopped by police on the streets, and I 

saw them train their guns on me until I could show them that the 

item in my hand was simply a cell phone. 

Many of us come from families where it is a constant struggle 

to pay bills. I have seen how my fellow students did all they could 

to focus on getting an education, despite the economic hardships 

they experienced at home, many of them while also taking care of 

their siblings and themselves. 

When I got to high school, I began to see that my fellow classmates were being constantly suspended from school. When my 

classmates were suspended, they would disappear for days, and 

when they were kicked out they would disappear even for weeks. 

What was most shocking to me was discovering that they were 

being suspended for minor infractions, the kind of infractions that 

should not merit more than a stern warning or reminder. 

Unreasonable punishments like these were not rare at my school. 

My classmates and I saw many other students served with two-day 

suspensions because, for example, they were not carrying the proper identification around their necks. Some of my friends would 

come to school late, sometimes by no fault of their own. I remember 

one of my peers coming to me saying that she was held in detention and could not be permitted to go to class because she came 

late, but it was because she could not leave her little brother at 

home alone until her parents came home from work. Other students were homeless and had trouble getting bus cards to come 

from far-off places where they stayed. 

My school’s environment was very tense. The halls were full of 

school security officers whose only purpose seemed to be to serve 

students with detentions or suspensions. This was nerve-wracking 

to me, because although I was an honor student, I felt constantly 

in a state of alert, afraid to make even the smallest mistake or create a noise that could enable the security officers to serve me with 

a detention. Instead of feeling like I could trust them, I felt like I 
26 

could not go to them for general security issues because I would 

first be interrogated before anything would get done. 

Our school even had a police processing center so police could 

book students then and there. The officers do not get any special 

training to be in the school so they do not treat us like we are misbehaving; they treat us like criminals. Every time there was a 

fight, the police would step in and handcuff students even when 

there was no weapon involved. Some would be sent to the police 

station in the school; a few or some never came back to school after 

that. 

I could slowly see the determination to get an education fade 

from the faces of my peers because they were convinced that they 

no longer mattered. Until recently, I had a cousin who was attending Orr. However, he never finished because he was suspended 

with so much frequency that he eventually dropped out. He had a 

problem at home. You see, my cousin’s mother is a drug addict, and 

as a young person he did not quite know how to deal with that, 

so he started acting out in class. He was what you would consider 

to be a ‘‘class clown.’’ The school believed that by suspending him, 

it would allow him more time to think about his misbehavior. Instead, it gave him more time alone on the streets and made it easier for him to simply turn to selling drugs and make easy money. 

Eventually, my cousin was arrested. 

Where many young people, like my cousin, feel unwelcome and 

under siege in their own schools, they end up on the streets, in the 

criminal justice system, or worse. 

Because I believed I needed to take part in improving my school, 

I got involved with Blocks Together, a nonprofit organization in the 

West Humboldt Park community, and a member of the National 

Dignity in Schools Campaign. At Blocks Together, we work to implement restorative justice practices in Chicago Public Schools. Restorative justice is grounded in the idea that we become safer when 

we hold each other accountable in ways that build a more tightknit community. Restorative justice enables us to create an environment in which we listened to the voices of students who were 

facing disciplinary action and work together to resolve conflict. 

I think that schools need to throw out the assumption that young 

people are all dangerous or a threat. They must work to understand the issues that students face every day, whether it is at 

home, learning difficulties, language barriers, or experiencing bullying and discrimination. We need solutions, not suspensions. 

A number of my colleagues here today have worked with Chicago 

to revise its school discipline code to limit suspensions, and we look 

forward to working with CPS to build on these positive steps. I 

hope you understand that my experience at Orr was not an anomaly, but it is what is happening in schools across the country, particularly in communities of color. 

I would hope in the near future that we will have undone this 

mistake, that my children will never have to feel anything but welcome in their schools. But a problem that my generation did not 

cause cannot be solved by my generation alone. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward appears as a submission 

for the record.] 
27 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Ward. That was excellent. 

I would like to note that we have a number of members of other 

youth organizations with us today. Twenty members of the Voices 

of Youth in Chicago Education, VOYCE, have traveled here from 

Illinois. Over 100 members of the Dignity in Schools Campaign and 

other organizations have traveled from all across the country. You 

are certainly welcome, and we thank you very much for being here. 

Andrew Coulson is our next witness. He is the director of the 

Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom. Previously, he was 

a senior fellow in education policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan. Mr. Coulson has written extensively about 

education, including a book entitled ‘‘Market Education: The Unknown History.’’ A graduate of McGill University in Canada, he 

began his career as a software engineer at Microsoft. I was glad to 

accommodate Senator Graham’s request for Mr. Coulson to join us 

today. We welcome his testimony. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. COULSON, DIRECTOR, CATO INSTITUTE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Mr. COULSON. Chairman Durbin, distinguished Members of the 

Committee, thank you very much for having me here today. You 

have already heard the harm done by out-of-school suspensions, so 

I would like to begin by describing an alternative. 

Imagine a school that does not expel students and does not use 

out-of-school suspensions. Instead, it enforced very vigorously a 

code of conduct for all students. Minor transgressions are greeted 

with detentions, more serious transgressions with in-school suspensions. The suspended students must write an essay explaining why 

their behavior was inappropriate, and they must write an apology 

to their fellow classmates and their teachers. They must attend 

Saturday morning classes to help them catch up academically, and 

they are temporarily assigned to a lower grade level during the period of their suspension. 

These are the policies of the American Indian Model Schools in 

Oakland, California, often abbreviated as AIM schools. Oakland, as 

you probably know, is one of the most crime-ridden cities in America. It is extremely dangerous. The school district is very often suspending students. There are fatalities of students, gunshot fatalities every year, sometimes by the school district’s own armed police 

force. 

The American Indian schools are different. I visited them on numerous occasions. They are studious and orderly. There are no 

metal detectors. There are no school police. There is virtually no violence—something like three fights a year across all three campuses of this charter school network on average over the past eight 

years. 

They achieve this not by kicking out students, but by focusing, 

as I said, on discipline and on keeping students in school. Though 

they are a typical inner-city school as far as demographic make-up, 

predominantly Southeast Asian, Hispanic, and African American, 

their low-income Hispanic and African American students outperform California’s statewide average for wealthier whites and 
28 

Asians. It is one of the top schools—their charter schools, their 

middle schools, are among the top schools in the entire State and 

the top-performing charter school network in the State. 

But the American Indian Model Schools are an exception. If we 

discontinue or drastically curtail the use of out-of-school suspensions tomorrow, that is not what students will get in their place. 

So we have to ask what will happen in the system as it exists 

today if we substantially curtail out-of-school suspensions. 

Well, this was a question investigated by Professor Joshua 

Kinsler in a forthcoming issue of the journal International Economic Review, and what Professor Kinsler discovered is that cutting out-of-school suspensions within the system as it exists now 

actually lowers overall student achievement and widens the blackwhite achievement gap, because keeping disruptive students in 

class makes it harder for the typical school to be able to teach and 

because lengthy suspensions, he found, did, in fact, encourage good 

behavior, or discourage misbehavior. 

In thinking about these findings, I was reminded of an essay 

that Judge Teske wrote last year. He argued that school officials 

and the justice system have a duty to protect innocent students 

from bullies, and he makes a compelling argument. And that same 

argument applies as much to children’s education as to their physical safety. It is unjust to punish innocent students educationally 

for the actions of a disruptive few. 

Given that simply curtailing out-of-school suspensions by itself 

within the current system can make matters worse in some cases, 

according to Kinsler’s research, we need to find a way of promoting 

the use of superior practices like those of the AIM model. In my 

written testimony, I offer two observations for how we might do 

that. 

First, if we want better policies, we need to ensure that it is in 

administrators’ own interests not just to implement them, but implement them faithfully. Administrators should be recognized and 

rewarded for keeping more students in school, for maintaining better discipline, and for maximizing graduation rates. And as it happens, these are the incentives that we already see in the private 

sector in education. 

Second, effective school discipline requires consistency across 

grades and across teachers. Kids have to know that misbehavior 

that they cannot get away with in one class they will, again, not 

be able to get away with in another class. That consistency is essential. 

Well, sociological research done by Harvard researchers and others finds that independent schools tend to be better at creating this 

consistency and this shared sense of culture among the staff than 

public schools. And it is generally concluded that this is because 

private school administrators have greater freedom to create and 

maintain a staff committed to common values. 

I am not suggesting that Congress enact Nationwide private-sector choice legislation. The Constitution does not empower it to do 

so. But Congress could facilitate the doption of such programs at 

the State level. It could expand the existing Washington, DC, Opportunity Scholarship Program as an example of what is possible. 

It could curtail existing Federal programs that have failed to show 
29 

significant benefits and that reduce the educational resources available to States. And it could reject any new programs or regulations 

that would impede States’ efforts to bring safe, responsive independent schools within reach of all children. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coulson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, sir. 

Judge Steven Teske was appointed to the bench in 1999. He is 

Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court of Clayton County, Georgia. Formerly, he served as Chief Parole Officer in Atlanta and as the Deputy Director of Field Services for the Board of Pardons and Paroles, 

Special Assistant Attorney General prosecuting child abuse and neglect cases. He is a leading expert on juvenile justice reform. He 

has been appointed by two Republican Governors to several criminal justice commissions. Judge Teske is a graduate of Georgia 

State University, where he received his master’s and juris doctor 

degrees. Judge Teske, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN C. TESKE, CHIEF JUDGE, JUVENILE COURT OF CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, JONESBORO, 

GEORGIA 

Judge TESKE. Good afternoon, Chairman Durbin, Senator 

Franken. 

When I took the bench in 1999, I was shocked to find that approximately one-third of the cases in my courtroom were school related. The year before campus police, the court received only 49 

school referrals. By 2004, the referrals increased over 2,000 percent, of which 92 percent were misdemeanors, mostly involving 

school fights, disorderly conduct, and disrupting public school. 

Despite the many arrests, school safety did not improve. Guns, 

knives, box-cutter knives, and straight-edge razors continued to 

come on campus. The graduation rates decreased during this same 

period, reaching an all-time low in 2003 of 58 percent. The more 

students we arrested, suspended, and expelled, the more juvenile 

crime rate significantly increased. These kids lost one of the greatest protective buffers against delinquency: school connectedness. 

By 2004, over 80 percent of all school referrals were African 

American students. The racial disparity in school arrests was appalling, and I felt I was contributing to this system of racial bias 

by not doing something. 

It was also frustrating for me as a judge to see the effectiveness 

of the prosecutor and probation officer weakened by my court system being inundated with low-risk cases that consumed the court 

docket and pushed kids toward probation—kids who made adults 

mad versus those who scared us. 

The prosecutor’s attention was taken from the most serious and, 

therefore, difficult cases to prove—burglary, robberies, car thefts, 

aggravated assaults with weapons—to prosecuting minor cases. 

This craziness trickled over into probation cases, causing caseloads 

to increase six times their size, diverting attention from the serious 

to the minor cases. Consequently, our recidivist rate increased to 

over 70 percent. Zero tolerance was negatively impacting the entire 

community, and something had to be done. 
30 

I turned to the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, JDAI, 

an initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. In 2003, using the 

JDAI model, I exercised my convening role as a juvenile judge and 

convened all the stakeholders to discuss other ways to handle 

school offenses. We agreed on two written agreements necessary to 

address the interests of all stakeholders: one, reduce school arrests; 

two, develop alternatives to suspension and arrests, including assessment and treatment of chronically disruptive students. 

The first agreement prohibited the filing of certain misdemeanor 

offenses, and the second agreement created a multidisciplinary 

panel to assess the needs of disruptive students and treat them 

through our system of care that connected all of the community 

providers. The panel linked the child and family to services in the 

community that were not available to the school system. 

Since the introduction of the protocol in 2004, school referrals 

have fallen 83 percent. This reduction created a greater police presence on campus. They were not transporting kids anymore. They 

were not handcuffing as many kids anymore. But instead of arresting them, the police engaged students in positive ways, leading to 

positive results. 

By replacing these handcuffs with positive interaction, the students shared information with police about weapons, fights, and 

other disruptive events about to occur. As police intel increased, 

school disruptions decreased, including serious weapons on campus, 

by 73 percent. The school police have become the single most important tool for detectives to solve crimes, including murder, because of the style of school policing promoted by this protocol. 

The number of youth of color referred to the court on school offenses decreased by 43 percent. By reducing arrests and suspension 

rates and replacing these zero-tolerance practices with evidencebased programs, the overall graduation rates increased 24 percent. 

The protocol has dismantled our pipeline to prison by decreasing 

our probation cases from 150 to 25 now per officer, allowing for intensive supervision of the high-risk kids with serious offenses and 

reducing the recidivist rates from over 70 percent down to 24 percent. 

Other results of the dismantling include a 70-percent decrease in 

the average daily population, that is, the kids in jail; a 64-percent 

reduction in the average daily jail population of minority youth; a 

43-percent reduction in the average length of stay of these kids in 

jail who had to be placed in there, the more serious kids; 43 percent fewer commitments to State custody; 40 percent fewer commitments of minority youth, and—get this—a 67-percent decrease in 

the number of delinquent petitions filed in my court. 

The Clayton experience is not a novel idea. It is grounded in research that supports common-sense notions that keeping kids in 

school will increase graduation rates, that in turn will positively 

impact community safety and improve our economy. 

Clayton County may have been a pioneer in dismantling of this 

pipeline locally, but we are not alone. Many judges across our Nation have exercised leadership to convene stakeholders and have 

replicated results similar to Clayton. 

Chairman Durbin, Senator Franken, this issue is not going away. 

It is here to stay until the pipeline is completely dismantled. Just 
31 

look around. Overflow. Look at all the kids. With the help of this 

Subcommittee, I know we can get there sooner or later. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Teske appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Judge Teske. Very powerful. 

Edward Ward, I visited Austin High School. I bet you know what 

that was, located on the West Side. It is closed down now, I think. 

But when I went there, they had decided that the Cook County 

Sheriff’s Office would put an office there in the school so there 

would be plenty of squad cars always there on school property. 

When they let the school out at 2:30, they closed the surrounding 

streets so the drive-by gangs could not shoot at the kids as they 

were trying to get home. It was a pretty sad and violent situation 

there, and everybody, I think, was doing their very best, with metal 

detectors and everybody present, to really make sure that kids 

were not hurt or killed, literally, in the school or on their way 

home. 

I think they were doing the right thing. They may not have come 

to that strategy thinking through, as Judge Teske said, a different 

relationship with the students. But balance, if you will, the excesses that you saw where the student who stayed home to protect 

their little sister or brother ends up being brought into the criminal 

justice system with the reality of violence in the community that 

you also testified to. Tell me how to strike that balance. 

Mr. WARD. With the violence in the community, I think it outweighs a lot, nonetheless. When you suspend students or you put 

them out of school, whether it be expulsion or suspension, then you 

expose them to these violent crimes, or you expose them to this 

idea of being shot, being killed, being hurt, or being harmed. I have 

seen it all too many times where some of my family members were 

actually gunned down in front of my own house. 

Just before I got here, before I flew in from Chicago a few days 

ago—it was widespread on the news—a few friends of my brother, 

they were shot, one 16 years old, he was shot and killed. One was 

17 years old, and the other was 19 years old. Those two, they were 

in critical condition. 

I think that we have to be able to tell the differences between 

troubled youth, not bad youth but troubled youth, because when 

you label them as threats, then you get consequences and not results. If we want to see action, if we want to see improvement in 

our schools, suspension just does not work. I have seen too many 

of my peers being suspended, and they have gotten to the point 

where, when they become afraid to get suspended, they decide that 

the best thing for them to do is leave, considering the fact that the 

schools label them as bad students and label them as mistakes. So 

we have to change the label on these students, and we have to give 

them an opportunity and a chance to express themselves, look into 

their history, look into where they come from, because a lot of 

youth from where I come from face huge struggles, huge difficulties. They go through a lot. And they have, like, where their basic 

necessities are not being met. 

For example, there were times with me where I did not have food 

in my house, and I was hungry, so the only place I could find a 

meal is in school. So when I get to school, that is all I am thinking 
32 

about, my next meal. Other times I did not have heat in my house, 

so when I get to school, I am thinking about the cold house I have 

to go home to. 

So it is like we have to take into account the situations that students face outside of school to understand their actions while they 

are in school. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator DeWine, you talked about the Ohio 

experience you went through, and you talked about the prosecutors’ 

court system and corrections system solution. A lot of testimony 

today talks about taking it down to the school level and trying to 

solve the problems in the school before it reaches that level. Was 

that part of the Ohio experience? 

Mr. DEWINE. It was, Mr. Chairman, and I think as I listened to 

the very eloquent members of this panel and as I kind of reflect 

on my 30 years of dealing with law enforcement and judicial problems, I think the one thing we have learned is that whatever the 

punishment, it has to be appropriate and it has to fit. And it 

worked with our RECLAIM Ohio where sending a kid off and severing the relationship with the community, severing the relationship with family, sending them off to the State system for however 

long was not appropriate for all of these kids. It might have been 

appropriate and was appropriate for some of them, but certainly 

not all of them. I think the same way in schools. Clearly, the best 

thing we can do is try to keep kids in school if you can. 

Now, how you do that, we have heard different points of view 

about that and some innovative ideas of how we do that. But I just 

think that it has to be—whoever is making the decision, whether 

it is a judge or a principal or a teacher or whoever it is who has 

authority, we have to give them more tools and more options. And 

I think that what we look at as bad decisions, overreacting sometimes, comes from a lack of options. And so you have two bad options, and maybe you got the most severe, but maybe you want to 

do something that was, frankly, much more appropriate for that individual child. I just think that is what we have learned as we look 

at this whole thing. 

Chairman DURBIN. So, Judge Teske, what you are talking about 

is a policeman in a school in a much different role, viewed differently by students at the end of the day. I am going to kind of 

challenge you and say, wouldn’t the best outcome be no policeman 

in that school? 

Judge TESKE. You know, I had that presented to me about three 

years ago. The only thing is that I do not believe that we would 

have achieved the 73-percent reduction necessarily, and as quick as 

we did, you know, with the serious weapons, guns and knives, coming on campus. 

But there is another asset here that I think needs to be mentioned. Our school resource officers are trained every year the week 

before——— 

Chairman DURBIN. This is the police officers? 

Judge TESKE. Yes. The week before school starts, they are all required to be certified in crisis intervention. And at the end of the 

day, they are told in advance to come with testimony about things 

that have happened this past year as it relates to what we now call 
33 

in Clayton County the positive student engagement model for 

school policing. 

Here is the asset, Mr. Chairman, and it is just real brief. Deputy 

Pauls at Forest Park High School gets up and says that she was 

called down to a classroom. A young lady was violent, throwing 

chairs at the teacher, threatening to kill the teacher. No doubt she 

had to be removed from the classroom. Before our protocol, she 

would have been handcuffed, no questions asked, placed in the patrol car, and brought down to my court. Now, instead, Deputy 

Pauls under this protocol takes the child down to her office, calms 

her down. It took about two hours working with her. She finally 

broke down and confessed that her mom’s live-in boyfriend has 

been raping her every week. Instead, the girl was taken into protective custody, and the boyfriend was arrested for child molestation. I wonder who is really tough on crime. It may look soft, but 

we are tougher. We got a child molester, and we saved a girl. 

Chairman DURBIN. That is a great story. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Judge, for that. 

Mr. Ward, you are a pretty impressive young man, and I think 

something you spoke to was very interesting to me. You said that 

because the atmosphere in the school was so tense and because of 

the way the police were in the school, you did not feel comfortable 

approaching them when you had something to report. So, Judge 

Teske, you are talking about this positive atmosphere, which actually helps address the crime that Chairman Durbin asked Mr. 

Ward about in his first question. So I think that this approach obviously works, and I just want to commend you, Mr. Ward, for your 

testimony and you, Judge. 

Senator DeWine, thank you for being here. You have been a leader on criminal justice reform both as a Senator, now as Attorney 

General, before as Lieutenant Governor. I think that RECLAIM, 

that initiative of saying that county judges are more in tune with 

the kids that are there and having the money follow the kid obviously was very successful and, I think, informs a lot of this. 

One of your biggest contributions when you were in the Senate 

was and has been to focus national attention on a crisis we have 

in this certainly, which is that people with mental health disorders, 

both kids and adults, disproportionately end up in the criminal justice system. By one account, about two-thirds of kids in the juvenile 

justice system have diagnosable mental health disorders. We are 

basically using our criminal justice system as a substitute for a 

public health system and an educational system. So you have been 

a champion for mental health courts and other initiatives that address the problem. 

Can you talk a bit about why you consider this issue——the relationship between criminal justice and the mental health system— 

so important? 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. Chairman, Senator Franken, let me first of all 

congratulate you, Senator Franken, and the other Members of the 

House and the Senate who are working on legislation to follow up 

on that and to go further, and I congratulate you and I certainly 

wholeheartedly endorse your bill, and I hope you can get it passed. 

Senator FRANKEN. It is reauthorizing your bill. 
34 

Mr. DEWINE. Yes. I appreciate that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I just wanted to clarify it for everyone. 

Mr. DEWINE. That is why I think it is so good. 

Senator FRANKEN. And I am very happy that I have Senator 

Johanns—this is a bipartisan issue. There is no question about 

that. 

Mr. DEWINE. Senator, I first became interested in this issue 

when I was a young, 25-year-old assistant prosecuting attorney and 

was taking charge from police officers, and that was my job or one 

of my jobs, was trying cases. I would see time and time again people being brought back in or the file would reflect a guy who I 

thought we had dealt with six months before. And the police officer 

would say, ‘‘Yes, it is the same guy.’’ I would say, ‘‘Well, what happened? ’’ ‘‘Well, we put him in our jail for a while, and he served 

his time, but now he is back.’’ He said, ‘‘But, you know, the real 

problem is this guy has a mental problem.’’ 

Now, I heard that time and time again, and we did not have— 

you know, our local jail had good people, a great sheriff, but did 

not really have the resources to deal with this guy with his mental 

problems. And that was just my first introduction to how much 

mental problems weigh in on our judicial system and our criminal 

justice system. And it is something that I worked on, I worked on 

it while I was Lieutenant Governor; we tried to get some resources 

not only into our prisons but into our jails. We made some 

progress. But that is what got me interested in it, and it is something that police do not usually have the resources and many times 

courts do not have the resources. We have seen a great expansion. 

I partnered with Ted Strickland, who later became Governor of 

the State of Ohio. Ted and I partnered on a previous bill to that 

on mental health courts. I have worked very closely with Justice 

Stratton on the Ohio Supreme Court who has been a real champion 

for this. We have gotten into veterans courts. We have gotten into 

specialized courts to deal with people’s real problems. 

And so you have to deal with them in prison, you have to deal 

with them in jails, and you have to deal with them in the courts, 

once again trying to give the resources and make those resources— 

once again, as we talked about a moment ago, the tools need to be 

there so that that person can be dealt with appropriately. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you again for your contribution on 

mental health and justice issues. 

Mr. DEWINE. Senator, if I could just add one additional thing, 

which I saw on your bill, and I think is very important, something 

we are right now working on in Ohio, and that is to continue training for police officers to give them the understanding, the in-depth 

understanding to deal with people with all kinds of problems, even 

people with autism, people with mental health problems. I think 

some of the saddest cases we have seen is parents who have a 25- 

year-old who clearly has a mental problem, and they have been 

struggling with that, and he or she has been struggling with that. 

And then one day the kid does not take his meds, whatever happens, and he goes off, the parents cannot control him. He is in the 

house, they call the police, and the police respond, and we end up 

with a police officer killed or we end up with this young man killed, 
35 

and it is a horrible, horrible thing. And it is no one’s fault. But 

what we have to do, I think, is make training available for police 

officers so they can deal with a very difficult situation. And I am 

not saying we can eliminate every bad outcome, but I think if the 

police officer has more and more training—— 

Senator FRANKEN. That training has been shown to be very helpful. 

Mr. DEWINE. It just is very helpful, and I appreciate the time to 

say that. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. So, Ms. Browne Dianis, you heard Judge 

Teske talk about his experience in the courtroom there. You have 

done a lot of research in this area. Is this a model that we need 

to look to? 

Ms. DIANIS. Yes, definitely. There are a number of things that I 

think that we should be looking at. One is the model that Judge 

Teske has used because it brings in stakeholders across sector, and 

part of the problem that we have found across the country is that 

we are not talking to each other. We cannot arrest our way out of 

this issue. We cannot suspend our way out of this issue. Young people have to be part of the conversation. Schools have to be part of 

it. And so what has been done with Judge Teske and the model 

that he is putting forth really is about getting everyone at the table 

to have that discussion and work toward solutions. 

In the work that we have supported, also, what we have done is 

that young people and parent groups have actually been sitting 

down with school districts, reforming discipline codes. They have 

taken the lead on understanding here are the things that need to 

be changed and here are the kinds of programs that we need, pushing restorative justice in particular places, but really having the 

people who are impacted in the discussion makes a world of difference. And that is why I think it is great that you have had this 

hearing, that you have young people here, because people like Edward who know the stories and know that we—for example, your 

question about police being around schools where there is violence. 

Part of the problem is that often when we have that situation, the 

police who are there to protect young people turn on those young 

people. They often look at them as the ones who are the criminals 

instead of just being there to make sure that they are getting home 

safely. And so part of this is that we have to have that discussion, 

we have to have the stakeholders at the table so that we can make 

the reforms that actually make sense from all perspectives. 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Coulson, you heard Judge Teske’s model, 

somewhat different than the author that you quoted. Do you disagree with his approach, or do you think we need to try your approach? Tell me where you come down on this. 

Mr. COULSON. I think Judge Teske’s approach has definitely been 

effective. I have looked at the numbers on it, and there is just no 

arguing with them. In many cases, they have brought back down 

in just a few years numbers from spikes prior to his program’s introduction that were absolutely astronomical. So it has really been 

an impressive improvement. 
36 

The system that I think will get us what we want is one in which 

we allow a lot of different options to compete with one another for 

people’s choices. In Oakland, the schools that I described, the 

American Indian Model Schools, are chosen schools. They are charter schools. Everyone in the district knows that these schools are 

incredibly strict and do not tolerate even the slightest kind of misbehavior in the classroom that interrupts learning. And as a result, 

families that do not think such a strict environment would be good 

for their kid are not compelled to send their children to them. And, 

indeed, some parents choose the school because they know it is the 

highest-achieving school in the district, if not the State, depending 

on the year, and because it is also known to be the safest set of 

schools in Oakland, but find that it is not right for their kids. In 

fact, I have had students at these American Indian Model Schools 

tell me, no, it is not right for every child. I mean, some kids just 

cannot thrive under the level of strictness that we have here. But 

if you can, you can excel here better than anywhere. 

So even that model that I have described is not what I—it should 

not be imposed on every school, but rather, we need a system in 

which schools are encouraged and their administrators are reinforced with every day of their working lives to find better ways to 

help kids. I think you really do need incentives more than mandates to make this work because we can mandate almost anything 

we want. Zero tolerance, all its faults, all its flaws, is a reaction 

to lawsuits and criticisms of bias from the 1980s and 1990s. You 

can read stories. I cite one in my testimony of an Associated Press 

story from 2001 where a school superintendent from San Diego is 

saying the reason we adopted these zero-tolerance policies is because everyone was suing us because they said our discipline policies were not uniform, and so we mandated these across the board, 

zero-tolerance policies in all our schools in our districts. So they 

mandated these policies, and they were badly implemented in 

many cases, and we have all the horrible results we see today. But 

if it were in the interest of those administrators to keep kids in 

school, to have them achieving at high levels, to have them graduating at high levels, they would do so. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks. 

Judge Teske, address the parent side of this issue for a moment. 

As Mr. Coulson said, in the charter school, the parents have chosen 

the school. And I might have missed it when you gave your explanation of your program and how it worked. Tell me the involvement of parents in the solutions. 

Judge TESKE. Well, I had mentioned that we have a system of 

care, and, you know, let me point out that—I mean, it is like six, 

a half dozen ways, or the other. I mean, in a charter school like, 

you know, he has described, you know, you are replacing suspensions with positive behavioral-support type of interventions, okay? 

At the same time, for us in the public school system, we have to 

keep in mind that it is a public school system. You know, all kids 

are allowed in the school. The door is open. It is a big net. 

Once they get in, well, who do we have coming in? Because, you 

know, these kids are coming from different households with different issues. The Task Force on Violence, look, Governor Deal has 

me as a commissioner on the Family Violence Commission in the 
37 

State of Georgia. I just finished a two-year term and started another one. The point is that we have to keep in mind that 60 percent of the kids in the juvenile justice system at least have experienced childhood trauma, including family violence, sexual abuse, 

physical abuse, accumulation of stressors. The public school system 

does not have a choice to shut them out. They are coming in. And, 

man, that is a trauma on the system itself. The schools need help. 

And the only way to get help is to bring everyone together and connect the school system—let us look at this in terms of a systems 

model. Connect the school system with all the other systems that 

service children, and we call that a system of care. We care about 

kids enough, we want to connect everyone together. And we feel— 

you know, I empathize with the school systems who are out there 

isolated by themselves. No wonder punishment becomes a default. 

We ask too much of them all by themselves to treat trauma, traumatized kids and—I mean, they have enough problems as it is with 

just trying to put the federally mandated kids with an IEP. Well, 

you know, there is a larger population of kids who will never be 

diagnosed under the IDEA who are chronically disruptive and need 

help because they are coming from homes, for one, with family violence or other childhood traumas, or they have other mental health 

types of disorders. 

So what do we do? We bring parents in the system of care, and 

we let the parents own it. We let the parents help develop the 

treatment plan. And you know what? Some of these parents, they 

need help, too. And we help them help themselves. And by the system of care, we are able to bring in family functional therapy, 

multi-systemic therapy, IFI services, wrap-around services, family 

counseling. And we are able to do it because we can pool our resources. And, by the way, I want you to know something, Senator. 

Tomorrow is the final meeting for our Georgia Criminal Justice Reform Council. The Governor put me on that, and we are going to 

be adopting recommendations, of which one of those I am voting for 

is to adopt a RECLAIM Ohio model for Georgia. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

I want to tell you, this has been an extraordinary hearing because of the witnesses and the people who have attended it and the 

nature of this issue and how much it means to all of us who are 

here today. This is just an indication of the statements that are 

being submitted by organizations that want to be part of this and 

could not bring a witness or could not attend. But it is an indication of the level of interest all across the United States. And without objection, I am going to place these in the record. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. The hearing record is going to be open for a 

week for additional statements, and written questions may be sent 

to the witnesses. We ask you if you could respond to them in a 

prompt way. 

I understood Senator Blumenthal was returning, but it looks like 

I am going to gavel this to a close and thank all the witnesses on 

this panel and everyone who has been here today. 

This meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
40 

Advancement Project 

Washington, DC 

Andrew Coulson 

Director of the Center for Educational Freedom 

Cato Institute 

Washington, DC 

Edward Ward 

Blocks Together 

Dignity in Schools Campaign 

Chicago,IL 
41 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES AND COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRMEN
42 

criminal proceedings, jail and prison. And minority students are much more likely to be subject 

to the pipeline than White students who commit similar infractions. Black students are three and 

a halftimes more likely to be suspended or expelled than their White peers, and over 70% of 

students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or Black. 

And students with disabilities are more than twice as likely to receive one or more out-of-school 

suspensions as those without disabilities. 

So, not surprisingly, there is a high correlation between harsh school discipline and 

school dropout. If a student is not doing well in school, and is acting out, the last thing the 

student needs is to be put out of school and end up at home or hanging out on the streets with no 

supervision and nothing constructive to do. Such students are not only more likely to dropout, 

but also to engage in delinquent activity, and become involved in the juvenile or criminal justice 

system which sets up the school to prison pipeline. And there is also a high correlation between 

lack of education and crime. About 2/3 of all prisoners are high school dropouts. 

F or many children, the prison pipeline starts even before they reach school. The 

Children's Defense Fund has coined the term "Cradle to Prison Pipeline" based on studies that 

show that a third of Black boys born during the study period will end up in prison in their 

lifetimes ifthere is no effective intervening force to tum them around. For these children, we 

would hope that school would be such an intervening force. Instead, in all too many instances, 

with the help of harsh, zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, many of our schools are funnels for 

the school to prison pipeline. 

So it is a small wonder that the U.S. leads the world in the incarceration of its children. 

[Refer to Charl showing juvenile incarceration rates]. And though not reflected here, the 

national minority juvenile incarceration rate is offthe charts compared to the White juvenile 

2 
43 

incarceration rate as reflected by jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C. where 98% of its 

incarcerated juveniles are minorities. 

The school to prison pipeline is thus a feeder system for the juvenile system which, in 

turn, is a feeder system for adult incarceration where the U.S. leads the world also, by far. [Refer 

to Chart that shows U.S. incarceration rate versus the rest of the world and much higher 

Black incarceration rates.] Research by the PEW Center shows that incarcerations have 

diminishing returns and by 500 per 100,000, they become counterproductive, meaning they 

contribute to more crime rather than to reducing crime. And we can easily see how this plays out. 

[Refer to Charts on 1970 versus 2000 for numbers employed and in jail.] In communities with 

high percentages of people with low education and job skills, high imprisonment rates exacerbate 

these problems. And look at the lifetime earnings impact for those who drop out of school. 

[Refer to Chart on earnings based on education levels.] 

So it is clear that now, more than ever, that we need our schools to be change agents for 

children that are born on, or that fall upon, the cradle or school to prison pipeline. The approach 

must be comprehensive and evidence-based, starting with teen pregnancy prevention to reduce 

the number of babies born into dysfunctional families, prenatal care to reduce the number of 

birth defects and developmental disabilities, parental training to reduce child abuse and neglect, 

and pre-school so that children start school ready to learn. Teachers tell me that up to 3'd grade 

you learn to read and from 4th grade on, you read to learn, so if you can't read at grade level by 

4th grade you can't learn and are on your way to school dropout and the school to prison pipeline. 

In addition, school discipline policies must be positive and administered appropriately and fairly 

with school-wide positive behavior supports. 

3 
44 

We already have the funding needed for such programs. The "get tough" disciplinary 

approach and its school to prison aftermath are not only ineffective, but are also very costly. 

According to a Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) report, we spend over $75 

Billion a year on corrections cost in the U.S., with most ofthat going to incarceration costs. 

Given the PEW study showing that incarceration beyond 500 per 100,000 is counterproductive, 

if we reduced the average incarceration level in the U.S. to that level, we would have more than 

enough savings from that to fund any support program we want. [Refer to Charts on savings 

from reduced incarceration levels for Blacks., 

What the research and the evidence show are that Frederick Douglass was right in his 

famous quote: "It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." And I would add 

- a lot less costly! 

Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and for the opportunity to testify. 

4 
45 

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH DELISLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

December 12, 2012 

I. Introduction 

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing. On behalf of Secretary Duncan: 

thank you, Senator Durbin, and Members of the Subcommittee, for convening a discussion on 

an issue that affects the educational and life outcomes of millions of youth across our Nation. I 

appreciate the opportunity to share with you the Department's efforts to support all of 

America's children by keeping them in school, engaged in learning, and, most especially, out of 

the judicial system a nd prison. 

Over the past 18 months, the Department's efforts have been galvanized by the results 

of the 2011 Breaking Schools' Rules study, a longitudinal study covering more than one million 

public school students in the State of Texas, by the Council of State Governments (CSG), and the 

Department of Education's own 2012 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), both of which suggest 

three disturbing trends: first, an overreliance on suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law 

enforcement as means of managing student behavior; second, the disproportionate impact of 

such practices on students of color, students with disabilities, and other subgroups; and, last, 

the increased risk of juvenile justice involvement for students who are suspended or expelled. 

While many schools and school districts have begun to implement evidence-based 

strategies for managing student behavior, and many educators demonstrate effective practices 

in their classrooms, it is clear that too many schools are overly reliant on discipline practices 

that remove students from school. Based on data from the 72,000 schools that participated in 

the last CRDC, which we released last spring, we estimate that over 3 million students were 

suspended out of school during the 2009 - 2010 school year. During that same time frame, 

108,000 students were expelled, and over 240,000 students were referred to law enforcement. 

However, one research study suggests that many of these disciplinary actions are not 

related to student safety. In one study of a large urban school district, most suspensions were 

for minor infractions of school rules (such as attendance issues, disobedience, classroom 

1 
46 

disruption, or insubordination) rather than for dangerous or violent acts, with fighting and 

bullying making up 19 percent of suspensions. 

In one case study of a midwestern State, only 5 percent of all out-of-school suspensions 

in 2006 were for weapons or drugs, while 95 percent of all out-of-school suspensions were for 

"disruptive behaviors." In California, more than 40 percent of the 700,000 suspensions handed 

out statewide in 2010-11 were for "willful defiance" which is defined as any behavior that 

disru pts a classroom or other school setting. 

School discipline practices that unnecessarily remove students from their classrooms 

directly conflict with our goal of ensuring that schools provide students with the tools to 

achieve college and career readiness. Simply stated, students have access to the best 

education services we have to offer when they are in their classrooms and fully engaged in 

learning. 

Overreliance on exclusionary discipline results when a school does not address the 

important role of school climate in the teaching and learning process and, in the absence of a 

strong, positive climate, struggles to find ways to keep students safe and on task. Until more 

schools: (1) emphasize the essential relationships interconnecting social, emotional, and 

behavioral skills and student achievement; (2) play an active role in addressing the underlying 

causes of student misbehavior, like substance abuse, mental illness, and social and emotional 

disorders; (3) provide students with behavioral supports that directly address or prevent 

misconduct; and (4) build the capacity of teachers and leaders to implement prevention-based 

strategies while adhering to appropriate discipline policies; we will not be successful in creating 

learning environments that are both safe and productive for all of America's children. 

And we do mean all of America's children. Studies indicate alarmingly large disparities in 

the rate of disciplinary sanctions, particularly for students of color, students with disabilities, 

and male students. When African-American students are more than 3 Y, times as likely to be 

suspended or expelled as their White peers, or students with disabilities are more than twice as 

likely to receive out-of-school suspensions as their non-disabled peers, as they are today - it 

raises concerns that some of our schools are not providing equitable access to education, in 

potential violation of civil rights laws. 

To ensure that all students are treated equitably, we need a mUlti-pronged and multidisciplinary comprehensive strategy that encourages educators to proactively monitor their 

discipline practices for disproportionality, assess for root causes where disproportionality 

exists, and engage in a broad-based community and school effort to develop an action plan to 

root out discrimination in the administration of discipline. This strategy is based on the 

2 
47 

recognition that schools must be deliberate and proactive to ensure that students are equitably 

treated. To demonstrate the Department's commitment to this approach, we have included 

this strategy as a program requirement in our Race to the Top-District competition, a $400 

million investment designed to promote comprehensive, local reforms in our nation's schools 

through grants to school districts. This inclusion signals the importance of student disciplinary 

processes and their impact on student achievement. 

Beyond implications for educational achievement and equity, there is evidence to 

suggest that school discipline practices have consequences beyond the school yard, and may 

substantially increase the likelihood of future correctional involvement. According to the 

Breaking Schools' Rules study, nearly half of the students who were disciplined 11 or more 

times were in contact with the juvenile justice system. In contrast, only 2 percent of the 

students who had no school disciplinary actions were in contact with the juvenile justice 

system. CSG's study also revealed data that a student who was suspended or expelled for a 

discretionary violation was nearly three times as likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice 

system the following year, after controlling for campus and individual student characteristics. 

While this linkage deserves further exploration, the importance of this particular finding 

cannot be underestimated. The vast majority of educators work hard to provide their students 

with the tools they need to succeed and, in assigning suspensions and expulsions, are doing 

their best to keep their school community, and even the disciplined student, safe from harm 

and disruption. This finding, however, paints a more complex picture about what suspension or 

expulsion may mean for the very students whom educators work so hard to support. We must 

provide teachers and principals with appropriate alternatives to suspensions and expUlsions, 

and begin building the competencies and skills they need to maintain safe, engaging 

classrooms. 

However, our efforts cannot end there. We know that schools are critical partners for 

providing disconnected and vulnerable youth - such as homeless youth, children in foster care, 

trafficked youth, youth with mental, emotional, behavioral or substance use disorders, children 

exposed to violence, and children of incarcerated parents - with the supports they need to 

avoid misconduct and contact with law enforcement. Additionally, for those youth placed in 

juvenile detention, educators play an essential role in reducing recidivism by providing 

pathways to college and career post-release. To provide such supports, cross-agency 

partnerships involving health, education, justice, and child welfare are critical, as no one system 

can adequately serve our students effectively. 

3 
48 

II. Department of Education Efforts 

In July 2011-just after the release of the Breaking Schools' Rules Study - Secretary 

Duncan and Attorney General Holder launched a partnership between their respective agencies 

to dismantle what has been named the "school to prison pipeline." Since that time, the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative (SSDI) has functioned as a major coordinating body, 

providing opportunities for collaboration among federal agencies, including the Departments of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), labor, Education, and Justice; facilitating public-private 

partnerships and creating lines of communication between the field - including parents, 

students, advocates, practitioners, and other education officials - and the administration, so 

that we stay informed about the most current needs, approaches, and events as they arise. 

From its inception, the SSDI has focused on four key strategies. First, we are working to 

build national consensus for action through coordination with the CSG and philanthropic 

colleagues. Second, we identify research and data collection needs and are working to 

coordinate research investments across agencies and with the field. Third, we are working to 

issue guidance for state and local educators, school resource officers, and law enforcement 

personnel and, lastly, we build awareness, knowledge, and skills among stakeholders regarding 

discipline practices with the priority of keeping students in schools, learning and safe. 

In addition to the SSDI, we have worked to improve school climate and discipline across 

other initiatives focused on related issues - such as student safety, corrections, and student 

disengagement with school. For example, the Department is one of multiple federal partners 

supporting the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention - an interagency initiative to help 

10 cities across the Nation to elevate youth and gang violence as an issue of significance; 

enhance the capacity of participating localities, along with others across the country, to more 

effectively prevent youth and gang violence; and sustain progress and systems change through 

engagement, alignment, and assessment. 

The Department has continued to partner with the Department of Justice and HHS' 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) since 1999 to address 

youth violence and social-emotional and behavioral needs of students and communities 

through the Safe Schools Healthy Students (SS/HS) initiative. Through SSDI and the National 

Forum on Youth Violence Prevention, the SS/HS initiative has partnered with other federal 

initiatives to share the important teachings from SS/HS grantee communities. 

The Department also worked with a number of agencies to launch the Federal 

Interagency Forum on Disconnected Youth, which seeks to improve outcomes for young people 

ages 14-24 who are homeless, in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, or are 

4 
49 

neither employed nor enrolled in an educational institution, by helping them to achieve success 

in meeting educational, employment, and other key lifelong goals. 

We are also a member of the Re-entry Council, led by the Attorney General, and have 

worked to develop an internal Correctional Education and Re-entry Strategy to strengthen our 

contributions to the goals of the Council. 

Through these efforts, over the past 18 months, the Department has accomplished the 

following: (1) convened leaders from multiple systems to develop consensus for action and 

encourage state action; (2) emphasized school climate and discipline in our signature grant 

initiatives; (3) vigorously enforced civil rights laws; (4) strengthened investment in data 

collection and research; and (5) begun analyzing the larger continuum of correctional education 

while working on a strategy to improve outcomes from prevention to re-entry. 

1. Convening leaders to Elevate and Collaborate on School Discipline Practices 

At the core of the SSDI is an effort to develop a broad consensus on the steps that the 

education, judicial, and health communities must take to realize essential changes. As part of 

this effort, the Departments of Education and Justice have supported the efforts of the Council 

of State Governments Justice Center, in concert with members of the philanthropic community 

(including the Atlantic Philanthropies, the California Endowment, and Novo Foundation), to 

lead the development of consensus-based recommendations on how to keep school 

environments safe and students productively engaged in school. Over the course of the next 

year, this national consensus-building project will convene groups from multiple disciplinesincluding education, behavioral health, juvenile justice, social services, law enforcement, and 

child welfare-to first identify key issues related to academic success, juvenile justice concerns, 

and safe and engaging learning environments, and then recommend solutions that keep 

students engaged in school and out of the justice system. The strength of this work lies in its 

ability to bring together adults from different sectors that care about our most vulnerable 

children and to encourage collective action on behalf of these youth. 

The Department also partnered with the New York Permanent Judicial Commission on 

Justice for Children last spring to bring together state-level education and judicial leaders to 

discuss ways to improve school discipline practices and reduce contact with the juvenile justice 

system. In all, forty-five state teams attended this critical summit. Many of these teams, which 

included state-level education and judicial leaders, have since begun their own initiatives, and 

have expressed their interest in launching taskforces dedicated to school discipline reform or 

hosting summits in their own states. To support these efforts, the Department has developed a 

5 
50 

web-based community of practice to provide ongoing opportunities for the states to share their 

efforts and learn from one another. 

2. Emphasizing School Climate and School Discipline in Grant-Making 

Despite dramatic decreases in dedicated federal funding for school climate 

improvement and to promote preventative measures, the Department has continued to 

emphasize strategies for creating positive school climates through the Department's grant 

activities. From fiscal year (FY) 2011 until the present, the President's budget has called for a 

new Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program, a consolidation of several existing, 

sometimes narrowly targeted, programs including Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities National Activities (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, Title 

IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 4121 and 4122, 20 U.s.c. 7131-7132). The Administration's 

proposal features a new approach to improve student health and safety through a focus on 

school climate and student supports. In FY 2013, the Administration requested $196 million, 

including $S4 million for new grants that support states and districts in promoting positive 

school climates and student behavior. 

Instead, reductions to the National Activities appropriation, without the new, 

consolidated program, have significantly impacted our capacity to offer financial support and 

technical assistance related to school climate, discipline and safety. In FY 2011, the National 

Activities appropriation was reduced by 38 percent to $119 million. As a result, the 

Department was able to fund only continuation grants for programs dedicated to reducing drug 

use and improving student behavior and school safety, no funding was available for new grants 

as called for in the President's budget request. The FY 2012 appropriation for National 

Activities included another 46 percent reduction, which left only $6S million available for such 

activities. As a result, we were similarly constrained this past fiscal year and only able to 

support continuation grants, but not provide new awards. 

Aside from these limitations, and our continued belief that dedicated funding is critical, 

the Department has built activities related to school climate into leading programs - including 

our School Improvement Grants and Race to the Top programs - to help educators better 

integrate school climate considerations into their academic improvement efforts. 

In this year's Race to the Top - District competition, a $400 million investment to help 

school districts to implement comprehensive education reform, we included a program 

requirement that districts with students of color or students with disabilities overlyrepresented in the district's discipline rates must conduct a root cause analysiS and develop a 

plan to address these root causes. Further, the sole competitive priority of the competition was 

6 
51 

devoted to integrating public and/or private resources to augment school capacity to provide 

student and family supports that address the social, emotional, and behavioral areas of highneed populations. 

Further, this is a critical time for school districts and states to rethink human capital 

management - how we select, support and evaluate educators. Given the feedback we've 

received from educators - that student misbehavior often interferes with instruction - school 

climate and student supports must be part of this conversation. This is why we have directed 

our new Effective Teachers and Leaders Center, one of our major technical assistance efforts to 

assist in building the capacity of state education departments, to help states integrate the 

competencies that create safe, supportive schools into comprehensive teacher and principal 

evaluation systems, profeSSional development, and other essential activities for supporting and 

enhancing our educator workforce. 

As we continue forward, we are seeking ways to provide schools and communities with 

a clear, evidence-based road map to safer school climates that support students. We are 

looking closely at multi-tiered behavioral frameworks - such as Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports - to determine if such frameworks might help us to better organize 

and focus our technical assistance and financial support. In doing so, we will build upon the 

work and successes of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, which has 

invested in behavioral research, demonstration, and technical assistance activities for more 

than 20 years. 

As a starting pOint, we will work closely with the Departments of Justice and Health and 

Human Services to strengthen the use of behavioral frameworks in the National Forum for 

Youth Violence Prevention. As the ten cities' that comprise the National Forum have pledged 

to strengthen local capacity to prevent youth violence and gang violence, we see behavioral 

frameworks as a key strategy that their schools can use to boost capacity and better support 

their students. 

3. Vigorous Enforcement of Civil Rights Law 

Since the beginning of this Administration, the Department has been actively engaged in 

eliminating discriminatory diScipline practices and other civil rights violations that represent 

'The 10 cities that current comprise the National Forum for Youth Violence Prevention as, as of December 2012: 

New Orleans, LA; Philadelphia, PA; Minneapolis, MN; Camden, NJ; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; Memphis, 

TN; Salinas, CA; and San Jose, CA. 

7 
52 

barriers to educational equity in this country, such as inequitable access to resources and 

harassment. 

Over the last four years (FY 2009 - 2012), the Department's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) 

has intensified its enforcement activities to ensure that students are not disciplined more 

severely or frequently because of their race, color or national origin. During this time, OCR 

launched 20 proactive investigations in schools with significant racial disparities in discipline. 

Five of those were launched in the last six months based on the most recent data from the 

CRDC. 

Additionally, during the last four years, OCR received more than 1,250 complaints from 

parents, students or other concerned individuals about possible civil rights violations involving 

school discipline systems. OCR also held two major conferences with the Department of Justice 

on issues relating to student discipline. Disparate discipline investigations have revealed 

incidents of harsher treatment of African-American students and other students of color than 

White students who commit similar infractions and who have similar discipline histories. These 

cases reveal school climates in which the expectations and consequences regarding typical 

juvenile behavior and misbehavior are significantly more severe for African-American and other 

students of color. 

In resolving disparate discipline investigations, OCR works with school districts to design 

robust remedies appropriate to the facts and circumstances of each case. School districts and 

their stakeholders are critical partners in this effort, for they have the expertise to develop 

strategies that can lead to real institutional change. The goal is to ensure that all students are 

provided schools that are safe and conducive to learning. 

4. Strengthened Data Collection and Research on School Discipline 

In order to improve school discipline practices and decrease disproportionality, we have 

to know where the possible problems are and invest in research so that we have evidencebased solutions. 

To that end, the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) has been greatly expanded. The 

2009-10 data collection, which was released in the spring of 2012, represented a sample of 

nearly 7,000 school districts, including all districts above 3,000 students and a sample of smaller 

districts. In all, the 2009-10 sample represented 72,000 schools and 85 percent of students in 

the nation. The data we released early this year now shows how different groups of students, 

such as boys and girls of color or students with disabilities, are treated across a range of 

discipline indicators. The database tracks the total number of students receiving in-school and 

8 
53 

out-of-school suspensions and expulsions, the number of students referred to law 

enforcement, the number of students with school-related arrests, and the total number of 

students expelled under zero-tolerance policies. 

OCR is currently collecting data regarding the 2011-12 school year from all school 

districts in the country (approximately 17,000 districts). Of course, statistics alone cannot 

replace the thorough investigation necessary to prove a violation of civil rights law. And while 

there may be a range of reasons why we find so many cases of disproportionate discipline in 

our schools, this much is clear: we have a serious problem that we must acknowledge and 

address if we are going to achieve equity and excellence for our children. 

In addition to improved data collection, the Department has expanded research 

opportunities in this area. Our Institute of Education Sciences supports research on school 

climate and discipline. For example, a FY 2012 project uses cross-sectional data from two large 

national surveys to identify how security measures are used in schools and their relationship to 

middle- and high-school students' perceived school safety and academic and behavioral 

outcomes. A FY 2009 project explored variation in the impact of School-wide Positive 

Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) to identify for whom, how, and under what 

conditions SWPBIS is most effective. In the FY 2013 call for applications to the Education 

Research grants program, the Social and Behavioral Context for Academic learning topic made 

explicit that applications would be accepted to investigate school discipline and its relationship 

to academic achievement. We intend to utilize this approach again in FY 2014 so that we 

continue to inform the field about the disciplinary policies and practices that work, those that 

do not, and why. 

5. Raising the Profile on Correctional Education and Re-entry 

It is important to remember that school discipline and school-based supports are 

prevention strategies that form one piece of the much larger and more complex issue of 

correctional education. As educators, we have a unique opportunity to serve as a key partner 

to prevent involvement with corrections and law enforcement, as I've just discussed, and also 

to improve the quality of education for students in detention, and to provide all justice-involved 

youth with pathways to successfully reconnect with their communities and increase access to 

college and career training post-release. 

Under the leadership of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), we are 

developing a comprehensive strategy spanning from prevention to reentry, including, but not 

limited to, the following goals for juvenile populations: to implement efforts that improve the 

quality and availability of educational opportunities for youth residing in secure facilities; to 

9 
54 

support effective policies and practices to accomplish reentry into education programs for 

youth returning to our communities from secure facilities; and to optimize the use of 

technology to increase access to high-quality educational opportunities available to youth 

residing in secure facilities. We are carrying this strategy into our reauthorization proposals, 

such as our Workforce Investment Act proposal that promotes re-entry in specific ways, in our 

national activities investments, in our interagency work, and in our communications strategies. 

To raise the profile of correctional education and provide the public with an opportunity 

to review the outlines of the Department's strategy and inform its development, we convened 

a summit of experts on November 19th to inform our thinking. Over 80 participants from all 

over the country - including scholars, researchers, and practitioners with specialized knowledge 

of education in criminal justice facilities and educational re-entry programs - participated in a 

day-long facilitated discussion. The group outlined ways the Department could incentivize 

enhanced educational services and supports for youth and adults in custody. Participants 

offered recommendations and identified barriers in the field. 

Even as we seek public input, we have started to invest in new programs and technical 

assistance focused on the issue of reentry. In 2012, the Office of Special Education Programs 

funded three Model Demonstration Projects on Reentry of Students with Disabilities from 

Juvenile Justice Facilities into Education, Employment, and Community Programs. The purpose 

of the demonstration projects is to develop, adapt, refine, and evaluate models for facilitating 

the successful reentry of youth with disabilities from juvenile justice facilities into effective 

education, employment, and community programs. The demonstration projects are designed 

to reduce recidivism and to support the successful transition of these youth with disabilities 

back into their communities. 

In FY 2013, OVAE will launch a new discretionary grant program for model reentry 

education projects linking incarcerated students with education and training opportunities post 

release - one that will use funding transferred from the Department of Justice that was 

authorized by the "Second Chance Act." These projects will use a practical reentry education 

model developed by the Department, with assistance from leading experts, which was 

published last month. 2 

We are also pleased to note a closely-related initiative funded by several foundations 

(including the Ford, Gates and Open Society Foundations) at the post-secondary level- helping 

incarcerated persons start a college career behind bars and continue on this post-secondary 

, Reentry Model available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/reentry-model.pdf 

10 
55 

track after release when they return to their community. The foundation-funded project will 

have a rigorous technical assistance and national evaluation component, and OVAE expects to 

collaborate with these efforts in order to test and improve models for reentry education 

programs. 

III. Key Areas for Future Activity 

I hope it is clear that improving school discipline and juvenile corrections, and reducing 

disproportionality and youth contact with the juvenile justice system, will require multiple 

strategies and strong partnerships spanning multiple disciplines. At the same time, I'd like to 

highlight two prevention-based strategies that will be critical levers to help educators keep our 

students in school. First, we must build school capacity to maintain a positive school climate 

and support students by drawing from evidence-based practices. Second, we must encourage 

States, schools, and communities to rethink school discipline policies and develop equitable and 

appropriate codes of conduct. I want to describe each of these in greater detail. 

1. Investing in Evidence-Based Practice 

To illustrate the importance of climate and multi-tiered supports, I would like to 

introduce the Committee to Garfield Elementary - a public, comprehensive community school 

that serves students in the northeast community of Kansas City, Missouri. The school serves a 

very diverse community with students from more than 12 countries representing a variety of 

cultures. Over 300 students receive specialized assistance through the English language 

learners program, 96 percent receive free or reduced lunch, and over 80 percent are students 

of color. 

Garfield Elementary encourages positive behavior through the Missouri Positive 

Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS) initiative. From research, and from the experience of our 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, we at the Department know that 

schools that implement PBIS with fidelity benefit in the following ways; (1) more than 80 

percent of their students and staff can indicate the desired positive behavioral expectations for 

a given school setting; (2) more than 70-80 percent of their students have not experienced an 

office discipline referral for a disciplinary rule infraction; (3) they have a good idea about which 

students require more intensive behavior supports; and (4) these school have systems for 

regular review of their discipline data to guide their action planning and implementation 

decision making. 

The purpose of Garfield's PBIS initiative is to create a safe and empowering community 

for diverse students to achieve and excel in school, and to teach students to use these positive 

behaviors with their families and in their communities. Garfield uses the acronym SOAR to help 

11 
56 

remind students how they are to act in different areas of the school: (1) Show Respect; (2) Own 

Your Community; (3) Always Safe; and (4) Ready to Learn. From focusing on individual student 

behaviors, to recognition of whole-class behaviors, to the engagement of the entire staff in 

acknowledging appropriate behaviors, the entire community is included in the initiative. 

Students receive awards which can be combined for a class celebration. The framework 

supports educators by helping them to match the best services they have to offer with the 

students whose complex and intensive needs demand their best expertise. 

Both Missouri's PBIS network and Garfield Elementary serve as examples of how a 

behavioral framework can improve school climate and discipline. They should be commended 

for their efforts to sustain implementation of an evidence-based framework, to dedicate 

resources and expertise at the regional and district levels, and to sustain their work even when 

budgets are reduced. These efforts have been effective for Garfield by eliminating or improving 

the behaviors that impact a student's ability to engage in and benefit from instruction. 

2. Rethinking School Discipline Policy 

To illustrate the importance of rethinking school discipline policies, I encourage the 

Committee to look to states like Colorado. Colorado began its reform effort by convening the 

Legislative Task Force to Study School Discipline, a body comprised of legislators, educators, law 

enforcement personnel, restorative justice experts, parents, schools, and advocates. After 

reviewing zero tolerance policies, the use of law enforcement in schools, and the interaction 

between schools' discipline policies and referrals to the juvenile justice system, the task force 

developed new legislation that requires schools to utilize preventative, constructive disciplinary 

approaches, determine which violations require a referral to law enforcement, and provide 

students with opportunities to learn from their misbehavior. 

The drafting of this legislation represented a community effort to engage in deep 

discussions about how we keep students safe and in school. In the end, this effort paid off - on 

May 9,2012, the Smart School Discipline Bill was signed into law. 

The new law discourages the use of law enforcement for minor misbehavior, provides 

flexibility and discretion to school administrators and local school boards by eliminating 

mandatory suspensions and expulsions for all offenses except carrying a firearm, and requires 

schools to apply their discipline polices equally to all students. School districts must create and 

enforce discipline codes in compliance with the new law by August 1, 2013. 

12 
57 

The State of Colorado is to be commended for taking these critical first steps, and, 

potentially, for providing a road map to common-sense, community-supported school discipline 

policy. 

3. Conclusion 

The challenge that lies before us is complex, as it requires careful consideration of 

seemingly competing factors. How do we keep our students safe, while seeking school-based 

responses to misconduct? How do we provide educators with flexibility and encouragement to 

pilot alternatives to suspension, while retaining the support of communities and parents? How 

do we transition school cultures into environments of support while addressing specialized 

needs often exhibited by our most challenged students? These are not easy questions. For 

sure, their answers lie in the best of our collective thinking and work, and in the recognition 

that this is not a zero-sum game. America's children deserve nothing less than our collective 

energies, best thinking and commitment to equity. 

13 
58 

ilepatiment of lusure 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

OF 

MELODEE HANES 

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR 

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND 

HUMAN RIGHTS 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ENTITLED 

"ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE" 

DECEMBER 12, 2012 
59 

Melodee Hanes 

Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department Of Justice 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Introduction 

United States Sena te 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and distinguished Members ofthis Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the Department's work on school 

discipline and related efforts to keep our children and teens in school and out of the juvenile 

justice system. Studies show that children removed from school as a result of exclusionary 

disciplinary actions - that is, suspension, expulsion, or arrest - are more likely to repeat a grade, 

drop out, or become involved in the juvenile justice system. Yet, these studies document that 

removal is an all-too-common phenomenon. 

My name is Melodee Hanes and I serve as the Acting Administrator for the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) at the Department of Justice (the 

Department), Office of Justice Programs (OlP). OJJDP provides the national leadership, 

coordination, and resources to respond to the needs of our youth who are in contact with the 

justice system, victims and offenders alike. 

OJJDP advances this mission by collaborating with professionals from diverse disciplines 

to improve juvenile justice policies and practices. As a prosecutor with 30-plus years of public 

service, including experience as an assistant county attorney general in Yellowstone County, 

Montana and assistant county attorney in Polk County, Iowa, I have dedicated myselfto 

protecting and seeking justice for our most vulnerable population - our nation's children. So, I 

greatly appreciate the opportunity to tell you more about the great work being done by the 

Department in this area and related juvenile justice programs that support our youth. 

As you know, protecting children and ensuring they are put on a path to success has been 

a priority for Attorney General Holder. To improve the well-being of children, youth and 

families and promote public safety, the Attorney General has established seminal programs like 

the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, the Defending Childhood Initiative, the National 

Forum on Youth Violence Prevention, and Federal Interagency Reentry Council (Reentry 

Council) to identify and advance effective public safety and reentry strategies. 
60 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative 

On July 21,2011, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 

jointly announced the launch ofthe Supportive School Discipline Initiative at a meeting of the 

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This initiative 

encourages effective disciplinary practices that ensure safe, supportive, and productive learning 

environments and promote evidence-based practices that keep students in schools and out of the 

courts. 

Each academic year, millions of public school students in grades K-12 are suspended or 

expelled, particularly in the middle and high school grades. One study in Texas, Breaking 

Schools' Rules, tracked nearly one million seventh graders for six yearsl

. It found that 60% of 

these public school students were removed from class at least once and 15 percent had II or 

more suspensions or expulsions between seventh and twelfth grade. What is important to 

understand is that only a very small percentage of these disciplinary actions were in response to 

conduct for which suspension or expulsion is mandated by state law - in fact, only three percent. 

Overwhelmingly, exclusionary disciplinary actions were made at the discretion of school 

officials. 

The study also showed that minority students and students with disabilities are 

disproportionately disciplined for discretionary (non-mandatory) conduct. The study found that 

African-American students were 31 percent more likely to receive discretionary discipline 

actions as compared to white and Hispanic students. Students with educational disabilities were 

also disciplined at a higher rate than other students. But among the most disturbing findings is 

that suspension or expUlsion of a student for a discretionary violation nearly tripled the 

likelihood of juvenile justice contact within the subsequent academic year. 

In addition, research suggests that arrests, detention and juvenile court appearances have 

profound negative short-term and long-term consequences for children's mental and physical 

health, educational success, and future employment opportunities. Even one court appearance 

during high school increases a child's likelihood of dropping out of school, and court 

appearances are especially detrimental to children with no or minimal prior history of 

delinquency.2 Research links incarceration of juveniles to significantly higher school dropout 

rates, which translate to higher unemployment, poorer health, substance abuse, shorter lifespan, 

lower earnings, and increased future contacts with the criminal justice system. J 

Moreover, the overuse of juvenile courts and police for student misconduct has negative 

implications for court systems and law enforcement. Juvenile courts and juvenile detention 

facilities are more appropriately used to address serious delinquency, rather than school-based 

I Tony Fabela, Michael D. Thompson, Martha Plotkin, Dottie Cannichuel, Miner P. Marchbanks, Ill, and Eric A. Booth, 

BreakingSchools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile Justice 

Involvement (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011); 

2. Gary Sweeten, Who Will Graduate? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and Court Involvement Justice Quarterly, 

Vol. 23, No.4 (December 2006). 

3 See, e,g" Barry Holman & Jason Ziedenberg, The Dangers of Detention: The Impact ofIncarcerating Youth in Detention and 

Other Secure Facilities, Justice Policy Institute, 2006,at 9w 10. 

2 
61 

misconduct. In addition, referrals to police may result in the use of law enforcement resources 

for behavior that is more appropriately dealt with in the context of school discipline. 

The Attorney General has charged us to develop solutions to these systemic issues. As a 

result the Departments of Justice and Education came together to discuss our mutual interests in 

supporting student success and brought together our constituents and resources to jointly attack 

the issue. Thereafter, the Supportive School Discipline Initiative was born. 

The goals of the Supportive School Discipline Initiative are to: 

• Build consensus for action among federal, state and local education and justice stakeholders. 

• Collaborate on research and data collection that may be needed to inform this work, such as 

evaluations of alternative disciplinary policies and interventions. 

• Develop guidance to ensure that school discipline policies and practices comply with the 

nation's civil rights laws and to promote positive disciplinary options to both keep kids in 

school and improve the climate for learning; and 

Promote awareness and knowledge about evidence-based and promising policies and 

practices among educators and justice stakeholders. 

Some ofthe Department's efforts include: 

• Award of nearly $1.5 million through the 2012 Field Initiated Research and Evaluation 

(FIRE) Program which focuses on research and evaluation studies of school-based practices 

that relate to reducing student victimization and the risk of delinquency. As one of the grant 

recipients, Texas A & M received funding to explore the potential of the school discipline 

system as an intervention to reduce juvenile justice contact among all youth, but particularly 

youth of color. 

Award of $640,000 to the Council of State Governments (CSG), with matching funds 

provided by philanthropic organizations, for the School Consensus Project, through which 

the CSG has convened experts from education, law enforcement, school health and the courts 

to work with advocates, students, family members, state legislators and others to develop 

consensus recommendations. The recommendations will identify creative program and 

policy solutions to effectively and positively manage student behavior, support student 

engagement and learning, improve academic outcomes and reduce youth contact with the 

juvenile justice system. 

• Assistance to the New York Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children to host 

the March 2012 National Leadership Summit, for teams of top state education and judicial 

officials. Forty-five states, territories and the District of Columbia sent teams to begin the 

work of improving policy and practice related to school discipline. The Summit brought 

together expert practitioners, researchers and innovators from education, justice and school 

health to help kick off planning and action by the attending leaders in partnersllip with their 

local counterparts. 

• Assistance to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in the 

replication of successful school-court partnerships working to reduce referrals to court of 

students for non-serious behavior. NCJFCJ manages the project along with an expert 

advisory committee and its public and private funders. NC1FCJ is developing a curriculum 

3 
62 

to train a cadre of judges who will guide and support other judges to convene problemsolving teams as well as fund the evaluation of demonstration sites. 

• Enforcement of federal civil rights laws, policy development and other activities to combat 

the discriminatory exclusion of students from classrooms and the shuttling of students to the 

juvenile justice system. 

Support to educators and justice practitioners through technical assistance including a 

webinar series that will be launched in mid-January, 2013. 

The Department is also looking at what more we can do, for example, coordinating efforts 

across components to infuse youth development strategies in law enforcement training and 

working with Education to encourage application of multi-tiered behavioral frameworks in youth 

correctional education programs. 

Protecting Student Rights Through Civil Rights Enforcement 

As noted above, the Department's Civil Rights Division is combating the school-toprison pipeline through important law enforcement and policy work. The Civil Rights Division 

is protecting the rights of children in schools, in juvenile court systems, and in juvenile detention 

facilities. 

In schools, the Department combats racially discriminatory student discipline through 

enforcement ofTitIe IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against 

students in the public schools based on race and national origin, among other bases. The 

Department is addressing allegations of racially discriminatory discipline, including 

discriminatory referrals to law enforcement agencies, as part of its enforcement of existing 

school desegregation orders, as well as new investigations under Title IV. 

The Department is also working to address discriminatory discipline of students with 

disabilities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), which 

requires public entities like school districts to provide services in the most integrated setting 

appropriate to the needs of students with disabilities. In addition, the Department is investigating 

school districts to determine whether they are meeting their federal obligations to English 

Language Leamer students in their administration of discipline. Under the Equal Educational 

Opportunities Act of 1974, or the EEOA, school districts must take appropriate action to 

overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by all students in instructional 

programs. This responsibility includes ensuring that English Language Learner students are able 

to comprehend school rules and discipline policies. 

In addition, using its authority under a section of the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994, the Department has investigated the conduct of police in arresting 

children for school-based offenses, and has examined whether entities involved in the 

administration of juvenile justice, including police, juvenile courts and juvenile probation 

systems, comply with children's procedural due process rights, with the constitutional guarantee 

of Equal Protection and with federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination. 

4 
63 

Finally, the Department continues its long tradition, under the Civil Rights of 

Institutionalized Persons Act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, of 

ensuring that conditions of confinement in juvenile detention facilities comply with the 

Constitution and federal laws, including through the provision of adequate special education 

services. 

All of this work, including the protection of the rights of children of color and children 

with disabilities, is consistent with the objectives of SSDI. OJJDP works with our partners in the 

Civil Rights Division as appropriate, and strongly supports the Division's activities. 

Reducing Disparity through Federal Programming and Training and Technical Assistance 

For almost two decades, OJJDP has been a leader in efforts to reduce the over 

representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. The Breaking School Rules study 

show that school-based arrests and referrals to court have a disparate impact on minority youth 

as schools continue to implement and enforce policies such as zero tolerance. Additionally, data 

from 2006-2007 show that over 1,000 students in Memphis, Tennessee who were eligible for 

supportive school discipline practices were transported to juvenile court. African-American 

youth comprised 82 percent of all youth transports in Memphis and almost 90 percent of all 

youth placed in secure detention, according to OJJDP's Disproportionate Minority Contact 

(DMC) Web-Based Data Entry System. 

To address this phenomenon, Memphis received OJJDP's Title II Formula Grant funds in 

2007 from the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth to implement the School House 

Adjustment Program Enterprise (SHAPE), as an alternative to juvenile court for students 

attending Memphis City Schools. The SHAPE Project is designed to reduce the number of 

minority students that are referred to the Juvenile Courts for minor offenses committed on school 

property, including assault (non-serious injury), disorderly conduct, and criminal trespass. The 

goal is to divert students from ever appearing on any paperwork in the juvenile court system. 

Participation in the SHAPE program is voluntary. Students accepted into the program 

attend afterschool classes, must complete at least 12 sessions of the "Too Good for Drugs and 

Violence After-School Activities" curriculum and generally stay in the program for 45 days. 

Students participate in activities such as homework assistance, tutoring, mentoring, counseling, 

and social and life skills training. 

The SHAPE program is credited with reducing the number of transports to juvenile court 

by over 52 percent from 1,000 in the 2006-2007 school year to 400 in the 20 I 0-2011 school year 

based on the outcome evaluation conducted by the University of Memphis. There are currently 

22 middle and high schools in the SHAPE program in Memphis. The SHAPE Program was 

recently added to OJJDP's DMC Best Practices Database and highlighted in our most recent 

Ann ual Report to Congress. 

In addition to addressing school referrals to reduce DMC, OJ]DP has developed a DMC 

Reduction Model. It provides a framework and structure to guide states through five phases: 

identification of the extent to which DMC exists; assessment to examine the factors that lead to 

5 
64 

DMC; intervention to put in place proven strategies and approaches to reducing DMC based on 

the assessment results; evaluation of the chosen interventions; and monitoring to track changes 

over time. It is a rigorous framework for system improvement based on legislative authority, 

OJJDP regulations, research and the public health approach to problem resolution. 

A number of states have made significant progress by applying this framework with 

fidelity and institutionalizing their efforts, incorporating the processes of the Model into 

everyday practice. When implementing the DMC model, we encourage states to learn from each 

other and share what works. For example, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have 

implemented policies, procedures, and activities to reduce DMC by homing in on the decision 

point of arrest and referrals to court. Referrals to court in Connecticut have been reduced by 60 

percent for African-American youth and 64 percent for youth of Latino origin between 2006 and 

2011, according to OJJDP's DMC Field Initiated Research and Evaluation (FIRE) Project. 

We view the reduction of overreprescntation of minority youth as a significant lever for 

improving our nation's juvenile justice systems. However, many states and jurisdictions 

continue to struggle with DMC. 

Four areas that present challenges and impede widespread progress are: 1) data 

collection and analysis by states and jurisdictions lacking the expertise, resources, and often the 

authority to undertake statewide data collection; 2) implementing intervention phase before 

conducting effective data collection and/or assessment; 3) lack of state-level leadership, support 

and commitment to improve their juvenile justice system; and 4) declining incentives to 

participate in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act. 

OJJDP is working with the states to overcome these challenges. We are sponsoring a 

webinar series, conducting trainings, and creating tools that allow states to apply the DMC 

Reduction Model with ease and at relatively low cost. 

While we look at how school discipline policies affect our children, it is equally 

important to understand how deeply entwined the issue of student discipline is with other key 

issues. 

Defending Childhood 

During today's meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Attorney General Holder received testimony from his Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence - a component ofthe Defending Childhood initiative launched in 2010. 

Task Force members presented the Attorney General with a report compiling their findings and 

comprehensive policy recommendations to address the pervasive issue of children's exposure to 

violence at home, at school or in the community. The report was based on public testimony, 

comprehensive research, and input from experts, advocates, and impacted families and 

communities nationwide and represents a signal accomplishment of our Department's work to 

protect children. 

6 
65 

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV), a national survey 

sponsored by OJJDP, found that over 60% of children surveyed were exposed to violence, crime, 

or abuse in the prior year either directly or indirectly. Nearly one-half of youth were assaulted 

at least once; more than I in 4 witnessed a violent act; and nearly I in 10 saw a family member 

assault another. Multiple victimizations were common. Children exposed to violence, as victims 

and witnesses, are often traumatized. A lack of effective and appropriate identification, response 

and intervention can result in children who are unfocused and disruptive and frequently truant, 

behavior which often plays out in classrooms nationwide. 

Another critical issue in the health, engagement, and academic progress of students is the 

alcohol and drug use among our nation's youth. Youth substance use is often an underlying 

cause in behavior problems exhibited by students. In 2011, we estimate that 3.1 million persons 

over the age of 12 used an illicit drug for the first time, most of whom (67.5 percent) said that 

marijuana was their first drug. There were more than 1.5 million new teen drug users ages 12-

174

• 

According to the Task Force report, this is a national crisis which requires a national 

response in defending our children from exposure to and consequences of violence and 

psychological trauma. Among the Task Force's recommendations is the call to develop better 

policies to keep children in school. The Task Force explains that "successful school-based 

programs that help students develop better ways of handling emotional distress, peer pressures, 

and problems in family and peer relationships and that integrate recovery from trauma should be 

expanded and then embedded into existing school curricula and activities to increase students' 

abilities to have positive experiences with education, recreation, peer relationships, and the larger 

community." 

The Department views the release ofthe Task Force Report as a defining moment. With 

the release of the report, we begin to explore the recommendations with our colleagues at the 

Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Defense, Interior, and the other 

member agencies ofthe Council. We have enlisted the aid ofthe field to publicize and 

disseminate the findings of this report and are planning selected regional events to highlight its 

findings. 

Our partnership with the Department of Education is critical and, as my colleague has 

testified, schools are an essential source of supports for our most vulnerable students, including 

those exposed to violence. To keep such students in school, and safe from further victimization, 

or worse, perpetration, we must consider the mental and behavioral supports they need. 

4 Citation: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 20 II National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-44, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4713. 

Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012. Specific Data table at 

http://www.samhsa.gov/dataINSDUHl20 II SummNatFindDetTableslNSDUHDetTabsPDFWHTML20 11/2klIDetailedTabsIW eb!PDFW INSDUH-DetTabsSect4peTabs5to8-20 II.pdf 

7 
66 

Federal Reentry Efforts 

Equally important to keeping students in school, is helping those youth involved in the 

juvenile justice system reenter their community and return to school. Approximately 100,000 

youth are released each year from some type of detention facilit/ to school systems that lack a 

comprehensive mechanism to assess and address the learning needs of youth reentering the 

system. According to the latest OnDP Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (December 

2010), more than two-thirds of youth in custody report that they have aspirations of higher 

education and research consistently shows that school attendance is a strong protective factor 

against delinquency; youth who are engaged in school are much less likely to commit crimes in 

the short and long-terms. However, some schools place obstacles to reenrollment for formerly 

incarcerated youth because these youth are considered difficult to manage. In fact, some states 

have enacted laws that create obstacles for youth attempting to re-enroll in school upon reentry. 

To address some of the issues associated with reentry, the Attorney General established 

the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, comprised of 20 federal agencies, to coordinate reentry 

initiatives. The Reentry Council aims to reduce nation-wide recidivism, keep our communities 

safer, assist those returning from prison and jail in becoming productive, tax-paying citizens, and 

decrease the billions of dollars spent annually on incarceration. The Reentry Council maintains a 

focus on juvenile reentry issues, which carry their own unique opportunities and challenges. 

Conclusion 

The Department of Justice and our partners at the federal, state, and local levels are at 

the forefront of these issues. Although there is much work still to be done, I am very pleased 

with what we have accomplished in a very short time. This is a testament to the effort put forth 

by all of us - Congress, federal agencies, the philanthropic community, advocates, educators, law 

enforcement, judicial leaders, and most of all, the families and students deeply impacted by the 

continuation of punitive disciplinary practices. 

We, at OJJDP, envision a nation where all of our children are healthy, educated and free 

from violence. Should they come in contact with the juvenile justice system, we want the 

experience to be rare, fair and beneficial to them. This vision is one shared by the 56 juvenile 

justice systems and hopefully by this Congress. We look forward to continuing to work with the 

members on this subcommittee and your staff on this substantive and important issue. 

5 Barton, William H. 2006. Incorporating the Strengths Perspective Into Intensive Juvenile Aftercare. Western 

Criminology Review 7 (2):48-{i 1. 

8 
67 

"Ending the School to Prison Pipeline" 

Testimony for the Record 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine 

December 12, 2012 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased 

to appear before you to talk about how Ohio is managing our youth in today's justice system. I 

also applaud the focus on issues relating to school discipline and strategies that can end the 

school to prison pipeline. We know that positive school discipline methods can prevent 

juveniles from entering our correctional system in the first place. And we know that keeping 

children in school is vital, as research shows us the indisputable link between illiteracy and 

delinquency. 

When I was Ohio's Lieutenant Governor (1991-1995) under Governor George Voinovich, one of 

my jobs was to oversee the juvenile justice system. At that time, the system was in disarray: 

• State facilities were bursting at the seams, sometimes crammed to as much as 175 percent 

capacity; 

There was often a lack of appropriate programming; 

The use of state funds for youth incarceration was inefficient or ineffective; 

Many young people caught up in the juvenile justice system were simply learning how to 

sharpen their criminal skills; and 

• The relationship between the Ohio Department of Youth Services and the local juvenile 

courts at the time was described most charitably as "combative." 

My first goal was to enhance public safety by: 

• Reducing violence in our facilities; 

• Placing youth in the most appropriate setting to address their needs; and 

• Keeping children as close as possible to their families, schools, and other community 

support systems. 

By focusing on these strategies, I felt we could ultimately reduce recidivism and improve the 

lives of and the outcomes for these young people. Local jurisdictions had few options and even 

fewer financial resources. And frankly, they didn't have much incentive to do things differently. 

Ohio's 88 counties could send an unlimited number of juveniles to state institutions with no 

financial consequences. The state, rather than the counties, bore all the costs of incarceration. 

And so, when I took office, we set out to make Ohio's juvenile justice system better. 

I traveled around the state, talked with juvenile judges, and heard first-hand their pleas for 

reform. Geno Natalucci-Persichetti, then the director ofthe Ohio Department of Youth Services 

(DYS), and I convened a meeting of juvenile judges with the Governor in the Statehouse. 

1 
68 

We wanted to improve the Department of Youth Service's ability to treat juvenile offenders; 

empower juvenile court judges with more community based options; and whenever possible, 

keep the kids close to home, in school, and out of incarceration. We understood that judges know 

the kids and their communities better than anyone else in the state. We wanted a commonsense 

approach that also kept our concern for public safety front-and-center. 

Our preliminary reform efforts led to the creation of RECLAIM Ohio ("Reasoned and Equitable 

Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors "). This program reduced the 

number of commitments to DYS state institutions and expanded the community-based options 

available by providing a financial incentive where essentially, the money started to follow the 

juvenile. [fhe or she stayed in the community; so did the funding. 

After a nine-county pilot project delivered positive results, RECLAIM Ohio was implemented 

statewide. Its early successes earned it a 1996 Harvard Kennedy School of Government 

designation as a leading, innovative governmental program. A subsequent Ford Foundation 

grant helped establish a RECLAIM Academy in Ohio, where juvenile correctional leaders from 

around the country could come to learn about the program's principles and possible applications 

to their states. 

In 2005, long after I had left state government, DYS leadership further built upon the RECLAIM 

Ohio foundation and developed the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OY AS). This system 

provides a research-based tool to assess the needs of youth from arrest all the way through 

discharge from parole. By evaluating each juvenile's level of risk, Ohio has been better able to 

match young people with effective programs and services that target their needs, oftentimes 

outside of a locked-down facility. Having an effective assessment process in place has enabled 

DYS to exceed its goals in reducing DYS admissions and to reinvest those dollars into the 

"Targeted RECLAIM" initiative, aimed at youth with serious behavioral health issues. 

Juvenile justice reform is an arduous, painstaking process complicated by difficult and often 

conflicting factors: 

Professionals in the field deal with dysfunctional and sometimes dangerous youth; 

Opinions about how best to manage juvenile systems are frequently polarized; 

Everyone's interests must be balanced in an environment where budget shortfalls are all 

too common. 

The juvenile justice system is increasingly litigious, as well. Ohio's system faced several major 

lawsuits in recent years, but ultimately the manner in which the suits were settled supported the 

overarching goals of our reform efforts. 

Despite the challenges and obstacles, RECLAIM Ohio is a reform that works. According to 

Judge James Kirsch, a long-time juvenile court judge in Ohio's Scioto County: 

2 
69 

"RECLAIM Ohio has allowed the courts to develop some good programming with 

accountability. And, as RECLAIM Ohio has evolved, it has enabled communities to take 

care of juveniles locally rather than send them off to DYS." 

Judge Kirsch's "Saturday School" -- an alternative to detention -- is one such example of good 

programming. "Saturday School" is a I O-week program conducted three times a year by the 

court's probation department. Three teachers provide remedial instruction in math, spelling, 

reading, and writing, and have often been able to bring the young people back to their academic 

grade level. And, according to Judge Kirsch, the kids who attend "Saturday School" don't come 

back! They're entering the school system again and avoiding the pipeline to prison. 

Judge Kirsch also noted that before RECLAIM Ohio, he typically placed between 22 and 25 

youths per year in DYS. Today, his DYS placements average about two per year. 

By any measure, RECLAIM Ohio has delivered results: 

The DYS population has declined from a high of more than 2,600 in May 1992 to 551 in 

October 2012; 

Felony commitments to DYS facilities decreased from 2,2 I 5 in fiscal year 2000 to 836 in 

fiscal year 2010. That's a 62 percent reduction; 

• Research shows that, for all but the highest risk youth, RECLAIM programs are costeffective alternatives to DYS and community corrections facilities, and they produce 

lower recidivism rates; 

• Ohio saved over $57 million in operating costs previously spent on incarceration by 

closing four juvenile facilities; and 

• In the long-run, every dollar spent on keeping youth in the community through the 

RECLAIM program saves between $11.00 and $45.00, as opposed to locking them down 

in a DYS or community corrections facility. 

RECLAIM Ohio has functioned as it was designed. It works because it avoids institutionalizing 

low risk youth, instead keeping them with their families and peers, in their school and 

community. In a supportive setting, families and educators are best able to work together to use 

discipline to correct behavior rather than reporting to prison, which is best suited to punish 

behavior. RECLAIM Ohio has realized its goals of better serving the juveniles involved with 

Ohio's Department of Youth Services and of enabling local courts to develop or purchase less 

restrictive, more appropriate community-based resources for juveniles in their systems. Just as 

significantly, RECLAIM Ohio established a flexible framework that can easily accept future 

adjustments and improvements to the juvenile justice system in Ohio. 

3 
70 

We also believe the core features of RECLAIM Ohio and the successes it has produced can be 

replicated in other states. In fact, Judge Teske will no doubt elaborate on this, but I was pleased 

to learn that Georgia is the latest state to consider implementing juvenile justice reform based on 

RECLAIM Ohio. 

Again, I am pleased to be back here in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, and thank 

you for the opportunity to present testimony on this very timely issue. The importance of 

continuing to bring together our justice system, our schools, and our communities cannot be 

overstated. 

4 
71 

The Honorable Steven C. Teske 

Chief Judge, Clayton County Juvenile Court, Georgia 

Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Subcommittee Hearing on "Ending the School to Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Good Morning Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the Senate Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. Thank you for having me here to testify today about 

the School-to-Prison Pipeline, the negative effects of zero tolerance poliCies in our schools, and how we 

transformed our systems in Clayton County, Georgia to reduce school arrests while simultaneously 

improving graduation rates and school and community safety. 

My name is Steven Teske and I currently serve as chief judge at the Clayton County Juvenile Court in 

Georgia. In addition to the thirteen years I have spent on the court, I have been involved in the juvenile 

justice system in many other capacities. The Governor has app.ointed me to represent the 13th 

Congressional District on the Board of the Georgia Children and Youth Coordinating Council (and served 

as the Chair of the Board), to serve as vice-chair of the Governor's Office for Children and Families, to 

serve on the Georgia Commission on Family Violence, and to serve on the Judicial Advisory Council to 

the Board of the Department of Juvenile Justice. I have also served as a representative for Georgia on 

the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice for the United States Department of Justice's Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. My Governor, Nathan Deal, recently appointed me to 

the Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform to provide recommendations to improve juvenile justice 

in Georgia. In 2008, I served as the President of the Georgia Council of Juvenile Court Judges. 

In my testimony today, I would like to define zero tolerance and how it is used in school systems to push 

kids out of school and into the juvenile and adult justice systems, creating a "School-to-Prison Pipeline." 

Using my home county of Clayton as a case study of zero tolerance and its negative impact on 

graduation rates and school safety, I will discuss how our community worked collaboratively to reduce 

school arrests and develop a system of care to assess and treat chronically disruptive students and to 

improve graduation rates and school and community safety. 

The Clayton County Model: A Collaborative Approach 

When I took the bench in 1999, I was shocked to find that approximately one-third ofthe cases in my 

courtroom were school-related, of which most were low risk misdemeanor offenses. Upon reviewing 

our data, the increase in school arrests did not begin until after police were placed on our middle and 

high school campuses in 1996-well before the horrific shootings at Columbine High School. The year 

before campus police, my court received only 49 school referrals. By 2004, the referrals increased over 

1,000 percent to 1,400 referrals, of which 92% were misdemeanors mostly involving school fights, 

disorderly conduct, and disrupting public school. 

1 
72 

Despite the many arrests, school safety did not improve. The number of serious weapons brought to 

campus increased during this period of police arrests including guns, knives, box cutter knives, and 

straight edge razors. Of equal concern was the decrease in the graduation rates during this same 

period-it reached an all-time low in 2003 of 58%. It should come to no one's surprise that the more 

students we arrested, suspended, and expelled from our school system, the juvenile crime rate in the 

community significantly increased. These kids lost one of the greatest protective buffers against 

delinquency-school connectedness. 

I also witnessed an increase in kids of color referred to my court. By 2004, over 80% of all school 

referrals involved African-American students. The racial disparity in school arrests was appalling and I 

felt I was contributing to this system of racial bias by not doing something. 

It was also frustrating for me as a judge to see the effectiveness of the prosecutor and probation officer 

weakened by my court system being inundated with low risk cases that consumed the court docket and 

pushed kids toward probation-kids who made adults mad versus those that scare us. 

The prosecutor required more time for the most serious cases that, if proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt, the child would require intensive supervision for the protection of the community. Instead, the 

prosecutor's attention was taken from the more difficult evidentiary and "scary" cases-burglary, 

robberies, car thefts, aggravated assaults with weapons-- to prosecuting kids that are not "scary," but 

made an adult mad. This craziness trickled over into probation cases in which probation officers were 

spending most of their time watching over low risk cases, which now made up two-thirds of their 

caseload. By 2004, the average caseload size grew to 150 per officer. The recidivism rate increased to 

over 70% by 2004 because the high risk kids were receiving less supervision-all a direct result of our 

zero tolerance policies in the schools. Zero tolerance was negatively impacting the entire community 

and something had to be done. 

I turned to the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)--an initiative of the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation, which was established over 60 years ago in 1948 to help build better futures for 

disadvantaged children in the United States. To further this mission, the Annie E. Casey Foundation 

funds initiatives aimed at strengthening those public systems established to respond to the challenges 

faced by fragile and disadvantaged children and families. 

One of these initiatives is JDAI, which began over 20 years ago as an effort to strengthen the nation's 

juvenile justice systems and improve the odds that delinquent youth would become productive adults. 

JDAI focuses on the detention component of juvenile justice - a worthy ambition in its own right - but 

was based on the notion that the policies, practices and skills that would be required to change 

detention would have a transformative effect on other components of the system as well. 

Since its inception in the 1990s, JDAI has grown exponentially from a handful of sites to more than 200 

local jurisdictions in 39 states, including Clayton Cou nty. 

2 
73 

In 2003, using the eight core strategies of the JDAI Model, I exercised my convening role as a juvenile 

judge and invited the School Superintendent and Chief of Police to meet and discuss the overwhelming 

increase of school referrals to the juvenile court and how this may be handled in other ways. Our 

meetings generated more questions as a result of each stakeholder's self-interest. What are school 

administrators to do with these disruptive students no longer referred to the court? When should 

police intervene in school disruption matters? How do we identify the underlying problems causing the 

disruption? What do we do to address those problems given the limited capacity and resources of the 

schools? How do we ensure the safety of the schools? The collaborative process generated new and 

difficult questions that extended the time to develop a system to meet the goal. It also required more 

stakeholders at the table, including mental health, social services, and private providers; parents; youth; 

and the NAACP. With the consent of the stakeholders, I appOinted a neutral person to facilitate the 

meetings. I participated in the discussions but limited my role to convener. 

I convened the meetings twice a month. The facilitator assigned tasks to stakeholders between each 

meeting. The "interactive process" took nine (9) months. The stakeholders agreed that two written 

agreements or Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) were necessary to address the interests of all 

stakeholders: 1) reduce suspensions, expulsions, and arrests and 2) develop alternatives to suspension 

and arrests, including assessment and treatment measures for chronically disruptive students. 

The first MOU, titled "School Referral Reduction Protocol," identified misdemeanor offenses no longer 

eligible for referral to the juvenile court unless the student had exhausted a two-tier process that 

includes: 1) Warning on the first offense to student and parent; 2) referral to a conflict skills workshop 

on the second offense; and 3) referral to the court on the third offense. 

The second MOU created a multidisciplinary panel to serve as a single point of entry for all child service 

agencies, including schools, when referring children, youth, and families at risk for petition to the court. 

The panel, called the Clayton County Collaborative Child Study Team (Quad C-ST), meets regularly to 

assess the needs of students at risk for court referral and recommends an integrated services action 

plan to address the student's disruptive behavior. The panel consists of a mental health profeSSional, the 

student's school social worker and counselor, a social services professional, juvenile court officer, and 

approved child service providers, and it is moderated by a trained facilitator provided by the court. The 

panel links the child and family to services in the community not available to the school system. The 

panel developed an array of evidence based treatment programs such as functional family therapy, 

multi-systemic therapy, cognitive behavioral programming, wrap-around services, and more. 

Outcomes 

Immediately following the School Referral Reduction Protocol, referrals to the court were reduced by 

67.4%. The school police, who had spent most of their time arresting students for low-level offenses, 

were now on campus most of the day and engaging students using a positive approach versus the use of 

handcuffs and a transport in the back of a patrol car. 

3 
74 

The implementation of the protocol produced a residual effect in the felony referral rate, with a 

decrease of 30.8%. According to school police, the warning system was used for some felony offenses 

involving typical adolescent behavior. The decision by school police over time to extend their discretion 

to use the warning for certain offenses outside the scope of the protocol indicates a shift in cognition. 

When prohibited from making arrests, school police began to engage students and developed an 

understanding that discipline should be applied on a case-by-case basis. This resulted in greater 

reductions in referrals. 

By the end ofthe 2011-12 school term, the number of students referred to the juvenile court for school 

offenses was reduced by 83%. The number of youth of color referred to the court for school offenses 

was reduced by 43%. 

Another byproduct of the protocol was a reduction in serious weapons on campus by 73%. These 

involve weapons outside the discretion of police and must be referred to the court by law. These results 

appear to refute the belief among school administrators that zero tolerance promotes school safety. A 

survey of school police show that the cessation of school arrests increased police presence on campus 

because they were no longer leaving campus to transport and file referrals. This in turn increased their 

knowledge of the student body. Their increased presence promoted friendly engagement of students. 

This positive engagement coupled with the students' perception that the police were there to help 

(because arrests drastically declined) produced sharing of information by students to police about 

concerns on campus. Consequently, students now share information that leads to solving crimes in the 

community, as well as crimes about to occur on campus. "Schools are a microcosm of the community," 

as stated by the supervisor of the school police unit (Richards, 2009). If one wants to know what is going 

on in the community, talk to the students. However, the students must want to talk to you. Therefore, 

the aim of school poliCing is to gather intelligence on student activity through positive student 

engagement. 

At the same time, the School Referral Reduction Protocol went into effect; the Quad CoST began work to 

develop alternatives to ass and connect the school system with other community providers. These 

alternatives resulted in an 8% decrease in middle school ass (Clayton County Public School System, 

2010). 

After implementing these integrated systems, the school system observed an increase in graduation 

rates, resulting in a 24% increase by the end of the 2010 school year, which surpassed the statewide 

average. Although Clayton County has improved the overall rate of graduation, we continue to struggle 

with on-time graduation rates. Although they have improved over this same time period, much more 

can be done to graduate kids on time, including a prohibition on out-of-school suspensions for many 

infractions and the development of alternatives to suspension similar to alternatives to detention 

promoted by the JDAI Model. Baltimore City Schools, under the leadership of Dr. Alonso, is a good 

example of this approach. 

4 
75 

Clayton County is now employing a System of Care (SOC), managed by a full-time administrator, 

incorporating the QUAD CoST previously mentioned to a greater number of chronically disruptive 

students for assessments and treatment in lieu of suspension, expulsion, and arrest. By reducing 

suspension rates in addition to arrest rates, Clayton County can significantly improve its on-time rates as 

it has the overall rates of graduation. 

Regardless of overall or on-time graduation rates, the more students that graduate, the less juvenile 

crime in the community. For example, before the introduction of the protocol to reduce school arrests in 

2004, the juvenile felony rate in Clayton County reached an all-time high, but declined 51% after the 

protoco I, redUCing school arrests and improving graduation rates. 

The implementation of this protocol has reduced the average probation caseload size to 25, which 

includes the kids that scare us-not the ones that make us mad. Consequently, the increase in 

surveillance and the intensive interventions employed with our probationers has resulted in a reduction 

in recidivism of 24%--down from over 70%. This decline represents greater success among these 

troubled youth and fewer victims. 

Finally, the protocol coupled with our JDAI practices was instrumental in achieving other results that 

have reduced recidivism and turned cost savings into local re-investments to serve our youth. These 

results include: 

70% decrease in average daily detention population (ADP) 

64% reduction in average daily detention population of minority youth 

43% reduction in average length of stay 

Felony re-arrest (prior to adjudication) of less than 1% 

43% fewer commitments to state custody 

40% fewer commitments of minority youth 

67% reduction in formal petitions 

The Clayton experience is not a novel idea. It is grounded in research that supports common-sense 

notions-that keeping kids in school will increase graduation rates that in turn will positively impact 

community safety and improve our economy. 

Some of these results have been replicated in other jurisdictions including Birmingham, Alabama and 

Wichita, Kansas. The family court judge in Birmingham, Brian Huff, was the first to replicate this 

collaborative approach. During the 2007-08 school years, school police in Birmingham referred 513 

students to court, of which 99% were African American and 96% were petty misdemeanor offenses. The 

judge also brought stakeholders together and developed a written protocol similar to that of Clayton 

County. The referrals declined by 75% and detention rates fell by 72%. Recently, the juvenile judge in 

Wichita convened stakeholders meetings and established a protocol resulting in a 50% decrease in 

school arrests. Judge Patricia Koch, District Court Judge of Rapides Parrish, LA, is another example of 

5 
76 

judicial leadership to bring about collaborative reform to end the school-to-prison pipeline. By using her 

convening power, the stakeholders in her Parrish have developed a system similar in concept to Clayton 

County that has reduced school referrals from 1,148 in 2006 to only 58 in 2011. Other jurisdictions have 

followed suit to change their systems to reduce school arrests including Columbus, OH; Sioux City, IA; 

Broward County, FL; Bibb County, GA; Middlesex County, MA; Los Angeles County, CA; and several 

jurisdictions in Connecticut. 

The National Scope: It's Not Just Clayton County 

We are a nation in crisis when it comes to educating our children. On one hand we promulgate laws to 

promote the education and welfare of children and on the other we implement poliCies that effectively 

push them out of school, creating what has been coined the "School-to-Prison Pipeline." These 

competing approaches create a dysfunctional paradox that harms children and the community. 

In an effort to address school diSCipline, educators have adopted a zero tolerance approach resulting in 

a dramatic increase in out-of-school suspensions (aSS) and expulsions. The introduction of police on 

school campuses exacerbated the problem by using arrest and incarceration as another disciplinary tool. 

The widespread use of zero tolerance poliCies is probative of educators' belief that such "get tough" 

strategies have value in correcting behavior and/or to remove disruptive students. No matter the 

reason, zero tolerance policies deny recent research on adolescent brain development that "mischief is, 

a foreseeable derivative of adolescence" (Teske, 2011). other studies show that zero tolerance 

strategies in general are ineffective, harmful to students, and fails to improve school safety. 

Zero Tolerance Defined: 

During the early 1990s, school systems began adopting this "get tough" approach for minor school 

infractions, using out-of-school suspension (aSS) for up to ten days and expulsions. By widening the net 

of infractions, the use of ass nearly doubled annually from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million in 2001 

(Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000). The most contradictory application of ass involves truant students. 

Suspending a truant student is indicative of the inherent problems with zero tolerance policies in a 

school setting. It confounds the mind that professionals trained and certified to teach our children are 

duped into believing that suspending a student who doesn't want to be in school is an effective tool. It is 

not surprising that some have referred to zero tolerance as "zero intelligence" (Richardson, 2002). 

Zero tolerance can be defined as a "philosophy or policy that mandates the application of 

predetermined consequences, most often severe and punitive in nature, that are intended to be applied 

regardless of the seriousness of behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context" (Skiba et al., 

2006). The punitive nature of zero tolerance practices increased with the introduction of police on 

school campuses. What was typically handled in the principal's office now involved a police officer with 

the powerto arrest. In addition to suspension, students were handcuffed and transported to juvenile 

6 
77 

intake locations. The net for incarceration widened. Studies have referred to this phenomenon as the 

"School-to-Prison Pipeline" (Wald & Losen, 2003). 

School administrators administer zero tolerance practices believing that the removal of disruptive 

students will deter others from similar conduct, creating a safer classroom environment. This belief fails 

to take into consideration the growing body of research that zero tolerance is contrary to adolescent 

cognition and the role school plays as a protective buffer against delinquency. 

The Surgeon General's report on youth violence revealed that a child's connection to school was a 

protective factor against risk factors for violence (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). 

Other studies found that students' belief that adults and peers in school care about them is related to 

lower levels of substance abuse, violence, suicide attempts, pregnancy, and emotional distress 

(McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002). Studies also reveal that this belief, referred to as school 

connectedness, is linked to school attendance, graduation rates, and improved academics (Rosenfield, 

Richman, & Bowman, 1998; Battin-Pearson et aI., 2000). 

Despite efforts by many juvenile judges to stop these minor school offenses from reaching their 

courtroom using informal intake diversion mechanisms, more must be done. Research shows a strong 

link between school arrests and drop-out rates. One study found that a student arrested in school is 

twice as likely to drop out and four times as likely to drop out if the student appears in court. (Sweeten, 

2006). Juvenile judges should consider what steps can be taken to prevent any unnecessary referral to 

the court 

Removing students from school which serves as a buffer against delinquency is counterproductive to the 

goals of education, the best practices in juvenile justice, and community safety. Take for instance what 

we know about the importance of assessing the risk of juvenile offenders to determine the level of 

services needed to prevent re-offending. Studies show that recidivism is reduced among high risk youth 

if they are provided with intensive interventions. Conversely, these same studies show that intensive 

interventions applied to low risk youth increase the risk of re-offending (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). 

Applying these findings to zero tolerance strategies, the harsh treatment of students committing minor 

infractions increases the risk of anti-social and delinquent behaviors. Studies show that the use of OSS 

and arrests without consideration of the risk level of the student exacerbates the problem by making 

students' behavior worse (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Mendez, 2003). Another study on the use of OSS of 

elementary and middle school students found that OSS is a predictor of future suspensions (Mendez, 

2003). The study also found that OSS contributes to poor academic performance and failure to graduate. 

It should be common sense that keeping kids in school will increase graduation rates. 

Zero tolerance as a philosophy and approach is contrary to the nature of adolescent cognition and 

disregards the research in adolescent brain research. The research using magnetic resonance imaging 

((MRI) found that the frontal lobe of the brain, which filters emotion into logical response, is not fully 

developed until about age 21 (Giedd et ai, 1999). Adolescents are "biologically wired to exhibit risktaking behaviors, impulsive responses, and exercise poor judgment" (Teske, 2011). 

7 
78 

The implications ofthese studies within the context of zero tolerance approaches are important to show 

the negative impact on adolescents. The use of OSS and arrests for behavior that is neurologically 

normative for adolescents aggravates the existing challenges confronting youth. Neurologically 

speaking, youth are still under construction and require positive surroundings, including school (Giedd et 

ai, 1999). Removing youth from school settings that serve as a protective buffer increases the 

probability of negative outcomes for the student, school, and the community. 

This hearing cannot be timelier given the increasing involvement of national organizations and private 

philanthropies with initiatives designed to dismantle the School-to-Prison pipeline. I have already 

mentioned the Annie E. Casey Foundation JDAI Model that inspired the Clayton County School Referral 

Reduction Protocol. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), of which I am a 

member, passed a resolution against zero tolerance policies in school settings. NCJFCJ spearheads an 

effort with the support of a number of organizations including the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and Atlantic Philanthropies, a Schools Pathways to Delinquency 

Committee, which I co-chair, to develop curriculum to train judges across the country to deliver 

technical assistance to local jurisdictions on how to develop a protocol to reduce school arrests. The 

Council of State Governments has created a Discipline Juvenile Justice Focus Group, also with the 

support of Atlantic Philanthropies and others to develop policy recommendations that promote 

effective strategies to improve student conduct and reduce school arrests, suspensions, and expulsions. 

Recommendations 

As the Committee looks for ways to end the School-to-Prison Pipeline, I ask the Committee consider the 

follOWing recommendations: 

Amend the No Child left Behind (NClB) Act to encourage schools to seek alternatives when dealing 

with disruptive students other than referring them to the juvenile justice system. 

Amend the NClB Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to provide for Title I 

funding to develop alternatives to out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to the 

juvenile court, including training for law enforcement and school administrators on best practices 

for handling school-related offenses. 

Amend the NClB Act and IDEA to mandate collaboration between schools, law enforcement, 

juvenile justice, prosecutors, and other relevant stakeholders to reduce the unnecessary referral of 

students to the juvenile justice system while simultaneously developing programs to improve 

retention, safety, and graduation rates. 

Reconsider the 1994 Gun Free Schools Act only as it relates to the automatic, one-year suspension 

of elementary age and some younger middle school students to allow local school districts to 

exempt those students where the evidence is clear and convincing that the student had no intent to 

use a weapon in an assault or to cause physical injury. From time to time, school systems are 

8 
79 

reluctant to suspend a child of tender years whose only intent was to show off a weapon that was 

negligently placed in his or her hands by an adult parent or guardian. 

Reauthorize the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) and incentivize the 

reinvestment of detention dollars into effective community-based programs similar to the programs 

in Ohio, Illinois, and Texas to include school and justice system programs to reduce school arrests. 

Strengthen the disproportionate minority contact core protection of the JJDPA to expressly require 

efforts, initiatives, and programs similar to Clayton County's model to reduce and eliminate racial 

and ethnic disparities in the referral of students to the juvenile court. 

Thank you again for having me here to testify and I look forward to any questions you have for me. 

9 
80 

r ADVANCEMENT 

=\,PRO]ECT 

Testimony of Judith A. Browne Dianis 

Co-Director, Advancement Project 

Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Washington, DC 

Wednesday, December 12,2012 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham and Members of the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the 

Schoo1-to-Prison Pipeline, the process by which students are forced out of our educational system and 

into the criminal justice system by overly harsh disciplinary policies and practices, and to share with you 

the Pipeline's devastating effect on young people's opportunity to succeed, Mr. Chairman, having 

testified before you in 2011 on voting rights issues, I wanted to recognize your leadership on a vast array 

of civil rights and racial justice issues including ensuring educational opportunity, protecting voting 

rights, and protecting the rights of immigrants, 

My name is Judith Browne Dianis, I serve as Co-Director of Advancement Project-a national, 

civil rights organization that advances universal opportunity and ajust democracy, For almost 20 years, I 

have been a civil rights litigator and racial justice advocate in the areas of voting, education, housing, and 

immigrants' rights, 

Advancement Project is a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization, founded in 1999 

by a team of veteran civil rights lawyers. With offices in California and a national office in Washington, 

DC, we exist to fulfill America's promise of a caring, inclusive, and just democracy, rooted in the great 

human rights struggles for equality and justice. We use innovative tools and strategies to strengthen 
81 

social movements and achieve high-impact policy change. Locally, we provide strategic policy, legal, 

and communications support to grassroots organizations, increasing their capacity to identify and address 

racial injustices in their communities. On the national level, we extend and replicate lessons learned on 

the ground, through the use of trainings, networking, media outreach, and public education. 

We all want safe, high-quality schools that care about our youth and give them real opportunities 

to succeed, and, no one would dispute that keeping kids safe sometimes requires schools to take 

appropriate disciplinary action. However, across the country, students are being suspended, expelled, or 

even arrested for minor misbehavior like being late or violating a dress code. Students who should be 

sent to the guidance counselor to find out what is really wrong end up at the police station. We are facing 

a discipline crisis, one that is pushing students of color out of school, by either kicking them out of school 

or causing them to drop out, and one that is disproportionately impacting lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students and students with disabilities. 

In recent years, we have seen increased rates of suspension, expUlsion, and arrest because adultand not student - behavior has changed. Adults are treating young people like criminals, and are 

responding to typical student behavior that has no bearing on safety with discipline that defies common 

sense. Schools have redefined developmentally appropriate behaviors as crimes. Pushing and shoving in 

the schoolyard is now a battery, and talking back is now disorderly conduct. 

In all the years I have done this work, one case in particular stands out. Ja'eisha Scott was a fiveyear-old kindergarten student in Pincllas County, Florida. When her teacher ended ajelly bean counting 

game, Ja'eisha didn't want to stop the game. Like many five-year old children would have done, 

Ja'cisha, got upset and started acting out. Soon, this turned into a full blown temper tantrum. When the 

school staff couldn't get her to calm down, they decided that their next best option was to call in law 

enforcement. When the three police officers entered the room, they found Ja'eisha sitting quietly in a 

chair. Two of them pulled her up, pushed her against a table and put little Ja'eisha under arrest, as if she 

were a hardened criminal. Her wrists were too tiny for the handcuffs to fit, so they handcuffed her arms 

instead. They took her to a police cruiser, where they shackled her ankles and left her crying until her 

2 
82 

mother carne to the school. The images of la'eisha that day, and of her family and her community's pain, 

are seared in my memory. 

These overly punitive disciplinary policies and practices, often called "zero tolerance policies" 

lead to high dropout rates, low academic achievement, and too many young people pushed onto a 

pathway to prison. This is the School-to-Prison Pipeline. The Pipeline is the result of various practices 

including zero tolerance policies, high-stakes testing, suspensions, expUlsions, and school-based arrests. 

The School-to-Prison Pipeline is a product of the War on Drugs, as "get-tough" law enforcement 

strategies made their way from the streets to the schools. Although school violence was actually in 

decline, a handful of highly publicized juvenile crimes led to new laws and policies intended to punish 

youth offenders more severely.' In 1994, Congress passed the Gun Free Schools Act, requiring states to 

enact laws mandating expUlsion of students found with firearms on school grounds. School districts went 

further, embracing the strategies of the War on Drugs, and coming up with their own versions of "three 

strikes" laws (automatically expelling students for their third offense) and instituting mandatory 

sentencing laws (policies requiring a minimum suspension for some behaviors regardless of 

circumstances, even for something as minor as insubordination)? At the onset of these changes, 

Advancement Project saw the potential for discrimination. We tracked it, documented it, and, with our 

community partners, began to address it. We have supported the growing national movement to 

dismantle the School-to-Prison Pipeline for over thirteen years. 

Youth, parents, local groups and their organizers, other community leaders, and coalitions have 

been at the forefront of this movement since its inception. Through their tireless work, and the support of 

national research, education, juvenile justice organizations, and civil rights advocacy organizations, many 

of whom have also submitted testimony for this hearing, the tide is starting to turn away from ineffective, 

exclusionary discipline and towards common sense policies that actually work. As part of this movement, 

'Test, Punish, and Push Out: How "Zero Tolerance" and High-stakes Testing Funnel Youth into the School-toPrison Pipeline 9-12. (January 2010) [hereinafter Test, Punish, Push Out], available at 

http://b.3cdn.net/advancementld05cb2J8J a4545db07 r2im6cage.pdf. 

'Id. at 10. 

3 
83 

we and our partners and allies have collaborated with juvenile court judges, public defenders, and the U,S. 

Departments of Justice and Education. With our community partners, we have also successfully 

advocated for statewide legislative reform of zero tolerance policies and practices, and worked closely 

with school districts to implement common sense discipline, rewriting their discipline codes and 

developing alternatives to suspensions and criminalization practices. 

I am honored to have the opportunity to inform this committee about what is happening on the 

ground across the county and to highlight ways of reversing the School-to-Prison Pipeline. In this 

testimony, I will discuss why harsh disciplinary practices do not work: they are ineffective, inefficient, 

and discriminatory. I will then discuss common sense discipline policies and practices that are proven 

alternatives to zero tolerance that keep schools safe, engage students in the learning process, and reduce 

racial disparities. Finally, I will recommend how the federal government - and this subcommittee in 

particular - can end the School-to-Prison Pipeline and get students on the track to success. 

I. Suspension, Expulsion, and Arrest Lead to Less Safe Schools and Less Successful Students 

Millions of students throughout the country are routinely facing excessive, overly punitive school 

discipline. This includes out-of-school suspension, expulsion, arrests, and referrals to law enforcement 

agencies collectively, what I will refer to as "exclusionary discipline." According to the most recent 

data from the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), each year over 

three million students are suspended and over 100,000 students are expelled. 3 This rate has nearly 

doubled in the past thit1y years.' School disciplinary matters are also increasingly handled by law 

enforcement, and today, students are more likely to be arrested for minor in-school offenses.' This zero 

tolerance approach where adults often over-react to youthful behavior by removing them from the 

classroom, kicking them out of school, and referring them to the police is having a devastating effect on 

3Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov/. 

'Id. 

5 Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, 2010 Annual Report 9 (2010), available at 

http://www . facj j .0rg/annualreportsiOO-F A CJ J%20Anllual%20Report -FINAL %20 5 0 S.pdf. 

4 
84 

our youth. Students lose valuable education time, disengage from school, and are pushed into the 

criminal justice system. These negative results are not necessary: we know that exclusionary discipline 

does not work. It has not made our schools safer; it has not improved the quality of schools; and it is a 

significant contributor to the dropout crisis and student achievement gap.6 

The overuse of zero tolerance discipline policies is fueled by the high-stakes testing world of 

education today.' Because of the focus on test scores and the severe consequences (or incentives) 

attached to them, including termination of school staff, it is no longer in educators' interest to address a 

student who acts up in class by assessing the student's unmet needs or treating the incident as a "teachable 

moment.'" It is much easier to simply remove the child from class through punitive disciplinary 

measures.9 

Many schools have also abdicated their responsibility to correct minor misbehavior to law 

enforcement and the courts. This criminalization of young people has led to dramatically larger security 

and school police forces, increased use of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, pat-downs, drug-sniffing 

dogs, and tasers, and a significant jump in the number of school-based arrests and citations.'o The prisonlike atmosphere created in schools significantly affects students. As students in Philadelphia explained, 

"It creates a hostile environment. It makes it seem as though they expect us to be negative. I feel 

violated. I shouldn't have to go through a metal detector ... and upon entering [a particular school for the 

first time jl had to take off my shoes and they searched me like I was a real criminal. .. [after thatjl was 

making up every excuse not to go to school."" Around the country, we See rampant use oflaw 

enforcement to respond to typical childhood behavior. In May of2012, an honors student in Houston, 

Texas was forced to spend a night injail when she missed class to go to work to support her family. In 

6 See generally Test, Punish, Push Out, supra note 1. 

'Id. 

sId. at 28-29. 

'Id. 

10 See, e.g. Advancement Project. Derailed! The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track. (May 2003), available at 

http://b.3cdn.netiadvancementlc509d077028b4d0544 mlbrq3seg.pdf. 

11 Youth United for Change & Advancement Project. Zero Tolerance in Philadelphia: Denying Educational 

Opportunities and Creating a Pathway to Prison 14 (January 2011) [hereinafter Zero Tolerance in Philadelphia], 

available at http://b.3cdn.nct!advancement!68a6ec942d603a5d27 rim6ynnir.pdf. 
85 

April, a kindergartener from MiIledgville, GA was handcuffed and arrested for throwing a tantrum. In 

2007, a thirteen-year old from New York was handcuffed and removed from school for writing the word 

"okay" on her school desk. Data from Florida shows that during the 2010-2011 school year, 16,377 

referrals were made of studcnts directly to the juvenile justice system an incredible average of 45 

students per day.12 Statewide, two-thirds of the school-based refcrrals were for misdemeanors. 13 This 

means that two-thirds of the arrests were totally unnecessary, and in response to things like disruption of a 

school function, disorderly conduct, or minor school-yard fights." Our experience, which is confirmed 

by our data, tells us that schools are routinely using removal from school and arrest to respond to minor 

misbehaviors. 

These stories show how overly harsh discipline hurts our youth. This shquld not obscure that the 

responsibility for this problem lies with adults. When school officials choose to make schools into 

prison-like atmospheres, they are making decisions that have lasting consequences for students. Every 

dollar that goes into police, metal detectors, and surveillance cameras is a dollar that could have been 

used for teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists, and program supports for young people. 

Adults need to accept responsibility for creating school climates where young people are treated as 

dropouts and criminals. l5 

Let me be clear that in putting the focus on adults, 1, in no way, want to contribute to the current 

culture in which teachers are unfairly blamed for all of the ills of our educational systems. Many teachers 

are faced with using harsh school discipline because they are neither being given the tools and training 

they need to appropriately respond to student behavior, including training in classroom management and 

cultural competency, nor do their schools provide the appropriate resources and programs for teachers 

12 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Delinquency in Florida's Schools: A Seven Year Study 3 (November 

2011) [hereinafter Delinquency in Florida's Schools], available at http://www.djj.state.fl.usidocs!research2!2010-11-

delinguency-in-schools-analysis.pdf?sfvrsn~O. 

13 Id. at 8-9. 

14 ACLU of Florida, Advancement Project, and Florida State Conference ofthe NAACP. Still Haven't Shut Down 

the School-to-Prison Pipeline 6-8 (March 2011), available at 

http://b.3cdn. net/ad vaneement/be8 geID I be b3 SOc 7 fe z5 m6btbgo. pd f. 

15 Zero-Tolerance in Philadelphia, supra note II, at 3. 

6 
86 

who want to do right by their students. Schools often lack resources for positive student interventions and 

supports to address the behavioral challenges teachers face in their classrooms. Moreover, teachers are 

just as much victims of high-stakes testing as their students. Teachers are often in a tough spot, turning to 

exclusionary discipline as a way to monitor student behavior because there are few alternatives available. 

A. Zero Tolerance Discipline Is Not Common Sense Discipline 

Responding to minor misbehaviors with exclusionary discipline defies common sense. Students 

who are struggling behaviorally need more supports, interventions, and structure - not less. Not 

surprisingly, the research shows that removing youth from their learning environment for extended 

periods of time is not an effective way to manage student behavior. The American Psychological 

Association (APA) Zero Tolerance Task Force, after evaluating school disciplinary policies for ten years, 

concluded that zero tolerance policies fail to do what they were designed to do. They do not make 

schools safer. In fact, the APA found that zero tolerance policies may make schools less safe, because 

schools with higher rates of suspension and expUlsion "appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school 

climate. to have less satisfactory school governance structures, and to spend a disproportionate amount of 

time on disciplinary matters (internal citations omitted).,,!6 Zero tolerance hurts the relationship between 

teachers and students and doesn't help students address their issues. Individual students, and the overall 

classroom, wind up worse off than before. 

Schools with high rates of suspension and expulsion tend to have lower test scores and lower 

graduation rates." This evidence disproves the most common justification for these harmful discipline 

practices: that there are good kids and bad kids, and that the good kids can only learn if the had kids are 

16 American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, Are Zero Tolerance Policies Ejjective in the 

Schools': An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, American Psychologist, 63 at 854 (Dec. 2008), available 

at http://www .apa.org/pubs/i nfo/reportslzero-tol erance.pdf. 

17 Daniel Losen and Jonathan Gillespsie. Opportunity Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion 

from School 42 (August 2012), available at http://civilrightsproject.uc1a.edulresources/projects/center-for-civilrights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/upcoming-ccrr-researchllosen-gillespie-opportunitysuspended-ccrr-20 12.pdf 

7 
87 

removed from the classroom. In fact, the use of school suspensions and expulsions is associated with 

lower school-wide academic achievement." 

Instead of creating safer schools, zero tolerance policies have created hostile and unhealthy 

school environments, damaging relationships between students, parents, teachers, administrators, and law 

enforcement. Students succeed, and behavior improves, when young people are in challenging and 

engaging classrooms and welcoming, nurturing schools. 

B. Every Student Should Have an Opportunity to Succeed 

Suspensions and expulsions are not just ineffective and inefftcient - they have real and 

documented harmful effects on students. 19 Suspensions and expulsions are associated with a higher risk 

of school drop-out, and suspended and expelled students are more likely to become involved with the 

juvenile or adult criminal systems. 20 Students who are pushed out of school may have decreased life 

opportunities, finding their way into criminal justice system and into a life in poverty. The Council for 

State Governments, in a 20 II report, documented the risk factors associated with suspension and 

expulsion when it tracked three cohorts of seventh graders in Texas. Students who were suspended from 

school had a significantly greater chance of being held back, dropping out of school, and coming into 

contact with the juvenile justice system.21 The study found that students who were suspended were two 

times more likely to repeat a grade and three times more likely to be involved with the juvenile justice 

system." 

When students are brought into contact with the juvenile justice system, there can be severe and 

long-lasting effects. Students face serious consequences not only in the justice system, but also when 

"American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, supra note 16 at 854. 

19 Advancement Project and the Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Opportunities Suspended: The 

Devastating Consequences of Zero Tolerance School Discipline 13 (July 2002) available at 

http://b.3cdn.netiadvancementi8d9Ic72205alb9d95 5 ujm6bhgllv<pdf. 

"American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, supra note 16 

21 Justice Center - The Council of State Governments and Public Policy Research Institute, Breaking Schools' 

Rules, A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement 

[hereinafter Breaking Schools' Rules] (July 2011), available at http://jllsticecenteLcsg<orgiresollrces/juveniles< 

22 Breaking Schools' Rules, supra note 21, at 54-72. 

8 
88 

applying for college, the military, or ajob. One Maryland student was arguing with a classmate in the 

cafeteria. The student was suspended from school and arrested for assault, although the argument never 

came to blows. The student took a plea agreement on the delinquency matter, and was sentenced to 364 

days. As a result of this unnecessary arrest, the student landed, and remains in, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement proceedings, because he is an undocumented immigrant. 

In Chicago, a middle school student was arrested just for walking past a fight that broke out after 

school. She reported, "the day after the fight, we were in lunch and six police officers came into the 

lunchroom. They came and grabbed us and handcuITed us and said whatever we said could be used 

against us. No matter how I cried and pleaded and told them I didn't have anything to do with it, they 

wouldn't listen. I was charged with third-degree battery .',23 The student also recognizes that the arrest 

changed her entire school experience. "Even though I had good grades, my teachers treated me 

differently after that. They saw me as someone who got into fights and got arrested. They didn't want to 

let me graduate, eat lunch with my class, or go on our class trip even though I hadn't done anything. It 

showed me that the world wasn't fair.,,'4 

The evidence from mUltiple national studies shows that when adults choose to use exclusionary 

discipline practices instead of common sense discipline, they are increasing the likelihood that students 

will disengage with school, drop-out all together, and become involved with the juvenile justice system. 

C. Exclusionary Discipline is Unfair: The Rules are Different for Some Students 

The harmful impact of school discipline is not distributed equally: suspensions and expUlsions are 

borne disproportionately by students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ youth. Nationally, 

Black students are three times more likely to be suspended and four times more likely to be expelled than 

"Voices of Youth in Chicago Education. The Time for Justice is Always Now: VOYCE Annual Report 2011-2012 

[hereinafter VOYCE Annual Report] 5, available at 

http://library.constantcontact.com!download!getitileill 046283 I 5334-75NOYCE+20 1 2+report2" ( I )+( I ).pdf. 

24 Id. 

9 
89 

their White peers.25 Students with disabilities are suspended at twice the rate as students without 

disabilities." LGBTQ youth are more likely to be disciplined and arrested than peers.27 

The racial disparities in the national data reflect what is happening in the states. For example, 

according to OCR's Civil Rights Data Collection, in Charleston, South Carolina over 80% of suspensions 

in the 2009-2010 school year were given to Black students, despite the fact that they make up less than 

half ofthe student body. In Texas, the Council for State Governments found that, when isolating the 

effect of race on disciplinary actions by controlling for 83 different variables, Black students had a 31 % 

higher likelihood of being suspended for a behavior for which suspension was not mandatory than 

statistically identical White students.'8 

Historical racial disparities in school discipline continue today but have worsened. Between 1973 

and 2006, data from OCR shows that the rate of suspensions for Black students has always been the 

highest, and that the rate of suspension for those students has increased exponentially. The racial gap 

between Blacks and Whites has grown from fewer than three percentage points to more than ten.'9 From 

2003-2007, out-of-school suspensions for Black students increased by 8% and for Latino students by 

14%, while out-of-school suspensions for White students decreased by 3%.30 For Black students, the 

disparity increase for expulsions is even more shocking. Between 2003 and 2007, Black student 

expulsions went up by 33%, compared with a 6% increase for Latino students and a 2% decrease for 

White students. 31 

Significantly, these disparities are not the result of students of color acting out more. Instead, 

adults are making the decision to characterize behaviors by students of color as punishable - often as a 

result of explicit or implicit bias. The research on student behavior has found no evidence that the over2'Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov/. 

26ld. See also Losen and Gillespsie, supra note 17 at 16-18. 

27 Kathryn E. W. Himmelstein and Hannah Bruckner. Criminal-Justice and School Sanctions Against 

Nonheterosexual Youth: A National Longitudinal Study. (2010). 

28 Breaking Schools' Rules, supra note 21 at 45. 

29 Losen and Gillespsie, supra note 17 at 37. 

30 Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov!. 

31 ld. 

10 
90 

representation of Black students in school discipline is due to more misbehavior," and, even when 

controlling for socioeconomic status, students of color are being disproportionately impacted.33 The 

Texas study, for example, found that Black students were far more likely than White students to be 

suspended for discretionary offenses, like disrespect or disruption.34 As the Florida State Conference of 

the NAACP has reported, in Florida schools Black male students were most likely to be arrested for 

misdemeanor disorderly conduct, while their White male peers were subjected to arrest for objective 

offenses like drug or alcohol offenses." Black students in Texas were also more likely to receive 

exclusionary discipline than White students for their first disciplinary violation.36 Broad, discretionary 

offense categories like "disorderly conduct," "disrespect of authority," or "disobedience" - are mainly in 

the eye of the beholder -leave significant room for implicit and explicit racial biases to creep into the 

discipline process and exacerbate disparities. 

These studies echo our partners' lived experiences on the ground. Students of color are being 

disciplined more frequently and more harshly due to adult decisions, not student behavior. We see the 

same patterns in schools that we see in criminal justice -Blacks are imprisoned at higher rates and given 

more severe sentences than Whites for the same offenses. In schools, codes of conduct with discretionary 

offenses allow implicit racial bias to influence the decision of when to call a behavior an offense, and 

when to use punitive discipline instead of more instructive techniques. 

LGBTQ youth are also disproportionately impacted by the School-to-Prison Pipeline and, despite 

engaging in less serious misbehavior, are more likely to experience school or criminal justice sanctions 

than their peers." School policies, like dress codes that don't provide protections for gender expression or 

for gender non-conforming students, and a lack of training for school staff both contribute to alienation 

32 Russell Skiba, The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment 6. 

(June 2000), available at htlp:/lwww.indiana.edur,safeschl/cod.pdf.; Losen and Gillespsie, supra note 17 at 41. 

33 Skiba, supra note 33 at 6. 

"Breaking Schools' Rules, supra note 21 at 40-46. 

"Delinquency in Florida's Schools, supra note 12 at 12. See also Still Haven't Shut Down the School-to-Prison 

Pipeline, supra note 14. 

36 Breaking Schools' Rules, supra note 21 at 42. 

31 Himmelstein, Kathryn E. W., Bruckner, Hannah, Criminal-Justice and School Sanctions Against Nonheterosexual 

Youth: A National Longillldinal Study, 2010, available at 

http://Red iatrics.aappub I ications.org/contentiearlyi20 I 0112i06ipeds.2009-2306. til II. pdf+html. 

11 
91 

and students being kicked out or dropping out of school. Unrelenting harassment from peers and adults in 

their schools forces many LGBTQ youth to use self-defense and other survival techniques to protect 

themselves, which, in turn, causes them to be suspended, expelled, or arrested under strict zero tolerance 

policies.]S When LBGTQ youth protest against bullying or dress code violations and are then disciplined 

for it, they can be inadvertently "outed" to their parents or peers when the reasons why they are protesting 

certain policies come to light. This can be both traumatic and dangerous for these young people. Student 

leaders have fought back against thcse trends by forming Gay Straight Alliance chapters and other such 

organizations to advocate for LGBTQ youth and speaking out on how their schools can create safe, 

inclusive school climates, but much more work remains to be done. 

II. Spotlight on Chicago 

What is happening in Chicago, Illinois exemplifies how zero tolerance policies and harsh school 

discipline are pushing students - particularly students of color - out of schools and into jails. 

Historically, Chicago has been an unfortunate leader in the School-to-Prison Pipeline, and Advancement 

Project has exposed Chicago Public School's overuse of harsh discipline policy and shined a spotlight on 

the thousands of students who have suspended, expelled, and arrested.J9 For example, in 2005, 

Advancement Project issued a report detailing that 8,539 youth were arrested in Chicago public schools in 

2003.40 

38 Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). 2009 School Climate Survey 37 (2010), available at 

hUp:!lwww.glsen.org/binary-datalGLSEN ATTACHMENTSifile/000/00111675-2.pdf. (11.7% of students reported 

handling incidents of harassment and assault themselves); A.G. Carney, & K.W. Merrell, Bullying in Schools: 

Perspectives on Understanding and Preventing an International Problem, School Psychology International 22, 2001 

at 36& ("Victims of bullying are far more likely to bring weapons to school to protect themselves"); Advancement 

Project, Alliance for Educational Justice and Gay-Straight Alliance Network, Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right: 

Why Zero Tolerance is not the Solution to Bullying, June 2012, available at 

http://b.3cdn.netladvancemen£lnb64005 1 a1 066d43d yzm6rJiffb.pdj (June 2012). 

39 Advancement Project. Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track 9 (March 2005), available 

at http://b.3cdn.netiadvancement!53511 &Oe24cb166d02 mlbrggxlh.pdf. 

40 [d. at 32. 

12 
92 

Despite this attention, the School-to-Prison Pipeline persists in Chicago. In the 20 I 0-20 II school 

year, police arrested almost 5,000 students on Chicago Public School (CPS) properties.'1 Because the 

Chicago Police Department and CPS do not keep (or make publically available)'2 comprehensive data, it 

is impossible to know whether all of these arrests are for school-based offenses. The situation is similarly 

grim when it comes to out-of-school suspensions. On average, CPS suspends 364 students every day." 

Like we are seeing around the country, the arrests and out-of-school suspensions in Chicago are 

largely for minor misbehaviors that shouldn't be characterized as crimes. In 2010-2011, over 80% of the 

arrests were for misdemeanors44 In one absurd case in November 2009, twenty-five middle school 

students were rounded up, arrested, and put into jail for participating in a cafeteria food fight." Students 

are routinely arrested for things like disorderly conduct, vandalism, or fighting - incidents that don't 

threaten school safety and for which there are common sense responses.46 

There is also a clear racial impact. In Chicago, mack students are over four times more likely to 

be arrested at school than their White peers.'7 Black and Latino students in CPS are suspended three 

times more often than White students. Across all fifty states, Illinois has the highest rate of disparity 

between White and mack students suspended." 

Students enrolled at charter schools in Chicago are also reportedly pushed into the School-toPrison Pipeline. Despite their reputation for high academic performance, the Noble Street Charter 

Network is allegedly one of the worst offenders for applying extreme discipline practices. In addition to 

being suspended, students are reportedly fined for a wide array of minor disciplinary incidents such as 

41 The arrest data from Chicago was acquired through VOYCE/Advancement Project FOIA requests to the Chicago 

Police Department and ITom CPS. 

42 CPS reported zero arrests and only 165 referrals to law enforcement in OCR's CRDC, despite the evidence that 

thousands of arrests occur on CPS properties every year. 

"The data was acquired through an Advancement Project FOIA request to the Illinois State Board of Education. 

"The arrest data was acquired through VOYCEI Advancement Project FOIA requests to the Chicago Police 

Departmen!. 

45Test, Punish, Push Out, supra note I at 14. 

46 Voices of Youth in Chicago Education. Failed Policies, Broken Futures: The True Cost of Zero Tolerance 

Policies in Chicago 8 (July 2011), available at 

http://vovceproj ec! ."rgisi!esl default/fileslY 0 Y CE%20report%2020 II. pdf. 

"The arrest data from Chicago was acquired through VOYCE/Advancement Project FOIA requests to the Chicago 

Police Department. 

"Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, available at http://ocrdata.ed.govi. 

13 
93 

having an untied shoe, having "flaming hot chips" (spicy Cheetos or other snacks) or violating the 

school's "SMART" policy. This policy requires that students: :lit up straight; Make eye contact; 

Articulate in standard English, Respond appropriately; and Track the speaker with your eyes.49 As a 

result of their elaborate system of fines and mandatory, prohibitively expensive behavior classes, the 

Noble network reportedly collected nearly $400,000 over the last three years from mostly low-income 

families. Students have allegedly been left back or pushed out of the Noble network schools for failing to 

pay their fines or to pay for behavior class. 50 This practice is growing: Noble is reportedly being 

permitted to expand its schools and other charter networks in Chicago have started charging students for 

disciplinary infractions. 

Chicago is in crisis, and stopping excessive arrests, limiting out-of-school suspensions, and 

abolishing fees for public education is critical to the success of Chicago's young people. Voices of Youth 

in Chicago Education (VOYCE), which is a collaborative of six community-based organizations from 

around the city, has consistently advanced solutions to hold all schools in Illinois accountable for 

providing youth with a fair and free education. For example, in June of2012, VOYCE pushed the 

Chicago Board of Education to approve a new Student Code of Conduct that reduces the maximum 

suspension time for all offenses. However, CPS officials consistently rejected additional research-based. 

community-driven reforms proposed by VOYCE that would have required robust, transparent reporting 

on the use of these practices and stronger limits on hmmful measures like fines and arrests for all public 

schools, including charters. This local lack of pub tic accountability clearly illustrates the need for 

Congressional repOlting, incentives, and oversight. 

"Rosalind Rossi, Flaming hot' chips, gum, other 'infractions' costly at some schools, Chicago Sun Times, February 

13, 2012, http://www.su!1times.com/newsieducationil 0626363-418!tlaming-hot-chips-gum-other-infractions-costlvat-some-schools.html. 

50 In response to public criticism, Noble has changed its policy for this school year, at least on paper, to say that 

promotion or graduation will not be denied on the basis of inability to pay. However, the impact ofthis policy 

change is not yet clear, as the consequences for a student not paying or not being able to pay fines under this new 

policy is not specified. 

14 
94 

III. Accountability For All Public Schools 

As we have seen in Chicago with Noble charter schools, charter schools can employ the same 

harsh and nonsensical discipline policies as traditional public schools. Increasingly, public charter 

schools - schools that are funded with public money but exempt from many state and local education 

regulations - are educating our young people. When discipline policies are created outside the bounds of 

state or local law, they are created with little guidance and few limits. Like all public schools, charter 

schools should be accountable to the young people, parents, and the communities they serve. In this 

arena, accountability means that charter schools should report data on school discipline and school 

climate, cease using zero tolerance policies that don't work, address racial and other disparities in 

discipline, and support all students on a path to success, not prison. 

IV. Successful and Safe Schools: Best Practices for Handling Student Discipline 

The best way to stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline is to stop the supply - that is, to limit the 

ability of schools to exclude students from school for minor misbehaviors. Districts and states that have 

begun to dismantle the School-to-Prison Pipeline have done so by limiting the use of out-of-school 

suspensions and referrals to law enforcement. A key element to ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline is a 

school discipline system that uses a non-punitive approach focused on preventing misbehavior and 

providing supportive and effective interventions when misbehavior occurs. Through the advocacy and 

leadership of student-led groups like Padres y Jovenes Unidos in Denver, Youth United for Change in 

Philadelphia, and many others, school districts have started to use common sense discipline. These 

schools use a graduated approach to assigning consequences; place caps on the duration of suspensions, 

particularly for low-level infractions; limit suspensions for conduct that occurs away from school; and use 

in-school instead of out-of-school suspension. Baltimore Public Schools, which reformed their school 

discipline code to address the overuse of exclusionary discipline, divides inappropriate behaviors into four 

levels and ensures that many low-level offenses can never result in out-of-school suspension. 

15 
95 

Revised school discipline codes narrowly define offenses, place an emphasis on handling minor 

misbehaviors in school, and limit school employee discretion to use the most serious consequences. 

Instead of removing students from school for misbehaving, schools can employ a host of other responses, 

including student/teacher conferences, restitution, or community service, referral to support staff, 

detention, and parental outreach. Districts can also adopt evidence-based programs that are designed to 

engage students and reduce reliance on suspension and expulsion, such as restorative justice, school-wide 

positive behavior interventions and supports, and social-emotional learning. 

School districts can - and should - intentionally address racial disparities with systemic policies 

and practices. First, schools must comprehensively and systematically track their use of office referrals, 

suspensions, expUlsions, and arrests. Second, schools must pledge to eliminate unfair disparities. Denver 

Public Schools and the Maryland State Board of Education have pioneered innovative ways of 

highlighting and addressing racial disparities. For example, in Denver Public Schools, at the insistence of 

grassroots advocates, the school discipline policy now requires the elimination of racial disparities and 

institutional racism and requires the building of cultural competence.5I Recently proposed regulations in 

Maryland would require schools to examine racial disparities in discipline, and address them head-on." 

School districts that have worked with community groups to revise their school discipline codes 

have seen great results. Denver created a school code that matched low-level behaviors with low-level 

interventions and eliminated arrests as a response to minor misbehavior. As a result, from 2003-2009, 

out-of-school suspensions dropped by 38% and referrals to law enforcement dropped by 52%.53 The 

Denver Superintendent cites discipline reform as the cause of higher attendance and a 30% higher 

graduation rate. In Baltimore, where the school district adopted similar reforms, suspension went down 

51 Denver Public Schools. Parent/Student Policy Handbook Policy JKlJKR, available at 

http://www.JpskI2.org!parent handbook!. 

52 39 MD Reg. 1456-1458 (November 2,2012), available at http://www.dsd.slate.md.us/:-VIDRegisteri3922.odf. See 

also Maryland State Board of Education. A Safe School, Successful Students, and A Fair and Equitable Disciplinary 

Process Go Hand in Hand: A Study of School Discipline Practices and Proposed Regulatory Changes. (February 

2012), available at http://msde.state.md.us/School_Discipline _ Report02272012.pdf 

51 Publically available data from Denver Public Schools. 

16 
96 

by 63%. In addition. from 2006 - 2010, in the years following the reforms, Baltimore had a 12.4% 

increase in graduation rates for Black students, and a 10% increase overall." 

Beyond working with students and parents to reform codes of conduct, there are also 

opportunities to bring community stakeholders together to fight the School-to-Prison Pipeline. As we 

expect the Honorable Steven Teske will share with us during the hearing, multi-agency collaborative 

agreements tailored to an individual community's needs and challenges can be one ofthe most effective 

tools in this movement for change. By working together, community-based organizations, school 

districts, law enforcement and other stakeholders have limited the use of arrests for school misbehavior 

and seen huge improvements in their school communities. Judge Teske's successes in reducing arrests, 

improving school and public safety outcomes and increasing graduation rates in Clayton County, Georgia 

are spreading across the country. School districts in places like Broward County, Florida, with support 

from across the ideological and professional spectrum, are creating policies that give all students a chance 

to succeed. 

V. Congressional Action Can Help Dismantle the School-lo-Prison Pipeline. 

Zero tolerance policies, exclusionary discipline, and the criminalization of minor, 

developmentally appropriate behaviors have led to students -and particularly students of color - being 

pushed out of school and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. That said, OCR data showed that 

many school districts around the country are not funneling students into the School-to-Prison Pipeline, 

and are suspending fewer than 3% of their students." The good news, therefore, is that the School-toPrison Pipeline is not inevitable: there are best practices and evidence-based programs that guide adults to 

use common sense discipline and support and engage students. 

54 Dakarai l. Aarons, Fewer Black Males Drop Out in Baltimore Schools, Education Week, November 3, 2010, 

http://www.edweek.ora/ew/articles!2010/11 103/1 Obaltimore.h30.hunl?print=' 1. 

55 Losen and Gillespsie, supra note 17 at 38. 

17 
97 

Congress can encourage the use of best practices including data-driven reform to dismantle the 

School-to-Prison Pipeline. Therefore, we recommend that Congress take the following steps: 

Require the annual collection and reporting of discipline and school climate data for all public 

schools, including public charter schools, and increase oversight and accountability. The law 

should require that all schools report on in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, 

expUlsions, school-based arrests, referrals to law enforcement agencies, and referrals to 

alternative schools. The data should be disaggregated by race, gender, special education status, 

socioeconomic status, and English language proficiency. 

Include school discipline and arrest rates, rates of disparity ill school discipline, and school 

climate data (such as teacher, parent, and student surveys, attendance rates, graduation rates, etc.), 

as part ofthe measure of a school's performance. 

Use unusually high school discipline rates, data indicating a negative school culture, and/or 

pronounced disparity rates to trigger assistance and support for schools that are struggling. The 

law's current accountability framework places punitive sanctions on schools who fail to meet 

benchmarks, Instead, the law should provide assistance - both financial and technical- to 

schools who are struggling with high rates of suspension, expUlsion, and school-based arrest. 

Facilitate the re-enrollment, and proper education of students returning to school from 

suspension, expulsion, alternative placements, or juvenile justice system involvement. 

Provide incentives and funding for school districts and states that limit the use of out-of-school 

suspensions, expUlsions, and arrests. For example, in the Race to the Top - District grant 

competition the Department of Education required that recipients of these funds develop a plan to 

address race and disability disparities in school discipline. This program or others like it - can 

be expanded and strengthened to require recipients to report all data to the Department of 

Education, implement plans to reduce overall suspension and arrests rates, and use alternatives to 

exclusionary discipline policies. 

Provide incentives and funding for the implementation of evidence-based programs and 

curriculum that eliminate racial disparities in school discipline and reduce the rates of 

suspensions, expUlsions, and arrests for all students. 

Increase the availability offederal funding for school staff that can address the root causes oflow 

student engagement, such as school-based social workers, psychologists, nurses, and counselors. 

Provide greater support for research on interventions that appropriately respond to student 

behavior without excluding them from school. 

*** 

Chairman Durbin, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this critical civil rights issue. 

Students flourish when they are in school, and when their schools are healthy, nurturing places where they 

can be safe and where they can learn. Thank you for ensuring that every student has the opportunity to 

stay on the pathway to success, and not become caught in the School-to-Prison Pipeline. 

18 
98 

Senate Judicimy Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

"Zero Tolerance." Causes, Consequences, and Alternatives 

By Andrew 1. Coulson 

Director, Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom 

Testimony to be delivered December lih, 2012 

Chairman Durbin, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you 

today. My name is Andrew Coulson and I direct the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato 

Institute, a nonprofit, non-partisan public policy research organization. My comments are my 

own, and do not represent any position ofthe Institute. 

Zero Tolerance policies, as practiced in school districts around the country, are now widely 

ridiculed and condemned. Rightfully so. Thoughtless and indiscriminate application of such 

policies has led to members of high school baseball teams being expelled for having baseball 

bats in their trunks, and to five-year-olds being expelled from Kindergarten for making handgestures in the shape of guns. I 

As disciplinary referrals to the principal's office have increased, so has the frequency of outof-school suspensions. You will hear from other speakers today the harm that these can do to the 

suspended student. Fortunately, there are much better discipline policies available to us, and I 

would like to begin my testimony by describing one such hypothetical alternative: 

Imagine a school district that resolved not to expel students or use out-of-school 

suspensions. Instead, let's say it vigorously and consistently enforced a clear code of conduct, 

giving detentions for small violations and in-school-suspensions for more serious transgressions 

like starting fights. 

These in-schoo I-suspensions would assign a host of duties intended to discourage repeat 

offenses and encourage civilized behavior. Suspended students might write reflective essays 

about their behavior and why it was inappropriate. They could be assigned clean-up duties 

around the school. They could also be required to write a letter of apology to their fellow 

classmates, teacher, and principal, and this letter could be read out to the class or even at a school 

assembly. 

Since disruptive students are often behind academically, they could be required to attend 

Saturday morning classes to help them catch up. And as a way of illustrating that their behavior 

was beneath the standards expected of students of their age, they might be assigned to a different 

class at a lower grade level during the period of their in-school suspension, and required to do all 

the work assigned in that class. 

The interesting thing about this hypothetical school district is that it is not hypothetical and it 

is not a school district. The policies J've just described are those that have been in place for a 

decade at the American Indian Model charter schools, often abbreviated as "AIM" schools. The 

name of this small network ofthree charter schools is vestigial: the student body today is 

primarily, South-East Asian, Hispanic, and black. Virtually all the students qualify for free or 
99 

reduced price lunches, and the schools are all located in the heart of Oakland, California, one of 

the most violent and crime-ridden cities in America, 

Oakland's Public School district has its own armed police force, one of its elementary 

schools suspended 97 students for acts of violence in a single recent year,2 and that isn't the 

district's worst school. It's typical for multiple students to be shot each year, with several 

fatalities. Bullying and fights on school grounds are a daily occurrence in the district. 

But the American Indian Charter Schools are different. I've visited them, interviewed their 

students, teachers, and administrators, and studied their academic achievement.3 This is what 

I've found: 

The atmosphere at these schools is orderly and studious. Attendance rates are around 98 

percent. There are no metal detectors and no on-campus police. Violence is almost unheard of. 

The average number of fights across all three schools combined is about 3 per year. Sixth grade 

teachers-those teaching students experiencing the American Indian Model for the first timehand out detentions for any behavior that disrupts the class. Talking with those younger middleschool students, it's obvious that many of them chafe at the relentlessness ofthe schools' 

discipline policy. They're kids. It's natural for them to push the boundaries of what's acceptable. 

But those same students who roll their eyes at all the detentions their middle school hands out, 

are quick to report how different their school is from the district schools they recently left 

behind, and which many of their friends still attend. They tell stories, in shocked and dismayed 

voices, ofthe bullying, fighting, and drug-dealing that routinely go on in the district schools, and 

they are very happy that these things are incredibly rare at their AIM school. 

By the time they reach high school, AIM students not only behave with great maturity, they 

have excellent study habits and skills. Teachers at the high school level spend virtually no time 

on discipline. Because they don't have to. They spend all their time teaching. The students are 

self-motivated, and proud oftheir academic success. And they are very academically successful. 

When I studied the performance of aH of California's 68 charter school networks last year, I 

found that AIM schools were the highest performing by a wide margin. AIM students are just as 

far ahead of students at the well-respected KIPP charter schools as KIPP students are ahead of 

students at regular public schools. That is after controlling for the race and socio-economic status 

of the students, as well as peer effects. In fact, low-income Hispanic and African American 

students at AIM schools outperform the state wide average for wealthier white and Asian 

students. 

Their entire graduating classes are generally accepted to multiple 4 year colleges, often quite 

prestigious ones. I've interviewed AIM school alumni currently attending or having graduated 

from colleges like Berkeley and Dartmouth, I know a number of others are currently enroHed at 

Stanford. That is hardly typical for poor minority kids from inner-city Oakland. 

Clearly, the AIM model shows that it is possible to design discipline policies vastly better 

for students than the cavalier use of expulsions and out-of-school suspensions. What's more, 

there are ways of systematically encouraging the adoption of similarly effective discipline 

practices. And I will discuss those in a moment. 

But it is also painfully clear that we are not there yet. Today, policies like the ones in use at 

the AIM schools are rare exceptions. So if of out-of-school suspensions were curtailed tomorrow 

in districts like Oakland, they would not be instantly replaced with highly effective alternatives. 
100 

Knowing that, it is crucial to ask: what would they be replaced with? What would happen if 

principals facing extensive discipline problems in conventional public schools suddenly curtailed 

their use of out-of-school suspensions? 

That's not a rhetorical question. It could actually be answered with the right empirical data 

and analytical methods. In fact, it has already been answered in a forthcoming study in the 

journal International Economics Review.4 In that study, Rochester University professor Joshua 

Kinsler discovered that cutting out-of-school suspensions in schools with many disruptive 

students lowers overall student achievement. 

Why is that? As we know, out of school suspensions do no good for the suspended student 

academically, but Kinsler found that they do appear to benefit the rest ofthe school, presumably 

by making it easier for teachers to teach the non-disruptive children. 

Professor Kinsler's findings reminded me of an essay I came across recently, dealing with 

school violence. It reflects on bullying suffered by the author when he was a boy, and how it was 

dealt with by his schoo\. I'd like to share a brief quote with you: 

It was hard that school year .... I look back at those fights and how the principals ... separated us 

and wanted to know who started it. ... They wanted to know if someone was a bully .... And ... The 

bully was disciplined. 

Zero Tolerance policies as applied in most schools today punish both kids for fighting, and 

oftentimes there are no inquiries into whether it was mutual combat or a primary aggressor 

situation .... A Zero Tolerance attitude among school administrators runs the risk of punishing the 

victim as well as the bully. It runs the risk of becoming blind to the evils of bullying." 

Zero Tolerance policies are contrary to our fundamental right to self-defense .... many kids are 

assaulted in schools every day and punished for fighting back, or in fear of being punished do not 

fight back and are beaten.' 

These reflections werc written by Judge Teske. He makes an eloquent case that adults in our 

school and justice systems must defend innocent children from bullies. His argument is 

compelling, and it applies just as much to children's education as to their physical safety. 

Yes, out-of-school suspensions are far from the ideal disciplinary strategy. But until superior 

strategies, like those of the AIM model, have been widely adopted, curtailing out-of-school 

suspensions will likely have the perverse result of compromising the education of millions of 

innocent children. 

There is a bitter irony here. A key concern with Zero Tolerance policies is the harm they do 

to African American children, because African American students are more likely to be referred 

to the principal's office and, as a result, more likely to be suspended. But only a small fraction of 

black students are actually suspended. The vast m~ority are not disruptive. They are simply 

trying to get an education. They are, like the victims of bullying described by Judge Teske, 

innocent. What Kinsler's research shows, is that in public schools with discipline problems, it 

hurts those innocent African American children academically to keep disruptive students in the 

classroom. According to Kinsler's findings, significantly cutting out-of-school suspensions in 

those schools widens the black-white academic achievement gap. 

Clearly we must find a better solution. The existence of highly successful disciplinary and 

academic models like the American Indian charter schools in Oakland proves that we can do 
101 

better. The challenge is to figure out why such successful models are so rare today, and how we 

can replicate them. 

Those are tough questions, and there isn't the time or space in this testimony to do them 

justice, but let me share two points that I think help to point the way forward. First, ask 

yourselves why the nation's public schools have so widely adopted such badly-designed Zero 

Tolerance policies? An especially clear answer to that question comes from an Associated Press 

story from 200 I, back when public school officials still vividly remembered the years before 

Zero Tolerance became widespread. Let me quote to you briefly from that article: 

The policies came about partly because schools faced lawsuits charging that principals 

disciplined unequally based on race or other factors, [school superintendent Tony) Arasi said. 

Having a universal policy on paper protects schools from lawsuits by eliminating a lot of the 

arbitrary nature of school discipline, he said. 

"Those people saying Zero Tolerance leads to unfairness in serious discipline may want to go 

back 10 or 15 years to before most districts had Zero Tolerance," Arasi said. "They were saying 

there was unfairness then. It's come full circle." 

Once in place, the policies also help protect against lawsuits from parents charging the school 

did not do enough to keep students safe, or from complaints that individual punishments did not fit 

the offense. 6 

Today, Zero Tolerance policies are faulted for applying discipline rules blindly and 

mechanically, with no consideration for extenuating circumstances. But that is precisely why 

those policies were adopted in the first place. Prior to their adoption, education officials at every 

level of government were inundated with lawsuits and complaints of disciplinary bias. Elected 

officials were pressured to do something. Officials sought to reduce this flood oflawsuits and 

complaints by automatically ejecting students for violating the letter of a Zero Tolerance policy. 

In short, they adopted these policies because it seemed in their own interests to do so--not 

because they thought it was in the interests of students. I don't say that to fault these officials. 

They were people just like the rest of us, and they were influenced by the incentives oftheir 

workplace, just as we all are. It would be unrealistic to expect otherwise. If we want better 

policies to be adopted, we have to change the incentives in the system. For instance, consider a 

system in which administrators who keep more students in school, maintain orderly classrooms, 

and achieve higher graduation rates are recognized and rewarded for their achievements. What if 

administrators' and teachers' job security and pay were tied to these desirable outcomes? 

My second observation on the way forward begins with a question. What kind of school is 

most likely to implement a successful discipline policy? As you can imagine, a lot offactors are 

involved, but there's good evidence that a cornerstone of these successful schools is consistency. 

When students understand that the expectations for their behavior are the same from grade to 

grade and from classroom to classroom, that everyone in the school is on the same page, it has 

been shown to lead to more studious, orderly schools.7 Consistency is a hallmark of discipline 

policy at the American Indian Model schools. 

Wonderful as it is to know that, it begs the further question: how do you cultivate such 

consistency and build a strong sense of shared mission and understanding among school staff. 

There's actually good evidence on this question as well, reaching back decades. One study, 

published in the journal Sociology of Education, compared the attitudes ofteachers in two 
102 

Figure 1 Two Groups of Teachers' Attitudes On School-Related Issues 

Overall sense of control 

School's sense of community 

Student behavior 

Principal's leadership 

Staff's role decisions 

School's support of innovation 

Administrators' responsiveness 

o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 

Standard Deviations from the Mean. Positive numbers more positive attitudes 

how professor summed her 

prominence of cultural bonds in [Group A] schools and their virtual absence in most [Group BJ 

schools can be explained by differences in their organizations. Because [Group A] schools are 

typically independent, small, stable, and homogeneous, those who work in them can better agree 

on goals, champion hardy values, celebrate successes, [and] find direction in their history .... {Group 

5J schools, by comparison, are, .. embedded in, .. bureaucracies ... [and] are subject to frequent and 

wholesale changes in membership. 
103 

organizational structure ofthose schools. As some of you have no doubt already guessed, what 

I've called Group A and Group B are in fact private and public schools. 

For decades, education economists have reported findings consistent with those of their 

sociologist colleagues. Controlling for student and family background, graduation and college 

acceptance rates are higher in independent schools than in public schools, whereas crime rates 

are lower-especially for urban African American students. 1O The District of Columbia's own 

school voucher program, overseen by Congress, has a significantly higher graduation rate than 

the district's vastly-higher-spending public schools. 

From a policy standpoint, these findings are problematic. Under our present system, the 

people with the least access to independent schools are low-income families-precisely those 

who are more likely to live in higher crime neighborhoods with troubled public schools; the very 

people most desperately in need of better, safer alternatives. 

I do not present this evidence to encourage Congress to enact nation-wide private school 

choice legislation. Even if the Constitution permitted such a program, which it does not, 

evidence from other nations suggests it would be more effective to implement such policies at 

the state level. But Congress can encourage the adoption of such state-level programs by virtue 

ofthe public prominence of its Senators and Representatives. Congress can also nurture and 

expand the DC Opportunity Scholarship program, as an example to states of what is possible. 

And above all, Congress can avoid instituting new regulations and programs that would to 

impede state's efforts to bring safe, responsive independent schools within reach of all children, 

and can discontinue federal programs that have proven themselves ineffective and that consume 

funds that could more effectively be spent by the states and the people. 

1 h tip :I/www.kndu.comlgl a ba II story .asp ?s= 11979866 

2 http :Uwww.sfgate.com/baya rea/a rti clel Oa kl a nd -Whe n-school-b ull i es-get -0 ut -of -h a nd-32165 78. ph P 

3 Andrew J. Coulson, "The Other Lottery: Are Philanthropists Backing the Best Charter Schools?" Cato Institute 

Policy Analysis no. 677, June 6, 2011. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA677.pdf 

4 Joshua Kinsler, "School Discipline: A Source or Salve for the Racial Achievement Gap? ," international Economic 

Review, forthcoming. Draft: http:Uwww.econ.rochester.edu/people/Kinsler/jkinsler suspensions.pdf. "A rule 

based discipline code that requires all schools to use the same suspension policies closes the discipline gap but 

results in a significant widening of the achievement gap. Schools serving predominantly black students shorten 

suspension lengths, which reduces the deterrent effect of discipline, increases misbehavior, and decreases 

achievement" (p. 7). See also: Joshua Kinsler, IIUnderstanding the black-white school discipline gap/I Economics of 

Education Review, vol. 30 (2011), no. 6, p. 1370-1383. 

5 Steven Teske, "In Defense of Self-Defense -Are Schools Safer with Zero Tolerance?" Juvenile Justice Information 

Exchange, JJIE.org, February 10, 2011, http:Uiiie.org/judge-steve-teske-defense-of-selfdefense-schools-saferzero-tolerance/9692 

6 Anne Gearan, "ABA may oppose 'Zero Tolerance'," Sun Journal, Lewiston Maine, February 1S, 2001. Text in 

square brackets added. 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1914&dat=20010215&id=7jFHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6PMMAAAAIBAJ&pg=132 

9,2369349 

7 See this overview by the U.S. Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ToolsforSchools/cmcd.html. 

and also: H. Jerome Freiberg, Chris A. Huzinec, and Stacey M. Templeton, "Classroom Management-a Pathway to 

Student Achievement: A Study of Fourteen Inner-City Elementary Schools," The Elementary School Journal, vol. 

110, no. 1 (September 2009), pp. 63-80. 

8 Valerie E. Lee, Robert F. Dedrick, and Julia B. Smith, "The Effect of the Social Organization of Schools on Teachers' 

Efficacy and Satisfaction," Sociology of Education, vol. 64 (1991), no. 3, p. 190-208. 

9 Susan Moore Johnson, Teachers at Work: Achieving Success in OUf Schools (New York: Basic Books, 1990). 
104 

10 Several of the graduation rate, college acceptance rate, and college graduation rate comparison studies are 

collected and tabulated in: Andrew J. Coulson, "Comparing Public, Private, and Market Schools: The International 

Evidence," Journol of School Choice, vol. 3 (2009), vol. 1, p. 31-54. 

http://www.cato.org!pubs/articles!coulsoncomparingpublicprivatemarketschoolsisc.pdf.Aninteresting 

comparative study of criminal behavior is: David N. Figlio and Jens Ludwig, "Sex, Drugs, and Catholic Schools: 

Private Schooling and Non-Market Adolescent Behaviors," Germon Economic Review, 2012, vol. 13 (2012), issue 4, 

p.385-415, 
105 

Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

On 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

Written Testimony of Edward Ward 

December 12, 2012 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the Subcommittee - thank you for 

the opportunity to speak at today' shearing. 

My name is Edward Ward, I am 20 years old, from Chicago, Illinois, and I am an Honor Roll 

student in my sophomore year at DePaul University. 

In addition to my academic responsibilities, I volunteer with Blocks Together, which is located 

in the West Humboldt Park community on Chicago'S Westside. Blocks Together is a member of 

the Dignity in Schools Campaign, a national coalition of parents, students, educators and 

advocates working to promote positive approaches to discipline and to protect students' human 

rights to an education and to be treated with dignity. I work with Blocks Together to help prevent 

students who are currently enrolled in Chicago Public Schools from being unnecessarily 

suspended and put out on the streets by promoting positive alternatives to suspensions and 

expulsions like restorative justice practices, peer mediation and positive behavior intervention 

and supports (PBIS). I am also a youth pastor of the Word of Life Christian Ministries. 

I grew up on the West Side of Chicago, where I attended and graduated from Orr Academy High 

School. My high school seemed like its own personal prison. From the moment we stepped 

through the doors in the morning, we were faced with metal detectors, x-ray machines and 

uniformed security. Upon entering the school, it was like we stepped into a prison. Violence is 

prevalent in my community. When I was eighteen, I witnessed a complete stranger's killing, 

mere feet from me, in a neighborhood restaurant. That same year, I found my cousin - who had 

moved out of our neighborhood to get married and start a better life - slain by gun violence 

outside my home. A few years back, I was stopped by police on the street and saw them train 

their guns on me until I could quickly show that the item in my pocket was simply a cell phone. 

I have seen, and stopped, kids from jumping older residents in the community. And I know of 

the abuse - be it physical, emotional, or sexual - and abandonment that some of my peers have 

faced in their families. 

Poverty was and still remains prevalent in my community as well; some experience it at home 

and others experience it in their own communities. Many of us come from families where it's a 

constant struggle to pay bills; there are some instances where we have had to choose between 

1 I P a 
106 

paying the gas bill and having food in the house. After that decision, we suffered one extremely 

cold winter. I saw how my fellow students, who faced similar struggles did all they could to 

focus on getting an education despite the economic hardships they experienced at home, many of 

them while also taking care of their siblings and themselves. 

In elementary and middle school I was often picked on and talked about by students. It was very 

hard for me to be accepted by my peers; I wasn't "cool enough," according to them. I was a quiet 

student and I mostly kept to myself, but when I got to high school, I began to see that my fellow 

classmates were being constantly suspended from school. My high school was taken over by a 

management agency through school turnaround four years ago, but continues to have one of the 

worst graduation rates in the state. In 2008, the graduation rate from Orr was 27.7%. Orr is 90% 

low income and 100% Black and Latino. About a third of the youth within the attendance 

boundaries of Orr are wards of the state and more than a fourth of the students at Orr are in 

special education. 

When my classmates were suspended from Orr, they would disappear for days and when they 

were kicked out they would disappear sometimes for weeks. What was most shocking to me was 

discovering that they were being suspended for minor infractions, the kind of infractions that 

shouldn't merit more than a stem warning or reminder. I clearly remember a classmate who was 

climbing up the stairs from the weight room in the basement of our school, and on his way up he 

tripped and landed on his knee. His reflex was to yell "Damn!" from the pain. He was served 

with a two-day out-of-school suspension. This was disheartening, and it made me question what 

kind of reasoning was behind these policies that led my school to dish out suspensions and 

expulsions that led to young people missing valuable class time and being abandoned by our 

schools. CPS records that Orr's suspension rate in 2011 was well above the district average: the 

percentage of student misconduct handled by the school which resulted in suspensions was 

66.7%, and the district average was 39.3%. 

Unreasonable punishments like these were not rare at my school. My classmates and I saw many 

other students served with two-day suspensions because, for example, they weren't carrying 

proper identification around their necks. Some of my friends would sometimes come to school 

late, sometimes by no fault of their own. I remember one of my peers coming to me saying that 

she was held in detention and could not be pennitted to go to class because she came late, but it 

was because she couldn't leave her little brother at home alone because her parents did not arrive 

home on time. Many were forced to miss class and stay in the detention room for the rest of the 

period. Because our school works on a "block schedule" with longer class periods, students 

would miss 90 minutes of class time just for arriving late to first period. These detentions 

negatively impacted their attendance and their performance in the class, since they were not 

allowed to tum in their homework and missed entire lessons. Being in detention was like being 

in solitary confinement; you were to sit there quietly with no work to do and if you made noise 

while in detention you would get suspended. If you put in headphones you would get suspended. 

If your phone rang and it was heard, it was to be confiscated for seven days and you would get 

21 e 
107 

suspended. And when you were suspended you were immediately sent home, without your 

parents being contacted. You were escorted from the school and anything could have happened, 

but that didn't seem like it was much of a concern. 

The way my school handled discipline, students were never given the chance to explain their side 

of the story, and if they attempted to speak and try to explain, they were threatened with further 

punishment. 

My school's environment was very tense; the halls were full with school security officers whose 

only purpose seemed to be to serve students with detentions or suspensions. Many of the school 

security officers were very disrespectful to students; some of them spoke to us as if we were 

animals. They were constantly yelling and antagonizing us from the moment we stepped into the 

halls until we reached our destination. This was nerve-wracking for me, because although I was 

an honor student, I felt constantly in a state of alert, afraid to make even the smallest mistake or 

create a noise that could enable the security officers to serve me with a detention. Instead of 

feeling like I could trust them, I felt I couldn't go to them for general security issues because I 

would first be interrogated before anything would get done. 

A survey done by one of my school's advisory classes revealed that many students were 

experiencing physical and verbal abuse and sexual harassment from security guards at the 

school. It was so nOlmalized that students said they didn't think to make formal complaints and 

didn't trust that they would be listened to anyway. I can remember a specific moment where the 

senior class arrived back at the school after a college tour, and I was told to go to the main office 

to send a message; while on my way there I was stopped by one of the security guards who 

proceeded to yell at me before I was even allowed to explain myself. 

While the security guards constantly threatened to discipline students, the police officers 

stationed at my school were even more aggressive. Most Chicago public high schools have 2 onduty police officers present. Our school even had a police processing center so police could book 

students then and there. The officers don't get any special training to be in the school so they 

don't treat us like we are misbehaving; they treat us like we are committing crimes. I remember 

when a fight broke out between two young women and the police were called. While trying to 

break up the fight, the police grabbed one of the young women and slammed her to the ground 

numerous times although there were no weapons involved in the altercation. Every time there 

was a fight the police would step in and handcuff students even in cases where there was no 

weapon. Some would be sent to the police station in the school, a few or some never came back 

to school after that. 

These policies and actions disheartened me. I could slowly see the determination to get an 

education fade from the faces of my peers because they were convinced that they no longer 

mattered, that their voices would continue to be completely ignored. Students were not given a 

chance to explain themselves or defend their actions. They were in need of someone who 

3 I age 
108 

understands them, someone they could confide in; the last thing that would work is to place them 

in institutions of confinement and control. They needed to feel like there was hope for a better 

future quite different from their current situations, so it would be antithetical to convince them 

that they were criminals deserving of severe punishment. 

The discipline policies seemed to overlook ways to help students succeed. They needed proper 

mentors, people who could understand them. They needed a place to grow, to learn, to escape 

everything in our worlds that was making us grow up too quickly otherwise. Instead the school 

seemed to focus more on how to make its numbers look good. Periodically, dozens of students 

were dropped from the school's enrollment. According to the school, they missed too many days. 

But after you get two tardies in a day, it counts as an absence. So a lot of these "chronically 

truant" students were coming to school every day. Others were homeless and had trouble getting 

bus cards to come from far off places where they stayed. If students actually came back to the 

school with a parent to try to get back in, they had to sign a contract saying that if they had two 

infractions they would be kicked out of the school permanently. Where was the support? 

Students felt as if it was too much. Some decided to drop out. The dropout rate at Orr is now 

three times the district average. CPS records that the one-year dropout rate in 2011 was 20.1 %, 

in 2012, 21.4%, while the District average is 7.6%. 

I had a friend who was diagnosed with Leukemia that the school tried to dis-enroll because she 

was missing so many days of school. Thankfully, her mother fought and succeeded in keeping 

her enrolled at my school- a fight she should have never had to have. 

Until recently, I had a cousin who was attending Orr. However, he never finished because he was 

suspended with so much frequency that he eventually dropped out of the school. 

He had problems at home that most people at school never really understood. You see, my 

cousin's mother is a drug addict, and as a young person he didn't quite know how to deal with 

that, so he started acting out in class. He was what you would consider to be the class clown. The 

school believed that by suspending him, it would allow him time to think about his misbehavior. 

Instead, it just gave him more time alone out on the streets and made it easier for him to simply 

tum to selling drugs and make easy money. After all, his mother was on drugs and he had no 

other way to make ends meet. Eventually, my cousin was arrested and then one day r got the call 

saying he had been shot twice. I thank God that he is alive today. 

I grew up with my cousin. He was not a bad kid. But in the one place that he should have 

counted as his second home, he was abandoned. In the one place where he could have learned 

life lessons and learned from his mistakes, his mistakes were used against him. These are the 

type of situations that feed our nation's school-to-prison pipeline. Where many young people, 

like my cousin, feel unwelcome and under siege in their own schools, they end up on the street, 

in the criminal justice system, or worse. 

41 
109 

Because I believed I needed to take part in improving my school, I got involved with Blocks 

Together and joined their effort to introduce and implement restorative justice practices in 

Chicago Public Schools as an alternative to suspensions and expulsions. Restorative justice is 

grounded in the idea that we become safer when we hold each other accountable in ways that 

build more tight-knit community, get to the root of problems, restore relationships between 

people, and give people the skills and support they need to prevent future problems. Through 

our organized pressure we were able to get some disciplinary incidents in our school referred 

from the dean for discipline to the restorative justice-based peer jury. I served as a restorative 

justice facilitator at my school and helped train other students to be restorative justice facilitators 

as well. 

Restorative justice enabled us to create an environment in which we listened to the voices of 

students who were facing disciplinary action, and instead of automatically suspending them, the 

school and student facilitators convened hearings during which the student's actions were 

explored and the student had an opportunity to explain why she/he took the action in question. 

I was moved by what I saw in these hearings. Students were actually understanding each other; 

they were working together to restore the relationships that were almost destroyed between them. 

This effort has provided a safer school environment in which students and staff can work 

together as a unified body. A suspension could never do that. Students didn't need to be 

silenced or put out, they needed to be heard and welcomed with open arms. 

When Orr's administrators bought into our restorative justice peer juries, we were able to 

interrupt the trend of automatic suspensions so that the voices of students who were facing 

disciplinary action could be heard, the underlying needs explored, the harms repaired and the 

student put back on the right track. However, we went through 15 different administrators in 4 

years and we found ourselves starting over with each new dean or principal. We tried going to 

the higher ups at the management agency that runs my school but it is hard to hold accountable 

because it does not have the usual community governance structure that a regular public school 

in Chicago has. 

I think that schools need to throw out the assumption that young people are all dangerous or a 

threat. They must work to understand the issues that students face every day whether it's 

problems at home, learning difficulties, language barriers, experiencing bullying and 

discrimination. To accomplish this shift, both my high school and Chicago Public Schools need 

to prioritize training for teachers, students, staff, administration and parents ahead of this 

overemphasis on "zero tolerance" and school policing. Suspension and expUlsion for non-violent 

offenses really do dismantle a student's future. 

I hope you understand that my experience at Orr was not an anomaly, but is what is happening in 

schools across the country, particularly in communities of color. I would hope in the near future, 

we will have undone this mistake that my children will never have to feel anything but 

SIP" 
110 

welcome in their schools. But a problem my generation did not cause cannot be solved by my 

generation alone. 

6 I 
111 

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, 

On "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Today the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights considers the 

important issue of whether we are creating a school-to-prison pipeline. This is a timely hearing 

on an issue of pressing national importance. 

I am concerned that too many young people are being funneled into the criminal justice system, 

where their problems only multiply. I have long supported a strong commitment to prevent 

youth violence. As a former prosecutor, I know the importance of holding criminals accountable 

for their crimes. But when we are talking about young people, we must also think about how 

best to teach them to become responsible, contributing members of society as adults and to 

rehabilitate them away from lives of crime. Doing so will help us keep our communities sater. 

I am disturbed that young people from minority communities continue to be overrepresented in 

the juvenile justice and our criminal justice systems. I have been fighting for decades because of 

my concern that too many runaway and homeless youth are still locked up for status offenses 

without having committed any crime. 

I have consistently fought for new and effective juvenile justice legislation. I introduced the 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act and intend to reintroduce it in 

the next Congress. The bill aims to refocus attention on prevention programs intended to keep 

children from ever entering the criminal justice system. It seeks to encourage states to move 

away from keeping children in adult prisons. It makes use of community-based services to 

address the needs of at-risk youth, particularly those with mental health and drug treatment 

needs. 

I also sponsored the Recolmecting Homeless Youth Act, which reauthorized a critical Federal 

grant program established to help states and local communities address the needs of runaway and 

homeless youth in both urban and rural areas so they can establish stable, positive lives. This 

bipartisan bill was signed into law by President Bush in October 2008. I also worked hard to 

pass the Second Chance Act, which, among many other positive programs, authorized grants and 

support [or programs that help young people who have gotten enmeshed in the juvenile justice 

system to learn the skills and receive the services they need to return to their education and 

become contributing members of society, rather than continuing down a path toward the criminal 

justice system. 

More recently, in August of this year, I chaired a hearing examining rising prison costs. The 

hearing highlighted the fact that more and more people are being incarcerated for longer and 

longer, which has resulted in increased costs and has place an enormous strain on Federal, state, 

and local budgets. We should be doing everything we can to keep people, particularly our 

children, out of the criminal justice system, not finding ways to funnel them into it. 
112 

The goals that my legislation has sought to achieve in the juvenile justice system are the same as 

those motivating efforts to reform our school discipline system: keeping our communities safe 

by reducing juvenile crime, advancing programs and policies that keep children out of the 

criminal justice system, and encouraging states to implement policies designed to steer those 

children who do enter the juvenile justice system back on track to become contributing members 

of society. 

We owe it to our young people, our families and our communities to end the school-to-prison 

pipeline and to reform the juvenile justice system. I hope we can join together in the next 

Congress to do so. 

##### 
113 

United States Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Chairman 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

This is the first-ever congressional hearing on what is called the "school-to-prison pipeline." In 

the past, this Subcommittee has examined other troubling aspects of our criminal justice system, 

like solitary confinement and racial profiling. Today, we will discuss another disturbing trend: 

For many young people, our schools are increasingly a gateway to the criminal justice 

system. What is especially concerning about this phenomenon is that it deprives our children of 

their fundamental right to an education. 

Beginning in the 1990's, concerns about school violence and a growing awareness of bullying 

led many schools to hire police and institute "zero-tolerance" policies. This resulted in a 

dramatic increase in suspensions, expulsions, and even in-school arrests for misbehavior that is 

normal for school children. 

This school-to-prison pipeline has moved scores of young people from the classroom to the 

courthouse. A schoolyard fight that used to warrant a visit to the principal's office can now lead 

to a trip to the booking station and a judge. 

Sadly, there are schools that look more like prisons than places for children to leam and grow. 

Students have to pass through metal detectors, and police roam the halls. 

Suspensions, expulsions, and in-school arrests lead to kids being out of the classroom, and a 

troubling increase in the number of young people sent to the juvenile justice system. According 

to one leading study, students who were suspended were two times more likely to repeat a grade 

and three times more likely to be involved with the juvenile justice system. 

Once kids enter the justice system, they are more likely to fail in school, which in turn increases 

their chances of being arrested in the future. This is a cycle with increased public safety risks for 

everyone in the community. And the pipeline is expensive. The costs of policing schools and 

unnecessarily housing juveniles in detention are enormous. 

The racial disparities are stark: 

• Nationally, African-American students are three times more likely to be suspended and four 

times more likely to be expelled than their white peers. 

• And more than 70 percent of students arrested in school are African-American or Latino. 

What's more, the disparities extend beyond race. Nationally, students with disabilities are 

suspended at more than twice the rate of students without disabilities. And gay, lesbian, bisexual, 

and trans gender youth are more likely to be disciplined and arrested than their peers. 
114 

Let me be clear. We cannot blame teachers and school administrators for the school-to-prison 

pipeline. Teachers have one of the hardest and least appreciated - jobs in America, and we 

have to give them the tools, training, and resources to deal with this problem. With evershrinking resources, many public schools are overwhelmed. 

I remember when Derrion Albert was killed near his high school on the south side of Chicago in 

2009. It was a tragedy for his community and the entire city. In the aftermath of tragedies like 

that, our first instinct is to protect children, and our number one priority has to be keeping them 

safe. The challenge is how to accomplish that without over-disciplining students into failure. 

Today, our witnesses will explain how we can meet this challenge. Around the country, 

students, judges, educators, and police have instituted creative reforms. They have made our 

schools and communities safer, saving millions of dollars in reduced incarceration costs and 

investing in better futures for our youth. 

My home state of Illinois is part of this movement. Redeploy Illinois, a bipartisan initiative, 

helps counties provide comprehensive services to at-risk youth in their home communities. For 

an annual cost of $2.4 million, participating counties have reduced juvenile detention rates by 

more than 50%, saving the state approximately $40 million. 

And Chicago Public Schools are also taking steps to address the pipeline, like reducing the 

length of automatic suspensions and encouraging what is known as "restorative justice," which 

involves fellow students in mediating conflicts. Just this summer, CPS announced a brand new 

student code of conduct to promote positive learning environments and limit unnecessary 

disciplinary actions. Yesterday, I spoke with new Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara ByrdBennet, and I am committed to working with her to build on these positive steps. 

I look forward to hearing more about solutions to this pressing national problem from our 

witnesses today. 
115 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR AL FRANKEN

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Senator Al Franken 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

1. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE and ACTING ADMINISTRATOR HANES, kids 

with learning disabilities are more likely than their peers to end up in the juvenile justice system. 

This suggests that students with disabilities are not receiving the support they need to be 

successful in schoo!. And, for me, this is an argument in favor of full funding for the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act - or IDEA. But, aside from additional funding, what can the 

federal government do to help address this disparity? 

2. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE and ACTING ADMINISTRATOR HANES, 

following up on a question that I asked during the hearing, please provide data showing the 

relationship between early education programming and involvement in the juvenile justice 

system? In particular, please provide evidence showing whether children who receive such 

programming are more or less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system later in life. 

3. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE, several witnesses have submitted testimony 

indicating that students of color disproportionately are affected by the school-to-prison pipeline. 

Does the Department have recommendations for schools and communities to address these 

disparate impacts? 
116 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Senator AI Franken 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

1. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE and ACTING ADMINISTRATOR HANES, kids 

with learning disabilities are more likely than their peers to end up in the juvenile justice system. 

This suggests that students with disabilities are not receiving the support they need to be 

successful in school. And, for me, this is an argument in favor of full funding for the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act - or IDEA. But, aside from additional funding, what can the 

federal government do to help address this disparity? 

2. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE and ACTING ADMINISTRATOR HANES, 

following up on a question that I asked during the hearing, please provide data showing the 

relationship between early education programming and involvement in the juvenile justice 

system? In particular, please provide evidence showing whether children who receive such 

programming are more or less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system later in life. 

3. ACTING ADMINISTRATOR HANES, this is a moral issue we have a moral 

responsibility to make sure kids get an education and have a real chance to succeed in life. But 

this is an important economics issue, too. I've seen data in Minnesota which show that we save 

about $3 to $5 for everyone dollar spent on Justice Department programs for youth mentoring 

and youth interventions. How much money do we save or generate relative to what we spend on 

counseling, mentorship, and other youth programs administered or funded by the Justice 

Department? 
117 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Senator Al Franken 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

1. JUDGE TESKE, you noted in your written testimony that about one-third of your cases 

involved school-related, low-risk misdemeanors when you took the bench. Did you find that the 

law gave judges adequate discretion to fashion appropriate sentences in these cases? And, as a 

follow up to that: what factors should judges consider when they're hearing these cases? 

2. JUDGE TESKE, in your written testimony, you said that your court has seen an 83% 

reduction in the number of kids referred to your court for school-based offenses. What effect has 

this had on the court system's ability to handle more serious cases? Have you found that the 

prosecutors and probation officers now have more time to focus on more dangerous defendants? 
118 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Senator Al Franken 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

1. JUDGE TESKE, you noted in your written testimony that about one-third of your 

cases involved school-related, low-risk misdemeanors when you took the bench. Did 

you find that the law gave judges adequate discretion to fashion appropriate sentences 

in these cases? And, as a follow up to that: what factors should judges consider when 

they're hearing these cases? 

ANSWER: Part A-Most, if not all states, have fashioned ajuvenile code that 

provides judges with adequate discretion to fashion appropriate sentences. For 

example, unlike adult court judges where the focus is on punishment over treatment, 

juvenile judges may dismiss a case if the child is not delinquent. It is often 

overlooked in policy, development related to school discipline that any referral to the 

juvenile court must undergo a "least restrictive means" assessment. In other words, if 

the child admits at the intake process, most states allow for a court officer to divert 

the case and handle it using informal (non-court) responses from admonishment and 

counsel to a contract whereupon the child agrees to do certain things (i.e. conflict 

resolution, counseling, pay supervision fee, pay restitution, etc.) and upon completion 

the case is dismissed and the record in most states sealed. This function of the 

juvenile code takes into consideration the difference in development between 

adolescents and adults. Kids are neurologically wired to do stupid things and 

therefore should be provided relaxed and less stringent responses than should 

adults-and also to include educational and instructional responses over punishment 

because in adolescent development the focus should be cognitive structuring or 

restructuring. 

What is also overlooked in policy formulation is that unlike the adult system, the 

juvenile justice sentencing phase asks the question "Is the child delinquent?" In the 

adult system, you do the time if you do the crime. In the juvenile justice system we 

accept, grounded in the behavioral and medical sciences, that just because a kid 

commits a delinquent act does not necessarily equates to a delinquent child. I query 

how many of us (Judges, prosecutors, Congressional leaders, law enforcement, and so 

on) committed delinquent act(s) in our adolescence? I am sure most if not all at least 

once have done something that violates the criminal code-no matter how minor. 

Understanding this juvenile justice process is very important to policy development 

because it begs the question: Why refer so many kids for misdemeanor infractions on 

school campus knowing that most will be handled informally? What does that say 

about the policy development at the local level? Is there a lack of communication 

between agencies when deciding policy? Does the right hand know what the left hand 

is doing? 
119 

When I explained the role of the juvenile court to law enforcement and school leaders 

in my community when I decided to take this issue on and told them that most of the 

cases they sent me never saw the light of day in the courtroom-they were shocked. 

When I shared the law and revealed the role ofthe juvenile court they understood 

why-their shock dissipated. They were then able to grasp the concept of negotiating 

a better referral system. Why-because they saw it a waste of police resources to 

expend the time, energy, and money to arrest, transport, and complete paperwork with 

the intent to prosecute cases that would never go to court---especially low risk 

students who are not delinquent. They simply make adults mad, which many kids are 

prone to do by their neurological wiring. They are under neurological construction 

and require positive surroundings-not handcuffs, the back of a patrol car, detention 

cell, or a courtroom. 

Part B: Is the kid truly delinquent? Again, as stated in response to Part A, the 

commission of a delinquent act does not always equate to a delinquent child. As a 

judicial officer, I cannot afford to spend the resources of the court responding to nondelinquent youth who, by the black letter of the criminal code, committed a 

delinquent act. I look for the following: 

a. Mental health concerns; 

b. Special needs-does the student have an individual education plan (IEP)?; 

c. If not, should the student be evaluated for an IEP? 

d. Age of child; 

e. Nature of act; 

f. How did the school respond? 

g. Does the student have prior delinquent history in the community (outside of the 

school)? 

h. Is the child remorseful? 

i. Did the parents take corrective action? 

These factors are not exhaustive, but they help ajudge to determine if the child is 

delinquent. For example, if a student has no prior delinquent acts outside the school 

and is before the court for a school fight, why should the court address it if the school 

and the parent have taken corrective action? The role ofthe court, in part, is to be a 

gate-keeper and prevent the government from intruding upon that which should be 

handled by the parents. I know I would resent the government stepping in to punish 

my child for a school fight if 1) the school (standing in loco parentis) had disciplined 

him and 2) I had the wherewithal and ability to take corrective action. 

For example, our Georgia Court of Appeals has concluded that parents possess "a 

prima facie prerogative of training and supervision ... " of their child and that such 

prerogative should not be deprived unless it can be shown that the child is "in need of 

supervision beyond the control of the parents and is in need of correction and training 

which the parents cannot provide." Young v. State, 120 Ga. App. 605, 171 S.E. 2d 

756 (1969). The Court further concluded that delinquent acts of the type that is 

"usually the subject of disciplinary action by school officials without the necessity of 
120 

invoking the aid of the courts ... " should be handled by admonishment, counsel, 

advice, or diversion to avoid the "taking advantage of the real purpose of and 

necessity for the Juvenile Court Act ... " and the burdens placed on the juvenile 

courts " ... which rightfully belong to parents and school officials." Young v. State, 

120 Ga. App. 605, 171 S.E. 2d 756 (1969). See also M.S.K., 131 Ga. App. 1,205 

S.E. 2d 59 (1974). 

2. JUDGE TESKE, in your written testimony, you said that your court has seen an 83% 

reduction in the number of kids referred to your court for school-based offenses. 

What effect has this had on the court system's ability to handle more serious cases? 

Have you found that the prosecutors and probation officers now have more time to 

focus on more dangerous defendants? 

ANSWER: Yes-the role of the juvenile court beyond the due process requirements 

attached to whether a child is guilty of an allegation is to determine whether a child is 

delinquent as mentioned in the Part A answer to question 1 above. I do not know of 

any jurisdiction that is not afflicted with lack of resources of which many could be 

solved if the resources were re-directed to solely higher risk youth. The answer is not 

always more resources through additional funding but more resources through 

reconfiguring existing resources. This will not happen unless systemic changes are 

made to how we handle students who commit misdemeanor offenses. As long as we 

flood the court system with low level school related cases we widen the net to 

increase detention rates, court dockets, prosecutor and probation officer caseloads, 

and racial and etlmic disparities. 

Take for example the testimony offormer Senator Mike DeWine from Ohio who 

testified about his role in the development of Reclaim Ohio-a great re-investment 

program grounded in systemic change that re-directed lower risk youth from state 

custody that in turn re-directed money saved back into the community to supervise 

and treat those youth. His sister state of Illinois, the home of Chairman Durbin, has 

followed suit with Re-deploy Illinois. Texas has done the same and all have 

experienced a reduction in juvenile crime. I just concluded service on the Georgia 

Council of Criminal Justice reform established by Executive order of my Governor, 

Nathan Deal, to evaluate our current system of juvenile justice and recommend 

changes in our system. The recommendations of been forwarded to the Governor and 

like Ohio, Illinois, and Texas, we too made recommendations that restrict the 

commitment oflow risk youth to state custody while simultaneously re-investing the 

cost savings into the local communities to supervise and treat low to medium risk 

youth in need of services and programs for which the absence of these programs 

created a default to commit. 

This concept holds true to system change between schools and the courts and how we 

should respond to student misconduct that arises to misdemeanor conduct. Just as 

Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and I hope soon Georgia has changed their system by restricting 

commitments and realizing a cost savings, school systems should be restricted from 

referring low risk students to juvenile court and unnecessarily wasting taxpayer 
121 

money to transport, detain, and prosecute these mostly non-delinquent youth who 

pose no threat to the community at large. The more we tax our prosecutor and 

probation officers with low risk youth, the more we deprive our communities of the 

protection they deserve from those fewer youth who require intensive surveillance 

and treatment. The research is adamant that higher risk youth require intensive 

supervision and treatment to reduce recidivism. This cannot occur if we continue to 

add low risk youth to the caseloads of probation expecting officers to keep up with 

them that in turn dilutes their supervision of the dangerous youth-this is not smart 

probation supervision! 

I want to conclude pointing out those two days after the hearing, a deranged gunman 

entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown CT killing 20 children and 6 

adults. While I am not commenting on whether it is good policy to place police on 

every school campus, I am stating that in schools with police we must be diligent to 

guard against improper use of police that result in the arrest of minor offenses that 

takes them off campus when safer and more appropriate alternatives are available. 

Schools with police will experience a high death toll if they are used as 

disciplinarians and taken from their primary objective-to protect the students and 

staff from life threatening situations should they occur. It would not look good for 

local school superintendents and chiefs of police if someone comes on campus to do 

harm and no officer was present to respond because he or she was at the juvenile 

court intake booking a student for a school fight. We should reflect on why police 

were initially placed on campus-to protect students and staff from serious assaults 

and drugs. Zero tolerance policies have changed this focus and we are the worse for 

it. 

Let police do what they were intended-to protect from serious harm. Likewise, let 

probation officers and prosecutors do what they're intended-prosecute and supervise 

the high risk youth to reduce the chance of serious injury to community members. 

This cannot occur if we tie their time and hands with low risk and minor offenses. 
122 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" Hearing 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FRANKEN 

To Assistant Secretary Delisle 

Question 1: ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE and ACTING ADMINISTRATOR 

HANES, kids with learning disabilities are more likely than their peers to end up in the 

juvenile justice system. This suggests that students with disabilities are not receiving the 

support they need to be successful in school. And, for me, this is an argument in favor of 

full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - or IDEA. But, aside from 

additional funding, what can the federal government do to help address this disparity? 

Answer: Some have asserted that the juvenile justice system is a "default system" for youth 

who can't read or write well, who have mental health conditions, and who drop out or are forced 

out of school. i Data on the actual numbers of students with disabilities in correction facilities are 

variable, although there is broad consensus that children with disabilities are overrepresented in 

the justice system. In 2005, a national survey found an average prevalence rate of youth with 

disabilities in corrections of33.4 percent with a range of9.1 percent to 77.5 percent. Of those 

youth with disabilities in corrections, approximately 47.7 percent were diagnosed as emotionally 

disturbed and 38.6 percent were diagnosed with a learning disabilityii (Quinn, 2011). 

The attached chart is based on the most recent data collected by the Department of 

Education (ED or the Department) under section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) and the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The chart provides a breakdown of each of the disability 

categories including: the number of students ages 6-21 in correctional facilities, the percentage 

of students with disabilities in corrections, the percentage of each category served in correctional 

facilities, the percentage of all students in residential facilities, and a ratio of disproportionality. 

Students with disabilities ages 6-21 represent approximately 8.43 percent of the overall student 

population, but 24.45 percent of the population served in correctional facilities, indicating that 

students with disabilities are almost three times more likely to be served in correctional facilities 

than would be expected. Unfortunately, students with emotional disturbance are over 17 times 

more likely to be served in correctional facilities. Other significantly overrepresented disability 

categories include: Specific Learning Disabilities (2.95 times more likely), Other Health 

Impairments (2.43 times more likely), and Intellectual Disabilities (2.26 times more likely). 

We think the best way to overcome the current overrepresentation of students with 

disabilities in the juvenile justice system is through good instruction, starting from early 

i Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., Leone, P. E., & Mathur, S. R. (2010). Meeting the needs of at-risk and 

adjudicated youth with behavioral challenges: The promise of juvenile justice. Behavioral Disorders, 

36(1),70-80. 

ii Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with 

disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71(3),339-345. 
123 

childhood. All children, including students with disabilities, should be in school and engaged in 

learning. The implementation of multi-tiered prevention and intervention frameworksproviding differing levels of behavioral or instructional supports and interventions based on 

assessment of the needs of individual students - provides a structure for preventing academic 

failures and problem behaviors from occurring, identifying and addressing deficits that do occur 

early and effectively, and providing the long-term supports all children need to meet the desired 

educational and life outcomes. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the 

Department of Education, through Part D of IDEA, provides assistance to States, districts, and 

schools to support and improve outcomes for children with disabilities and their families through 

investments in professional development, technical assistance, technology and media, and parent 

training. 

In addition, students with disabilities should receive, based on their individual needs, 

wrap-around supports, including counseling and mental health services that are provided in a 

coordinated and comprehensive manner. Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Early and 

Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment ("EPSDT") provisions of Title XIX of the Social 

Security Act ("Medicaid Act") prevent the segregation, isolation, and unnecessary 

institutionalization of students with disabilities. Students should remain in and receive support 

within their communities, rather than being moved to residential institutions, including juvenile 

detention facilities and jails. Essential mental health services can be critical to student success in 

school. As necessary, States and school districts should create teams oflocal coordinated 

providers of mental health, counseling and support services through EPSDT funding, and in 

compliance with Title II and Section 504. 

Two national technical assistance centers and a group of model demonstration programs 

are highlighted below. These investments show the efforts underway to assist states and districts 

in improving outcomes for children with disabilities, such as increasing school completion and 

expanding postsecondary education and career options. 

For example, in fiscal year 2012, OSEP made an award to launch the Center on Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT). which brings together special and 

general education in a comprehensive continuum of supports and services for all students. The 

SWIFT center will provide intensive, on-site technical assistance to schools and districts to 

implement a multi-tiered system of support of increasing intensity of instruction and behavioral 

support for all students. The project will also assist State education agencies to implement 

statewide school reform. The Center will work with schools to facilitate collaborative teaching 

between special and general education teachers; involve all school staff, including security 

guards, paraprofessionals, and support staff, in the teaching and learning process; and assist 

schools in making data-driven decisions and monitor interventions. 

OSEP also has funded the National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports (PBIS) for the past 14 years. This Center has assisted in shaping the 

PBIS framework and providing direct professional development and technical assistance to more 

than 17,000 schools. Other Center activities include: (a) web-based collection and 

dissemination of evidence-based behavior practices and systems and self-assessment tools 
124 

(w\';w.pbis.org); (b) a national leadership and trainers forum; (c) three best-practices and systems 

"blueprints" (Implementation, Evaluation, and Professional Development); (d) numerous 

publications and professional presentations; and (e) school, district, and State implementation 

demonstrations. PBIS is a framework for enhancing the adoption and implementation of a 

continuum of evidence-ba~ed interventions to achieve academically and behaviorally important 

outcomes for all students.'" (Sugai et al., 2000). As a "framework," the emphasis is on a process 

or approach, rather than a curriculum, intervention, or practice. Evidence-based behavioral 

practices are organized within a multi-tiered system of support for all studentsiV (Sugai & Horner, 

2009). The important supportive relationship between positive school climate and individual 

student success is emphasized as is the relationship between behavior and academic success. 

A number of experimental studies have documented the effectiveness of the PBIS 

framework at the school-wide level. This body of research supports improvements in problem 

disciplinary behavior (office discipline referrals, suspension, expulsion), school climate, 

perceptions of safety, organizational health, student bullying behavior, and academic 

achievement ( Horner et aI., 2009; 'Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; viWaasdorp, Bradshaw, & 

Leaf, 2012). 

It is also important to note that the Administration has incorporated lessons learned from 

PBIS implementation into the President's plan, Now is the Time, to protect our children and 

communities by reducing gun violence. We proposed $50 million for a new initiative to help 

8,000 schools create safer and more nurturing school climates. These grants will assist schools 

to use evidence-based strategies to prevent and positively intervene to address problem behaviors 

such as bullying, drug abuse, and poor attendance, and hclp school staff put into place sound 

alternatives to suspensions, expulsions, and referrals (0 law enforcement. 

in Sugai, G .. Horner, R. H .. Dunlap. G., Hieneman. M .. Lewis. T . .J.. Nelson. C. M .. Scott. T .. Liaupsin. 

C .. Sailor, W .. Turnbull. A. P .. Turnbull. H. R .. III. Wickham. D. Reuf. 1\1 .. & Wilcox. B. (2000). 

Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools . .10111'1101 of Posilire 

Behm'ioral Jnlcrrellliolls. 2. 131-1-13. 

"H(\rner. R .. Sugai. G .. Smolko\\ski. K .. Eber. L Nakasato,.1.. Todd. A .. & Esperanza. J. (2009). A 

randomized. \\ait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in 

elementary schools. Journal ,,(Posilire Behorior Jlllerrel1liolls. J 1. 133-145. 

, Horner. R. H .. Sugai. G., & Anderson. C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-\\ ide 

positive behavior support. Focus 011 E,ceplionalil)·. -12(8), 1-1-1. Sugai. G .. & Ilorner. R. H. (2010). 

School-\\ ide positive behavior support: Establ ishing a continuum of evidence based practices. JOllrnal of' 

£\·idcllce-ha.ml Praclices/iJr Schools. 1 I( 1).62-83. 

"Waasdorp. T. E .. Bradshaw. C. P .. & Leaf P. J. (in press). The impact of school-wide positive 

behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS) on bullying and peer r~iection: A randomized controlled 

effectiveness trial. Archil'es olPedialrics alld Adolescelll Medicine. 

Bradsha\\. C. P .. Waasdorp. T. E.. & Leaf P . .J. (in press). Effects of school-\\ ide positive helm ioral 

interventions and SliPPOlts on child behavior problems. Pedialrics. 
125 

In FY 2012, OSEP funded three Model Demonstration Projects on Reentry of Students 

with Disabilities from Juvenile Justice Facilities into Education, Employment, and Community 

Programs. Their purpose is to support the establishment and operation of three model 

demonstration projects that will develop, adapt, refine, and evaluate models for facilitating the 

successful reentry of youth with disabilities from juvenile justice facilities into education, jobs, 

and the community. Each model demonstration project includes the following elements: 

intensive educational interventions: multidisciplinary assessments and planning; integrated 

transition services; individualized aftercare; interagency collaboration; research-based 

interventions implemented with fidelity; and evaluation of services, processes, and outcomes. 

The projects are designed to reduce recidivism and to support the successful transition of these 

youth with disabilities back into their communities. Successful transition must be measured, in 

part, using data on high school completion, postsecondary education, and employment. 

Question 2: ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE and ACTING ADMINISTRATOR 

HANES, following up on a question that I asked during the hearing, please provide data 

showing the relationship between early education programming and involvement in the 

juvenile justice system? In particular, please provide evidence showing whether children 

who receive such programming are more or less likely to be involved in the criminal justice 

system later in life. 

Answer: Few investments have a bigger return to society than high-quality early childhood 

programs. There is strong research demonstrating that children who attend high-quality 

preschool are better prepared for school, score higher on reading and math assessments in the 

elementary grades, are less likely to need special education services, are less likely to be held 

back in school, and are more likely to graduate from high school than children who do not attend 

such programs. vii High-quality programs do more than just improve academic achievementthey increase employment and earnings and they reduce crime, delinquency, and teen parenthood 

later in life. This is why early childhood programs are so important to maintaining our 

international competitiveness. 

The President's FY 2014 budget proposes $75 billion to provide high-quality preschool 

for all four-year aIds. Funding would be provided to states and distributed to local school 

districts, or local school districts in partnership with other early learning providers, to offer highquality preschool programs. An additional $750 million would provide for competitive grants to 

states to strengthen their early learning systems. The goal for early learning is improve the 

health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for all children from birth through 3rd grade, so 

that all children, particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school 

college- and career-ready. To enhance the quality of programs and services and improve 

outcomes for children from birth through 3rd grade, including children with disabilities and those 

who are English Learners, the Department will promote initiatives that increase access to highquality programs, improve the early learning workforce, build the capacity of states and 

'" Center for Public Education, The Research an Pre-K, 2008. 
126 

programs to develop and implement comprehensive early learning assessment systems, and 

ensure program effectiveness and accountability. 

Among the studies that draw this linkage, the Perry Preschool Project study is the most 

relevant. The other studies listed below also show a link between preschool education and other 

successful indicators. 

Perry Preschool Project (2005): This program was evaluated in one randomized 

controlled trial of 128 children -- 64 in the intervention group that received the preschool 

program, and 64 in the control group that did not. The data showed that there were significant 

differences in the groups with regard to their involvement in the criminal justice system. By age 

40, students in the intervention group were approximately 46 percent less likely to have served 

time in jail or prison and 33 percent less likely to have been arrested for a violent crime. 

The longitudinal study found that not only was the program effective as an educational 

intervention, it also demonstrated other positive outcomes, including a significantly lower rate of 

crime and delinquency and a lower incidence ofteenage pregnancy and welfare dependency. 

Data collected showed that by the age of 27, program participants were nearly three times more 

likely to own their own homes than the control group and less than half as likely to be receiving 

public assistance. 

The data also showed that there were significant differences in the groups with regard to 

their involvement in the criminal justice system. The control group underwent more than twice 

as many arrests as the program group. Thirty-five percent of the control group were considered 

frequent offenders (defined as five or more arrests), compared with only seven percent of the 

program group. In addition, approximately 25 percent of the control group had been arrested for 

drug related offenses versus seven percent ofthe program participants. The control group also 

averaged more months on probation (6.6 versus 3.2 months) and had more than twice as many of 

its members placed on probation or parole for longer than 18 months (20 percent versus 9). 

A distinctive feature of this study has been its economic cost-benefit analysis which "indicates a 

savings to the public of more than seven times the initial investment per child, with a return of 

$7.16 for every dollar spent" resulting from tax payer returns based on savings in welfare 

assistance, special education. prosecution of crime. assistance to crime victims, and increased tax 

revenue from higher earnings. 

Other studies with related data sets include the: 

Abecedarian Program (Economics of Education Review 2007): This project Was a 

randomized controlled trial of early childhood education for children from low-income families. 

Of the original 111 infants enrolled, 101 took part in the age 30 follow-up. Students in the 

intervention group showed: 

• Increased achievement test scores, 

• Decreased special education participation and grade repetition, 

• Increased employment and earnings, and less welfare dependency, 
127 

• Decreased smoking, drug use, and depression, and 

• Decrea~ed social services and health care costs. 

Chicago Child-Parent Centers (Reynolds, 2007): Established in 1967, the CPC program 

is currently federally funded through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and 

is still operating in Chicago. Additionally, a partnership of II education and nonprofit agencies 

in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have been awarded an Investing in Innovation or "i3" grant 

of$15 million over five years from the U.S. Department of Education to scale up this integrated 

school-based early childhood intervention. The program-which provides intensive instruction 

in reading and math from pre-kindergarten through third grade, combined with frequent 

educational field trips-is implemented by certified teachers, has a low child-to-teacher ratio, 

and provides intensive parent involvement. Based on a quasi-experimental follow-up of 1539 

low-income participants who enrolled in either the Child Parent Center program or an alternative 

intervention, participants who attended the Child-Parent Center beginning in preschool had a 

better range of positive outcomes at age 24 as compared to the matched-group cohort. Findings 

provide evidence that high-quality early learning programs can have enduring effects on general 

well-being into adulthood. 

Relative to the comparison group and adjusted for many covariates, Child-Parent Center 

preschool participants had lower rates of: 

• felony arrests and convictions, 

• incarceration, 

• depressive symptoms, and 

• out-of-home placement in foster care. 

Participation in both preschool and school-age intervention relative to the comparison group was 

associated with: 

• higher rates offull-time employment, 

• higher levels of educational attainment, 

• lower rates of arrests for violent offenses, and 

• lower rates of disability. 

Question 3: ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE, several witnesses have submitted 

testimony indicating that students of color disproportionately are affected by the school-toprison pipeline. Does the Department have recommendations for schools and communities 

to address these disparate impacts? 

Answer: As proposed in the President's plan, Now is the Time, the Department is currently 

developing a set of specific recommendations to schools and communities on how to improve 

school discipline practice. This includes joint guidance with the Department of Justice to help 

schools comply with their ±ederal civil rights obligations in the administration of student 

discipline. Further, as part of the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, we are working closely 
128 

with the Department of Justice, the Council of State Governments, and philanthropic 

organizations to develop a set of consensus recommendations to improve discipline practice, 

reduce disproportionality, and dismantle the "school to prison pipeline." 

At a minimum, we know that schools and communities should implement a multipronged, multi-disciplinary and comprehensive strategy to improve discipline practices that 

includes a deliberate and proactive effort to ensure that students are equitably treated. School 

discipline policies and practices, including those that govern school-based arrests and referrals to 

law enforcement, must also comply with federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination, 

including on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, sex and religion. 

The pieces of this strategy would encourage schools and communities to: 

o Proactively monitor their discipline practices for disproportionality. This can mean 

instituting steps such as the following: 

Collect and evaluate data regarding all referrals for student discipline, including those 

that did not result in disciplinary sanctions or referrals to law enforcement, consistent 

with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act's protections. Such a recordkeeping 

system should include demographic information for all students involved (race, sex, 

disability, age, and English-learner status), as well as a description ofthe misconduct, 

grade level of each student referred for discipline, description of attempts to address the 

behavior prior to referral for discipline, witnesses to the incident, prior history of the 

student, referring staff member, law enforcement involvement and discipline imposed. 

o Assess for root causes where disproportionality exists. This can mean instituting steps such 

as the following: 

Work with a consultant or other expert to review and modify disciplinary policies to 

ensure that rules are clearly defined and that students, staff and parents share a common 

understanding of the rules. School authorities should strive to reinforce positive student 

behavior and consider alternatives to expulsion and suspension that manage student 

misbehavior while keeping students in the classroom. 

Establish a discipline review team to examine how discipline referrals and sanctions 

imposed at the school compare to those at other schools. Such a team can, for example, 

randomly review a percentage of the disciplinary actions taken at each school on an ongoing basis to ensure the actions taken were non-discriminatory and consistent with the 

school's discipline practices. 

Implement school climate surveys for students, parents, and school staff to measure their 

perceptions of school safety and fairness in discipline, as well as their understanding of 

disciplinary rules and behavioral expectations. 

o Engage in a broad-based community and school effort to develop an action plan to root out 

discrimination in the administration of discipline. This can mean steps such as the following: 
129 

Provide training to staff that emphasizes ensuring fair treatment of students, strategies for 

managing student behavior and promoting student development outside the disciplinary 

system, explanation of the discipline code, and information concerning the role of School 

Resource Officers (police officers posted in schools). 

Ensure that all actions taken by School Resource Officers are reported, and implement 

training programs for them. Training needs for School Resource Officers should include 

training in bias-free policing, including implicit racial bias and cultural competence; child 

and adolescent development and age-appropriate responses; practices proven to improve 

school climate; restorative justice techniques; working with a diverse student population, 

including students with limited English proficiency and lesbian, gay, bisexual and 

trans gender students; and data gathering and analysis. 

Provide ongoing information to families and students to explain behavior expectations, 

present discipline data, and advise them of the availability of a discipline coordinator. In 

addition, invite feedback on the proccss, inform parents of the right of students to due 

process, and offer parents an opportunity to provide input regarding the school's policies. 
130 
131 

Questions for the Record 

Melodee Hanes 

Former Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile .Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12,2012 

Questions Posed by Senator Franken 

I. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE and ACTING ADMINISTRATOR llANES, 

kids with learning disabilities are more likely than their peers to end up in the juvenile 

justice system. This suggests that students with disabilities are not receiving the 

support they need to be successful in school. And, for me, this is an argument in favor 

of full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - or IDEA. But, aside 

from additional funding, what can the federal government do to help address this 

disparity'! 

The federal government can assist states and localities in employing a number of proven 

strategies beginning with a continued or expanded investment in high quality early childhood 

education programs. This benefits special education programs by laying strong educational 

foundations and intervening early and effectively when weaknesses first present. Research 

studies, including studies of the High/Scope Pcrry Preschool I and Chicago Child-Parent Center2 

programs, have shown that high quality early education not only deters crime and saves 

taxpayers money, but can reduce special education placcments. The Office of Justice Program's 

(OJP) CrimeSolutions.gov has rated these programs as "Effective" and "Promising," 

respectively. 

The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study, conducted in the Ypsilanti, Michigan school system, 

focused on 3- and 4-year-olds living in poverty and at risk for school failure. From 1962-1967, 

the subjects of the study were randomly divided into a program group that received a highquality preschool program based on High/Scope's cognitive and socio-emotional development 

through active learning approach and a comparison group that received no preschool program. 

By age 10, early findings showed that 17 percent of the students enrolled in the program were 

! David P. Wei kart. James T. Bond, and 1- T. McNeil. Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool Years alld Long;ludina{ 

Results Through Fourth Grade (Ypsilanti. Mich.: HighScope Press, 1978). 

'Conyers. L M .. Reynold,. A J.. & Ou. S.'nJu. (2003). The Effecl of Early Childhood Inte"enlion and Subsequenl Special 

Education Services: Findings from the Chicago Child-Parent Cent~rs. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 25( 1),75-95, 

Retrieved from hnlL.~ w\\,islOr.orgislabh:f3699518 
132 

held back or placed in special education as compared to 38 percent of those not enrolled in the 

program. 

Similarly, children who participated in the Chicago Child-Parent Center program had a 

significantly lower rate of special education placement at 12.5 percent as compared to the 

comparison group with 18.4 percent. The Chicago Child-Parent Center is a center-based early 

intervention program that provides comprehensive educational and family-support services to 

economically disadvantaged children from preschool to third grade. The program was 

established through funding from Title I of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965. It is the second oldest federally funded preschool program in the U.S. (after Head 

Start) and the oldest extended early childhood intervention program. The program is designed to 

promote children's academic success and to facilitate parent involvement in children's education. 

These studies have been cited by law enforcement leaders and crime survivors who are fighting 

to protect and strengthen early care and education. They understand that promoting quality early 

education programs are critical to ensure that children are "directed to a better path in life that 

leads to success and away from crime." 

School should be a safe place Jar all children to learn and develop. Working with the Department 

of Education. the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS Office) has reccntly awarded a grant to develop a model for, as well as training 

curriculum on, the effective use of School Resource Officers (SRO) in school safety programs. 

In their three-part role as law enforcer, informal counselor, and educator. SROs can be an 

important component and partner in school safety efforts. 

The COPS Office recently awarded a $500,000 grant to develop a model that will present 

guidelines, tools, resources, and promising practices from around the country (in jurisdictions of 

varying size) on the SRO's role in school safety and security efforts. These tools will expand the 

knowledge base for SROs and those that select, hire, train, and manage them, setting a national 

standard for their role in school safety. The model and training curriculum will increase the 

ability oflaw enforcement agencies, educators, school administrators, and necessary 

stakeholders (including mental health and other service providers, parents, and students) to work 

together under integrated and individually tailored school safety and security plans. 

The model will provide specific outcome and output based assessments of SRO activities, 

address best practices regarding discipline issues (i.e., an SRO who observes a violation of the 

student code of conduct takes the student(s) to the school officials to determine school discipline 

rather than treating school discipline as a law enforcement issue). address the importance of 

protecting students' rights by assuring SRO familiarity with the laws regarding arrests according 

to applicable legal standards, provide best practices on alternatives to arrest-such as restorative 

justice models and the role of the SRO in restorative justice tcchniques---and include safeguards 

to prevent SROs from becoming a conduit in a "school to prison pipeline" and the disciplinary 

policies and practices that can push students out of school and into the justice system. 

2 
133 

Additionally, the President's budget for 2014 provides $75 billion over ten years for the 

Administration's preschool initiative and another $17 billion for other early childhood programs 

and cites similar research that shows the long term benefits of high quality early education. 

Further, federal agencies can support or promote the following additional strategies: 

Enhancing and expanding training for educators and school-related personnel to include 

school nurses, bus drivers, and other non-academic school staff: as well as law enforcement 

(such as School Resource Officers) to assist in the early identification of children with 

special education, social/emotional, and/or behavioral issues. 

Expanding application of multi-tiered behavioral intervention frameworks, which provide 

differentiated levels of behavioral or instructional supports and interventions, based on the 

needs of individual students. Such programs, including the Positive 13ehaviorallnterventions 

and Supports program, can provide a framework for training and support to help school staff 

put into place developmentally sound and research-based alternatives to punitive discipline 

practices. 

Enhancing the education of law enforcement and judicial officers and promoting problemsolving approaches to reducing inappropriate referrals of students with learning disabilities to 

court and law enforcement. One demonstrably effective problcm-solving approach initiated 

in Georgia and Alabama is the basis for a replication project by the National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges. which is developing a training curriculum for judicial 

personncl and a "training of trainers" pilot program to build a cadre of judicial leaders who 

can help disseminate and replicate this approach. 

Federal government activity consistent with thcse efforts includes law cnforccment and policy 

work to ensure compliance with the civil rights of youths with disabilities. The strategies above 

arc significant in and of themselves; however, direct financial support and tcchnical assistance 

from federal agencies should be leveraged to assist students with disabilities. 

2. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DELISLE and ACTING ADMINISTRATOR HANES, 

following up on a question that I asked during the hearing, please provide data showing 

the relationship between early education programming and involvement in the juvenile 

justice system? In particular, please provide evidence showing whether children who 

receive such programming are more or less likely to be involved in the criminal justice 

system later in life. 

Few investments have a bigger return to society than high-quality early childhood programs. 

There is strong research demonstrating that children who attend high-quality preschools are 

better prepared for school, score higher on reading and math assessments in the elementary 

grades, are less likely to need special education serviccs and be held back in school, and are 

more likely to graduate from high school than children who do not attend such programs] There 

., Center f()r Publk Education, The Re,<;earch 0/1 Prr?~K. 2008, 

3 
134 

is also considerable evidence that early intervention including educational programming can 

reduce children's involvement in the criminal justice system later on in life. OJP's Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (ODDP) Fact Sheet, titled "Costs and Benefits of 

Early Childhood Intervention4," examined the benefits of early childhood intervention in the 

prevention of later delinquency citing, among others, outcomes of the High/Scope Perry 

Preschool study5 OJJDP's bulletin, "The High/Scope Perl)' Preschool Projec{6," explains in 

greatcr detail how and why the High/Scope Perry Preschool program, as one example, was 

successful and provides a positive cost benefit analysis. 

The longitudinal study found that not only was the program effective as an educational 

intervention, but it also demonstrated other positive outcomes, including a significantly lower 

rate of crime and delinquency and a lower incidence of teenage pregnancy and welfare 

dependency. Data collected showed that by the age of 27, program participants were nearly 

three times morc likely to own their own homes than the control group and less than half as 

likely to be receiving public assistance. 

The data also showed that there were significant differences in the groups with regard to their 

involvement in the criminal justice system. The control group underwent more than twice as 

many arrests as the program group (averages of 4.0 versus 1.8 arrests per person). Thirty-six 

percent of the control group accounted for 98 felony arrests between ages 19 and 27, while 27 

percent of the program group accounted for 40 felony arrests during the same period. Thirty-five 

percent of the control group were considered frequent offenders (defined as five or more arrests), 

compared with only 7 percent of the program group. In addition, 25 percent of the control group 

had been arrested for drug related offenses versus 7 percent of the program participants. The 

control group also averaged more months on probation (6.6 versus 3.2 months) and had more 

than twice as many of its members placed on probation or parole for longer than 18 months (20 

versus 9 percent). 

A distinctive feature of this study is its economic cost-benefit analysis which "indicates a savings 

to the public of more than seven times the initial investment per child, with a return of $7.16 for 

every dollar spent" resulting from taxpayer returns based on savings in welfare assistance, 

special education, prosecution of crime, assistance to crime victims, and increased tax revenue 

from higher earnings. 

3. ACTING ADMINISTRATOR HANES, this is a moral issue - we have a moral 

responsibility to make sure kids get an education and have a real chance to succeed in 

life. But this is an important economics issue, too. I've seen data in Minnesota which 

show that we save about $3 to $5 for every one dollar spent on Justice Department 

1 Circe:w,'Ood. p, W. ! 91}9. Cost:.. and Rendits ofEadv Childhood Intervention. Fact Sheet #94. Washington, DC: U.S. 

DCflJr1tnc-nt of Ju:;ticc. On-icc of Justice Prog.rams. omce of Jmcnile Ju~tice and Delinquency Prevention, 

blJ[ls;,' \\\~D.£i1:s.gov.'pdtTi~I:T<;9994.pdf 

~ Barnr:tt. W. S, {19(6), Lives in the bulunce: Agc*27 benct1t~cost unalysis of the HighScopc Perry Preschool Program 

(Monographs of the llighScopc Educational Research Foundation, 11). Ypsilanti, Ml: lIighScope Press 

IJ Parks, Grl!g. 2000. High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice 

Programs. Ortiee of Juveni\e Justice and Delinquem:y Prevention. h1tps:/lwww.ncjrs.govJhtml!ojjdpj2000_10~I/r:.ontcnts.htmI 
135 

programs for youth mentoring and youth interventions. How much money do we save 

or generate relative to what we spend on counseling, mentorship, and other youth 

programs administered or fundl'd by the Justice Department? 

States that have conducted cost-benefit analysis and cost assessments of programs designed to 

reduce juvenile delinquency and crime found that implementing evidence-based prevention 

programs resultcd in cost savings or avoidance and successfully diverted children from a 

criminal path. 

For example, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP), created in 1983 by the 

Washington Legislature to carry out non-partisan research on public policy issues, was directed 

to review "evidence-based" policy strategies in juvenile justice and adult corrections beginning 

in 1997. WSIPP developed a highly regarded economic model to assess the benefits and costs of 

prevention programs and calculated a monetary estimate of benefit per participant. 

Subsequently, WSIPP published the Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve 

Statewide Outcomes. 7 providing an independent assessment of the many delinquency prevention 

programs in operation, similar to those funded by the Department. The findings showed that 

many of the programs provide a significant return on investment. Specifically, the total benetIts 

of youth mentoring were $7,207 per participant (in 2011 dollars) with average program costs to 

be $1,479 per participant, resulting in a net value of $5.728 per participant; for juvenile drug 

courts. the net value is $10.576 per participant; and for intensive counseling services. such as 

multi-systemic therapy and family functional therapy, the net value per participant is $24.751 

and $30.706. respectively. 

OJP continues to support innovative, evidence-based approaches that help state, local, and tribal 

jurisdictions maximize resources and improve public safety results. In fiscal year 2012, OJJDP 

awarded over $60 million through their National and Multi-State Mentoring programs and over 

$6 million to drug courts, with approximately $2.2 million to the Family Drug Courts and nearly 

$4 million to Juvenile Drug Courts/Reclaiming Futures programs. Research indicates that, when 

well-implemented, mentoring can be a useful strategy in working with at-risk youth and those 

who experience multiple risk factors for delinquency, school failure and other negative 

outcomes. Research has also shown that drug courts. when correctly used. can both reduce 

recidivism and increase public savings. OJP is working to educate the field on the value of 

evidence-based programs by promoting OJJDP's Model Programs Guide database and the 

CrimeSolutions.gov website, where multi-systemic therapy and family functiollaltherapy 

programs arc featured. 

'I Lc~_ S .. Am;, S," Drake, L, PennuccL A., Miller. M .. & Anders.on, L. (2012). Return on imestmcnt: Evidence-based options to 

impnn I,! statL'wide outcomes, April 2012 (Document ~o, J 2-04-1201), Olympia: Washington State Institute ror Public Policy. 

RClriL'vcd on JUnllary II. 2013 from 

h lJp;!; l\_\~}!"n';}~.:1<Jk-?-,(lIg~ill2[Q<l~jffiFi I cs: ,'l~C~;_,'\liiL'b~2JUiL\\' SI1P--'h!.!!!1UrU.!l\£?!.mffil-c'\QILUD 12 , Rill' 

5 
136 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

BALTIMORE 

8 Market Place, 5th FI 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

V 410.547.9200 

F 410.547.8690 

SILVER SPRING 

8720 Georgia Ave., Suite 303 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

V 301.585.5333 

F 301.585.5366 

Voices for Mary/and's Children I www.acy.org 

December 4,2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Stephanie Tri~Il,E!@Judiciary-dem.s,E!.n~.~ 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham and members of the committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on ending the school-to-prison 

pipeline before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

Advocates for Children and Youth (ACYl was founded in 1987 by a group of prominent child advocates in 

Maryland who saw the need for an independent organization to advocate for the needs of the state's 

children and families in the community, the media, and the public policy arena. ACY's mission is to 

identify problems, promote policies and programs that improve results for Maryland's children in 

measurable and meaningful ways, and evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies for the 

state's children and youth. 

The School to Prison Pipeline in Maryland 

Maryland is not exempt from the problem of the school-to-prison pipeline that is plaguing school 

districts and juvenile justice systems across the country. Due to an over-reliance on harsh discipline 

policies with severe consequences, high numbers of students-particularly students of color and 

students with disabilities -are being suspended, expelled and arrested for often minor offenses that 

were once handled in school. As a result, these students are spending less time in school, are becoming 

increasingly disengaged with their coursework and are more likely to dropout, experience 

unemployment and become involved with the juvenile justice system. 

During the 2010-2011 school year, over 6.8% of Maryland students were suspended or expelled and 

non-violent, less serious behavior amounted to 48% of the total offenses.' Furthermore, students with 

disabilities and students of color are consistently and disproportionately represented in the suspensions 

1 Maryland State Department of Education, "Maryland Public School Suspensions By School and By Major Offense 

Category: Out of School Suspensions and Expulsions 2010-2011" (Baltimore, MD; 2012). 
137 

and expulsions data. For example, over 22% of suspended or expelled students in Maryland during 

2010-2011 have a disability, even though they represent only 12% ofthe overall student population.' 

Additionally, 63% of all suspensions and 100% of all expulsions in Wicomico County Public Schools were 

African American students, even though African Americans make up only 37% ofthe school population.' 

These trends are also seen in school-based juvenile arrests across the state, During the 2008-2009 

school year, 14% of juvenile arrests occurred in schools and nearly 60% of these arrests were for less 

serious offenses.' Consistent with the disproportionality of suspensions and expulsions, African 

American students were 3,6 times more likely to be arrested than white students S When the data is 

looked at more closely, the rate of school-based arrests is even more alarming, Of the 14 Maryland 

school districts reporting school-based arrests in 2010-2011, one third reported that over 30% of all 

juvenile arrests in the county occurred in schools.' 

Efforts to End the School to Prison Pipeline in Maryland 

In light of the disturbing rates of youth being suspended, expelled and arrested, the state of Maryland 

and Advocates for Children and Youth are working hard to reduce the number of school-based arrests 

and dismantle the school to prison pipeline, 

Revisions to State School Discipline Policy 

To minimize the number of students being suspended, expelled and referred to the juvenile justice 

system, Maryland is in the process of revising the state regulations on school discipline and the state 

code of conduct. These revisions reflect a more preventative, student-centered and equitable approach 

to school discipline and require reporting of disproportionate impact, school-based arrests and 

interactions with the juvenile justice system. Committed to ending the school to prison pipeline, 

Advocates for Children and Youth is working to keep students in school by participating in the Maryland 

School Discipline Best Practices and Student Code of Conduct Workgroups to ensure the development of 

fair and effective discipline policies and practices. 

Cultural Competency Training for School-Based Law Enforcement 

In 2010, Maryland enacted House Bill 983/ Senate BiII100? with the goal of reducing school-based 

arrests and increasing positive interactions between students and school-based law enforcement. This 

legislation requires the development of a cultural competency training curriculum for school-based law 

enforcement that promotes arresting students only when necessary to protect school safety. Advocates 

for Children and Youth has taken the lead on working with the Maryland Police Training Commission to 

develop and implement this curriculum that teaches police officers about: the availability and 

effectiveness of alternatives to arrest, the use of objective risk assessments and arrest protocols, and 

'Ibid. 

, U.s, Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, "Civil Rights Data Collection Database" (2012). 

4 Advocates for Children and Youth, "Police Can Reduce Student Misbehavior Without Arrest: Three -Prong 

Strategy Has Reduce Racial Disparities", Vol. 7, Issue 19, (February 2010). 

'Ibid, 

, Advocates for Children and Youth, "County by County Data in Maryland", 

b!tIJ1L'.v-""""'~9'c_orgLarticler1~y.phR?id=918 (6 December 2012), 
138 

most importantly, how to communicate with and understand youth, particularly those from different 

cultures and ethnicities. 

Juvenile Court and School Safety Workgroups 

At the local level, Advocates for Children and Youth continues to promote efforts to reduce racial 

disparities in juvenile arrests by participating in, and supporting the formation of, Juvenile Court and 

School Safety Workgroups. In Baltimore City, ACY and a wide array of stakeholders are engaging in 

discussions to identify ways of minimizing juvenile justice and court involvement in schools. The 

resulting dialogue has led to fewer referrals from schools to juvenile services in addition to better data 

collection on referrals and the sharing of best practices for prevention and behavioral modification 

strategies for students. Due to the success of the Baltimore City Juvenile Court and School Safety 

Workgroup, ACY is actively advocating for the creation of a workgroup in Prince George's County in 

order to expand local collaboration to end the school to prison pipeline. 

Additional Efforts 

Advocates for Children and Youth continues to work to keep youth in school and out of the juvenile 

justice system by investigating and advocating for: effective early interventions and warning systems in 

schools, alternative education programs, and the expansion of student support services and referral 

systems. Additionally, the state of Maryland established a Task Force to Study the Creation of a 

Maryland Center for School Safety in June 2011. The Task Force is currently in the process of considering 

issues of school safety and the role a Maryland Center for School Safety could play in addressing them. 

Given the deleterious impact of harsh discipline policies and excessive juvenile justice involvement on 

students' educational and life opportunities, Advocates for Children and Youth urges the federal 

government to support state and local efforts to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. ACY 

encourages the government to work to reduce racial disparities in discipline, promote smart alternatives 

to harsh punishment, and ensure that all young people have the opportunity to succeed. 

If you would like more information, please contact the ACY Juvenile Justice Director, Angela Johnese at 

aiohne~~@acy.org or the Education Policy Director, David Beard, at dbeard@acy,Qrg. Thank you. 
139 

Lega1Aid of North Carolina, Inc. 

Advocates for Children's Services 

Mailing Address: PO Box 2101, Durham, NC 27702 

Physica1 Address: 201 West Main Street, Suite 400, Durham. NC 27701 

919.226.0052/0053. Fax: 919.226.0566· www.lega1aidnc.org/acs 

Lewis Pitts Jason Langberg Peggy Nicholson Jennifer Story AngeJa Nikolitch Julia Nieves 

Managing Attorney Staff Attorney Powell Fellow Push Out Prevention Paralegal Community 

Project Fellow Outreach Director 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

To: U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights (via Stephanie_Trifone@Judiciary-dem.Senate.gov) 

From: Advocates for Children's Services, a project of Legal Aid of North Carolina! 

Re: Hearing on the School-to-Prison Pipeline; December 12, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. 

Date: December 10, 2012 

I. About Advocates for Children's Services 

Advocates for Children's Services (ACS) is a project of Legal Aid of North Carolina 

(LANC). LANC is a statewide, nonprofit law firm that provides free legal services in civil 

matters to low-income people in order to ensure equal access to justice and to remove legal 

barriers to economic opportunity. ACS staff strive to ensure that all North Carolina children and 

youth have access to a fair, just, and equitable public education. The focus of ACS' work is 

providing legal advicc and representation to children and youth from low-income families in 

education matters, such as enrollment, academic failure, special education, suspension and 

expulsion, and discrimination. ACS staff also educate the community about education justice 

issues and students' and parents' rights through trainings and presentations, publications, and 

media outreach. Finally, ACS staff collaborate with other advocacy organizations and service 

providers throughout the state. This Statement is informed by over tcn years of working directly 

with low-income families that have been impacted by the school-to-prison pipeline. 

II. About the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

The school-to-prison pipeline is a systcm oflaws, policies, and practices that pushes 

students particularly economically disadvantaged students, students of color, and students with 

disabilities - out of schools and into the juvenile and criminal systcms. It is caused by systemic 

factors, such as racism, classism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, and xenophobia. Additionally, 

it is the result of social and economic factors, such as poverty, a lack of parental involvement, 

1 Please direct questions or requests for sources or additional infonnation to Jason Langberg, Staff Attorney and 

Director of the Push Out Prevention Project, 919-226-0051 ext. 438, JasonL@Lcga1AidNC.org. 

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer 

Il!!.LSC 
140 

December 10, 2012 Page 2 of9 

and violence. Finally, the pipeline is caused by misguided education laws, policies, and 

practices, such as budget cuts and resource starvation, overcrowding, unmet academic and 

special education needs, a lack of support staff (e.g., counselors, social workers, nurses, 

psychologists, and mentors) and positive alternatives to suspcnsion, zero tolerance policies and 

excessive usc of suspension, school policing, and high-stakes, standardized testing. The pipeline 

is also situated in thc context of mass incarceration, a culture of fear and control, privatization, 

and pervasive racial and socio-economic segrcgation. 

Students who are pushed out of school are not only at an increased risk of academic 

failure, metal hcalth problems, and delinquent and criminal activity, but also they are hindcred in 

their ability to become cconomically self-sufficient and engagcd, courageous, creative, critical 

thinkers in a self-governing democracy. The pipelinc is - and has been for over two decades - a 

moral outrage, as wcll as a civil and human rights crisis. Young people across the nation 

desperately need policymakers to act urgcntly with students, parents, educators, and advocates 

to take swift, corrective action. 

ACS staff thank the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights for holding a much-needed hearing on the school-to-prison pipeline, and hope that 

the information contained herein is informative and helpful. 2 

III. About the School-to-Prison Pipeline in North Carolina 

As demonstrated by the information and data below, North Carolina has a massive, 

destructive, discriminatory school-to-prison pipeline. Year after year, poverty, austerity, 

academic failure, suspension, and policing funnel tens of thousands of students out of 

elassrooms, onto the strects, and ultimately into the prison industrial complex. 

A. Poverty 

In North Carolina, one in four children lives below the poverty level (approximately 

$23,000 per year for a family of four). In 20 II, eleven percent of children (260,000) lived in 

extreme poverty (i.e., below fifty percent of the fcderal poverty level), thirty-nine percent 

(880,000) lived below 150 percent of the fcderal poverty level, and fifty percent (1,123,000) 

lived below 200 percent of the federal poverty levcl. The pcrcentage of North Carolina children 

living in poverty is above the national average. Worse yet, the poverty rate is growing. Finally, 

children of color are disproportionately poor (see Chart One below). 

Children living in poverty are at an increased risk of: poor nutrition, hunger, and food 

insecurity; inadequate access to quality physical and mental health care; substandard and 

unstable housing; exposurc to unsafe neighborhoods, violence, and criminal activity; having 

overworked, overstressed caretakers; carrying the burden of caring for relatives; less 

participation in positive after-school and summer activities; less cognitive stimulation; poor 

home circumstances for learning; being unable to perceive the benefits of education; abuse and 

neglect; chronic stress; behavioral, emotional, physical health, and mental health problems; and 

social marginalization. These effects of poverty, which teachers and other school staff are 

2 This Statement uses the most recent, publicly available data. 
141 

December 10, 2012 Page 3 of9 

expectcd to handle with dwindling resources, have substantial negativc impacts on educational 

outcomes. 

B. Austerity and Resource Starvation 

North Carolina consistently ranks among thc seven worst states for public education 

funding. In 2009, North Carolina's avcrage per pupil expenditure, adjusted for regional cost 

differences, was $9,024; the eighth worst in the nation. In 2011, thc North Carolina General 

Assembly cut, ovcr thc following two ycars, nearly a billion dollars from the state budget for 

public education. 

In addition to being inadequate, state funding of public education in North Carolina is 

inequitable. Special needs allotments arc capped for intellectually gifted students, students with 

disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. These additional funds are cappcd at 

a percentagc of average daily membership (ADM). In other words, districts receive a perecntage 

increase in funding up to the cap, regardless of the actual numbers of special nceds students who 

reside in the district. This leads to inequitable funding for the schools with the highest numbers 

of special needs students. 

As a result of draconian budget cuts to public education over the last four ycars, North 

Carolina public schools have lost over 17,000 positions (including teachers, teacher assistants, 

clerical staff, custodians, and nurses), increased class sizes, decreased course selections and 

programming, had fewer textbooks and equipment, postponed needed school repairs and 

construction, and added significant time to bus routes. With fewer resources, less support, and 

larger classes, tcachers and principals struggle to prevent and manage misbehavior. 

C. Academic Failure 

Students who arc failing academically are more likely to disengage from the educational 

process, be retained and drop out, lose incentive and motivation to follow school rules and 

norms, and misbehave and be subjected to suspension, expUlsion, arrest, and adjudication. North 

Carolina has too many students who experience academic failure. During 2011-12, nearly onethird ofstudcnts in grades three through eight (225,710) were below grade level in reading 

and/or math as measured by the end-of-grade (EOG) exams. Fewer than half of Black students 

were proficient in reading and math on the EOGs (see Chart Two below). Latino students, 

economically disadvantaged studcnts, students with limited English proficiency, and studcnts 

with disabilities were also on the lower end of massive achievement gaps (see Table One below). 

In 2011, the National Assessmcnt of Education Progress (NAEP), which is a more accurate and 

reliable measure of student achievement, revealed an even grimmer snapshot of academic failure 

in North Carolina (see Table Two below). 

State law requires Personal Education Plans (PEPs) for students who are at risk of 

academic failure, and state and federal laws require Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) 

for students with disabilities. PEPs and IEPs should provide meaningful, individualized 

interventions; however, in reality, they typically arc not provided, not individualized, or not 

implemented. 
142 

December 10, 2012 Page 4 of9 

Eventually, many students drop out or otherwise fail to graduate. Twenty percent of 

students who started high school in 2008-09 did not graduate within four years, and nineteen 

percent did not graduate within five years (for disparity data, see Chart Three and Chart Four 

below). During 2010-11,15,342 students formally dropped out of school. 

D. Suspension and Expulsion 

North Carolina is one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to suspending 

students. During 2010-11 (the most recent year for which data is publicly available), public 

schools gave out 277 ,206 short-term suspensions (i. c., suspensions lasting one to ten school 

days);2,62 I long-term suspensions (i.e., suspensions lasting eleven school days or more), and 

sixty-six expulsions (i.e., indefinite removal). Approximately one of ten North Carolina students 

receivcs at least one short-term suspension each year. When looking at high school students 

only, this ratio rises to one of seven students. The average length of short-term suspcnsions was 

2.78 school days and the average length oflong-term suspensions was 51.4 school days. Over 

17,000 students received multiple suspensions that accumulated to more than ten school days. In 

total, students missed over 900,000 school days as a result of suspension. What is worse, these 

shocking numbers do not even include in-school suspensions, bus suspensions, 365-day 

suspensions, and placement in alternatives programs and schools. Most of the young people in 

the state's youth prisons (called "youth development centers") have experienced timc away from 

school. During 20 II, eighty pcrcent of committed juveniles had histories of serious problems in 

school (e.g., truancy, suspensions, and expulsions), and an average ofthirty-six days of 

suspension in the year prior to their commitment. 

Students are suspended for very minor offenses, including for untucked shirts, hugging a 

teacher, and having a nose ring. For example, in the Wake County Public School System during 

20 I 0-11, twenty-nine percent of short-tcrm suspensions were given for "disrespect of staff." In 

Guilford County Schools, twenty-four percent of short-term suspensions were givcn for 

"inappropriate language." In Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, sixteen percent of short-term 

suspensions were given for "disruptive behavior." 

North Carolina's exorbitant suspension rates disproportionately impact male students, 

Black students, and students with disabilities. During 2010-11, male studcnts received sevcntytwo percent of short-term suspensions, seventy-sevcn percent oflong-term suspensions, and 

ninety percent of expulsions. As demonstrated by Chart Five and Chart Six below, AmericanIndian students, Hispanic students, and especially Black students were disproportionately 

suspended. The short-term rate for Black students was four times greater than the short-term 

suspension rate for White studcnts, and the long-term suspension rate was three and a half times 

greater. Black students were also punished more harshly than similarly-situated White students. 

For example, in the Wake County Public School System in 2010-11, among first time 

"offenders" who committed "cell phone use," seventy-two percent of the Black students were 

suspended compared to thirty percent of the White students. Students with disabilities 

represented approximately fourteen percent of the total student population, but received twentysix percent of short-term suspensions. 
143 

Decernber 10, 2012 Page 5 of9 

E. School Policing 

North Carolina schools are also heavily policed. During 2008-09, there were 849 law 

enforccment officers assigned to patrol public schools on a full-time basis (called "school 

resource officers" or "SROs"). This was a 249 perccnt increase since the first recorded baseline 

in 1995-96. Three hundred and thirty of the 375 high schools and 315 of the 450 middle schools 

had exclusive SRO coverage (i.e., their own, full-time SRO). Twenty pcrcent of elementary 

schools received some form of servicc from SROs. Nearly half of SROs carricd a T ASER. 

While the prescnce of SROs expanded rapidly with no research to support their effectiveness in 

improving school safcty - they still lacked meaningful limitations, oversight, training, and 

accountability. Thc educational environment has further been criminalizcd by the prevalence of 

metal dctectors and surveillance cameras. Students are trcated as potential criminals. Recently, 

Gaston County school officials forced Latino students to sign a contract indicating that they are 

gang mcmbers and allowing schools to monitor and suspend them. A new, arguably 

unconstitutional, state law criminalizes students who usc a computer to "intimidate or torment" a 

school employee. Penaltics can be as much as sixty days in jailor a $1,000 fine for students as 

young as sixtecn, who arc treated as adults under state law. 

The over-policing of North Carolina public schools contributes to excessive numbers of 

students being funneled directly from schools to the juvenile systcm. During 20 II, forty-three 

percent of all juvcnile delinquency complaints werc school-bascd. As demonstrated by Table 

Three below, thousands ofthc school-based complaints wcrc for minor offenses - such as 

communicating threats, disorderly conduct, and being ungovernable or truant - that should havc 

bccn handled using alternatives that are more productive than court involvement. Black students 

were disproportionately subject to complaints. During 20 I 0-11, they represented twenty-six 

percent of the student population but received forty-five percent of school-based delinquency 

complaints. Over thc last five ycars (2007 to 2011), non-school-based delinquency complaints 

dccreascd by twenty-fivc percent, whereas school-based delinquency complaints decreased by 

only twelve pcrcent. To make matters worse, North Carolina is one of two states in the nation 

that automatically charges, prosccutes, and sentences all sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds as 

adults. 

IV. Recommendations for the Fcderal Government 

The federal government can help dismantlc the school-to-prison pipeline in North 

Carolina by taking thc following measures. 

A. Provide adcquate funding for poverty reduction programs, such as early childhood 

cducation, housing assistance, nutrition assistance, unemployment assistance, 

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families; 

B. Protect and expand the Earned Income Tax Crcdit and the Child Tax Credit; 

C. Create a federally-mandated living wage; 
144 

December 10, 2012 Page 6 of9 

D. Provide funding for state and local initiatives aimed at improving school safety and 

creating fair discipline practices, such as reducing school and class size, implementing 

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), using restorative justice practices, 

enhancing parent involvement, and improving teacher training in behavior 

management; 

E. Improve collection of school discipline data (for specific recommendations see DANIEL 

J. LOSEN, THE CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT AT UCLA, GOOD DISCIPLINE: LEGISLATIOK FOR 

EDUCATION REFORM (2011), 

http://wW\v. greatlakescenter~org/docs!Policy Bli~fs/Losen Discipline LB.pdD; 

F. Improve and expand the timely enforcement of civil rights laws and regulations by the 

Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of 

Education; 

G. Provide guidance to states and districts seeking to make progressive school discipline 

reforms using research-based best practices (Note: In July 2011, the U.S. Department of 

Education and U.S. Department of Justice announced the launch of the Supportive 

School Discipline Initiative to "address the sehool-to-prison pipeline" and "support 

good discipline practices to fostcr safe and productive learning environments in every 

classroom;" however, after nearly a year and a half, the Initiative has not amounted to 

much.); 

H. Improve the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services' oversight of state compliance with special education laws; and 

I. Stop forcing cash-strapped states and school districts - through legislation like "No 

Child Left Behind" and programs like "Race to the Top" to adopt market-based 

reforms (e.g., performance pay and high-stakes, standardized testing) that contribute to 

the pipeline by diverting valuable resources, weakening and narrowing the curriculum, 

promoting unhealthy competition, and creating perverse incentives to push out lowerperforming students. 
145 

December 10, 

o 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

Asian 

Page? 

v%il.e 

Black Vli1lite 
146 

65 

90 

SO 

60 

40 

30 

2012 

lO 

() 

8 
147 

December Page of9 

American lndian Black 

400 

o 

Americ'lIl Indian Black Hisp"nic Vv1,ite 
148 

Children with 

Special Needs, 

need Parents 

with Special 

Skills! 

Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc. 

Parent lnfonnatiol1 Center for the District CO!lll11lJiil 

U.S. Senate 

Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office BUilding 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Committee Members, 

I would like to sincerely thank you for bringing attention to this pernicious issue that is in 

fact causing great harm to students and their families all over this country. At Advocates 

for Justice and Education (AlE) our mission is to educate parents, youth and the 

community about the laws governing public education, and to empower parents and 

students to self-advocate. We also provide direct services to parents and students in 

special education and school discipline cases. 

We have seen directly how schools legally and illegally remove students from 

instructional time through suspension. We receive a significant number of cases in our 

work regarding students who have been suspended from school for questionable reasons 

and often with disregard to due process. Students with disabilities rarely receive legally 

protected related services while they are out on these suspensions. 

Studies show that suspensions and expulsion are applied disproportionately. Students of 

color, students with disabilities and students from low-income families are more likely to 

be excluded from school than their peers. Students who are suspended or expelled are 

more likely to fail to graduate on time, drop out of school, and become involved in the 

juvenile justice system. 

We know that exclusion from school is a weapon of choice used by administrators in 

order to respond to behaviors deemed inappropriate. While no studies have ever shown 

that suspension changes these inappropriate behaviors (and the multiple suspensions 

students report for similar behaviors is a key indicator that it did not work) suspensions 
149 

Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc. 

do insure a loss of instructional time. Suspensions concern us greatly as they serve as a 

gateway for students to exit out of schools and education. 

We have a hybrid educational system in the District of Columbia. We have traditional 

pUblic schools that educate roughly 55% of the student population and ever growing 

number of public charter schools that educate the other 45 %. Each charter schools in the 

District is allowed to define their own discipline rules and the there is no uniform system 

of oversight for parents and students. The traditional public schools have legal processes 

but they are not always adhered to and very difficult to asses from the outside. 

The majority of suspensions in the traditional public school (over 10,000 last year for a 

total student body of 46,048 students) are for less than 10 days. They are by definition 

for situations that are not egregious or where no actual harm has occurred and they are 

not appropriate - they should be replaced by evidence based programs that specifically 

address the problem and provide students with the necessary supports to develop 

appropriate behaviors. 

The public charter schools on the other hand have a very high number of school 

expulsions - 210 official expulsions last year - but many more students are threatened 

with expulsion so that they will voluntarily withdraw from school. Both systems rely on 

student removal (temporary or permanent) that does nothing to address the problematic 

behavior but instead adds to the disengagement of students from school and their 

education. 

Here is a snap shot of the data on traditional public schools in the District last year. 

There were 3,485 suspensions given to 4,476 students, in the13 middle schools in 

the city. 

• The vast majority of those suspensions, 3377, were for behaviors that were 

considered not dangerous. 

• Of those students suspended 826 had more than one suspension. 

• Eight percent of middle school students lost more that 5% of instructional days 

last year because of suspension. 
150 

Advocates for Judice and Educatiol1, Inc. 

These numbers are staggering and directly affect the educational outcomes of our 

students. There are betters ways to address problems. We had a case from one of these 

middle schools last year. A student was horse-playing with another student over a book 

bag. After school, the student tried to return the other student's book bag. The mother 

was informed that her student was suspended not for horse-playing but for being in the 

school building after school hours; the suspension was for 8 days. 

This week the local public radio station aired a story on the positive effects of family 

engagement including reduced absences, better test scores and higher graduation rates. 

In the story a principal of one of the public middle schools was quoted as saying she has 

already seeing the benefits of what she calls the "exhausting but awesome" effort to have 

teachers visit students in their homes. Last year her school had 250 suspensions. This 

year, she says they're on track to cut that rate in half. "There are students that are 

surprised that teachers are coming into their homes, so they check their behavior a little 

bit more in the school building because they think, 'oh my god, my teacher might come 

back!". Clearly a home visit has a better chance of reducing suspensions than do more 

suspension. 

The Maryland State Board of Education approved revisions to its rules regarding 

suspension, including banning zero tolerance and automatic consequences. The goal is to 

keep students in school and to address the problems students face. We believe that 

approach would greatly improve the prospects for students as they navigate the 

turbulent and tricky adolescent years to become successful members of the community. 

We believe the federal government could support the work we are doing on the ground if 

they would: 

• Require all schools to annually report in- and out-of-school suspensions, students 

receiving multiple suspensions, expulsions, instances of corporal punishment, 

school-based arrests and referrals to law enforcement agencies, and referrals to 

disciplinary alternative schools. The data collected should be disaggregated by 

race, gender, special educational status, socioeconomic status, and English 

proficiency, and cross-tabulated to allow for more insightful review. 

• Connect federal funding opportunities to schools demonstrated proposal to 

address the disparity in suspension data amongst the various disaggregated 

groups. 

• Provide support for evidence based programs that effectively address behavior in 

schools for communities to adopt and change the way in which they respond to 

behavior challenges. 
151 

Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc. 

We must turn this trend around and use our schools to support students and their 

families with alternatives to suspension and programs that will help students to be 

successful. If we continue to use criminal responses to student behavior we will in fact 

create more criminals - what we need to do is create healthy educated young people and 

to do that we need to change they way we approach discipline in schools. 

Sincerely, 

Kim Y. Jones 

Executive Director 
152 

.~ Fa 

~!AYJA Alabama Youth Justice Alliance 

ayja.org 

December 10,2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

;>tephanie Tri l'ol1e1o\ludicarv-dem.Senate.gov 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham. and Members of the Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on ending the school-to-prison 

pipeline before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary. My name is Ebony Howard and I am writing on behalf of the 

Alabama Youth Justice Alliancc (A YJA) an organization of youth-interested advocates. 

organizations, groups, coalitions, and families who are dedicated to ensuring that Alabama's 

youth have the tools and opportunities necessary to grow into healthy, responsible, productive, 

and happy adults. 

A YJA members run the gambit of organizations and individual advocates, ranging from juvenile 

defense attorneys, parent advocates, and impact litigation organizations. Accordingly, the 

membership has witnessed the negative impact oflhe school-to-prison pipeline in various forms. 

A common thread llmongst the many examples that we have seen are that the affected youth are 

almost always youth of color and from the lower ends of the socioeconomic ladder. As a result, 

an entire generation of youth will be hugely impacted by governmental decisions to institute 

policies and practices that serve to criminalize them and reinforce negative stereotypes about 

disadvantaged youth of color. 

Indeed, children in Alabama contend with harsh discipline policies and practices that push them 

out of schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice system. Students in some Alabama 

school districts are often suspended or expelled for minor infractions, such as dress code 

violations. and relegated to alternative schools with little effective educational instruction or 

forced to drop out of school completely. Moreover, these policies and practices often result in 

subjecting students to traumatic punishment that will leave a permanent in-print on their lives. 

PD 
153 

The Binningham City School System, for example, has for more than 15 years permitted officers 

from the Binningham Police Department to occupy their schools with little to no training on 

adolescent development or working with youth. The result has been arrests of students for 

normal adolescent misbehavior, such as talking back or school yard fights, and also the use of 

harmful tactics against students, like pepper spray and excessive physical force. 

The actions of educators and law enforcement in schools have a direct and causal connection to 

the filtering of children into the juvenile justice system and, ultimately, the criminal justice 

system. Studies are clear that the arrest of a youngster increases the likelihood that he or she will 

drop out of high school and most likely enter the juvenile justice system. Research also 

evidences that youth held in secure facilitics learn negative social behavior that increase the 

likelihood of adult climinality. 

Many youth lind themselves funneled directly into the adult justice system at a young age, where 

they are susceptible to physical and scxual assaults, along with an increased likelihood of 

succumbing to mental illnesses. These youth are far more likely to commit suicide than youth 

held in juvenile facilities. Also, youth incarcerated in adult facilities have been shown to be 34% 

more likely to reolTend upon release compared to youth held in juvenile facilities. Researchcrs 

surmise that these youth arc unable to locus their incarceration towards rehabilitation because 

they spend the majority of their time surviving the harsh realities ofadult incarceration. In light 

of this reality. the more than 1,000 children tried as adults in Alabama each year is, at a 

minimum, alanning. 

A YJA strongly encourages you to work with our community and communities across the nation 

to end policies and practices that fuel the school-to-prison pipeline. Our children deserve better. 

We must work to ensure that every child - regardless ofrace or class receives a fair 

opportunity for a bright future. Children are among the most vulnerable in OllT society. Their 

inability to act for themselves, along with their unique propensity towards change and 

rehabilitation mandate (hat we fen'ain from instituting obstacles in their lives that harm them. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Ebony Howard 

Alabama Youth Justice Alliance 

Alabama District 2 

Alabama 

2 
154 

Bob Wise 

Governor of West Virginia, 2001-2005 

ALLIANCE fOR EXCE.LLENT EDUCATION 

December II, 2012 

The Honorable Dick Durbin 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcomm ittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: School-to-prison pipeline hearing 

The Honorable Lindsey Graham 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Human Rights 

290 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Graham: 

The Alliance for Excellent Education would like to thank you for your leadership in convening the 

hearing on the school-to-prison pipeline. As students of color and diverse ethnicities rapidly become 

the leading populations of public school systems in numerous states, increasing high school 

graduation rates, closing educational achievement gaps, and providing a quality education that 

ensures that all students are prepared for college and a career, are not only moral imperatives, they 

are economic imperatives as well. This hearing is an opportunity to learn more about the negative 

policies and practices that continue to disproportionately impact students of color and ways to most 

effectively respond. 

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050, more than 50 percent ofthe U.S. population 

will be made up of people of color. Given this steep demographic shift, the academic performance 

of students of color and Native students and the characteristics of the schools they attend are 

important factors that must concern all Americans. In 2008, only 57 percent of all black students 

graduated from high school on time with a regular diploma, compared to 78 percent of white 

students. 

According to the U.S. Department of Education's Offiee for Civil Rights Data Collection, African 

American students are more than three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled 

than arc their white peers. Out of forty-six states, minois has the widest gap in school suspension 

rates between black and white students. The suspension rate for A frican American students was 

more than 30 percent during the 2009-10 school year, compared to 6 percent of white students. In 

New York City, there are mOre than 5, I 00 police personnel in public schools, compared to 

approximately 1,500 social workers and 3,000 guidance counselors. Furthermore, in high schools 

where at least 75 percent of the students are low-income, there are three times as many uncertified 

or out-of-field teachers teaching both English and science than those teaching in schools with 

wealthier populations. 

1201 Connecticut AVenue, NW Suite 901· Washlrgton, DC 20036 

Phone 202 828"0828 Fax 202 828-0821 l..Jo.wwaI14ed.org 
155 

The consequences of these conditions on individual students and society as a whole are 

devastating: I 

In 2010, dropouts earned, on average, about $9 per hour, compared to high school graduates and 

!bose with a bachelor's degree, who earned $13 and $25 per hour, respectively. 

In 2010, high school dropouts posted an unemployment rate of nearly 15 percent, which was 5 

percentage points higher !ban that of high school graduates and almost 10 points higher than 

those with a bachelor's degree. 

In 2011, the national four-year graduation rate for African Americans was 38 percent; for white 

students, it was almost 60 percent. 

Nearly half of the nation's African American students attend high schools in which graduation 

is not the norm, compared to II percent of white students. 

On average, African American and Hispanic twelfth-grade students read at approximately the 

same level as white eighth graders. 

More than 60 percent of black students attend schools where more than 50 percent of the school 

population is identified as living in poverty, compared to 18 percent of white students. 

If just half the nation's dropouts had graduated in 20 II, the nation would likely see as much as 

$18 billion more in home sales and 36,000 new jobs by the midpoint of these new graduates' 

careers; annual gains of $659 million more in auto sales; $7 billion in increased earnings; $659 

more in state and local tax revenues; and savings of as much as $5.6 billion in college 

remediation costs and lost earnings. 

Hopefully this hearing will mark the beginning of a concerted effort to pass legislative reforms 

targeting these conditions and that continue to invest in the nation's youth and their potential. 

These students are not at risk of dropping out as a result of their racial, ethnic, English proficiency, 

disability, or housing or economic status. However, these characteristics drive the moral imperative 

to ensure that they each receive a high-quality education. The absence of a col1cgc- and caree[-

ready education for all students is a civil rights and social justice issue that thc federal government 

cannot ignore. Failing to address this issue will continue a cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement 

that the education system itself is intended to disrupt. 

~L7;;: Bob Wise 

President 

I Alliance for Excellent Education, Inseparable Imperatives: Equity in Education and the Future of the American 

Economy (Washington, DC: Author, 2012). 
156 

Statement of 

LAUREL G. BELLOWS 

President 

on behalf ofthe 

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 

Submitted for the record of the hearing on 

ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 

before the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on thc Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

of the 

U.S. SENATE 

December 12. 2012 

7~0 l')th Street, NW • W,lshington, DC 20005 • (2021 G62-1760 

W\\ \\' .<1111cri c.-'! nbar .org 
157 

December 12, 2012 

Page 2 of7 

Chainnan Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Laurel Bellows, President of the American Bar Association (ABA), and I am submitting 

this statement on behalf of the ABA for the Subcommittee's consideration for its December 12, 

2012 hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline." 

The ABA, with nearly 400,000 members, commends the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. 

There is growing evidence that our public schools overly rely upon suspensions, expulsions, and 

referrals to law enforcement in managing student behavior. These practices have a 

disproportionate impact on students of color, students with disabilities and other subgroups and 

result in increased juvenile justice system involvement for suspended or expelled students. 

Student involvement with the juvenile justice system in tum substantially increases the 

likelihood that these students will later serve time in our Nation's prisons and face life-long 

collateral consequences creating barriers to adult success and productivity. The ABA believes 

that our educational and criminal justice policies should be reformed and strengthened to replace 

these practices and that these refonns will substantially reduce the numbers of young persons 

entering or having contact with the juvenile justice system. 

Since the mid-1990s, "zero tolerance" policies have made public schools a major feeder of youth 

into the juvenile courts. These policies, which typically require disciplinary exclusion for firsttime problem behavior, have reduced the discretion of school officials to fashion appropriate 

discipline. Although zero tolerance policies initially related solely to serious misconduct such as 

possession of firearms, they have been widely expanded to apply to behavior that used to be 

addressed by in-school punishment or counseling referrals. These policies have become 

commonplace throughout the country and currently result in millions of suspensions or 

expulsions each year, despite that only a small percentage of these policies are required by state 

law. Consequently. in 200 I the ABA adopted a resolution opposing zero tolerance policies in 

schools. The resolution states that "the ABA opposes. in principle. 'zero tolerance' policies lhat 

have a discriminatory effect. or mandate either expulsion or referral of students to juvenile or 

criminal court. without regard to the circul11stances or nature of the offense or the student's 

history." 

Disciplinary exclusion from school operates as an indirect route to involvement with the justice 

system by preventing youth from progressing in and completing school, and thus impairing their 

chances of succeeding in life. "Prior suspension is more likely to cause a child to drop out of 

high school than any other factor, including low socioeconomic status, not living with both 

biological parents, a high number of school changes, and having sex before age 15."1 Children 

who do not finish high school are 3.5 times more likely to be arrested as adults. Additionally, 

approximately 82 percent of the adult prison population consists of high school dropouts. 2 

1 Suhyun Suh, Jingyo Suh, & Irene Houston, "Predictors of Categorical At-Risk High School Dropouts," 85 Journal 

of Counseling and Development 196, 196-203 (Spring 2007). 

2 Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Abandoned in the Back Row: New Lessons in Education and Delinquency 

Prevention (2001). See also School Expulsion: A Life Sentence? By Sarah Biehl, Children's Rights, March 15, 

20 II http://aprs.americanbaLorg/litigation/committccs/childrights/contentiarticles/spring20 II-expulsionsuspension-zero-tolerance.htrnl 
158 

December 12, 2012 

Page 3 of7 

The second, more direct route from school-to-prison is when school personnel call police to 

arrest children for school-based behavior, often involving minor offenses. An increase of police 

on school campuses has also contributed to the increase in arrests of students for minor 

infractions. ) Children, even those as young as five years-old, are being arrested, handcuffed and 

led out of the school for offenses such as throwing a temper tantrum, truancy, being late to 

school or breaking a pencil. These children do not belong in jail and these offenses should be 

handled at school rather than by the criminal justice system. Children with a delinquency or 

criminal record face many barriers to re-entry into traditional schools. The severe collateral 

consequences of even a relatively minor juvenile or adult record can include denial of student 

103ns for post-secondary or vocational education. a prohibition on living in public housing and 

barriers to obtaining employment. including enlisting in the military. 

Moreover. the school-to-prison pipeline has a well-documented disproportionate impact on 

minority and special needs students. Black students are 3.5 times more likely to be suspended 

than their white peers. 4 Students with disabilities are suspended and expelled at disproportionate 

rates.s The U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently asserted that school discipline 

has become "the civil rights [issue] of our generation.,,6 Civil rights laws protect students 

against disparate outcomes, but those laws cannot be enforced in court. Without an enforcement 

mechanism, school districts have no incentive to implement policies and practices that prevent 

disproportionate exclusions of students of color, students with disabilities and other minority 

groups. The ABA in 2009 approved policy that urges federal agencies to assure accountability 

and to ensure that no group of students is disparately subjected to school discipline or exclusion. 

We believe that significant improvement is needed in the U.S. Department of Education for 

enforcing these provisions and enabling students and their parents to pursue remedies when they 

are denied and what is required. 

In addition to these obvious aspects of the school to prison pipeline based on disciplinary 

responses, other school issues also contribute to the problem. The high dropout and low 

graduation rates for many of our students, particularly those of color, reflect a broader failure of 

the school system to engage those students in meaningful education opportunities. 

Research has begun to cast doubt on the effectiveness of harsh discipline policies. As the Report 

that accompanied the ABA policy on the right of youth to remain in school (August 2009) noted. 

"Research suggests that using exclusion as a means of punishment is ineffective in helping 

students change problematic behavior or in making schools safer.,·7 In fact. the majority of 

3 N.Y. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. CRIMINALlZING THE CLASSROOM: THE OVER·POLICING OF NEW YORK CITY 

SCHOOLS 16-18 (2007) <htlp:l/www.aclu.org/pdfs/racialiustice/overpolicingschools 20070318.pdf>(last visited 

Apr. 9, 2009). 

4 Daniel I. Losen & Russell Skiba. Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, Southern Poverty Law 

Center (2011). See also Tamar Levin. Black Students Face More Discipline. Data Suggests, NY Times. March 6. 

2012. 

S Donna St. George. Maryland Moves to Limit Student Suspension, Washington Post B I, Feb. 29. 2012. 

6 See Levin, supra note 4. 

7 Russell J. Skiba & M. Karega Rausch, Zero Tolerance, Suspension, and Expulsion: Questions 

of Equity and Effectiveness, in HANDBOOK OF CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: RESEARCH, PRACTICE, 

AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES 1063, 1071-72 (Carolyn M. Evertson & Carol S. Weinstein, eds., 

2006). 
159 

December 12, 2012 

Page 4 of 7 

incidents for which students are excluded from school are related to nonviolent disciplinary 

offenses such as tardiness. absenteeism, disrespect and altercations between students. 8 

For all these reasons, the ABA promotes the following policies: 

End Harsh Discipline Policies That Do Not Make Schools Safer But Instead Push Youth 

Out 

Our educational system should not mandate one sentence -- exclusion from school -- for 

misbehavior ranging from such minor offenses as school unifonm violations to such significant 

safety threats as bringing a gun to school. Given the devastating impact ofthese policies as well 

as the fact that research has shown them to be ineffective, zero tolerance policies should be 

eliminated. Exclusion ii'om school should be reserved only for those very serious safety related 

offenses that cannot be addressed without a child's removal from the regular educational setting. 

Removing a student from their courses of instruction through suspension or expulsion, when 

behavior docs not cause. or is not likely to cause, injury to self or others. runs counter to 

impoliant school goals of ensuring all students a high-quality education aligned with national, 

state and local standards. Suspensions or exclusions that push youth out of school have been 

associated with poor academic achievement and grade retention. 9 Frequent and lengthy 

suspensions. or expulsion. lead to alienated and disengaged students who may even feel 

"rewarded" by a personal desire not to attend school. Exclusion can also contribute to a youth's 

involvement in delinquency and gang involvement, as it provides substantial time alone without 

adult supervision. j() 

With respect to students with special needs, the ABA recommends that the federal government 

closely monitor schools to ensure that they follow the mandates of federal special education law 

that require schools to detenmine whether behavior is a manifestation of a student's disability 

before the student may be removed from school for ten days or more. I I In addition, under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, students have a right to altemative 

education when suspended or expelled from school. 12 

Provide Full Procedural Protections and Counsel to Youth in Disciplinary Hearings 

The ABA calls for consistent application of full procedural protections and due process for 

expulsion hearings across the country, including the right to counsel. In Goss v. Lopez,13 the 

Supreme Court stated that a child who is facing a long exclusion from school may require more 

8 Skiba & Peterson, supra note 2, at 373. 

9 See Linda M. Raffaele Mendez, Predictors of Suspension and Negative School Outcomes: A Longitudinal 

Investigation, in DECONSTRUCTlNG THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 26 (Johanna Wald & Daniell. 

Losen, eds. 2003) (internal citations omitted). See also Lawrence M. DeRidder, How Suspension and Expulsion 

Contribute to Dropping Out, 56 EDUC. DIGEST 44-47 (Feb. 1991). 

10 Russell Skiba & Reece Peterson, The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools?, 80 

PHI DELTA KAPPAN 372, 376 (1999). 

II 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(I)(E); 34 C.F.R. 104.35. 

12 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1)(D). 

13 419 U.S. 565 (J 975). 
160 

December 12, 2012 

Page 5 of7 

fonnal procedures. Federal and state courts have enforced some ofthose protections. 14 These 

provisions are inconsistently applied throughout the country, and many jurisdictions fail to 

provide adequate procedural protections. 

Representation for children at disciplinary hearings where they risk exclusion from their regular 

educational program is a key way to help reverse the pipeline. Without an attorney, a child and 

his/her family will not know or be able to exercise the child's due process rights under Goss v. 

Lopez, 15 including the right to: written notice of the allegations; a hearing prior to imposing the 

exclusion; an impartial hearing officer; cross examine the school's witnesses; and presentation of 

witnesses and other evidence in the hearing. 16 An attorney will also be able to ensure that the 

school district is abiding by the mandates of special education law. In 2009. the ABA adopted a 

resolution that called for "full procedural protections. including the opportunity to have 

representation by counsel in proceedings ... [and] the appropriate provisions of due process in 

other school disciplinary processes:' 

End the Criminalization of Truancy, Disability-related Behavior and other School Related 

Conduct 

In 2009 the ABA policy on a youth's right to remain in school also called for reducing the 

criminalization of truancy. disability-related behavior and other school-related conduct. We urge 

that in place ofthe criminalization of school-related conduct, schools should treat student 

behavior as an education issue and provide training to school personnel on a variety oftopics, 

including child and adolescent emotional and cognitive development and culturally responsive 

discipline. 

Ensure a Path for Return to School 

Students who have been removed from school either through discipline policies or as a result of 

incarceration must have a path to resume and continue their education and obtain a high school 

diploma. The ABA urges enaclment and implementation of statutcs and policies that support the 

right of youth \\ho have left school to return to school to complete their education in highquality. age appropriate programs. 

Implement Strong Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement of School District Practices 

The ABA urges federal agencies to assure accountability and to ensure that no group of students 

is disparately subjected to school discipline or exclusion. This includes developing policy and 

legal definitions for detennining disparities using data and using those legal definitions for 

monitoring and enforcement. We support strong monitoring and enforcement Department of 

Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within the Federal Department of Education and by the 

Department of Justice of discriminatory practices by school districts that contribute to the 

pipeline, including rigorous enforccment oftitJe 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 

14 Brent Pattison, QUESTIONING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: DUE PROCESS, COJ'..'FRONTA TlON, AND 

SCHOOL 

DISCIPLINE HEARINGS, 18 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 49 [citing cases in footnotes 23-28] 

15 419 U.S. 565 (1975). 

16 Brent Pattison, Questioning School Discipline: Due Process, Confrontation, and School Discipline Hearings, 18 

Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts, L. Rev. 49 (52) (2008). 
161 

December 12, 2012 

Page 6 of? 

100.3, subdivision (b)(2), that prohibits the recipient of federal funds fi'om "utilize[ingJ criteria 

or methods of administration which have the ~trect olsubjecting individuals to 

discriminalion"'(cmphasis added). We urge federal agencies to enforce civil rights laws by 

applying the "disparate impact" analysis. 

Support the Implementation of Evidence-Based Disciplinary Practices 

The ABA urges the federal government to devote resources to identifying programs that 

minimize disciplinary exclusion and referrals while promoting school safety and incentivize 

school districts to adopt improved practices to these ends. 

Congress should take legislative action to support to reduce referrals and over-reliance on the 

criminal justice system for school and school-related youth behavior problems, as follows: 

Congress should act to reauthorize and amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act (JJDPA) 

The JJDP A Act plays perhaps the most important federal role in developing and implementing 

practices to provide prevention strategies for problem youth behavior and support for alternative 

to resort to the criminal justice system and to ameliorate the results of juvenile justice system 

involvement. 

The JJDPA provides for a federal-state partnership for delinquency prevention and 

improvements in state and local juvenile justice programs and practice and supports operation of 

the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), dedicated to training, 

technical assistance, model programs and research and evaluation, to support state and local 

efforts. 

We support amending the Act to strengthen its current Disproportionate Minority Contact corc 

protection by requiring states to take concrete steps to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the 

juvenile justice system. The OJJDP should receive strong support through increased funding for 

the Title II Formula Grant program that supports OJJDP's role in promoting state 

implementation of reforms aimed at reducing disproportionate minority contact and involvement 

with the juvenile justice system. 

The Act should be amended further to strengthen its deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

core protection, which prohibits the locked detention of status offenders, by removing the Valid 

Court Order exception. In establishing that status offenders (truants, curfew violators, runaways, 

youth who disobey their parents) should not be detained in the original 1974 JJDPA, Congress 

recognized that status offenses are nondelinquent and noncriminal and, therefore, detention was 

not appropriate. However, the Valid Court Order (VCO) exception enacted in 1980 allows status 

offenders to be locked up for their second and subsequent status offense, that is, for violating the 

court's order not to commit another status offense. Although only a minority of states resort to 

the VCO exception, hundreds ofthousands of youth nationwide are locked up in criminal 

facilities each year for status offenses. 
162 

December 12, 2012 

Page 7 ofl 

Juvenile status offenders are at high risk to enter the juvenile and criminal justice systems and 

research has clearly linked involvement in the juvenile status offense system with later 

delinquency.17 Many of these youth are faced with a myriad of complex problems: abuse, 

neglect, high family conflict and domestic violence; desperately poor and violent neighborhoods; 

serious mental health needs, learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral problems; gangs; bad 

peer group choices; and poor educational and employment options. 

Congress should amend the JJOPA to articulate minimum guidelines by which states must 

comply to implement early intervention and diversion programs for alleged juvenile status 

offenders. These recommendations intend to promote the development of laws, policies and 

programs that decrease the number of status offenders who fall deeper into the criminal and 

juvenile justice systems by providing them with proven pre-court diversion services that remedy 

their noncriminal misbehaviors and are tailored towards their needs and the needs oftheir 

families. 

Congress should further amend the JJOPA to require states to enact laws and support policies 

and programs that divert alleged juvenile status offenders from court jurisdiction by requiring the 

development and implementation of evidence-based programs 18 that provide family-focused and 

strength-based pre-court interventions to alleged status offenders. 

Finally, JJOPA should be amended to establish an advisory panel to assist OJJDP on 

implementing evidence-based reforms to reduce youth contact and entry into the criminal justice 

system. Representative Bobby Scott (O-VA) has introduced legislation (H.R. 2721, the Youth 

Promise Act) offering this proposed amendment to the JJOP A. The advisory panel proposed in 

the Youth Promise Act would perform a critical role aimed at ending the progression from minor 

behavior problems to disciplinary action and criminal justice involvement by focusing on 

programs and practices that can demonstrate that they work. It would operate within OJJOP to: 

assess and develop standards for evidence-based practices to prevent juvenile delinquency; make 

grants to local governments and Indian tribes to plan and assess evidence-based and promising 

practices for juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention, especially for high-risk youth; 

and implement plans by local coordinating councils for supporting the delivery of juvenile 

delinquency prevention and intervention. 

* * * * * 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the American Bar Association. We look 

forward to working with the Subcommittee as it moves forward on legislation to bring an end to 

the school-to-prison pipeline. 

17 See, e,g., Henry, K. and Huizinga, D. "Effect of Truancy on Onset of Drug Use and Delinquency." 

Presented at Annual Meeting of American Society of Criminology, November, 2005. 

18 "Evidence-based" prevention, intervention, and treatment programs for youth and their families are 

resources that have been carefully evaluated to determine their long-term positive outcomes. 
163 

President 

DiMlll'iVoodard 

EXCC\ltivc Vice President 

Jamcs Dierkc 

Secretary 

\Vcndi Caporicci 

Treasm·er 

Erne~t Logan 

Vice Pl'cfOidcllts 

Clarice Berry 

Crystal Boling-BlH·ton 

Carver Fanvw 

Jimmy Gittings 

AonaJefrerson 

Domingo I\:bdcra 

Gary T\hynard 

Peter rVlcNally 

Elaine Papas 

Leonard Pugliese 

Dominic Sacchetti 

James Smalh,,'ood 

Cynthia \Varren 

Charles \~hdan 

General Counsel 

Bruce Bryant 

Administratioll 

Paul Wolotsky 

Operations & 

Government Affairs 

Nicholas Spina 

Administrative Assistant 

Quawanna 1holnas 

Affiliate Liaison 

Doris Reed 

IJ llOllc 

(202) 986-4209 

Fax 

(202) 986-4211 

Email 

afsa@AFSAadmin.org 

""eb 

\vww.AFSAadmin.org 

Facebook 

IAFSAUnion 

Twitter 

@lAFSAUnion 

National Office 

1101 17th Street, NW 

Suite 408 

vVashington, DC 20036 

~ ~ American Federation of 

School Administrators AFSA, AFL-CIO 

The National Voice for Education Leaders 

December 10, 2012 

Senator Dick Durbin, Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

226 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Durbin, 

As President of the American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA), AFLCIO, I commend you for your leadership efforts toward ending the School-to-Prison 

Pipeline. 

As principals, assistant principals and other school leaders, AFSA members care 

deeply about this issue. There are far too many youth that are sent to the juvenile 

delinqUency system and are unable to succeed at school. This leads to increased 

crime and incarceration, which disproportionately impacts minorities. 

As school leaders, we understand that creating a safe and secure learning 

environment is a top priority. A positive school culture and climate is essential and 

helps to naturally reduce incidents of school discipline and crime. 

AFSA has long supported policies that aim to improve school climate and 

disciplinary practices that are grounded in research and evidence. There must also 

be direct input and involvement from principals, representatives of the school 

system, local law enforcement, court services, social services, health and mental 

health providers, foster care providers, and other community and faith based 

organizations. 

School leaders also need ongoing training and support in these areas. Through 

collaboration of all stakeholders, it is our belief that we can champion successful 

initiatives to end the School-to-Prison Pipeline. 

Thank you for your support of improving public education for all children. 

Sincerely, 

Diann Woodard 

AFSA National President 

DWlns 

afsa/afl-cio 
164 

Statement of the American Federation of Teachers 

Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

December 12, 2012 

The American Federation of Teachers appreciates that Sen. Durbin and the Judiciary Committee are 

shining a light on a problem ignored too often and discussed too little: the increase in the number of young 

people who are suspended from school and end up in the juvenile delinquency system. 

AFT members-classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, social workers, mental health professionals and 

school nurses-are unwilling to turn our backs on millions of children. Children cannot learn if they are not 

in the classroom. Nor can they or their peers learn, or teachers teach, in a school environment that is not 

safe, stable and engaging. Too often both these situations occur as a result of inadequate resources, lack of 

training and the insufficient implementation of safe and responsive plans and procedures to address and 

respond to violent and disruptive behaviors. 

This is a serious issue tl,at demands a serious national response. Our failure to collectively address the issue 

of school safety, out -of-school suspensions and tile lack of high-quality alternative placements not only 

hurts the students who are suspended, but also has a direct impact on our entire community. School 

boards, building and district administrators, parents, teachers and elected officials all have a collective 

responsibility to address this issue. 

Ifwe are to break the school-to-prison cycle that affects too many of our children, the AFT recommends 

increasing the availability of proven and effective programs for the students and schools that need tIlem 

most. Strategies that might be made available include: 

In-school disciplinary alternatives such as Saturday school or in-school suspension programs that 

keep students in school while being disciplined. Components of effective in-school suspension 

programs include appropriate student supervision by well-trained and highly qualified staff, 

designated space and a cohesive plan for reintegration. 

Co-curricular activity suspension from clubs or activities until students have adequately addressed 

the behavior that resulted in the suspension. 

Anger management classes or programs designed to help students who have demonstrated a lack of 

self-control or distorted perceptions of others. These classes may help students with aggressive 

behavior change their perceptions and learn alternative behaviors in confiict situations. 

Alternative settings to address severe behavioral challenges while providing continued access to 

educational programming. 

Individual behavior plans may provide a useful tool for addressing problematic behavior for 

nondisabled and disabled students alike. 

Alternative disciplinary methods such as peer court and restorative justice shift the burden of 

discipline from administrators and other adult designees to student peers. Peer courts use a panel of 

students to hear disciplinary infractions and assign consequences. In restorative justice, students 

who have harmed other students are forced to face their victims and confront their actions, with the 

goal being to actively engage in actions that restore a sense of justice. 

Integrated Community Response by education, mental health, welfare and law-enforcement 

agencies that develop a wraparound, cohesive plan of support spreading across the student's 

school, family and community. Chronically disruptive youth are often wards of one or more service 
165 

agency; therefore, coordinating an interagency response on behalf of the student is more likely to 

improve his or her chances of a positive outcome. 

The AFT strongly believes that developing an array of options for responding to disruptive or violent 

behavior may reduce over-reliance on suspension and expulsion. This is clearly an example where we 

cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Investing earlier in proven and effective progtams and 

comprehensive, community-based wraparound services increases the likelihood that children will stay in 

school and out of jail and, perhaps most important, will gain the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in 

life and become productive members of society. 
166 

O~~IG!OASOfTHE 

NI\TJQNAlCOMMISSIO .. 

NATIONAlC.~AIR 

ROBERT G SJGAR~AN 

!<.AT'{l"""-OI~EcrOR 

A!3AAHAMH.FOXMAN 

r~tAWmoA 

ROBERT H NI'FTALY 

ASSISTAWTR£ASURE~ 

M0"1RAYKOPPEUI.AN 

SECRE"i"/I8\' 

I BAR'lYME:HLER 

ASsI51IWl"SECQ8"AllY 

STA'dFOROBARATt 

AOr.,tINIS1l1ATlON 

CHARLESf KR,S"R 

A\!OT 

ROBERTH N.AFfALY 

,~ 

LAWRENC~ ROSENBLOOM 

CMLR-GHTS 

HOWAROWGOLDSTEIN 

OEVELQPMEor 

tlARRYCU"!TISS·LUSHER 

E(llJ('AlION 

RCHARDD GARTON 

:N"Of!MAHrn-TE~NOI-OGY 

JOSEP>1A_GOLOB"CM 

It-irtJ1NAT1=~AFFNRS 

OAVIDJ.Mil LSTONE 

lVIOERSHI~ 

PAMELA SCHWAflTZ 

lEGACV!FJNPtNG !'ORTIit FUWRE 

C"RISfDP>jERWOLF 

IMIIKET'NG&COM""-Ir<1CAT<O'4S 

MICHAELJ RUBINSTEIN 

O~'rR!':AC~ 8 ;NTUlf'ArrH AFl'AmS 

MART'NL.BUOD 

PIANNIMl 

MAFtV'ND.NATHA'" 

RfG'ONA!.OPCRATlQNS 

LAWRENCE,) MILLER 

WASHt"IGWNAFF"A'RS 

KENNEJH~ JARIN 

DEPlJTVNATIONN.DIRi:CTOR 

K'ENNETr,JACOSSON 

C'VIL.~'GHTS 

DE8D'1AHM LAL,'TER.. 

[)f\IElOPM&l" 

CLlFFDR.DSC'"lEC)·fTER 

E:OIJCAHON 

DAVIDS WARE" 

"INA"'CEANDAO!J''1IS'~AT10N 

WCHAEL A ,,:OltMAN 

INrOfIMATK1NToCI'NQl.OGY 

SAMMEM8ERG 

1~1'2R~'A'{lW.lAFFAI'lS 

WCHIl.Ei..A.SALBERG 

~RSIilP 

MARVINS RN'PAPORT 

I,1AA~ETlN~1I.CO"'NNfCATIONS 

HOWARDA.ZAR 

w.lSH~'()m'lAFFA.'PS 

STACYS\Jl'l~m 

GE'1FAAI.CO'J'Isa 

LENO'1E R. KREITMAN 

December 19, 2012 

The Honorable Richard Durbin 

United States Senate 

Chair 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

711 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, D.C 20510 

Dear Senator Durbin: 

We are writing to provide the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and 

Human Rights with the views of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as part of the Subcommitlee's 

December 12 hearing, Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline, We wou!d ask that this statement 

be included as part of the briefing record, 

ADL is a leading civil rights organization that has been working to Secure justice and fair 

treatment for all since its founding in 1913. As part of that mission, ADL has a long and proud 

history of supporting quality public education for aU. ADL believes that harsh disciplinary policies 

in schools that !ead to out-of-schoo! suspensions and expulsions for even minor infractions of 

schoo! conduct codes undermine the goa! of quality public education for aiL 

When schools suspend or expel students, those students are more likely to drop out of school 

and ultimately become incarcerated, A student who has been suspended from school is more 

than three times more likely to drop out in the first two years of high school than a student who 

has never been suspended. 1 Students who drop out of school have more difficulty finding gainful 

employment and ultimately are more likely to become involved with the criminal justice system. 

One study found that rates of incarceration for young adults who dropped out of high school were 

more than 63 times higher than rates of incarceration for young adults with college degrees.2 

Even when students do not drop out of school, school disciplinary procedures that remove 

students from classrooms and take them away from valuable learning time impede academic 

success. In a study about how time out of school affects students' academic performance, 

researchers found that third graders' reading and math state exam scores were three percent 

lower when students missed five academic school days because of snow-related schoo! closings 

than when the school had no closings during the academic year.J It is unsurprising, then, that 

when students spend days out of the classroom due to out-of-school suspensions or expUlsions 

their academic performance suffers. A comprehensive stUdy in Texas found that nearly one third 

of stUdents who Were suspended one or more times had to repeat a grade at least once. 4 

Research has shown that schools that have high rates of suspensions and expulsions perform 

less well academically than schools that use those discipline methods less, even when control!1ng 

for SOcioeconomic status and demographlcs.s 

1 Schott Foundation for Public Education, The Urgency of Now: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and 

Black Males 201.2, 32 (2012), available at http://blackboysreportorg/urgency·of·now.pdf. 

2 Andrew Sum, et. aI., The Consequences ofDroDPing Out of High School: Joblessness and Jailing for High School 

Dropouts and the High Cost for 1MI2a.Y.Q!] (Oct. 2009), available at http://www.northeastern.edu!clmslwp. 

contenVuploadsiThe _Consequences_DC Dropping_ Out_ oC High _ School.pdf. 

j The Urgencv of Now at 31. 

41n oontrast, only one in 20 students who were not disciplined had to repeat a grade. Tony Fabelo, et aI., Breaking 

§chool Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile Justice 

~, Justice Center the Council of State Governments, 56 (July 2011). 

s ~Amerjcan Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, Ate Zero Tolerance Policies EffectiVe in 

the Schools? An Eyidentiary Review and Recommendations. 854 (Dec. 2008), available at 

http://www.apa.org/pubslinfoireportsizero·to\erance.pdf, 

ANTI·DEFAMATION LEAGUE, 605 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10158·3560 212-885-7700 FAX: 212-<167·0779 W\WI.ADL.ORG 
167 

The Honorable Richard Durbin 

December 19, 2012 

Page 2 

Harsh school discipline policies disproportionately impact students of color, students with disabilities, and 

students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). During the 2009-10 school year, 

nationally nearly one in every six black students received at least one out-of-school suspension, 

compared with one in twenty white students.6 Students with disabilities are almost twice as likely to be 

suspended from school as nondisabled studentst For black male students with disabilities the statistics 

are astounding. In one county in Virginia, almost 92 percent of black male students with disabilities were 

suspended from school at least once during the 2009-10 academic year:' Additionally, studies have 

found that LGBT youth are much more likely than their heterosexual peers to be suspended or expelled. 9. 

To be sure, schools have a duty to maintain a safe environment and a right to discipline students whose 

actions impede others' ability to learn. Many of the out-of-school suspensions and expulsions, however, 

are for rninor school conduct code infractions. One student, for example, was suspended because her 

school uniform shirt became untucked. 'o Another was suspended for violating the school's no cell phone 

policy to talk to his mother who was stationed in Iraq." Zero tolerance policies that suspend or expel 

students for minor infractions and take them away from valuable time in the classroom do not lead to 

better learning environrnents. To the contrary, they harm millions of students each year and exacerbate 

educational inequities in public schooling. 

Sorne alternatives to zero tolerance policies have been very successful in reducing students' contact with 

the criminal justice system, decreasing crime in schools, and improving graduation rates. In Clayton 

County, Georgia, juvenile court Judge Steven Teske pioneered a program that, instead of immediately 

sending students to court for minor misdemeanors, gave students warnings for first minor offenses, 

referrals to mediation or workshops for second offenses, and referrals to the juvenile court system only 

after the third offense. The program resulted not only in a drastic reduction in the number of school 

referrals to the juvenile ccurt system, but also an 80 percent drop in serious weapons offenses on school 

campuses and a more than twenty percent increase in graduation rates over a period of seven years.'2 

Programs seeking to replicate Clayton County's program in other jurisdictions have met with similar 

success. 

We urge Congress to provide funding for programs like the one in Clayton County that use alternatives to 

zero tolerance policies and to study whether those programs could be replicated nationally. We further 

ask that Congress encourage the Department of Education to highlight Clayton County's program as a 

model program for other schools. 

5 The Urgency of Now at 32. 

7 Matoko Rich, Suspensions Are Higher For Disabled Students, Federal Data [ndicate, The New York Times, AIO (Aug. 7, 

2012). 

'M. 

, Katherine E. W, Himmelstein & Hannah Bruckner, Criminal-Justice and School Sanctions Against Nonheterosexual Youth: A 

National Longitudinal Study, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (Dec. 6,2010), available at 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/contentiearlyI20 1 0112106/peds.2009-2306. 

10 Texas Kids Suspended for Untucked Shirts, ABC News (Oct. 4,2012), 

http;//abcnews.go.comiGMNstory?id-124717&page='1#. UMtN2G9IV2A. 

J J Cell-Phone Student Back At School After Suspension, CNN (May 9, 2005), http://artieles.cnn.comi2005-05-

09lus/studenl.cellphone _1_ cell-phone-ban-phone-on-school-grounds-cell-phone? _ s~PM; US. 

12 Donna SI. George, Judge Steven Teske Seeks to Keep Kids With Minor Problems Out ofCour(, The Washington Post (Oct. 17, 

20 II), http://articles.washingtonpost.comi20 II-I 0-1711ifestyle135280676 _1_ school.discipline-student-discipline-russell-skiba. 
168 

The Honorable Richard Durbin 

December 19, 2012 

Page 3 

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently enhanced the capability of the Civil 

Rights Data Collection instrument to include statistics, broken down by race and ethnicity, regarding 

disciplinary methods for both students with disabilities and nondisabled students. 13 Congress should ask 

the Department of Education to ensure that this data collection includes information not only about 

students' race and ethnicity, but also students' religion, national origin and sexual orientation. 

Furthermore, Congress should ask that the Department of Education make the results of the Civil Rights 

Data Collection readily available to the public. 

Finally, OCR's mission is to "ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence 

throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights."'· To that end, OCR conducts 

compliance reviews of schools and provides technical assistance to help schools comply with civil rights 

laws. OCR's website, however, fails to provide guidance to schools regarding suspensions, expulsions, 

or school discipline in general. It also fails to provide easily accessible information about its specific 

compliance reviews of schools and the outcomes of those reviews. We urge Congress to request that 

OCR alter its website to make that information easily accessible to schools and other interested viewers. 

We commend the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights for 

holding the first hearing of its kind to address the school-to-prison pipeline. The extensive use of out-ofschool suspensions and expUlsions, which too often target students of color, those with disabilities, and 

LGBT youth harm not only those students directly affected but also undermine the goals of justice and fair 

treatment for all of society. 

Sincerely, 

~~L~~~.L4~ 

Deborah M. Lauter 

Director, Civil Rights 

13 See Office For Civil Rights: Civil Rights Data Collootion, htp:!lwww2.ed.gov/ubout/officesllist/ocr/data.html. 

" Office for Civil Rights: Overview of the Agency, http://www2.ed.gov/aboutiofficesllisVocr!index.html. 
169 

Boston Parent Organizing "\"et\\'or~ 

~09 Grt'en Sf 3,(1 1":1 -

JamaicJ P!nin, \ I:\ 02130 

T('1 617,:,22-27('() 

hi\: {i! 7-:'22-2799 

r,maiL jnliyJ bpoll.0rg 

\\ \\\\,bpvn.(\roz 

BPO:X'lember" 

ACED()\E. 

B(1~tOl1 ('hlnnto\\ll Ndghb0rhnod 

Center. 

Bo~ton Childrl2lllhri\"e. 

Cit) -\\'idl' Parents (\)u!lciL 

F~bl Bl1sl(11l Ecumenical 

Communi!) Cl)lIllcil. 

Frecdum I-louse. 

1 J) de Squ.irc Task F(lfCC. 

;\lassachLl"('tt~ Ad\oCaleS 

for Chi Idrcn, 

Project Righ1. 

SOCiC::lbd Latina. 

Test{mony from the Boston Parent Organizing Network 

On the School to Prison Pipeline 

December 10,2012 

We, the Boston Parent Organizing Network (BPON) staff, parents, 

students, and constituents support the dismantling of the school to prison 

pipeline. We, (BPON) support the need for this hearing about the school 

to prison to pipeline as it affects youth nationally, statewide, and citywide 

in the educational learning institutions of this country. 

We support the high numbers of men and women who in the past, present 

and with the high probability in the future, have been sent to prison 

without a high school or alternative means of a diploma or the 

equivalence thereof which leads to that person/s with less chances of 

having a good paying job or a continuation in higher learning. 

Over the last few years, BPON has collected the testimonies of parents, 

and students/non-students on zero-tolerance practices against students 

with special education needs, non-special education students, and 

students with limited language proficiency. We have seen over and over 

again the suspensions, expUlsions and inadequate discipline procedures 

and practices and even administrators completing a misconduct form 

inaccurately. This not only demonstrates the lack of understanding of 

many teachers and school officials on school policy on disciplinary 

practices, but it also jeopardizes the proper implementation of fairer 

procedures and alternatives measures that already exist within the district 

as they are constantly ignored and not adhered to by some administrators. 

BPON is a non-profit 501c3 in Boston, which supports having alternative 

programs to suspensions/expulsions that will engage the studentls in 

in-house learning practices that will keep them in school, support their 

MCAS proficiency, and that contribute to a positive school climate. 

We know first hand that there is a lack of teacher cultural competence, 

classroom management, teachers of color. and state of the art educational 

resources in communities of color. 

We (BPON) feel the Federal Government needs to take a scrutinizing 

approach to the policies of discipline and school practices that are used in 

displaying zero-tolerance practices that does not help the student but have 

contributed effectively to student drop-outs. We are looking for 

mechanisms that will keep students in school and not adding youth to the 

prison pipeline costing taxpayers millions of dollars to house a youth in 

prison. Instead those taxpayer dollars should be used to increase resources 

in America's national education system. We have to do better. 

The BPON 

. ()rgalti::illg u din'J'.It' C(lI1\1ill1<'I1(I' {!(par~'llr" \INdents andjulllili(' . ., 

tind olher commllnity IIll'm!1t 'rs to IIlj'{,ON an,j tldl'Ocah' fo}' the' hlll)f()1"l'lIh'Jli (d'BO\fOn }llIhlic SCI!(IO!\' 
170 

Statement of Roger Dickinson 

Assemblymember. California State Assembly. i h District 

Presented to: 

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Civil rights. 

and Human Rights 

12/10/2012 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Roger Dickinson, and I am a 

member of the California State Assembly, representing the 7th Assembly District, which 

encompasses the City of Sacramento and much of the urbanized County of Sacramento 

surrounding the City, as well as the City of West Sacramento, in Yolo County, California. 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 

the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, regarding "Ending the School-to-Prison 

Pipeline." Over the past two years, I have chaired the Assembly Select Committee on 

Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development. I am also a member of the School Discipline 

Consensus Project's School Climate Advisory Group, being conducted by the Justice Center of 

The Council of State Governments. From these two bases, I have developed some perspective 

on issues concerning school disciplinary practices in my state and our nation that I would like to 

share with your Subcommittee. 

In 2011, the Select Committee investigated issues surrounding youth development, effective 

and positive prevention and interventions in the lives of vulnerable youth, juvenile justice 

funding and reforms, and strategies for both promoting safer communities and enabling youth 

at risk to avoid the all too common path into the justice system. The Committee's work reflects 

a growing recognition in California that school discipline issues need to be better understood 

and problems addressed, as other branches of state government, particularly the State Judicial 

Council, headed by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, have also begun work to 

end the school-to-prison pipeline. 

To date, my Select Committee has held four hearings seeking to develop an understanding of 

youth involved in our state's many "systems", identifying proven and effective intervention and 

prevention strategies, discussing successful state and local programs, clarifying funding streams 

supporting these programs, and trying to comprehend the myriad state agencies and 

organizations that deliver intervention and prevention services, as well as promote youth 

development. 
171 

The Select Committee focused a great deal of its attention on school-based development and 

discipline issues. The purpose of this attention was to better understand what disciplinary 

policies and practices are currently being administered in California schools, and nationwide, 

and what kind of positive and negative impacts they have on youth development. Ultimately, 

the Committee formulated several recommendations on what the state Legislature can do to 

ensure California schools adhere to policies and programs that result in positive outcomes for 

school safety, academic growth, and reducing the number of vulnerable children who are at risk 

of entering the juvenile, and ultimately the criminal justice systems. Some of those 

recommendations were incorporated in several pieces of legislation which I will discuss later on 

in this statement. During the Select Committee's investigations, we remained mindful of how 

we could enhance the effective use of existing funding streams, encouraging collaborative 

leadership between educators and public safety practitioners, as well as filling information gaps 

and breaking down information-sharing barriers. 

Testimony presented to the Committee revealed that current practices of addressing student 

disciplinary problems in many schools may have an adverse effect; contributing to, rather than 

ameliorating aberrant student academic and behavioral outcomes. In fact, these strategies 

often have the opposite effect, exacerbating the problem and further alienating the child from 

the school environment, and pushing them out of school. For example, in California schools, 

there are more than 750,000 instances of school suspensions, involving 500,000 students 

annually, plus an additional 21,000 student expulsions. A recent study by the Council of State 

Governments demonstrated that California's suspension rate exceeds the national average. 

This fact seems demonstrate a growing trend of school officials administering swift and punitive 

responses to a wide variety of student misbehavior, whether or not a student's violation of 

school rules was severe in nature. 

The Select Committee solicited expert perspectives on data that indicated schools with higher 

suspension and expulsion rates have poorer outcomes on standardized achievement tests, 

regardless of the economic level or demographics of their students. Witnesses testified that 

when controlling for campus and individual student characteristics, the data revealed that a 

student who was suspended or expelled for a discretionary violation was nearly three times as 

likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice system the following year. 

The Select Committee heard testimony that, in the wake of the Columbine high school tragedy 

more than a decade ago, a majority of schools in California adopted a "zero tolerance" policy to 

deal with a greater and greater number of student acts, hoping that unwavering strict 

punishment, such as school suspensions and expulSions, would deter future violations and 

illegal behavior. The Committee gained an understanding about the negative effects on 

students when zero tolerance policies are applied to less serious misbehavior (e.g. wearing 

banned types of clothing, talking back to the teacher, or failing to turn in homework). 

As Chair of the Select Committee, I am completely aware that teachers and school 

administrators often struggle under difficult circumstances to maintain a positive learning 

environment in the classroom, even when students misbehave. However, a number of 
172 

Committee witnesses expressed concern that the common approach reflects a "one size fits all" 

to disciplinary problems, which worsens children's attitudes toward school and increase the 

odds that they will enter the juvenile justice system. Rather than enhancing school safety, zero 

tolerance policies may be having the opposite effect. The Committee explored the 

phenomenon of expulsions and suspensions reinforcing negative behavior by denying students 

opportunities for positive socialization in school, and nurturing a distrust of adults. In short, the 

Committee found that school disciplinary procedures may inhibit, rather than promote positive 

youth development. This results in a gradual process of academic and social disengagement 

that increases the probability of additional disciplinary exclusions, academic failure, and 

eventually, dropping out. 

The Select Committee became concerned with research showing that school discipline is 

inequitably administered across the ethnic and gender spectrums of students. Witnesses 

presented evidence showing that disproportionate percentages of African American, Latino, 

disabled, and poorer students are suspended and expelled under zero tolerance policies. As 

one pair of researchers put it, policymakers should be concerned about the harms that overuse 

of suspension and expulsions can cause to students and their academic careers. Certain racial 

and gender groups may be at far greater risk of being disciplined in this manner, which may 

ultimately become a civil rights issue as well as a predictor of future student behavior. 

The Committee studied information showing the more punitive discipline sanctions are 

disproportionately applied to students of color and students with disabilities at unconscionable 

rates. The United States Department of Education has released data showing how school 

discipline is disproportionately applied in California. Some examples are: 

The out-of-school suspension rate for blacks in Los Angeles Unified School District is 

nearly 6 times the rate for whites (17.3% vs. 2.9%). This Hispanic rate is 5.2% 

• In San Francisco Unified, black suspension rates are more than six times the rate for 

whites (14.4% vs. 2.2%). The Hispanic rate is 5%. 

• For Sacramento City USD, the black suspension rates are 3.5 times that of whites (21.2% 

vs.6%). The Hispanic rate is 9.3%. 

The Committee heard that in addition to the astounding number of suspensions and expUlsions 

that take place in California schools annually, 42% of the suspensions were for an act of "willful 

defiance." Willful defiance is one of 24 reasons enumerated in California's Education Code for 

which students can be disciplined by removing them from school. 

Unfortunately, the term "willful defiance" is barely defined, yet it accounts for the single largest 

reason for suspensions in many school districts. In fact, data loosely collected by the California 

Department of Education revealed that in some school districts, more than 70% of the student 

suspensions were for willful defiance. According to California law, willful defiance is simply 

"disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of school staff." 
173 

In effect, "willful defiance" has been a catch-all for all student misbehavior that does not easily 

fall into one of the other 23 categories for which students can be suspended. The high number 

of student suspensions that have been administered for this reason has led policy makers, like 

me, to conclude that it has become, all too often, a means of removing misbehaving students 

on the theory of "out-of-sight, out-of-mind." If a teacher thinks a student is failing to turn in 

hornework, wearing prohibited clothing, or talking back disrupts the class, the student warrants 

removal based on their being willfully defiant. 

A number of my colleagues joined me in authoring two pieces of state legislation to address 

what we considered to be a detrimental overuse of "willful defiance" to discipline students and 

removing them from classroom instruction. The first piece of California legislation was 

Assembly Bill 2145 (AlejO, Dickinson), which would have directed the California Department of 

Education to disaggregate diSciplinary data from schools for the purpose of identifying how 

school disciplinary practices were being applied to different racial groups and other categories 

of students. 

The second bill, AB 2242 (Dickinson, Alejo), focused on the overuse of "willful defiance" 

suspensions and expulsions. The original version of the legislation would have prohibited outof-school suspensions for students cited as being willfully defiant. It still would have permitted 

student discipline for willful defiance, but would have required school administrators to use 

alternative forms of correction such as Restorative Justice or Positive Behavioral Intervention 

and Support in lieu of removing the student from class. 

Unfortunately both bills failed to be enacted. There were cost concerns, at a time when the 

state was trying to deal with a $9 billion budget deficit. That hurt both bills. Sadly, suspending 

students from school, and removing them from the classroom also reflects the fact that our 

education system is underfunded. Schools are short staffed, and they often do not have 

resources sufficient to train the staff they do have in alternative means of discipline. Thus, they 

are often left with little alternative to taking the easy way out. 

Perhaps the bigger obstacle to enacting statutory changes to California' school discipline 

practices was the concern by the California School Boards Association and the Association of 

California School Administrators who objected to the limit AB 2242 would have placed on 

teachers and administrators to use disciplinary practices as they saw fit. This concern was 

echoed by the Governor when he vetoed the legislation. 

Notwithstanding the Governor's veto and his reasoning, I stilt intend to push forward with 

legislation to reform the way students can be disciplined for relatively minor offenses. The data 

and research referenced herein and in many other reports clearly shows that granting 

unfettered disciplinary discretion to local school officials has resulted in more harm than good. 

Further, the cost argument is undermined by state law requirements that schools must 

extensively document each and every school suspension and expUlsion. The cost of this 

documentation is nearly equal to the cost of administering alternative forms of correction. 
174 

Before making my concluding remarks, I want to briefly address one other issue that the Select 

Committee discovered regarding students who have been subject to out-of-school detention 

resulting from serious misbehavior. That issue concerns students who are transitioning out of 

detention and need to reintegrate into the mainstream educational environment. 

Many contributors and witnesses told the Select Committee that California's juvenile justice 

population is disproportionately youth of color, low-income and academically "at risk" of 

failure. Many juvenile justice youth have experienced repeated interruptions in their education 

before they entered the juvenile justice system and had already dropped out of school or were 

at high risk of doing so. Many of these youth also have a history of truancy and school 

discipline. While detained, these youth are supposed to be enrolled in a juvenile court school, 

where they should be given an opportunity to re-engage in education. Once released, 

continued engagement in school can have a profound positive impact on reducing recidivism. 

Although state law requires that they do so, many schools will not accept or calculate partial 

credits for work done while enrolled in a juvenile court school, pushing these youth even 

further behind in their efforts to secure sufficient credits to graduate. Often times no effort is 

made to secure their educational records from prior placements to assess where they stand in 

terms of credits necessary to graduate. These youth are often released mid-term, making 

integration or reenrollment into a regular school even more challenging. Not surprisingly, 

California's juvenile court schools have the highest dropout rates of all schools in the state. 

In light of this problem, I introduced Assembly Bill 2241 to begin changing the way schools work 

with delinquent youth transitioning back into the school system. This bill would have ensured 

that juvenile justice youth make a successful transition from detention to further education or 

employment by providing them with a comprehensive transition plan and supportive services. 

As a condition of receiving federal No Child Left Behind funding (Part D, Title 1, Subpart 2), 

school districts would be required to appoint a transition coordinator who would be charged 

with developing and coordinating individualized transition plans for eligible youth and helping 

ensure the seamless continuum of services for youth once they are released. The coordinator 

will also serve as an advocate for these youth to help them overcome barriers to reenrollment 

in a regular comprehensive public school and to ensure that all subsequent educational 

placements provide stability and the opportunity to be educated in the least restrictive 

educational setting necessary to achieve academic progress. 

I would encourage the Senate Subcommittee to take a careful look at the issue of our youth 

who may have already run afoul of the criminal justice system. Addressing the needs of young 

people who need to integrate back into the mainstream educational system from out-of-school 

detention may be as important to reducing the proportion of school age youth who eventually 

become adult offenders as is addressing school discipline practices applied to students who 

have not yet come in contact with law enforcement. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to commend you on 

undertaking this investigation into ending the school to prison pipeline. I shudder to think that 
175 

if other state's proportionately reflect California, where we remove over 500,000 students from 

instruction each year through suspensions and expulsions, many of them for minor acts of 

misbehavior, we are sadly condemning a significant number of our youth to unproductive, 

problem-filled lives that not only threaten their own well-being, but the well-being of the 

communities within which they reside. I, for one, and many of my state legislative colleagues, 

will continue to work on this issue, and it is my hope that our federal government supports the 

efforts of California and other states in this important task. Federal efforts to help states 

improve data collection about school disciplinary practices, and their positive and negative 

effects would be constructive, as would support for improved school and administrator training 

in alternative forms disciplinary correction. 

Once again, thank you for allowing me to submit this stamen, and I look forward to working 

with this Subcommittee on this most pressing problem. 
176 

December 10.2012 

Honorable Dick Durbin 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Senate judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Durbin 

I would like to commend you for your decision to conduct a hearing December 12,2012 dealing 

with the topic of "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline." 

As Chief Justice of California, I am deeply concerned about the well-known connection between 

school suspensions and our criminal justice system. One Texas study shows that one suspension 

triples the likelihood of a juvenile justice contact within that year. And that one suspension 

doubles the likelihood of repeating the grade. And nationally, the studies show that suspensions 

have a racially disparate effect: African-Americans. Latinos. American-Indians appear to have a 

far greater risk of suspension. 

In Califomia, according to our state's Department of Education, more than 400,000 California 

students were suspended in 20 I 0-1 I-some more than once-for a total of 750,000 suspensions. 

School suspensions are one of the leading indicators of whether a child will drop out of school, 

and dropping out of school increases the risk of incarceration. The pipeline your hearing focuses 

on is a long and cosIly one: For children it extends from school, to the juvenile justice system, to 

the adult justice system, to the prison system. 

The problems presented by the school-to-prison pipeline are compounded by the budget cuts in 

recent years to many state court systems. California'sjustice system, the largest in the nation, is 

also among the hardest hit by budget cuts. In the last tour years. the state's general fund support 

for California courts is down by more than 30 percent-and this in a time when the judicial 

branch must serve as the safety net for a democratic and civil society. 
177 

A society that cares ahout its childrcn. that cares about its ahility to provide and maintain justice. 

cannot afford to ignore the pipeline you are addressing with your committee hearing. I hope 

your attention to this problem-and the ways to address it- will help us change our metaphor 

from "pipeline to prison" to "stairway to success'" Right now. these stairways exist as pilot 

projects throughout the country. In California. new laws reveal a growing consensus among 

state leaders for alternative approaches that address underlying causes for dropping out of school. 

Our California Judicial Branch, in partnership with our sister branches of government, and court 

systems naliom~ide have bcen willing to adopt creative solutions to compliment our standard 

juvenile justice courts-youth courts are an example of one such creative solution. These court 

programs allow teens to hold each other accountable for their illegal actions and reduce the 

likelihood that teens will engage in delinqu(;'nt behavior. 

The tirst youth court programs grew out of etrorts by the American Bar Association and other 

national and community organizations to hold youth accountable for their actions before they 

develop a pattern of law-breaking behavior. Youth courts began in Texas, in the early 1980s and 

now according to the u.s. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there are now 

over 1.400 nationwide. 

Youth court programs offer our courts and our society many benefits. including fiscal in these 

harsh economic times. youth courts: 

• Can be a cost-effective alternative to traditional juvenile court because youth court 

workers are \·olunleers and because the programs reduce recidivism: 

• Hold juvenile offenders accountable for their illegal behavior: 

• Move juvenile olTenders hom arrest to sanctions within a few days rather than the 

months that may pass with traditional juvenile courts; 

• Increase puhlic appreciation of the legal system, enhance community-court relationships, 

encourage respect for the law anl0ng youth. and promote community volwltcerism; 

Offer a forum of pro-social peers rather than adult authority tigures: and 

• Prevent further delinquent acts by empowering and educating youth. 

The Judicial Council ot California, which I chair, has a Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory 

Committee that supports the annual Youth Court Summit that is co-sponsored by the California 

Association of Youth Courts. Inc. (CA YCl. This year the CA YC included a Student Advisory 

Committee made up of six student members for the first time and during its seventh annual 

California Youth Court Summit one of the key topics for discussion was "Suspension Diyersion: 

Methods to Break the Link between School Suspension and Prison." 

There are numerous dedicated judges, social workers. and volunteers supporting programs 

throughout our slate, but I want to highlight just two: 

A program in the Los Angeles Unified School District focuses on positive reinforcement. 

In its "'School-wide Positive Behavior Support" program students learn ahout 

expectations for appropriate behavior and are given strategies to deal with frustration and 
178 

resolve disputes. The school district's policy provides 10 alternatives to suspension. 

including tutoring. counseling. and community service. 

• An Oakland Unified School District program concentrates on "restorative justice," which 

can help students build better relationships and deal constructively with offenses. The 

program includes strategies for students to make amends to others. ""hen the program 

was initiated at one middle school the number of suspensions was reduced by 75 percent. 

Your committee will hear examples throughout the country of programs that keep children in 

school and out of court. :V1any of these programs rely on grants from non-profit organizations 

and the federal gowrnment. Yes. these programs need funding. But in addressing these 

problems now. we are investing in our sociaL economic, and moral infrastructure. We are 

investing in our future. And we are taking care of our own. 

As Co-chair of the California Slate-Federal Judicial Council, I have had first-hand experience of 

the benefits to boilijudicial systems and the public W~ serve of fostering closer cooperation all 

the assessment and resolution ofjoillt problems and issues. J would therefore respectfully 

suggest two items for your subcommittee to consider for further review: 

I. Collaborative and Restorative Justice Programs-ways to encourage positive. restorative, 

and prevention-oriented approaches to juvenile justice. such as. the Youth Court 

programs I mentioned above. 

2. Data and Knowledge Sharing Protocols and Tools-enhance and facilitate meaningful 

data tracking between jurisdictions ami agencies to enable leaders and workers in our 

courts, schools, and justice systems to make informed and enlightened decisions. 

Thank you again for focusing attention on this crucial issue. 

Very truly yours, 

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye 

Chief Justice of California 
179 

t'c CAMPAIG~ tk'FAIR 

SENTENC NG YYOUTH 

Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

December 14, 2012 

Statement submitted by 

Tbe Campaign for tbe Fair Sentencing of Youtb 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on Ending the Schoolto-Prison Pipeline. The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (CFSy) applauds the 

Committee's attention to this critically important issue. As a national coalition and clearinghouse 

that coordinates, develops and supports efforts to implement fair and age-appropriate alternatives 

to life-without-parole sentences for youth, we write with first-hand knowledge of the immense 

fiscal and human costs associated with policies that excessively push youth from schools into the 

juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

At the CFSY, we work alongside advocates in courtrooms and state legislatures across 

the country on the abolition of juvenile life without parole prison sentences. Additionally, we 

correspond with hundreds of individuals each year who have been condemned to die in prison 

for crimes that occurred before their 18th birthdays. These letters describe the distress, as well as 

the hopes, of the men and women serving extreme sentences in prisons throughout the United 

States. 

The stories that we hear from the inside of America's prisons and jails-and our direct 

advocacy on behalf of those serving juvenile life without parole prison sentences-reinforce the 

importance of policies that keep kids in school and out of the justice system. All too often, youth 

serving lengthy sentences in adult facilities were exposed to violence, abuse, and neglect in their 

home and community. We have seen these same children pushed out of their schools--

sometimes the only stable, structured environment in their lives-<lue to increasingly punitive 

policies that treat normal child behavior as criminal instead. In many school districts, School 

Resource Officers often respond to minor fights, for example, with referrals to court for affray or 

battery. Running in the hallways Of talking back to teachers is considered disorderly conduct and 

can lead to arrest. And in some jurisdictions, writing on desks or lockers may also result in police 

enforcement of some kind. I Instead oflearning in the healthy, nurturing environments that 

1 Justice Policy Institute. "Education Under Arrest The Case Against Police in Schools,u November 20 II. 

Available at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrestjullreport.pdf 

1090 Vermont Avenue, NW .. Suite 400 • Wilshington, DC. 20005 

www.fairsentendngofyolJth.org 

Th~ Campaign for the Fair Sentencmg of Youth is;; registered 501{c)(3) non-profit organlziltiorJ 
180 

encourage children to fulfill their potential, too often their education is disrupted by zero 

tolerance policies that allow school systems to give up on these children and funnel them from 

classrooms to courtrooms for minor teenage misbehavior. 

It should come as no surprise that as we increase the role oflaw enforcement in our 

nation's schools, and banish students from classrooms for acts of minor misbehavior, we 

increase risk factors among youth and set them on a path that could lead to long-term 

incarceration. Established research demonstrates the devastating consequences of harsh school 

discipline policies. According to a recent study, youth are twice as likely not to graduate if 

arrested at school,'ilIld four times as likely ifhe or she appears in court.2 A similar study by the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that when youth are taken out of the 

classroom, they are significantly more likely to become involved with criminal activityincluding physical altercations and weapon possession.3 These alarming statistics ring 

particularly true for those at the farthest end of the school-to-prison pipeline. A recent survey of 

over 1,500 'Juvenile lifers" found that the vast majority-85%--had been suspended or expelled 

at some point during their academic career. Fewer than half of those interviewed were enrolled 

in school at the time of their arrest.4 

Strict zero-tolerance policies run contrary to our obligations as parents and educators to 

ensure that youth are engaged in the learning process, and that all schoolchildren have an 

opportunity to succeed. These policies also fail to create the safe, high quality learning 

environments that we would all want for our own children. Significantly, they too often derail 

our nation's most vulnerable youth from the opportunity to fulfill their potential in a constructive 

and supportive academic setting and channel them in to the juvenile and criminal justice systems 

instead. We recognize that keeping schoolchildren safe sometimes requires appropriate 

disciplinary measures, and in developing these approaches, we should implement practices that 

focus on the unique potential of youth to better themselves, particularly with encouragement and 

support. Our nation's future relies upon our ability to uphold the dignity of our children, 

challenge them to excel academically, and provide them the support they need to achieve their 

goals and contribute to society. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard, and for your attention to this important matter. 

2 Sweeten, G. (December 2006). Who will graduate? Disruption of high school education by arrests and court 

involvement, Justice Quarterly, 24(4), 262-480. 

3 Centers for Disease Control, Health Risk Behaviors among Ado/escents Who Do and Do Not Attend Schoo/-

United States, 1992,43. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Mar. 4,1994 at 129. 

• Nellis, Ashley. and Zafft, Katie. "The Lives of Juvenile Lifers". The Sentencing Project. March 2012. Available 

at: http://sentencingpro;ect.orgldoclpublications/jj The Lives or Juvenile Lifers.pdf. 
181 

December 06, 2012 

The Honorable Dick Durbin 

United States Senator 

711 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Testimony for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights 

and Human Rights on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" hearing scheduled for 

Wednesday, December 12,2012 

Dear Senator Durbin, 

The Campbell County School District #1, Gillette, Wyoming covers 5,000 square miles 

of northeastern Wyoming and serves about 8,400 students in 20 schools. The Governing 

Board recognized the need for administrative tools that allowed district administrators an 

alternative to student expulsions and suspensions which were mandated by its "zero 

tolerance" policies. 

The Specialized Treatment and Rehabilitation (S.T.A.R.) Program is under the direction 

of the Campbell County School District #1 Student Support Services. Student Support 

Services administers and manages the districts Safe and Drug Free School; Healthy 

School; and School Crisis Programs in addition to consulting on discipline, suspension, 

and expUlsion. The S.T.A.R. Program is an alternative to suspension and expulsion that is 

available to district administrators, the parents of students, community agencies and the 

courts. This alternative program allows these students to continue their education in the 

regular school setting and to receive additional services (counseling, drug and alcohol 

services, etc.) while remaining in their communities and with their families. 

The S.T.A.R. Program is offered through the school district at no cost or low cost to the 

students and families referred. This is a district wide voluntary program that requires the 

student, the family, the administrator, and the program staff to agree to established 

expectations and conditions. The program is designed to serve students from II years of 

age to 18 years of age. Using a non punitive and holistic approach in an extended school 

day format, the student is not isolated from regular socialization with peers, there is 

virtually no interruption in the regular classroom instructional time, and the student's 

academic performance and behavior is monitored. The program uses physical 

conditioning, nutritional education, community service, small group instruction, and 

tutoring to help the student meet the program requirements. 

The data compiled over the last 12 years (1999-20 I 0) shows an 82.7% completion rate 

with a recidivism rate of 8.6 %. The program referrals were 39.5% high school age; 45.2 

% junior high age with 8.4% elementary age. There were 603 referrals during this time. 

The program referrals came from district administrators, parents, and the courts. The 

student's legal involvement, gathered through self disclosure, indicates 12.3% were on 

probation; 3.1 % on diversion; and 51 % were not currently involved in the legal system. 
182 

The offenses I infractions which resulted in student referrals were 45.8% for major 

infractions of district policies (drugs, alcohol, weapons, etc.) and 29.6% behavior. 

Moderate infractions of school policies accounted for the remaining 14.6% of the 

referrals. 

With the educational, social, and legal difficulties confronting many ofthe students and 

families we serve in our community, the S.T.A.R. Program provides these students the 

opportunity to accept responsibility for their actions, to have a positive educational 

experience, and to learn positive ways to deal with life's difficulties. 

Thank you for recognizing and addressing the strong link between school suspension, 

expulsion and the negative outcomes and increased court involvement of these students. 

If you or your staff would like any additional information regarding the Campbell County 

School District #1, S.T.A.R. Program, please contact. 

Mr. Steve Stryker 

Campbell County School District #1 

Student Support Services 

Gillette,WY 82717-3033 

-
183 

CAST YEARSOF 

1''': INNOVATION 

~ 1'84-2009 

December 10,2012 

VIAE-MAIL 

The Honorable Dick Durbin 

711 Hart Senate Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

40 Harvard Mills Square. SUite 3 

(map: 40 Foundry Street) 

Wakefield,MA 01880-3233 

Tel: 781 2452212 

TTY: 781.245.9320 

Fax: 781.245.5212 

E-maiL casl@cast.org 

Y>."!'!.'0!:f9?L9:.9 

Re: Ending the School-to-Pri~(Jn Pipeline Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee 

Dear Senator Durbin: 

We are a group of educational researchers, policy analysts, lawyers, and professors of special 

education who have come together to promote improvements in the educational programming 

provided to youth inside detention and juvenile corrections facilities. The education provided at this 

late stage of the pipeline is often the last opportunity for delinquent youth to reconnect with learning 

and is a critical component of their subsequent reintegration into school and the community. 

Our comments are based on the essay, "Applying Universal Design for Learning to the Education of 

Youth in Detention and Juvenile Corrections Facilities" (Karger, Rose, & Boundy), which appears 

in the forthcoming Harvard Educational Review book, Dl~'rupling the School-la-Prison Pipeline 

(forthcoming, 2012). The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) has pioneered the field of 

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) from its inception and has compiled the research and 

developed the structure and guidelines that are foundational to its practices. We believe that all 

school age youth, including those confined in detention and juvenile corrections facilities, have the 

right to a high-quality education and that UDL can serve as a powerful educational framework to 

actualize this right. 

The right to a high-quality education for all school-aged incarcerated youth is predicated on Title I 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (20 U.S.c. § 6301 e/ seq.) and the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.c. § 1400 e/ seq.). The mandates of these two statutes-when 

interpreted together with the antidiscrimination provisions of the federal civil rights laws focused on 

race (Title VI), national origin/language (Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974), gender 

(Title IX), and disability (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with 

1 
184 

Disabilities Act of I 990-create strong legal handles to implement and enforce the right of 

incarcerated youth to a high-quality education (Boundy & Karger, 20 II). 

Although incarcerated youth have the right to a high-quality education, in reality the education 

provided to youth in detention and juvenile corrections facilities is significantly lacking, further 

contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline. For example, thc curriculum is often not aligned with 

grade-level standards and assessments (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009), and instruction 

typically focuses on low-level skills rather than higher-order thinking and comprehension skills 

(Howell & Wolford, 2002; Leone & Cutting, 2004). There is a lack of differentiated instruction, 

compounded by the fact that these youth represent a range of ages and academic levels (Houchins, 

Puckett-Patterson, Crosby, Shippcn, & Jolivette, 2009). Youth who enter the juvenile justice system 

are also likely to be functioning below grade level, with deficits in reading and math (Baltodano, 

Harris, & Rutherford, 2005; Foley, 2001; Krezmien, Mulcahy, & Leone, 2008). Further, students 

with disabilities, who are overrepresented in this population, often receive inadequate special 

education services (Leone, Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002). Moreover, vocational education (Moody, 

Kruse, Nagel, & Conlon, 2008) and the use of computers (McIntyre, Tong, & Perez, 2001) are 

limited, although the benefits of these services for delinquent youth have been documented. 

At the same time, research has also demonstrated a positive relationship between academic 

achievement and a reduction in recidivism rates (Katsiyannis & Archwamety, 1997; Katsiyannis, 

Ryan, Zhang, & Spann, 2008). Addressing the educational needs of youth in detention and juvenile 

corrections facilities can help prevent the subsequent criminalization and re-incarccration ofthese 

youth. Yet, because the learning environments in juvenile justice facilities are not engaging or 

appropriately challenging, it is likely that many of these youth will continue to feci disconnected 

from learning and be more likely to recidivate and ultimately drop out of school. In fact, research 

has shown that large percentages of incarcerated youth do not return to school when they exit these 

facilities (Brock & Keegan, 2007; Cusick, George, & Bell, 2008). 

We believe that UDL has the potential to transform the education provided to youth inside detention 

and juvenile corrections facilities by addressing barriers that serve to impede the actualization of 

their right to a high-quality education. The UDL framework emphasizes three principles related to 

three brain networks that are involved in learning: (I) multiple means of representation; (2) multiple 

means of student action and expression; and (3) multiplc means of student engagement. Rather than 

focusing on deficits perceived to be present in individual students, UDL allows educators to design 

flexible learning environments that plan, from the beginning, for anticipated learner variability 

among students. UDL helps educators craft learning experiences that leverage variability as a 

strength in learning, thereby reducing barriers in curriculum and instruction that impede the aetive 

and successful participation of students in the learning process. 

2 
185 

Emerging from the concept of "universal design" in architecture, UOL applies information about 

the brain and the science oflearning to the design of educational curricula and instructional 

strategies. UOL is based on the premise that trans formative changes to systems often begin "in the 

margins," where the system is working least well and change is most dcsired. Such change typically 

results in benefits to a broader population of individuals. Although tcchnology is not required for 

the implementation ofUDL, technology can help facilitate the development of flexible curricula 

and instructional strategies. Moreover, new digital media offer the promise of creating dynamic 

learning opportunities for students and teachers (Meyer & Rose, 2005). 

UOL has been receiving greater attention at the federal, state, and local levels, due in part to the 

work of the National UOL Task Force, a coalition of over 40 national organizations representing 

both general and special education. In 2008, with the passage of the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act, Congress defined UDL as "a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practices 

that: (a) provides flexibility in the ways information is prescnted, in the ways learners respond or 

demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways learners are engaged; and (b) reduces barriers in 

instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports and challenges, and maintains high 

achievement expectations for all learners including students with disabilities and students who are 

limited English proficient" (20 U.S.c. § 1003(24)). The HEOA also referred to UDL in the context 

of teacher preparation programs (20 U.S.c. § 1022d(b)(I)(K)). 

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's National Education Technology Plan emphasized 

UDL as a framework that can benefit all learners, in particular thosc that have been underserved 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). UDL was also identified as an innovative practice in 

guidance on the use of Race to the Top funds and in the U.S. Department of Education's Blueprint 

for Reform: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (U.S. Department of 

Education, 201 Oa). In addition, UDL was discussed in the appendix to the Common Core Standards 

(CCS) with respect to the application of the CCS to students with disabilities (National Governors 

Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 20 I 0). 

In October, 2011, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) 

approved a reauthorization bill for the ESEA that included a definition of UDL consistent with that 

in the HEOA and referred to the use ofUDL in relation to a number of important areas, including 

the development of local educational agency plans and the implementation of effective instruction 

in literacy and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). In addition to these 

provisions, the National UDL Task Force has called for the development of assessments and 

provision of professional development that is consistent with the principles of UDL. 

3 
186 

We urge you to consider the importance of the application ofUDL to the education of youth inside 

detention and juvenile corrections facilities. For example, UDL can address the widespread 

variability in learning among incarcerated students. Curricular materials with built-in supports 

based on the three UDL principles have the potential to assist with targeted literacy and 

mathematics instruction as well as instruction in the content areas by presenting information in 

multiple ways and helping with difficulties in the areas of decoding and vocabulary. Additional 

scaffolding can help with challenges in the area of comprehension through supports such as clear 

headings and advance organizers, models that supply background knowledge, and reading prompts 

that guide students by highlighting key concepts and ideas. Similarly, UDL calls for the use of 

multiple options for students to demonstrate what they have learned-for example, using different 

methods ofresponse, such as writing, drawing, audio, or video. 

UDL also has the potential to promote greater student engagement among a population that has 

likely experienced many years of frustrating learning experiences. When curricula and instructional 

strategies offer students the opportunity to balance the demands of the environment with their 

personal strengths, they feci appropriately challenged and are able to become more engaged in their 

learning. UDL thus creates a responsive educational system in which students' strengths, rather than 

their weaknesses, are recognized. Educational policies and practices that model UDL can counteract 

the toxicity that delinquent youth often associate with traditional learning that takes place in static 

classrooms heavily reliant on printed material. 

Ultimately, UDL can help raise expectations for incarcerated youth, while also helping to change 

the image and expectations abut learning that these youth have for themselves. It is extremely 

difficult for youth who become entrapped in the sehool-to-prison pipeline to extricate themselves. 

UDL offers a promising approach to attack the sehool-to-prison pipeline in its later stages by 

transforming the education provided to youth in detention and juvenile corrections facilities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We appreciate your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Joanne Karger, J.D., Ed. D., CAST 

Rachel Currie-Rubin, Ed.D., CAST 

David Rose, Ed.D., CAST 

Kathleen Boundy, J.D., Center for Law and Education 

Peter Leone, Ph.D., College of Education, University of Maryland 

Michael Krezmien, Ph.D., School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst 

4 
187 

Karger, Joanne, Rose, David H., and Boundy, Kathleen B. (2012). Applying Universal Design 

for Learning to the Education of Youth in Detention and Juvenile Corrections Facilities. In 

Sofia Bahena et al. (Eds.), Disrupting the School-to-Prison Pipeline (pp. 119-143). Cambridge: 

Harvard Educational Rcview. 

Baltodano, H. M., Mathur, S. R., & Rutherford, R. B. (2005). Transition of incarcerated youth with 

disabilities across systems and into adulthood. Exceptionality, 13(2), 103-124. 

Boundy, K. B., & Karger, J. (2011). The right to a quality education for children and youth in the 

juvenile justice system. In F. Sherman & F. Jacobs (Eds.), Juvenile justice: Advancing 

research, policy, and practice (pp. 286--309). Hobokcn, NJ: Wiley & Sons. 

Brock, L., & Keegan, N. (2007). Students highly at risk of dropping out: Returning to school after 

incarceration. National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of 

Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. Retrieved from 

www.neglected-delinquent.org/ndlresources/spotlightlspotlight20070 I b.asp. 

Cusick, G. R., George, R. M., & Bcll, K. C. (2008). From corrections to community: Thejuvenile 

reentry experience as characterized by multiple systems involvement [Final report to thc 

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority]. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, 

Univcrsity of Chicago. 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind Act, Title I, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et 

seq. 

Gagnon, J. c., Barber, B. R., VillI Loan, c., & Leonc, P. E. (2009). Juvcnile correctional schools: 

Characteristics and approachcs to curriculum. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(4), 

673-696. 

Houchins, D. E., Puckett-Pattcrson, D., Crosby, S., Shippen, M. E., & Jolivette, K. (2009). Barriers 

and facilitators to providing incarcerated youth with a quality education. Preventing School 

Failure, 53(3),159-166. 

5 
188 

Howell, K. W., & Wolford, B. I. (2002). Corrections andjuvenilejustice: Current education 

practice for youth with learning and other disabilities. Monograph Series on Education, 

Disability and Juvenilc Justice. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and 

Practice, American Institutes for Research. (ERIC Documcnt Reproduction Service No. 

ED471211). 

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, 20 U.S.c. § ] 00] et seq. 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. 

Katsiyannis, A., & Archwamety, T. (1997). Factors related to recidivism among delinquent youths 

in a state correctional facility. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6(1),43-55. 

Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., Zhang, D., & Spann, A. (2008). Juvenile delinquency and recidivism: 

Thc impact of academic achievement. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24(2), 177-196. 

Krezmien, M. P., Mulcahy, C. A., & Leone, P. E. (2008). Detained and committed youth: 

Examining diffcrences in achievement, mental health needs, and special education status. 

Education and Treatment of Children, 31 (4),445-464. 

Leone, P. E., & Cutting, C. A. (2004). Appropriate education, juvenile corrections, and No Child 

Left Behind. Behavioral Disorders, 29(3),260-265. 

Leone, P. E., Meisel, S. M., & Drakeford, W. (2002). Special education programs for youth with 

disabilities in juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53(2),46-50, 

McIntyre, T., Tong, V, M., & Perez, J, F. (2001). Cyber-Iock down: Problems inherent with the use 

of internet technology in correctional education settings. Journal of Correctional Education, 

52(4),163-165. 

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability 

in cducational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally 

designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13-35). 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 

Moody, B., Kruse, G., Nagel, l, & Conlon, B. (2008). Career development project for incarcerated 

youth: Preparing for the future. Journal of Correctional Education, 59(3),231-243. 

6 
189 

National Governors Association [NGAJ Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School 

Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: Application to students with disabilities. 

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/applicationto-students-with-disabilities.pdf. 

u.S. Department of Education [EDJ. (20 lOa). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization o.lfhe 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www2.cd.gov/policy/elsec/lcglblueprintlblueprint.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology [ED]. (20IOb). Transforming 

American education: Learning powered by technology. National Education Technology Plan 

2010. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www . ed. gov I si tesl default/files/netp20 1 o. pdf. 

7 
190 

8oard(lfDl1&cI(llS 

MarlofJorelli,Esl./.Cf.a!r 

RobfnR Keller, Esq,SecroI8T)' 

JiJlJ.Hulensfqr,Trf8s:tler 

ElilaOOYtANq!JIsI,Esq. 

JoImBlanlrm,fAD 

1Xx;g/dsQJ/osky, Esq. CJaurSiilCi>nnor,E"sq. 

Tl/1lOIliy DiMJand, Esq. 

Ksfhtyn Emmllli, Esq. (lff(Jfficlo) 

LucJaGofcoeclwa·HemeM;)l 

NkheNfJA.Mullifl$,~sq. 

1Iif10'f{e/Jm,E~< 

Rosa/kia.RoIh 

MsriM Sl0l19,Esq. (O{)fftdo) 

AnlMia TOOmpson, Esq. 

ArNf$oryBoatd 

Miriem Bcrl<man, Esq, f,fSW 

JoM Sritllllt!, Esq. 

BreIlOigr)tjJTl,Esq. 

L. Philip Guzman, PfiD 

WeskyHorlon.Esq. 

EfillJoothMexgsl! 

EifellnSllverttein.E~. 

PrN/onT/Sdll.!a,Esq. 

StarJeyA Twardy. Esq. 

SlephenWizne~Esq 

ExeeillNe Director 

MarthaSIMII,Esq. 

Center for Children's Advocacy 

65 Eflzabeth Street, Harlforr/, Gr 06105 

STATEMENT TO THE 

U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ABOUT THE SCHOOL· TO-PRISON PIPELINE 

HYTHE 

CENTER FOR CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY 

IN SUPPORT OF 

PUTTING AN END TO THE SCHOOL-TO PRISON-PIPELINE 

December 12, 2012 

This statement is submitted on behalfofthe Center for Children's Advocacy, a non-profit 

organization based at the University of Connccticut School of Law in Hattford, 

Connecticut. The Center fights for the legal rights of Connecticut's pool'est and most 

vulnerable children and youth through individual representation and systemic advocacy, 

Through our TeamChild Juvenile Justice Project, the Center collaborates with the local 

Public Defender and Probation offices to represent children involved in the juvenile 

justice system, Our attorneys work to improve the child's juvenile justice outcome by 

securing needed services through community agencies or the school system, The 

Ccnter's attorneys represent the child on educational issues and access to mental health 

treatment, which may be at the root of the child's court involvement Through our 

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Reduction P,'ojects, the Center partners with 

local stake holders including the Local Interagency Service Teams (LISTs) in Hartford 

and BridgcpOlt, as wcll as our national partner, the Center for Children's Law and Poliey, 

to develop strategies to reduce the disproportionate representation of children and youth 

of color in the juvenile justice system, 

As a result of our work 011 these projects, we al'e a frequent \Vimess to how the school-toprison pipeline impacts COlmecticu!'s most vulnerable youth, We see how children with 

disabilities are arl'ested in school for non-violent offenses that are manifestations of their 

disabilities or could be handled within the regular disciplinary system, One of our 

clients, diagnosed with bipola1' disorder, was arrested at school for yelling at a security 

guard while disobeying the guard's order to stay within the school campus, Another 

client, a child with ADHD, was arl'ested for rulUlillg down a hallway and screaming at 

school staff, OU!' office also represented Andre,' a nine-year old who was arrested at 

school fol' an argument with another student Although Andre's charges were evcntually 

dismissed, he was processed through the juvenile court and spent a weekend in dctention 

due to this arres!' 

For many of these clients, a school-based arrest is their first interaction with the juvenile 

justice system, Many of our clients report being traumatized by these school-based 

arrests and fearing going to school because they do not want to be arrested again, 

AI'!'ests of this nature need to be stopped and di\'el'Sionary dforts necd to be llsed by 

schools and police consistently and with I'igilance, 

This child's name Ims been changed to protect his privacy. 

Phone 860-570-5327 Fax 860-570·5256 www.kfdscoonsel.org 
191 

Here in Connecticut, fi'OI11 our work, we know the following: 

• On a statewide basis, children and youth are regularly being arrested in school for 

low-level, non-violent offenses including breach of peace (representing 34 % of 

all school based arrests) and disorderly conduct or threatening (12 % of all school 

based anests);2 

• A mqiority of these youth are in fact youth of color: 31 percent of these youth 

arrested in school were African Amcrican and 19 percent werc Latino;3 

• In Hartford specifically, 43% of all youth being rcferred to thc jUl'cnile COUl't 

were arrested in sellool. Nearly aU of these youth were Afi'jean American or 

Latino;4 

• Historically across our state, both African-American students and Hispanic 

students are arrested at school at twice the rate tbat would be expected from 

enrollment data. 5 

Arresting cbildren at scbool harms childrcn and communities. Keeping children in 

school is crucial to improving their long-term opportunities. Students who feel connected 

to school are less likely to use illegal substances, become pregnant, attempt suicide or 

engage in violent behavior.6 A 2010 study found that the very act of being labeled as a 

delinquent made it more likely that a child would have a criminal history as an adult.7 A 

2009 study found that boys who had been involved in juvenile COllrt were seven times 

more likely to have adult criminall'ecords than boys with the same backgrounds and selfreported delinquent behavior but no juvenile court record.8 

Through ollr partnerships and collaborations with local stakeholders, particularly through 

Ollr DMC Reduction Projects, we have seen how communities can reduce school-based 

arrests through collaboration among key stake holders, through the sharing and reporting 

of aCCllrate school based arrest data and through growth and training of diversionary 

tactics including referrals to Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services (EMPS). 

These figures are based on data collected by the Connecticut Judicial Branch COUlt SUPPOlt 

Services Division and represent the entire 2011-12 school year (September through June). The Connecticut 

Judicial Branch defines "school-based arrest" as an alTest that occurs all school property during the school 

day, so this !lumber docs !lot include arrests 011 school buses 01' at school-sponsored activities. This number 

also does not include arrests that resulted in referral to juvenile review beards, since those cases are not 

referred to court. 

3 ld. 

This data, collected through the Hartford DMC Project and published by the Center for Children's 

Law and Policy was taken from October - December of 2011 and represents 52 of a total of 122 juvenile 

arrests. 

5 Slate Department of Education data for the 2009-2010 school yea!' showed that African-American 

students were 14% of total statewide public school enrollment, but were 28% of students arrested at school; 

Hispanic students were 17% of total statewide enrollment, but were 35% of students arrested at school. 

State Department of Education data only includes arrests that resulted also in a suspension or expUlsion. 

6 KathrYIl C. Monahan et al., Predictol's aile/Consequences of School Connectedness: The Casefol' 

Prevention, 17 TilE PREVENTION RESEARCHER 3, 3-6 (September 20 10). 

7 Anthony Petrosino et aI., Fo/'mal System Processing of JUl'elliles: Effects 0/1 Delinquency, 

CAMPBELL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 201O:!, 36-37. 

• UberlO Galti et aI., Iatrogellic Effect of JlIl'Cl1ile Justice, 50 J. of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 

991, 995 (2009). 

2 
192 

In Haliford for example, as a result of: establishing an effective police school 

collaborative, the establishment of regular police training on the use of EMPS, the 

signing of a memoranda of understanding between the police and public school system 

and the development and use of a template to share and interpret relevant alTest related 

data, school-based anests are down 78 % when compared with last year.9 Similarly, 

EMPS referrals are up. 

As a result of our collaborative effOlis, the school-to-prison-pipeline here in Connecticut 

is being diverted, particularly in the communities of llartford and Bridgeport. However, 

there is much more work to be done on behalf ofthe vulnerable youth in our schools. 

Legislation should be passed requiring systematic and consistent reporting of school 

based arrests and mcmoranda of agreements between schools and police departments 

with a presence in them. Specific protocols based upon successful models like that uscd 

in Clayton County should become nationally accepted practice for schools. Diversionary 

practices such as Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services should be made more readily 

available to conununities. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Center endorses a national effort of collaboration to end 

the school-to-prison pipeline. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~ 7Lf-nAH---

Maris Mascol H;;:; I ~ -

Attorn & Dir tor 

TeamChild Juvenile Justice Project 

These figures are based 011 data collected by the Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support 

Services Division comparing March -June 2011 to March to June 2012 with total arrests falling to 24 from 

1l3. 

3 
193 

Chris.tint!. Ab.atc 

Bonnie Catone 

Steven Befellko, PhD. 

Leonard (Jermal1 

C",role E,;rdy 

MoniquiJ R> Fletcher 

Pav.fa /-'/'uJman 

Deborah Cre€bolt 

Michdie A Henry 

SIJS4flR.i-ioffl,E<:q. 

Kwame .i,.l!'lf1>on 

Crerchen Purser 

Slid/a Rule 

Kimberly S. ~'iC(lft 

December 10, 2012 

Via Email: stephanie_trifone@judiciary-dem,Senate,gov 

u.s, Senate 

Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Committee Members, 

The Center for Community Alternatives thanks Chairman Durbin, Ranking 

Member Graham, and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and HUman 

for holding this critical hearing on Ending the School to Prison Pipeline hearing before 

the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constftution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. 

Introduction 

The Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) is a non profit organization that 

promotes reintegrative justice and a reduced reliance on incarceration in pursuit of 

civil and human rights. Our mission is fostered through services, research and 

advocacy that enhances public safety, and reduces recidivism among youth and adults 

involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, CCA works in a number of 

jurisdictions in New York State: New York City~ Syracuse and Rochester. We are a 

member of the Dignity in Schools Campaign. The examples that we provide in our 

testimony are drawn from our work with young people who attend CCA programs in 

Syracuse New York. 

On March 6, 2012, the Department of Education (DOE) released its most 

recent Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) information drawn from a national survey of 

72,000 schools that enroll8S% of the nations students, The data show disturbing, if 

not alarming, trends in school discipline! including a troubling increase in suspensions 

and significant racial disparities in school suspensions and school-based arrests. 

NationallYI African American students comprise 18 percent of school enrollment but 

are 3S - 39 percent of students suspended or expelled, Children of color are three 

times more likely to be suspended than white students. Students with disabilities are 

suspended at a rate twice that of students without disabilities. In addition, African 

American and Latino youth make up more than 70 percent of all students nationwide 

who are referred to law enforcement or involved in school-related arrests. 

By the beginning of the 21st century, school suspensions became a precursor 

to imprisonment. Suspended students~ even those who are not arrested~ are more 

likely to drop out of school, and dropouts are at high risk of being incarcerated at some 

point in their lives. Research by Harvard University sociologist Bruce Western found 

the lack of a high school diploma hasthe most profound impact on the likelihood of 

incarceration~ with high school dropouts 5 times more likely to go to prison than high 

school graduates regardless of race, An estimated that 1 in 10 young (age 22-30) 
194 

2 

White high school dropouts and 52 percent of African American male high school dropouts have been 

incarcerated by their early thirties. In short, the punitive disciplinary policies embraced by one of our most 

cherished institutions, public schools, have become a key mechanism in the phenomenon known as mass 

incarceration. 

The willingness of the U.S. Department of Education to collect and analyze data on school 

discipline is an important step underscoring the urgency to address excessive and disparate application of 

harsh school disciplinary processes. This hearing makes another significant contribution. The statements 

made by the Secretary of Education upon the release of the data well captures what is at stake: 'The 

undeniable truth is that the everyday educational experience for many students of color violates the 

principle of equity at the heart of the American promise. It is our collective duty to change that." 

The balance of CCA's testimony is drawn from our experiences working every day with young 

people suspended from school, many of whom wind up in the juvenile justice system. We share with you 

what the young people pushed out of school have told us as well as promising outcomes from CCA 

programs that show that indeed we can dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. 

Voices from Students Pushed into the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

CCA was introduced to school pushout issues through our work in the juvenile justice system. We 

work with courts to develop community-based program options that can be used as alternatives-toincarceration. As regular and obedient attendance at school is typically a core condition of any alternative 

sentence imposed by family court, CCA soon came to learn that many of the young people in the juvenile 

justice system had been suspended from their mainstream school and placed in an alternative school. 

These alternative schools are characterized by shortened school hours (in some caseS 2 hours a days), a lack 

of support services, and often ill-prepared teachers. Alternative school students in Syracuse City School 

District are banned from extracurricular activities, and so the youth most in need of adult supervision spent 

are left to the streets. It should come as no surprise that students seem to cycle between the alternative 

school and the juvenile justice system. Much like reentry from correctional facilities, there is considerable 

stigma and barriers that make it difficult for students to reestablish themselves back in mainstream school 

once they have been suspended to an alternative school. 

These practical experiences led CCA, in collaboration with the Syracuse School District, to develop 

the "Strategies for Success" to reduce school pushout. The program and its outcomes are described at the 

close of this testimony. 

First, however, we wish to share with you the comments made by students suspended from school. 

These statements are drawn from our research based on interviews with young people who spent time in 

an alternative school. The study involved lengthy interviews with 25 students (12 boys and 13 girls), most 

of whom were 14 years old: 76 percent were African American and 20 percent were Latino/a. The 

interviews provide poignant evidence that the use of harsh punishment in addressing student misbehavior 

fails to address underlying problems and erodes young people's sense of fairness and belief that adults in 

their lives care about them. The lessons that students take away from suspension are counter productive, 

sending young people messages that they are "bad" and are indeed slated to wind up in prison. 

While almost all of the young people interviewed acknowledged and took responsibility for the 

behaviors that resulted in their suspension, they were troubled by a sense that their actions were blown 

out of proportion, or that they were not given opportunity to explain the context or circumstances 

underlying their behaviors. 

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY AL TERNA TlVES, INC. 

MANHATTAN· BROOKLYN· SYRACUSE· ROCHESTER 
195 

3 

One of the young men interviewed, Carlos', when asked why he got in trouble in school, quietly 

shook his head and said simply: "Bad decisions." He went on to describe the suspension incident: 

I went with my friends .... 1 followed them downstairs ... and the next thing I know I'm at the 

stairs and there's a fire alarm. So we pulled the fire alarm and the next thing I know they 

were like "Carlos run!" I went upstairs with them and they catched us on camera. So that's 

what I was suspended for. 

Carlos quickly admitted his involvement to the school police officer but receives a different response than 

he expected: 

Officer Bovo [the school police officer] told me if I was ta cooperate that I wouldn't get in 

trouble. And I was just thinking about that the whole time - he said I wouldn't get in trouble . 

... So I thought about it when I was suspended, thinking about what happened to me. Why 

did I get kicked out? That messed me up right there. I didn't feel the same about school. I 

was thinking about dropping out and stuff. 

Carlos spent a year wasting away in alternative school. His "back story" displays the qualities that 

are overlooked by harsh school discipline. Carlos and his parents were heartbroken that suspension to 

alternative school meant he could no longer play on his high school baseball team. His' parents had dutifully 

and enthusiastically turned out for all his games. His father, he proudly told me, had a two-year college 

degree and his mom worked for the local agency that advocated and served city's small Latino population. 

They were hoping that Carlos might qualify for an athlete scholarship one day to help defray college tuition. 

The promise of his future, was not considered when Carlos was pushed out of school. 

The experience of school suspension erodes students' sense of fairness as zero tolerance policies 

leave no room to consider mitigating factors. Sadly, the young people feel they are powerless to create a 

different outcome. They believe that deck is stacked against them - the opinions of professional adults are 

privileged over their voices or even the words of their parents who are equally disempowered. A sense of 

fatalism emerges from the comments of the young people. 

Roland, for example, was suspended for possession of a knife. While this indeed sounds quite 

serious, a careful investigation of the incident revealed Roland had taken the knife from his younger 

brother, who wrongly brought the knife to school to defend himself against bullying by another student. 

Roland explained he took the knife from his brother as they exited the bus but was apprehended before he 

could turn it in to school authorities. Roland's description of his suspension incident and its aftermath is 

especially poignant showing a young man who took responsibility, was aware of school rules, yet was 

confused about why adults could not use any discretion to apply a less harsh punishment. Roland 

described his response when he was told that he was suspended for school for a year: 

I know that they [Principal and Hearing Officer] literally had no chOice but to send me to 

alternative school because it [the knife] was in my possession. They even said to me that 

they know I didn't do nothing wrong, but if my hand touches the knife then they have no 

choice but to send me out. 

"'The names of youth and othlHS have been changed toprotectconftden tiality. 

CEl':TER .·OR COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC. 

MASHATTAN' BROOKLYN' SYRACUSE' ROCHESTER 
196 

4 

But when they said that they were gonna suspend me, that's what had got me upset. I 

started crying because I didn't understand the fact that me getting suspended just for 

taking the knife away from my brother, because if I didn't take it away from him, it could 

have been worse. So actually I thought that, ya' know, personally myself, I thought that I 

was doing the right thing by taking the knife awoy from him. 

So I think that personally, I shouldn't really have gotten, ya know, really, be serving time in 

the alternative school ar shauldn't really have gatten suspended for something that ya' 

knaw, I really was, I thought that I was doing the right thing. They tald me that ya' know, 

they knew I was daing the right thing, but still it's the simple fact that the knife was in my 

hand. 

It is easy to ignore, understate or dismiss the cruelty of suspension if we learn about this only 

through newspaper reports or even data documenting the extent of the problem. At almost 6 feet tall, 

Roland did not present an image of a child who would break down crying in school. Yet at the time of his 

suspension, Roland was only 13 and still clinging to the belief that adults can help solve problems, listen to 

and care about kids. He was still a child, just entering adolescence with many developmental hurdles to 

jump over. It has become too easy to forget that 13 year olds are still children and instead think of them as 

dangerous, disruptive or "super predators" and deserving of isolation and exclusion. Yet talking to the kids, 

hearing the catch in their voices as they ponder why so many adults think they are "bad" readily puts a 

human face on the destructive zero tolerance policies. 

Most of the young women interviewed were suspended for fighting over seemingly trivial issues, 

"he said she said" or more accurately "she said, she said" arguments over boys, reputation, and social 

position. Fighting makes up the single most common reason that students are suspended or expelled from 

school. It is difficult to tell whether these behaviors are more serious than what was once thought of as 

school yard scraps or whether the increase in suspensions is another manifestation of moral panic about 

adolescent behavior. What is clear to the young people interviewed for our study, is that in meting out 

suspensions, school authorities often do not learn about what caused the fight, nor are restorative justice 

interventions that might quell gossip and fighting offered. 

Kendra's story exemplifies another lost opportunity to intervene in ways that could prevent 

suspension and help young people gain skills to settle disputes without resorting to physical violence. Her 

suspension for fighting was preceded by harassment from other girls. Both she and her mother complained 

about the situation without any intervention and Kendra felt she had to fend for herself: 

I was telling administratars. I was telling principals, the vice principals. I was telling the 

teachers and nobody believed me. I wauld came to school crying every morning because 

they [other girls] wauld beat me up and they [school authorities] thought it was just an act. 

As a result of the fight, Kendra went through a Superintendent's Disciplinary Hearing where she felt 

she had no opportunity to explain the circumstances: 

They [the hearing officers] said, "What happened?" But when you go to stuff [the hearing] 

like that, you got like tell them what they want to hear. Like yau gat to tell them that you 

really did it and you are guilty. Because they don't want to hear 'Oh, I didn't do it.' They 

want to hear that you did it and now you got to bepunished for it. 

Another young woman interviewed, lena was also was suspended for fighting with another young 

women and she too was sent to an alternative school for one-year. When asked about her suspension, she 

admitted she was fighting but could no longer even remember what set off the incident: 

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY AL TERNA TIVES, INC. 

MANHATTAN' BROOKLYN' SYRACUSE' ROCHESTER 
197 

5 

It was over something stupid. I think like she like kind of pushed me to the edge and I like I 

started the fight but there was a lot of stuff building up to it. I just snapped. I guess I was 

at the end of my rope. 

As was learned later in the interview, lena had recently gone through life experiences that might make 

even a mature adult "snap." Her father had died the year before from a heart attack: in his 40s, this 

premature death underscores the myriad of ways that poverty, including lack of health care, is a major 

factor in the lives of young people pushed out of schools. Three months before her suspension, lena's 

brother was shot to death while he was attending a community "Stop the Violence Rally." lena described 

these events in a voice was seemingly without emotion, yet with tears streaming unchecked down her 

cheeks: 

My brother was at a Stop the Violence ceremony for his friend that had passed away and 

some guys came in and they were shooting and he got shot. 

But when lena was suspended for fighting because she was "at the end of her rope," neither the 

teacher who broke up the fight, the principal who suspended her, nor the hearing officer who determined 

her year-long suspension considered whether the rope was frayed by the recent murder of her brother or 

premature death of her father. The story of lena underscores the need for school-based resources that 

could support students through personal and family life crises. 

lena went on to describe her experience at the Disciplinary Hearing: 

It was kind of scary. I'd never been to one before. It was jusL.it was just like I was in there. 

The lady [Hearing Officer] was nice and then they had like a recorder and they recorded 

everything and asked why everything happened, - why it happened and did I want to go to 

an alternative school? Of course I didn't, but you know, I was scared to talk. I don't 

remember much about the hearing. I know she asked me if I did want to go and finally I told 

her that I didn't. And I'm not sure what happened next. I don't remember too much but I 

was sent to [the alternative school]. I think they looked at my attendance and like it was my 

first year and I skipped a lot helping my mother deal who was stressing because of my 

father and brother. And so I think they looked at me and said, well she's probably not a 

good kid. 

As with many of the young people I interviewed, lena concluded that her exclusion from 

mainstream school was a rejection of her as a person, her humanity, not just a response to a particular 

behavior. This underscores the harm that school push out does to the young people as explained by a 

young man named Rayquan who was given a one-year suspension for having a pen knife: 

It makes people feel like they can't do nothing with their life. They just drop out. ... 1 went to 

an alternative school, After I felt ain't nobody gonna want to toke me back ... If you write 

alternative school on your papers, the schools you went, to they look up your record. You 

might not even get into college2

. People out hear that you been suspended to alternative 

school gonna doubt you. 

2Rayquan's assessment that colleges consider school disciplinary hearings is correct. The Common Application as well 

as an increasing number of colleges and universities ask applicants to disclose high school disciplinary records. See 

Weissman, M., et.al. 2010. The use of criminal history records in college admissions .. Center for Community 

Alternatives, Inc. website: http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/Reconsidered-criminal-hist-recs-in-collegeadmissions. pdf 

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY AUERl'iA TIVES, INC. 

MANHATTAN· BROOKLYN· SYRACUSE· ROCHESTER 
198 

6 

Another young man interviewed, Kwame gave a particularly troubling answer to how he felt when he was 

suspended from school. He told me that he was suspended for "persistent disobedience," adding, "They 

just got tired of me." This was his reaction to his alternative school placement: 

Alternatives school is for kids that don't know how to make the right 

choices and kids who don't know what they going to do with their lives and 

just be bad in school for no apparent reason and get in trouble all the time 

and all that stuff. I don't think that I belonged there. I want to go to regular 

school ... I know that at a regular school I have more chances of either 

getting scholarship so I can go to college, or going to college instead of not 

going to college and nat try to help my family to get out of a bad place. 

Damian, suspended for attempting to leave the school building without permission, had a similar reaction: 

It made me feel worthless ... Because teachers used to tell me that and junk. 

Like when you feel bad already and they tell you that you need to do this or 

you ain't going to be nothing. You going to be like a gang member. You 

going to be in jail or dead. That makes you feel worse. And I think that's 

what makes kids drop aut of school faster and start gangs and stuff. That's 

why a lot of young kids like my age don't care. They just want to make 

money and all this other dumb things, just to prove a point that they aren't 

worthless. I think that's what they feel. 

The interviews with students suspended from the Syracuse City School District leaves little doubt 

that school suspension is an iatrogenic solution to misdiagnosed problems. The call to end school pushout 

should not be interpreted as a lack of concern about ensuring that schools are safe places for both students 

and teacher. According such researchers as Russ Skiba and professional groups including the American 

Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Council of State Governments and the 

American Bar Association, there is no empirical evidence that shows that the harsh discipline and 

punishment- is effective in improving school safety. Harsh discipline in fact seems to contribute to the 

further deterioration of educational outcomes regarding student achievement and drop out rates. In 

contrast, a growing body of research shows that schools that do not rely on law enforcement, metal 

detectors and harsh discipline, but instead use restorative justice practices and school-wide efforts to 

improve school relationships have better educational outcomes. 

Finally, students interviewed were able to identify interventions and approaches that helped them. 

Most were grounded in adults who had time and patience to show they cared by providing both additional 

academic help and/or emotional support. Kwame's statement captures the essence of what makes a 

difference: 

The principal, Ms. Lark, she mad nice. She was helping me out, like if I had a problem. I go to 

her and I would talk about the problem. She was just like, mad nice. She was just a nice 

person. [I would talk to her] Like if somebody was bothering me. I would talk to her about it. 

Like if} wanted to go the dance and I didn't have no money, she would pay my way to the 

dance. She would make sure that I would do good so that I could go to the dance . ... She 

cared about me. It made me feel good. Like at least somebody wanted to see me do good. 

Reducing School Pushout: The Strategies for Success Program 

Program Description 

CE"iTER FOR COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC. 

MANHATTAN· BROOKLYN· SYRACUSE· ROCHESTER 
199 

7 

After many years of working with you ng people sent to alternative schools, seeing them cycle in 

and out of these schools, and often drop out of school and end up in the justice system, CCA, in partnership 

with the Syracuse City School District, created the Strategies for Success Program (SfS or Strategies). The 

program was funded by the U.S. Department of Education from 2000 -2004 in an initiative explicitly 

directed to reducing school suspensions. The Strategies for Success program served middle school students 

su bjected to one-year suspensions and placement in Syracuse City School District alternative schools. 

Strategies used a multifaceted, integrated approach, embedding social supports into the school 

environment and extending these supports into the community and family. CCA staff worked in close 

collaboration with school principals, teachers and staff, fostered connections to families and involved youth 

in comprehensive, youth development services. The program enrolled students placed in alternative 

schools and continued after their return to a mainstream school. During their stay at alternative school, 

youth compiled portfolios that documented their achievements. These portfolios accompanied students 

when they were allowed to return to mainstream school in an effort to accentuate the student's 

accomplishments and mitigate the stigma of alternative school placement. Transitional support helped 

students cope with their placement in an alternative school and to successfully re-engage in mainstream 

school and reduce the very high resuspension rates common to young people returning from long term 

suspension. 

SfS offered after school and other youth development activities to students with few such positive 

opportunities. Alternative schools have no extracurricular activities that are often the glue that cements 

student attachment to school. They have no sports teams, no clubs, and no school newspaper. SfS made 

an effort to fill this gap through a range of "youth-centered" activities, designed with input from the youth 

that gave them opportunities to be active leaders and creators. For example, students suggested that the 

availability of a sound studio where youth could record hip hop music would entice after school 

participation even for students who were reluctant to regularly attend school. In keeping with a youth 

leadership approach, students established the rules governing the use of the sound studio, including 

avoiding content that would promote or celebrate violence. To hone their skills as song writers, students 

participated in a poetry writing workshop. Youth produced a CD and poetry anthology that was premiered 

at the annual Youth Banquet attended by youth, teachers, and parents. 

The SfS program also engaged parents by serving as a liaison between the youth, parent, 

alternative school, and mainstream school, and by providing support to parents and youth so they could 

identify and resolve barriers that stand in the way school success. Staff met with parents at locations most 

convenient to them - home, our offices, in school and the community. The program hosted monthly parent 

support groups and special events where parents could see their children in active, leadership roles. 

Program Outcomes 

CCA conducted an outcome evaluation that looked at pre- and post-program suspension rates, 

attendance rates, and grades for SfS participants and a comparison group of students. We compared the 

status of the youth at baseline (i.e., entry into alternative school) and two years after program 

participation. Students in both the program and the comparison group (students enrolled in the 

alternative school, but not the SfS program) were predominantly male and African American. They were 

poor, as measured by their eligibility for free lunch (97 percent program group; 93 percent comparison 

group). Seventy-three (73) percent of the program group had a grade point average below 70, compared to 

68 percent of the comparison group. 

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC. 

MANHATTAN' BROOKLYN' SYRACUSE· ROCHESTER 
200 

8 

Key outcomes examined were res us pension rates, attendance rates and justice-system involvement 

for both Strategies program participants and the comparison group: 

Resuspension: SfS participants showed a 64 percent reduction in resuspension to alternative school 

over the two-year period compared to an 18 percent increase in resuspension among the 

comparison group. 

Attendance: SfS participants saw a 6 percent improvement in attendance rates, while the 

attendance rates forthe comparison group declined by 6 percent. 

Justice System Involvement 91 percent of SfS completer vs. 86 percent of the comparison group 

were convicted of a delinquent or criminal offense during the two year evaluation period. Ofthose 

youth who were convicted of an offense, SfS participants were less likely to receive a custodial! 

incarceration sentence (1 percent of SfS completers compared to 5 percent of the comparison 

group). 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

The Strategies for Success is but one program that shows promise for reducing school suspensions 

and improving outcomes for youth who would be caught in the school-to-prison pipeline. Ending school 

push out is within our reach: there are models across the country that could be taken to scale and the 

young people interviewed indicate that they would welcome educational settings that give them 

opportunities to learn. Examples of programs, policies and practices include restorative justice such as 

practiced in Vanguard High School in Manhattan where the school's "Fairness Committee" comprised of 

teachers and students sort out the "she said/she said" disputes that were especially common among the 

girls whom I interviewed. Each party to the dispute gets a chance to tell his or her side of the story, with the 

facilitators asking clarifying questions and moving the discussion to solutions to the dispute. Positive 

Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is an approach that has been introduced in more than 9,000 

schools around the country. In 2007, pushed by a parent-led group, CADRE, the Los Angeles Unified School 

District passed a new district wide student discipline policy that is based on positive behavior support and 

developmentally appropriate discipline rather zero tolerance. In 2009, the Texas State Legislature passed a 

law that modifies zero tolerance policies requiring districts to take into account mitigating or extenuating 

circumstances when considering student misbehavior. We do not lack for models of programmatic 

approaches. Websites hosted by federal agencies including the U.S. Department Education (What Works 

Clearinghouse), and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention (Model 

Programs Guide) have comprehensive lists and information about model programs and evidence-based 

practices. The Dignity in Schools Campaign has produced the Model Code on Education and Dignity that 

provides information and tools for schools to adapt and use to reduce school push out. 

In conclusion, the Center for Community Alternatives supports recommendations to Congress put 

forth by the Dignity in Schools Campaign of which we are a member: 

Annually collect and report school discipline and climate data for all schools including the 

disaggregation by race, gender, special education status, socioeconomic status and English 

proficiency with cross tabulations for deeper analysis. The Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students 

Act (S. 919, Harkin) provides useful guidance on data collection under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, the Gun-Free Schools Act, and the Civil Rights Data Collection, Congress 

and the US Department of Education should be disaggregated by race, gender, special educational 

status. socioeconomic status, and English proficiency, and cross-tabulated to allow for more 

insightful review .. 

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC. 

MANHATTAN' BROOKLYN' SYRACUSE' ROCHESTER 
201 

9 

Use high disciplinary rates and disparities to trigger support - not punishment -from local and 

state educational agencies. Examples of the ways to track and use data to constructively help 

schools improve are available in Representative George Miller's Amendment to the Student 

Success Act (H.R. 3989, Kline). 

Provide increased support for best practices in improving school discipline and climate through 

legislation such as The Restorative Justice in Schools Act (H.R. 415, Cohen) and the Positive 

Behavior for Safe and Effective Schools Act (H.R. 3165, Davis/Platts) (federal support for training 

schools and teachers in the best practices) and The Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students Act (S. 

919, Harkin) (calling for the use of school data on bullying, harassment, and disCipline to target 

support for implementing these best practices as well). 

Support the development of comprehensive local or regional strategies to reduce the use of 

exclusionary discipline and the number of youth entering the justice system by Congressional 

funding of community based solutions, such as Strategies for Success program that was introduced 

with federal support. The Youth Promise Act (H.R. 2721, Scott) would help support this purpose. 

Conduct an annual, universal Civil Rights Data Collection with higher reporting fidelity by 

requiring more frequent collections involving all schools, making school district data reporting a 

requirement included in federal education grants and funding. 

Require state and district grant and waiver recipients to address high and/or disparate rates of 

discipline by making this a requirement to all Department of Education grant and waiver programs, 

including ED's Elementary and Secondary Education Act Flexibility Waivers. 

Promptly release gUidance on school districts' civil rights obligations for school diSCipline th rough 

legal and technical guidance for addressing disparities in school diScipline provided by Department 

of Education and Department of Justice including standards of liability under Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964. 

Place meaningful restrictions on federal grants for school policing including the DOJ-funded 

Community Oriented Policing Services that require training on adolescent development, the impact 

of suspension and arrest on future outcomes of children and the emphasis on social work and 

mental health supports in school that would make police officer intervention the action of last 

resort. 

We again thank the Chair, the Ranking Member and all Committee Members for your attention to 

this critically important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Marsha 

~~W~ Weissman, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

Center for Community Alternatives 

CENTER FOR COMMU"ITY ALTERNATIVES, INC. 

MANHATTAN· BROOKLYN· SYRACUSE· ROCHESTER 
202 

CENTER FOR LAW AND EDUCATION 

Contact: Paul Weckstein, Co-Director 

(202) 986-3000 

p\n~ckstein (I c1c\\ 'cb.org 

\\ w';'.c1ewl'b.org 

American Bar Association Calls for Action on Right to High-Quality Education 

The American Bar Association - the primary organization of American lawyers, with over 400,000 members - is 

calling for action by school districts, states, and the federal government to secure the right of every child to a highquality education. It also asks the nation's attorneys and bar associations to assist in securing that right through 

improving law and policy~ through representation of students and their families, and through community legal 

education to foster better understanding of existing laws related to rights to quality education, 

The Center for Law and Education played a major leadership role in this multi-year effort, Paul Weckstein, codirector ofthe Center for Law and Education and member of the ABA's Commission on Youth at Risk that sponsored 

the resolutions, was principal author of the recommendations approved by the ABA and of the submitted reports that 

accompany them, Weckstein said, "We are very excited about the ABA's push for changes in education law, policy, 

and implementation and by its call upon the lawyers ofthe nation to join the effort to fulfill the right to quality 

education." 

At its annual meeting, the ABA adopted on August 3,d, 2009, three sets of recommendations on the right to highquality education, In introducing them, Laura Farber, the Commission's chair, invoked the promise of equal 

educational opportunity in Brown v. Board of Education that remains to be fulfilled: "Children should have a right to 

a high quality education that will prepare them for productive work and for contributions to our communities and to 

our society. Many children still do not have that opportunity; many individuals, students, parents, and organizations 

... do not understand the laws in place and their ability to participate in decisions that affect their right to education." 

The. first of the sets of recommendations and accompanying reports is aimed at ensuring tile rigll/ to a high-quality 

educational program, provided to all, and calls for federal, state, and local action to spell out core elements of that 

right to quality education, to ensure that all schools provide those elements to every child, and to implement and 

enforce existing provisions oflaw targeted at enabling students and parents to effectuate their rights to quality 

education and to participate fully in decisions affecting them. Available at 

www.cleweb.org!sitesldefaultifiles!ABA.1 18A.RighttoHigh-QualitvProgram.pdf 

The second set is aimed at securing the r;ghtto remain in "eltooi. It seeks to change the policies and conditions 

which often lead children to drop out of school. It also seeks to reduce the removal of students from instruction as a 

result of disciplinary exclusion or police and court referral in response to school-related behavior. Available at 

w\\w.cleweb.orQ/sitcs/defitultifiles/ABA.118B.RighttoRemaininSchool.pdf 

The third set seeks to secure for all youth who have left or been excluded from school or are incarcerated the right to 

resume their education in a high-quality, age-appropriate program that enables them to graduate and prepare for 

higher education. Available at 

http://c!eweb.org/sites!default/filcs/ABA.118C.RiD.:httoResumeEducation%)20~o2R I %29.pdf 

Weckstein emphasized that "A rights-based approach to school reform - by focusing on what students, their families, 

and communities can actually count on from their schools in the way of a high-quality education, and on what we 

need to do in order to achieve the results we want for kids - is crucial to making reforms real." He noted: '''In our 

ongoing work on thcse issues, including assistance with an educational quality bill of rights spelling out elements of a 

high-quality program, as called for by the ABA, in areas such as curriculum, instruction, and individual student 

attention, we at CLE are looking forward to collaborating with the ABA and others in our efforts to help educators, 

parents, students, communities and advocates make the right to high-quality education a reality." 

About the Cenler for Law and Education: 

CLE is a national organintion with offices in Boston and Washington DC. It strives to make every child's right to highquality public education a reality throughout the nation and to enable communities to improve their schools and address their 

own public education problems effectively. CLE works on school reform from a rights-based perspective through the 

development offedeml law and policy and through implementation assistance to communities, schools, districts, and states. 
203 

CENTER FOR LAW AND EDUCATION 

99 Chll.ulIcy Street, Suite700 

Boston,MA02111 

(617)451-0855 

FAX: (671)451-0857 

The Honorable Dick Durbin, Chairman 

Decem ber 10, 2012 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Ending the School-to~Pri50n Pipeline Hearing 

Dear Senator Durbin, 

Reply to: 

1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 510 

Wasningtoll,DC20009 

(202)986-3000 

FAX; (202)986-6648 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. For more than four decades, the Center for Law and 

Education (CLE) has strived to make the right of all students to quality education a reality throughout the 

nation and to help enable communities to address their own public education problems effectively, with an 

emphasis on assistance to !ow~income students and communities, 

Much of our work over this tim e has been in two broad areas - (1) improving both pollcy and 

implementation to secure high-quality academic programming for students, including work on school 

reform at national, state, and local levels, and (2) representation of students (particularly low~income 

students, students of color, and students with disabilities) who are faced with exclusion from educational 

opportunities, including through disciplinary actions, In seeking to end the school-to~prison pipeline, we 

believe - based on both experience and research - that the interaction between these two areas is critical, 

Students who are vulnerable to being pushed out of school, including those who end up with police and 

court involvement, typically first have a long history of growing disengagem ent with the academ ic program. 

Providing engaging and rigorous high~quanty education is one of the most important com ponents of a 

strategy to end the pipeline, 

We want to draw your attention to three interconnected policies on the right to quality education that were 

formally adopted by the American Bar Association (ABA) in 2009 -- one on the right to a high-quality 

academ ic program ,lone of the right to rem ain in school,2 and one on the right of those who are not in 

school to resume education in a high-quality program (including those who are or have been 

incarcerated).3 The three policies and related reports provide detailed strategies and roadmaps for 

addressing these issues, and they draw on relevant research, While calling for new policies, they also 

point to ways that existing laws - particularly Title I and the civil rights laws could be much better utilized 

toward the goals. They also provide a cal! to bar associations and attorneys throughout the nation to work 

to advance the policies. We are attaching a one·page cover statement The three ABA policies/reports 

themselves are available at the !inks below, 

CLE staff (participating on the ABA Com mission on Youth at Risk) served as prim ary author of the policies 

and reports that the ABA adopted. We urge you to make use of these documents, CLE would very much 

welcome the chance to work with you and your staff on that endeavor. 

Sincerely, 

(i:JJ£t~ 

Paul Weckstein and Kathleen B. Boundy, Co·Directors 

, www,cleweb,orglsitesldefaultifilesIABA, 11 BARighttoHigh-QualityProgram ,pdf 

2 www.c!eweb.orgfsitesfdefault/fHes/ABA.118B.RighttoRemaininSchooLpdf 

3 www.cleweb.org/sitesfdefaultifiles/ABA.118C .RighttoResum eEducation%20%281 %29,pdf 
204 

I NSTITUTE FOR 

RACE & JUSTICE 

The Honorable Richard Durbin, Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Durbin: 

December 10, 2012 

I write to you as the Director of Sttategic Planning at the Charles Hamilton Houston 

Institute for Race and Justice (CHHIRJ) at Harvard Law School. I respectfully submit the following 

statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning its hearing, scheduled for December 12, to 

End the J chool to Plison Pipelim. I applaud the Judiciary Committee for reaching out to stakeholders to 

learn more about this issue, and for seeking information about alternatives to harsh disciplinary 

policies in schools that are unnecessarily pushing our nation's most vulnerable students out of 

school and into the criminal justice system. 

By way of a brief introduction, CHHIRJ was founded by Professor Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., 

Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, in 2005 to honor and continue the unfinished legacy of one of the 

great legal giants of the 20,h century, Charles Hamilton Houston. The Institute conducts policy and 

legal analysis, and regularly convenes meetings, roundtables and conferences. We initiate 

partnerships with law firms, advocacy organizations, and other academic institutions around specific 

issues. Ultimately, the Houston Institute creates a bridge between knowledge and action. While 

adhering to the most rigorous standards of academic scholarship, we are equally committed to 

ensuring that such knowledge is accessible and useful to policy makers, practitioners and the general 

public. 

Dismantling the school to prison pipeline has been central to the agenda and mission of the 

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice since its inception. A summary of the 

work we have done related to this issue includes: 

1. Hosting numerous community events which highlighted research, practice, policy and 

promising programs aimed at reducing exclusionary discipline in public schools 

2. Forging an award-winning partnership with the Center for Law and Education and 

Choate, Hall and Stewart, a Boston-based law firm, to create a pro bono project in which 

lawyers are trained to represent low-income students at suspension and expulsion 

hearings. 

3. Publishing several policy briefs that offer research and policy synthesis on aspects of the 

pipeline. "First, Do No Harm" focuses on the role and impact of school resource 

1 
205 

officers in educational environments. "A Seamless ',X'cb" identifies alternatives to zero 

tolerance and "A Better Balance \Vheel" examines how we can create more inclusive 

schools by ameliorating impoverished neighborhood conditions and addressing racial 

bias. 1 

4. Organizing and co-sponsoring, with the Children's Defense Fund and other 

organizations, a Cradle to Prison Pipeline meeting aimed at creating coalitions in 

Massachusetts to dismantle the pipeline. 

S. Co-sponsoring aod hosting a conference on restorative justice with other organizations 

based in Massachusetts. 

6. Working with a national team of researchers to design interventions aimed at reducing 

implicit racial bias among officials working in schools with large proportions of students 

of color. 

Defining the School to Prison Pipeline 

Before I outline several broad policy recommendations, I first define our understanding of 

the term "the school to prison pipeline." At the Houston Institute, we associate the term with two 

related phenomenon: (1) the increasing use of "zero tolerance" discipline policies in public schools 

that establish mandatory or predetermined punishments for certain behaviors; and (2) the increasing 

practice of arresting or criminally citing students for school-based behaviors. Both are described 

below. 

1. Increasing use of zero tolerance policies: High visibiliry shootings in schools, most notably 

Columbine in 1999, created a wave of fear about violence in schools throughout the country. 

This fear was exacerbated by aggressive "tough on crime" rhetoric about juveniles nationally, 

including the infamous use of the term "supetpredator," and the passage of new laws 

stiffening penalties against them in every state. In response, the use of "zero tolerance" and 

other exclusionary discipline practices skyrocketed in public schools across the country 

during the 1990s and first decade of the 21" century. 

According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Education, more than 3 million children 

in grades K-12 were suspended at least once during the 2009-2010 school year. 'This 

represents a 7.4 percent increase in suspensions since 2000, and a doubling of the rate of 

suspensions since 1974. As overall numbers of students excluded from school increased, so 

have the racial disparities, with black males the group most harshly punished. Nationally, in 

2009, black students were 3.5 times more likely to be suspended as white students. In some 

states, black suspension rates are as high as 25 percent'. Moreover, African Americans made 

up 46 percent 0 f those students who were suspended more than once. During the 2009-2010 

school year, 39 percent of all expulsions were of black students even though they 

represented only 18 percent of enrolled students at sampled schools' The vast majority of 

these punishments were for relatively minor misbehaviors, including dress code violations, 

1 Much of the research and analysis cited in this statement is derived from information contained in these publications. 

Full briefs arc available at: \\'\Y\\'.chadcshamiltonbouston.orp. 

'''Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion From School." "~ugust 2012, Civil Rights 

Project, p, 14. Available online at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla,edu/resources/projects/center-for-dvil-rightsremedies / school-to-prison-folder/ federal-reports! upcoming-cerr -research 

J Ibid. 

4"Rescarchers Sound Alarm Over Black Student Suspensions," August 2012, Educatiol1lF'eek 

2 
206 

truancy, tardiness, disrespect, and insubordination. 'Suspension rates are highest in urban 

districts that enroll a disproportionate share of students of color. 

These racial disparities become more disturbing when we examine the differences in 

punishments for similar offenses. In his study, "The Color of Discipline: Understanding and 

Addres.rinc~ Racial Inequity in Schoo! Punishment," 6 Russell Skiba and colleagues at Indiana 

University reviewed disciplinary data from all middle school students (11,001) in a large 

Midwestern urban school district. They found that African American students are referred 

to the office for less serious and more suhjective reasons than white students, and generally 

received harsher punishments than white students accused of similar offenses. The authors 

concluded that "these results argue that disproportionate representation of African 

Americans in oftice referrals, suspension and expulsion is evidence of a pervasive and 

systematic bias that may well be inherent in the use of exclusionary discipline." 

These patterns are closely related to two other issues of deep concern to the African 

American community and to society as a whole: (1) the high rates of high school dropouts 

among black males and (2) disproportionately high rates of incarceration among black males. 

Suspensions are considered one of the top three predictors of dropping out of school. In 

turn, dropping out of school triples the likelihood of being incarcerated. According to 

Harvard sociologist Bruce Western, 60% of black male high school dropouts spend some 

time in prison. 7 

2. Increasing Use of Police and Referrals to Law Enforcement for School-Based Offenses: 

The deployment of police in schools has increased dramatically during the past decade, from 

an estimated 9,446 in 1997' to a current presence of approximately 17,000 nationally.' Los 

Angeles, New York and many other cities have created their own school police agencies.lO 

As of August 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services (COPS) provided $753 million to more than 3,000 police departments to 

fund more than 6,500 school-based police officers." According to the National Association 

of School Resource Officers, school-based policing is the "fasting growing area of law 

enforcement.,,1::: 

Not surprisingly, juvenile judges and legal defenders across the country note a dramatic 

increase over the past 5-10 years in the numbers of court referrals for offenses committed by 

students while in school. In some jurisdictions, school-based referrals now comprise the 

majority of all jm-enile justice cases. The most common school-based offense for which 

students are either arrested or summoned to court is "disturbing a school assembly" which 

5 Fact Sheet on School Discipline and Pushout, Dignhy in Schools. Available online at: 

hc,!,:/ /www.dignityinschools.org/fues/DSC_PushouCPact_Sheet.pdf 

(0 Available online at http://www.indiana.edu/-safeschl/cod.pdf 

.., Western, Bruce, Punishment and lnequaiiD' in America. August 2007. Russell Sage Foundation 

13 See Randall Berger, "Expansion oEPolice Power in Public Schools and the Vanishing Rights of Students," 29 Social 

Justice No. 1-2, p. 122 (2002), based on a 2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

<;I ~ Estimate of NASRO-the National Association of School Resource Officers. 

10 Ibid. See also (Advancement Project, et.al, 2005; Mukherjee, ct. aI., 2007; Balmer, et.a1., 2006) 

11 U.S. Department of Jus rice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (200S). 

12 (NASRO, n.d.) 

3 
207 

can be broadly interpreted by school officials and police to encompass behaviors that in the 

past would not have warranted law enforcement intervention. 13 

This national-level increase in punitive school policy does not appear to be a rational 

response to increased school violence. 1be most recent government data, in fact, indicates a decline 

in school violence. Rather, some experts who have studied the widespread adoption of zero 

tolerance policies in schools suggest that the appearance of metal detectors and school police are 

intended to send a symbolic message to the community and parents. For example, in a 1995 Harvard 

Educationa! RemeU! article, New York University sociologist Pedro Noguera, posited that school zero 

tolerance policies rose concomitant with drug policies of the 1980s that enacted severe punishments 

for non-violent drug offenses. The same underlying, publicly touted logic-that getting "tough" "ill 

"send a message" to would-be perpetrators-underlies both policies. Noguera argues the real, 

unstated intention of these policies is to assure the public that schools are still in control and the 

"problem" is going to be solved. :4 

Fortunately, as the harmful impact of these punitive policies have become more well-known 

and documented, there has been, and continues to be, a growing body of research and practice 

dedicated to identifying and implementing alternative approaches to school discipline. The best and 

most promising of these strive to create climates of respect and caring in school environments, to 

address root causes of student misbehaviors, and to identify and reach out to help, rather than push 

out, students at risk of academic failure or dropping out. Below we offer a set of broad 

recommendations for how the federal government might playa role in dismantling this pipeline and 

in expanding opportunities for vulnerable children to succeed in school. 

1. Fund research and evaluation ofhest practices for creating positive, caring and 

inclusive school climates that use suspensions and expulsions only as a last resort. 

School climate influences behaviors of teachers, students, and parents alike. It is defined 

both by the physical environment and by daily human interactions that reflect the shared ideas that 

shape a particular school's identity and standards for expected behaviors. These shared ideas include 

educational philosophy, assumptions, values, beliefs, and attitudes. By observing and understanding 

school climate, we can implicitly answer such vital questions as: Is diversity valued and respected? 

Do adults feel an obligation to create a caring environment? Do students have the right to be treated 

with respect and dignity? Are parents full partners in resolving behavioral problems? School climate 

reflects the "personality of the learning environment"" and is often defined and defended as just 

"the way we do things here. '"'' It determines whether discipline policies are punitive or pro-social. 

It also communicates to parents and students whether they are welcome and supported. It 

influences teacher morale and job satisfaction. It affects how students feel about coming to school, 

their motivation and openness to learning and intellectual risk-taking, and whether or not they feel 

physically and emotionally safe. 

13 Arrested Futures, Spring 2012. Citizens for Juvenile Justice and the ACLU. Available online at: 

http://www.cfjj.org/pdf/ArrestedFutures.CfJJ·ACUi.pdf 

14 Noguera, Pedro, «Preventing and Producing Violence," I Jaroord Educational RnielJ!, 1995. Available online at: 

http://her.hepg.org/ content/ e4615g5374044q28/?p=1 01921 e 13b5a4962b275e 76ca78d7305&pi=5 

15 (perkins, 2008) 

16 (Townley, 1999) 

4 
208 

Few schools explicitly define and manage school climate. Yet a significant body of research 

shows that poor school climate negatively affects a child's ability to learn and increases the 

likelihood for truancy, misbehavior, and disciplinary challenges, while students in schools with 

healthy school climates do better academically and exhibit improved socia-emotional-behavioral 

health." We also know that students feel more "connected" to schools that have tolerant 

disciplinary policies and that schools with high suspension rates score lower on state accountabiliry 

tests and rank lower in National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement scores in 

mathematics, writing and reading than schools with lower suspension rates. 18 

2. Create incentives for schools to replace zero tolerance and other exclusionary 

disciplinary measures with alternatives that foster more positive school climates. 

Tested alternatives to suspension and expulsion include restorative justice 19 in which the 

offender, the victim and the larger community discuss the crime and determine what type of 

retribution should be paid. (Notably, the American Psychological Association suggests this as an 

alternative to zero tolerance).'o Also, trauma sensitive schools 21 focus on addressing mental health 

needs of students and creating caring, safe environments for children, with a focus on those students 

who have suffered from trauma. The most widely used alternative to suspension and expulsion is 

school-wide positive behavior intervention support (PBIS)." This program treats appropriate 

school behavior as a skill to be learned, much like an academic skill. Under this model, expectations 

are clearly communicated to students and misbehaviors trigger responses intended to teach students 

the underlying reasons for the expectation and to internalize that understanding. The Minneapolisbased Search Institute's Developmental Assets program brings together a range of people and 

organizations within a community to intentionally assess and build a particular set of resources 

associated with healthy child development. 23 

3. Create incentives and mandates for school administrators, teachers, and school 

resource officers to receive training in adolescent psychology, the effects of exposure 

to trauma and violence, and implicit racial bias. 

In the past decade, research has taught us a great deal about the differences between 

adolescent and adult brains, about the effects on children's behavior of exposure to violence and 

17 (perkins, 2008; National School Climate Center, 2008; Tableman, 2004) 

18 Fact Sheet on School Discipline and the Pushout Problem, Dignity in Schools. Available online at: 

http://www.dignityinschoo!s.org/ content/ dignity-schoo!s-campaign-fact-sheets 

19 B Baqreo C;:l.therinc. "Safe Schools: Strategies for Changing a Culture" Paper presented at the Sixth International 

Conference on Restorative Justice. Centre for Restorative Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia,Junc 1- 4, 2003. 

Vancom'er Be.; Braittn:I,:aite Valerje, Brenda 1{orrison, Eliza Ahmed and Manika Reinhart, "Researching prospects for 

restorative justice practice in schools: Tbe Life at School Survey 1996-1999" Paper presented at me Restorative Justice 

Conference, Research Scbool of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Leuven, Australia. September, 2001. 

20 APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008, "Arc Zero Tolerance ... " 

21 Massacbusetts Advocates for Children. Helping Traumatized Children I.eam: A Report and Policy Agenda. Boston, 

Massachusetts: Massachusetts Advocates for Children. October, 2005. 

22 _Maryland and Illinois are leaders in implementing PElS statev.;de and received funding from national and state level 

health and human services agencies. See, for example, \\\\\\'.pbismaryland.orr By 2011, Illino1s' PBIS Network hopes to 

have the program implemented in 1,200 schools. http://u,"\\\\·,pblsillinois.O!",r-/ 

23 http;//www.search~instit111e.org/ 

5 
209 

trauma, and about how implicit, or unconscious, racial bias may affect actions and decisions. Yet, 

few teachers, administrators and school resource officers who interact wirh youths daily, and who 

make life-altering decisions about their futures, are prov;ded with training about these scientific 

developments. Such knowledge is particularly critical as these adult decision-makers weigh the 

consequences for students of such subjective behaviors as "insubordination," or "disobedience," or 

"disruption of school assembly" where judgment, discretion and bias could well be in play. 

For example, a teacher may say she does not think that her African American students are 

more prone to ,~olence than her white students, and she may truly believe that she holds that view. 

However, because of images or conditioning from a variety of sources over many years, she may 

hold wholly unconscious negative feelings about African Americans rhat do indeed affect her actions 

and interpretations of incidents invoh~ng her students. Research from the field of cognitive science 

demonstrates that people tend to make unconscious associations between African Americans and 

crime, among other negative characteristics. 24 Helping educators understand their hiases is the first 

step in helping them overcome them. 

Project Implicit, an outgrowth of scientific work on implicit bias, offers educators and others 

tailor-made materials for courses. http://www.projecrimpIicit.net/services.php Through its 

program, Teaching Tolerance, the Atlanta-based Southern Poverty Law Center incorporates the use 

of the lAT test in its professional development materials. http://www.tolerance.oq;!acti,·ih'itestyourself-hidden-bias States and the federal government could offer incentives for local districts to 

pilot such programs in their schools. 

3. Fund more school-based health clinics and full-service school models 

An extensive body of research documents the impact of undetected and untreated socioemotional-hehavioral problems, basic health problems (i.e., vision, dental, and hearing), and parental 

engagement on school success. Researchers, practitioners, and advocates also highlight the 

continuing challenge of making quality basic health services affordable and accessible to all children 

and families in need-particularly children who live in areas of concentrated disadvantage. 

According to research compiled by the Center for Health and Health Care in Schools, 75 percent of 

children in need of mental health services do not get the help they need.25 Children of color not 

only have less access to mental health services and are less likely to receive needed care, but they 

often receive a poorer quality of mental health care. Of those children fortunate enough to receive 

care, 70 to 80 percent receive it in a school setting. Yet, only about 60 percent of the nation's 1,500 

school-based health centers have mental health professionals on staff. 

24 'see, e.g., Ted Chiricos, Kelly Welch & Matc Gertz, Racial Typification rifC,ime and Support for Ptmitil!e Afeasures, 42 

CRI~H}':OIDGY 358-390 (2004), In this study, researchers examined the extent to which people associate crime ,-vith 

African Americans. The '<racism" that the authors noted in this study "eschews overt expressions of racial superiority 

and hostility but instead sponsors a broad anti-_African American effect that equates African Americans \\lith a variety of 

negative traits of which crime is certainly one. This study demonstrates that the equation of race and crime is a 

significant sponsor of the punitive attitudes that arc given material substance in the extraordinary rates of incarceration 

now found in the United States." 

25 (Center for Health Care and Health Care in Schools, n.d) 

6 
210 

Nearly ten years ago, researchers from the Urban Institute pointed to school-based health 

centers as a "sorely underutilized,,'6 resource that should be the focal point for the delivery of 

prevention intervention services.'? The researchers noted that despite the many strengths of the 

school-based health centers-including popularity with parents and students, ability to provide care 

for students without access to regular providers, and capacity to provide a wide range of services in a 

convenient setting-lack of a reliable funcling base posed a significant obstacle to its ability to 

address the mental and physical health care needs of disadvantaged youth. 

Another highly promising model of integrated, community-based service is the Full-Service 

School Model. These are defined as "community-based efforts to coorclinate educational, 

developmenta~ family, health, and other comprehensive services through community-based 

organizations and public and private partnerships." The demand for coorclinated and/or co-located 

services that integrate education, public healtb, mental health, social services, transportation, 

child care, recreation, enrichment and other community based resourCes has been echoing in the U.S. 

for more than a decade since Joy Dryfoos' seminal 1994 publication, Full-Sen,;ee Scbools: A Revolution 

ill Health and Social Sennees for Children, Youtb, and Families, but has still not been actualized to scale. 

Conclusion: Adopt Public Health Models in Schools 

In summation, the Houston Institute supports, when possible, the adoption in our public 

schools of approaches that use a public health, rather than law enforcement, orientation toward 

students, particularly in high poverty schools where students frequently present a host of emotional 

and physical challenges that make traditional learning in classrooms clifficult. Such an orientation 

requires that adults working with youths-teachers, school resource officers, school 

administrators-receive training in adolescent psychology and development, in the impact of 

implicit racial and ethnic bias, and in more fully understancling behaviors of students who have 

experienced trauma or been exposed to violence. It also requires a commitment on the part of 

elected and school officials to prioritize investments in health and mental health services in schools 

over investments in metal detectors, surveillance equipment, and police deployment. All available 

research tells us that "front end" investments that expand opportunities and likelihood of success 

for vulnerable students are far more cost-effective than "back end" ones emphasizing punishment 

and exclusion. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of the Charles Hamilton 

Houston Institute for Race and Justice. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-495-8087 or at 

jwald@iIaw.haITard.edu if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Johanna M. Wald 

Director of Strategic Planning 

16 (Eisen, M., Pallitto, C. & Bradner, C., 1999, online chapter 1, paragraph 10) 

Ibid. 

" See Gov.track.us (http//w\Vw.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2323) for text. 

7 
211 

Chicago lawyers' Committee 

for Civil Rights Under law, Inc. 

Chicago's Partnership for Equal Justice 

December 10, 2012 

U,S. Senate Committee on the judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Stephanie _ Trifone@Judiciary-dem.Senate.gov 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on ending the schoolto-prison pipeline before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary. We are writing on behalf of the Chicago Lawyers' 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the public interest law consortium of Chicago's leading 

firms. Our organization has first-hand experience with the school-to-prison pipeline and urges 

the committee to resolve to keep students in our schools, and not in prisons. 

In Brown v. Board of Education, Earl Warren famously stated that "[iJt is doubtful that 

any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denicd the opportunity of an 

education."IYet today in Chicago, a black male student with a learning disability faces a 72.5% 

chance of receiving an out-of-school suspension in a given school year. 2 When the vast majority 

of a particular demographic is systematically denied access to the most fundamental of 

opportunities, something is seriously broken. 

The Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law's Educational Equity 

Project provides pro bono representation to students in Chicago facing expulsion from public 

schools. Although students have a right to representation when facing expulsion from school, 

very few students are able to take advantage of this opportunity. Our organization has seen firsthand how much an advocate can do to help keep a student in school. But we have also seen how 

'Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, 347 US. 483, 493 (1954) 

2 Daniel J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie. Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion 

fram School. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA (August 2012), page 37. Available at 

<http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prisonfolder/federal-reports/upcoming-ccrr-research/losen-gillespie-opportunity-suspended-ccrr-2012.pdf> 

100 North LaSalle Street Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312.630.9744 (voice) 312.630.1127 (fax) 

www.clccrul.org 
212 

easy it is for a student without reprcsentation to be expelled from school despite lack of 

witnesses or even despite clear evidence of innocence. 

It is easy to gain personal experience with the school-to-prison pipeline in Chicago. 

Chicago runs one of the largest and most segregated public education systems in the country. 

The statistics are well-known and heartbreaking. Currently the dropout rate for black students is 

almost twice as high as the rate for white students, and this gap in achievement appears to be 

growing rather than shrinking. The University of Chicago Consortium on School Research 

reports that in the years since Secretary of Education William Sennett famously proclaimed 

Chicago public schools to be the worst in the nation, performance has improved across the board, 

but achievement gaps have only widened. Their report asserts that "racial gaps in achievement 

have steadily increased, with white and Asian students making marc progress than Latino 

students, and African American students falling behind all other groupS.,,3 

These disparities are further rcflected in disciplinary systems - in the past year, students 

in the Chicago public school system cumulatively lost 306,000 class days due to suspensions, 

and this has affected predominantly low-income and minority students. 4

Slack students are more 

than 3.5 times as likely to be suspended as their white peers. African-American students 

represented 45% of CPS enrollment, but 76% of students receiving at least one out-of-school 

suspension were African-American. Chicago currently has the third highest black-white 

suspension ratio among major American cities. 5 Research on the "school-to-prison pipeline" 

phenomenon suggests that disparities in discipline directly influence subsequent disparities in 

incarceration rates. 

Our office has had the chance to meet some of the students that make up these statistics, 

and to see them as real people and not merely alarming numbers. We've seen how often students 

acting out in school is the result of problems that merit support, not discipline - difficult 

challenges at home, undiagnosed learning disabilities, absent parents. We've seen the way 

students' grades drop after being out of school for even comparatively short suspensions. We've 

seen how this harsh discipline isolates and alienates children, leaving them disengaged from the 

school community and primed to drop out. At the very first sign of trouble, schools so often 

given up on precisely the children most in need of extra care and attention. 

Our office worked with one memorable student who was always articulate in private 

meetings. He talked candidly about how hard it was to be a young black male and to feel 

3 Stewart Luppescu, et. al. Trends in Chicago's Schools Across Three Eros of Reform, Consortium on Chicago School 

Research (2011). Available at <http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php ?pub_id=156.> 

'School Group Calls for Changes to CPS DiSCiplinary Policies, CBS Chicago(March 5, 2012). Available at 

<http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/student-group-calIs·for-changes-to-cps-disciplinary·policies/.> 

5Rosalind Rossi & Art Golab.Block Students face tougher discipline in Chicago and the U.S., Chicago Sun T.(March 6, 

2012). Available at <http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/11087696-418/black-students-face-tougher· 

discipline·in-chicago·and-nation-federal-analysis-finds.html>(citing a report from the Department of Education, 

Office of Civil Rights, that was based on data submitted by the Chicago Public Schools for the 2009-2010 school 

year). 

100 North LaSalle Street Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312.630.9744 (voice) 312.630.1127 (fax) 

www.clccruI.org 
213 

pressure from all sides to be tough. He explained how students were often bullied simply for 

choosing not to take drugs. He talked at length about making reflective, mindful life choices, 

and said that he had worked hard to find a small group of friends who were studious and 

responsible. Yet despite his eloquence at our meetings, when this student's expulsion hearing 

took place, all he could do was cry. 

We have seen how families, not just students, are affected. Our organization worked 

with one student whose mother left her hourly job to attend his expulsion hearing, only for us to 

discover when we showed up that the District had cancelled the hearing with no notice. The 

hearing was rescheduled, and then cancelled again at the last minute after the mother had already 

taken off work a second time. We have worked with a student whose grandmother was willing 

to accompany her to an expulsion hearing despite needing to walk on a painful hip injury to get 

there. We have even worked with a mother who had to quit her job to provide full-time 

homeschooling to her son after his expulsion, leaving the rest of her children facing severe 

financial distress. 

Although we are excited about many of the measures that the federal government has 

initiated to help fight the school-to-prison pipeline, we believe that there is much more to be 

done. The Office of Civil Rights has already begun tracking data on suspensions and expulsions, 

focusing on discrepancies in rates between students by race, gender, and disability status. While 

this is a commendable start, this data is woefully incomplete. We need a school-by-school 

breakdown, and we need a breakdown by offense. Gaps in data allow for excuse-making. The 

absence of a breakdown by individual offense and by prior disciplinary history allows 

individuals to persist in the erroneous belief that black and Hispanic students are punished more 

harshly solely because they are committing more serious offenses. More data is also needed on 

the involvement of police officers in public schools. Although some cities, like New York, 

mandate data collection on the number of arrests taking place at school, in Chicago and most 

other places data on in-school arrests is hard to come by. In order to have a rigorous discussion 

of the school-to-prison pipeline, we need data that shows how deep the inequity runs. 

The Office of Civil Rights should also be doing more to respond to official complaints. 

Organizations have had mixed success filing complaints about discipline disparities with the 

OCR. The OCR during the Obama administration has already taken positive steps toward 

increasing the number of school compliance reviews, but more needs to be done. As Russlynn 

Ali, the assistant secretary for civil rights, has herself stated "[ tjhe civil rights laws are the most 

sorely underutilized tool in education reform and closing the achievement gap.,,6 This is real 

progress, but the number of compliance reviews could be even higher. 

The federal government should also be doing more to increase funding to programs that 

provide alternatives to harsh discipline. Positive Behavioral Intervention Systems (PBIS) have 

been catching on in thousands of schools across America and have been remarkably successful. 

'Nadra Kareem Nittle. u.s. Department of Education Investigating Record Number of Civil Rights Complaints. 

America's Wire. Available at <http://americaswire.org/drupaI7 /?q=content/us-department-educationinvestigating-record-number-civil-rights-complaints>. 

100 North LaSalle Street Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312.630.9744 (voice) 312.630.1127 (fax) 

www.c1ccrul.org 
214 

PElS provides a data-driven, holistic framework that enhances academic and behavioral 

outcomes for all students. PBIS programs rely heavily on constant data monitoring to ensure that 

all behavioral interventions are having demonstrable positive effects on the school community. 

When students are unresponsive to school-wide behavioral interventions, PBIS programs work to 

implement student-specific responses that pay careful attention to (I) why the behavioral 

problem is occurring; (2) strengthening more acceptable alternative behaviors; (3) removing 

antecedents and consequences that trigger the problem behavior; and (4) adding antecedents and 

consequences that help maintain acceptable alternative behaviors. 7 Although PBIS programs 

receive some federal funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, increased 

federal involvement with PBIS programs could help expand the success of the programs to even 

more schools. 

Funding should also be increased for programs that increase re-enrollment and decrease 

dropout rates. Evidence is clear that students who face harsh punishments like suspension and 

expulsion are much more likely to drop out than their peers. 8 Students who drop out are more 

than three times as likely to face incarceration. 9 In Chicago, 28.4% of Hispanic men and 24.4% 

of black men between the ages of 19 and 24 do not have a regular high school diploma. For 

white men this number is just 4.6%.10 Adjusting back into the routines of school life after 

months or even years out of class is tremendously difficult, and students benefit from increased 

supervision during this time. Congress needs to restore funding for the Truant Alternative 

Optional Education Program (TAOEP) to $18 million. During the 2008-2009 school year, 

TAOEP funding was at $20,078,000. For the current school year it is only at $12,000,000, 

despite the fact that it provides much-needed resources that help prevent chronically truant 

students from dropping out. The federal government should also choose to fund the Illinois 

Hope and Opportunity Pathways through Education (IHOPE) program at $25 million. IHOPE 

would provide resources for re-enrolling over 5,000 high school dropouts across the state. 

Work is needed on the prison end of the school-to-prison pipeline as well. We need to 

fight for juvenile justice initiatives that focus on holistic, restorative responses. Students who are 

arrested are 50% more likely to drop out. II Combined with the high arrest rates in Chicago 

Public Schools, the school environment practically ushers students into the juvenile justice 

7 George Sugai, et. aL Applying Positive BehavioralSuppart and Functional Behavioral Assessment in Schools. 

Journal of Positive Behaviorallnteeventions, vol. 2 no. 3. (2000). 

'M.E. Goertl, J.M. Pollack, and DA Rock. Who Drops Out of High School and Why?; Findingsfrom a national 

study. Teachers Co lege Record, 87, 357-73 (1986). Available at <http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp? 

Contentld=688>. 

9 L. Lochner and E. Moretti. The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmotes, Arrests, and Self 

Reports. The American Economic Review, 94 (1), 155-189 (2004). 

10 Andrew Sum and Ishwar Khatiwada. High School Droupouts in Chicago and 1I1inois and Their Persistent Labor 

Market Problems. Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University (November 2012). 

"Failed Policies, Broken Futures: The True Cost of Zero Tolerance in Chicago, Voices of Youth In Chicago Education. 

Available at <http://www.publicinterestprojects.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/08!VOYCE-report201Lpdf.> 

100 North LaSalle Street Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312.630.9744 (voice) 312.630.1127 (fax) 

www.clccrul.org 
215 

system. 12 Rather than criminalize students for minor offenses, the juvenile justice system should 

focus more on restorative justice. Restorative justice programs help children understand the harm 

they may have inflicted, facilitate collaborative solutions, and promote awareness and 

understanding. Such programs may include peace circles, mediation, and implementing peer 

juries. 

Finally, an increased set of public-private partnerships between the federal government 

and the public-interest organizations working on these issues would be both efficient and more 

likely to lead to the best outcomes. We are tremendously pleased to be a part of this hearing, 

and hope that this can serve as the start oflong-term collaboration on the school-to-prison 

pipeline between the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights and the 

many non-profit groups doing work in this area. Our involvement at one hearing matters, but it 

should be just the beginning. 

Given this, we urge the federal government to support communities in their fight to end 

the school-to-prison pipeline. We encourage the government to work to reduce racial disparities 

in discipline, promote alternatives to harsh punishment, and ensure that all young people have 

the opportunity to succeed. 

Sincerely, 

Jay Readey 

Eve Rips 

Chicago Lawyers' Committeefor 

Civil Rights Under Law 

"The School to Prison Pipeline: A Fact Sheet. Chicago Youth Justice Project. Available at . 

<http://chiyouthjustice.files.wordpress.coml20 12/02/chicago-stpp-fact-sheet-20 10-2011.pdf> (stating that in 2010, 

there were 5, 574 juvenile arrest of youth 17 and under on Chicago Public School (CPS) property). 

100 North LaSalle Street Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312.630.9744 (voice) 312.630.1127 (fax) 

www.clccrul.org 
216 

Child Care Association of Illinois 

413 West Monroe 

Springfield, IL 62704 

217-528-4409 

Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights and Human Rights 

School Push Out and the School to Prison Pipeline 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 

The Child Care Association of Illinois thanks Senator Durbin and the members of the 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights for 

the opportunity to present written testimony on school push out and the school to prison 

pipeline. 

School Push Out and the School to Prison Pipeline: There is a clear connection 

between higher levels of educational attainment and lower levels of criminal justice 

involvement. However, school discipline policies and practices actually discourage 

educational success and push young people out of school. Zero tolerance policies and 

greater law enforcement presence on school campuses have led to practices that push 

students out of school and into the juvenile or criminal justice systems for behaviors that 

would not have led to court involvement in the past. (National Juvenile Justice Network). 

Student push out occurs through suspensions, expulsions, arrests and/or court referrals, 

drop-out or truancy. 

Although research may not be available to detail the educational history of individual 

students who flow through the school to prison pipeline, anecdotally many students who 

are pushed out of school have long standing problems at school, including unaddressed 

or unidentified special education needs, longstanding underachievement that has not 

been addressed, and attendance problems beginning in the early grades. When schools 

fail to address the needs of their students, children become marginalized from their 

school communities. Students with less positive school relationships are at higher risk 

for delinquency. 

Furthermore, school problems such as poor attendance, truancy, problem behaviors and 

underachievement can indicate family problems. Schools failure to acknowledge, 

intervene or refer kids and families for further reports allow problems to become more 

entrenched and for kids to fall further and further behind in school. 

In addition to the risk of criminal justice involvement, students pushed out of school have 

lower levels of educational achievement, leading to a lifetime of decreased wages, 

higher rates of poverty and dependence on government benefits, and communities lose 

tax revenue related to more gainful employment. Keeping kids in school is a sound 

investment - generating savings in criminal justice spending and promoting public 

safety. 
217 

National Scope: At the national level, data shows that over three million children grades 

K-12 lost instructional time in 2009-2010 due to suspension. Suspended children may 

have no adult supervision during their suspensions. Although school may claim that 

kicking "bad" kids out of school promotes leaming for other children, research actually 

suggests that lower use of out-of-school suspensions lead to high test scores. (Center 

for Civil Rights Remedies at The Civil Rights Project) National data shows the disparate 

impact of school discipline and the greater vulnerability of minority children and those 

with disabilities to school push out. For instance: 

One is six African American students are suspended compared to rates of 

1: 13 for Native Americans; 1 :14 for Latinos; 1 :20 for Whites; and 1 :50 for 

Asian American students. 

• More than 13% of students with disabilities were suspended - twice the 

rate of their non-disabled peers. This is despite the fact that special 

education students should not be suspended for behaviors that are a 

manifestation of their disabilities. 

• One out of four African American students with disabilities was 

suspended at least once (and some multiple times) during the 2009-2010 

school year. 

Illinois Specifics: Illinois has the worst disproportionate suspension rate in the nation 

with African American students being suspended at a rate of more than 21:1 compared 

to their white counterparts. 

• Cook County suspended over 18% of their student body in the 2009-2010 school 

year. 

Almost 42% of African American students with disabilities were suspended. 

Illinois Efforts to Address the School to Prison Pipeline: 

• Efforts to Reduce Truancy: Truancy is a major risk factor for delinquency in and 

of itself and young people are often referred to court for truancy even when they 

have not committed any other delinquent act pushing them further away from 

school and other "normal" or pro-social activities. Illinois passed the Truant 

Minors in Need of Supervision, which went into effect in 2006 to address growing 

numbers of young people in the delinquency system for truancy. This law 

requires schools to provide appropriate interventions to the child and family to 

reengage the student in school. If these services are not effective, additional 

community based youth services must be accessed prior to a petition being filed 

with the court. 

o Unfortunately, not all communities have embraced this graduated 

approach to addressing truancy 

o Those communities that have implemented a graduated approach to 

truancy have succeeded in reducing truancy. A series of reports in the 

Chicago Tribune highlight the success of a program in Galesburg, Illinois 

where they provide services such as simple concrete supports like alarm 

clocks and shoes to more intensive family services or mental health 

services. 

o Successful truancy programs use an array of tools to get students back in 

school including home visits and the assessment of the truancy issue. 
218 

When outreach workers can't solve problems then regional school 

authorities hold hearings for a more formal intervention. 

• Alternative Approaches: Some school districts in Illinois utilize alternative 

approaches to arresUcourt referral such as peer juries and other balanced and 

restorative justice practices that promote positive youth development. 

Some schools have taken a longer view of improving student behavior and 

promoting their students' positive relationship with the school through such 

programs as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). 

Recommendations: 

• School Districts must be required to use a graduated response to truancy that reengages students with school; 

Individual schools, districts and states need strategic plans to reduce push out, 

drop out, and truancy. Such plans should include prevention, early intervention, 

and high level intervention; 

Young people already out of school or returning to school after a period of 

confinement need to be re-engaged in educational programming; 

• Districts should be required to identify and address disparities in disciplinary 

practices and disproportionate impact; 

• Alternative approaches to arrest, suspension and expUlsion need to be 

researched to provide an evidence base to improve policy and practice; 

• Promising practices that promote better school engagement and reduce push 

out, suspension and expUlsion need to be supported; 

Zero tolerance policies need to be rethought to promote better outcomes for all 

children; and 

• Data collection needs to reflect those students who drop out, who are truant, 

suspensions/expulsions, all disaggregated by race, poverty and disability - all 

such data should be made public. 

About the Child Care Association of l11inois; The CCAI is an organization of 60 voluntary 

agencies that provide children's services throughout Illinois including child welfare, 

delinquency prevention, community based youth services, residential treatment, private 

special education, and child mental health services. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Katherine Buchanan 

Associate Director 

Child Care Association of Illinois 

847-492-8740 

kbuchanan@cca-il.org 
219 

Written Statement 

for the Record 

Children's Defense Fund 

Hearing on 

Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

December 12, 2012 

Before the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

of the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Submitted by: 

Children's Defense Fund 

25 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 662-3568 

www.childrensdefense.org 
220 

The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) appreciates the opportunity to submit a statement for the 

record for the hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline before the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. We applaud the 

Subcommittee for bringing attention to the troubling increase across the country in children, 

frequently children of color, being pushed out of classrooms and into the courts for relatively 

minor nonviolent offenses. 

The Children's Defense Fund's Leave No Child Behind" mission is to ensure every child a 

Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful 

passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. The Children's Defense 

Fund provides a strong, effective and independent voice for all children of America who cannot 

vote, lobby or speak for themselves. CDF pays particular attention to the needs of poor and 

minority children and those with disabilities. CDF is a private non-profit organization. 

The Children's Defense Fund's top priority is to dismantle what we call America's Cradle to 

Prison Pipeline® crisis that leaves an African American boy born in 2001 with a one-in-three 

chance of going to prison in his lifetime, a Latino boy a one-in-six risk of the same fate, and a 

White boy a one-in-17 chance. An African American girl born in 200 I has a one-in-17 chance of 

going to prison in her lifetime, a Latina girl born that year a one-in-45 risk, and a White girl a 

one-in-Ill chance of the same fate. 

The Cradle to Prison Pipeline is a trajectory that leads to marginalized lives, imprisonment and 

often premature death. The United States of America does not provide a level playing field for 

all children and our nation does not value and protect all children's lives equally. The cradle-to 

school-to-prison pipeline is fueled by racial disparities, pervasive poverty, inadequate health and 

mental health care, gaps in early childhood development, disparate educational opportunities, 

chronic abuse and neglect, and overburdened and ineffective juvenile justice systems. Failures of 

our child serving systems, especially when coupled with race and poverty, increase the 

likelihood of children entering the pipeline to prison. 

Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies Fuel the Pipeline to Prison. 

Zero tolerance school discipline policies are a key feeder system into the pipeline to prison and 

playa significant role in fueling the dropout crisis, which adds to the odds already stacked 

against children. Zero tolerance policies establish a mandatory or predetermined punishment for 

certain behaviors without taking into consideration the situational context. They have increased 

the use of expulsion and suspension disciplinary practices for minor offenses such as tardiness. 

These policies assume that the immediate removal of disruptive students will deter others from 

similar behavior and improve classroom harmony. 

The Children's Defense Fund recognizes that school leaders need to keep classrooms safe and 

that there may be a need for disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions, when 

2 
221 

students are violent or take actions that threaten their safety or the safety of others. However, too 

often suspensions and expulsions from school are for nonviolent offenses. Would you: 

• Suspend a student from school for four months for sharpening his pencil without 

permission and giving the teacher a "threatening" look when asked to sit down? 

• Expel a student from school for the rest of a school year for poking another student with a 

ballpoint pen during an exam? 

• Expel a student from school permanently because her possession of an antibiotic violated 

your school's zero tolerance drug policy? 

• Call the police, handcuff, and then expel a student who started a snowball fight on school 

grounds? 

All four of these are real examples of the impact ofzero tolerance school discipline policies in 

Massachusetts-and there are thousands of stories like these across the country. 

Research has shown that there is little evidence that zero tolerance improves school climate or 

discipline. To the contrary, there is evidence that this kind of punishment is inappropriate for 

youths whose brains and cognitive judgment are still developing. Zero tolerance increases 

expulsion and suspension rates, dropout rates, police presence on school campuses, the number 

of court referrals, juvenile crime rates and the entry of yoUtll into the juvenile justice system. The 

zero tolerance school discipline policies disproportionately impact students of color-the very 

students disproportionately fed into the criminal justice system. 

Zero tolerance is a compelling "flashpoint" that represents the deeper injustice ofthe Cradle to 

Prison Pipeline. Zero tolerance school discipline policies and the arrest and criminalization of 

children at younger and younger ages for behaviors once handled by schools and community 

institutions overwhelm and break apart already fragile young lives. The image of six-, seven- and 

eight-year-old children being arrested and handcuffed on school grounds for nonviolent offenses 

demands a response. 

Every Second and a Half a Student is Suspended 

The Children's Defense Fund has a long history of fighting against school exclusion. Our first 

publication, Children Out of School in America, released almost 40 years ago, documented 1\\'0 

million children not enrolled in school, including hundreds of thousands of children with 

disabilities. Our findings contributed to the passage of the Education for All Handicapped 

Children Act in 1975, creating the federal right to a free public education for children with 

disabilities. Today more than six million children with disabilities attend school. The report was 

the result of nine months of on-the-ground research in which CDF staff knocked on more than 

8,500 doors in nine states and the District of Columbia to interview families about their 

children's school experiences. 

3 
222 

Children Out of School in America provoked a significant response from parents, educators and 

policymakers throughout the country, and a year later CDF released a follow-up report, School 

Suspensions: Are They Helping Children? to examine more closely the problems caused by 

exclusionary school discipline policies. Our study of school suspensions led us to the following 

broad findings: 

• In the 1972-73 school year, school districts with a little over half of the student 

population in the country suspended over one million students. 

• The vast majority of the suspensions in the survey were for non-dangerous, nonviolent 

offenses. By contrast, less than three percent were for destruction of property, the use of 

drugs or alcohol or other criminal activity. 

• While the largest numbers of suspended children were White, proportionately 

suspensions hurt more children who were African American, poor, older and male. 

African American children were suspended at twice the rate of any other group. 

• The use of suspensions, the grounds and procedures for them, and their length varied 

widely between school districts and schools. 

• The severe sanction of deprivation of schooling was being imposed without a fair inquiry 

into the facts. 

• The great majority of suspensions did not serve any demonstrated valid interests of 

children or schools. Suspensions pushed children and their problems into the street, 

causing more problems for them and for others. 

Since that time, our own work and that of many advocates, school leaders, and researchers has 

led to significant reforms to improve access to public education for vulnerable children. We 

applaud the many initiatives you will hear or read about during the course of this hearing, 

including the joint efforts ofthe U.S. Departments of Justice and Education. Yet many 

challenges remain-some new, but too many ofthem the same. Children continue to be kept out, 

pushed out or functionally excluded from school. A public school student receives an out-ofschool suspension every second-and-a-half during the school year. Suspensions and expulsions 

continue to pose major threats to some of our nation's most vulnerable children. 

Every Eight Seconds a Student Drops Out of School 

Too many schools are pushing children into the juvenile and criminal justice systems to make 

them someone else's problem. However, we should be worried not just about the teenager who 

ends up behind bars when suspended or expelled. Too often students who are pushed out feel 

disconnected and angry, they continue to act out, and consequences escalate. It should be of little 

surprise when many of the children who are punished by being pushed out of school become the 

same ones who drop out and stay away for good. A public high school student drops out of 

school every eight seconds during the school year. And it should be even less surprising when 

many ofthe young people who drop out are the same ones whose behavior we continue to 

complain about and fear and for whom we pay to house in costly prisons cells later. States are 

spending on average two-and-a-half times more per prisoner than per public school pupil. 

4 
223 

Zero tolerance discipline policies are not helping the children who need intervention the most. 

Instead, they are excluding thousands of students from school every year-including many 

students who most need to be in class-and making those children even more likely to end up 

trapped in the destructive, expensive prison pipeline. 

Discrimination by Numbers 

TIle 2009-2012 Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection Survey, released in March 

2012, the most expansive of its kind, covered 85 percent of the nation's students and was the first 

release of this crucial federal data since 2006. The data showed that in the close to 7,000 school 

districts where data were collected, 6.9 percent of all students received at least one out-of-school 

suspension. The data documented that children of color face harsher discipline. African 

American children, for example, comprise 18 percent of the children in the sample but 38 

percent of those suspended at least once. They have less access to rigorous course offerings and 

are more often taught by lower paid and less experienced teachers. American public education is 

serving as a portal to the cradle-to-prison pipeline for millions of poor children of color. In the 

districts that were part of this study, the facts are clear: 

• African American students are over three-and-a-half times more likely to be suspended or 

expelled than their White peers. 

• African American boys and girls have higher suspension rates than any of their peers. 

One in five African American boys and more than one in ten African American girls 

received an out-of-school suspension. 

Students with disabilities (under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) are over 

twice as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as their non-disabled 

peers. African American students with disabilities face the harshest punishments. 

• In districts with populations of more than 50,000 students, over 70 percent of students 

involved in school-related arrests or referrals to law enforcement are Hispanic or African 

American. 

And these are not just older students. The stories of six-year-old kindergartener Salecia Johnson, 

who was arrested and handcuffed at her Milledgeville, Georgia elementary school in April of this 

year and driven to the police station in a squad car for throwing a tantrum, and Desre' e Watson, 

who underwent the same ordeal several years ago as a six-year-old kindergartner in Avon Park, 

Florida, were horrifying reminders that even our youngest children are being criminalized. It is 

impossible to imagine that one, two or three adults cannot manage a six-year-old child during a 

temper tantrum without calling the police and arresting the child. 

We must use these numbers and cases as a springboard for robust examination of and discussion 

about school discipline policies and practices and how they are contributing to school dropouts 

and the school-to-prison pipeline. As Education Secretary Arne Duncan correctly said about his 

department's findings on suspensions and expulsions: "The power of the data is not only in the 

numbers themselves, but in the impact it can have when married with the courage and the will to 

change. The undeniable truth is that everyday educational experience for many students of color 

5 
224 

violates the principle of equity at the heart of the American promise. It is our collective duty to 

change that. " 

We urge members of this Subcommittee to work with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

Committee and with your counterparts in the House of Representatives to help to replace the 

Cradle to Prison Pipeline with a pipeline to educational achievement, productive employment, 

and successful transition to adulthood for all our youth. 

Changing Course 

We must get to the root ofthese unfair practices. When African American and Latino students 

represent more than 70 percent of those involved in school-related arrests or referrals to law 

enforcement in large school districts, there must be a rigorous examination of the reasons why 

and what actions to take to change unfair racial practices in the application of school discipline. 

In tackling the negative effects of zero tolerance discipline policies, it is important to keep front 

and center the practices that promote them and those with power to change them. All must be 

addressed. Action is required on multiple fronts. 

• The discretion given to principals and teachers in how zero tolerance policies are 

applied and lack of training contributes to policies being applied unfairly. 

• The large presence of school police officers on school grounds is leading to the 

criminalization of children at increasingly younger ages. 

School boards are ultimately responsible for setting school policies and procedures and 

need to understand the impact ofzero tolerance school discipline policies in fueling the 

dropout crisis. 

• Parents lack information about how to challenge practices. Parents often know that 

discipline policies are being administered unfairly but do not know what to do to tackle 

the injustice. 

• State school board associations issue policy guidance that transmits zero tolerance 

policies without suggesting the training and support that principals and teachers need to 

implement them appropriately and state legislatures resist efforts to provide oversight 

for the implementation of these policies or to strengthen data collection to assess their 

impact. 

• Schools of education often include very little training on classroom management, which 

leaves teachers poorly equipped to address children's needs. 

• .Judges see increasing numbers of children coming to their attention for nonviolent 

offenses as zero tolerance policies are implemented and can be engaged in changing the 

practice. 

6 
225 

• Systemic racial and class biases undergird the disproportionate impact of zero tolerance 

policies on children of color and poor children. These children are often treated 

differently under these policies. 

Schools must be required to have school discipline policies that ensure students will not be 

unfairly punished and pushed out of school. Basic protections must be put in place to ensure 

strong, consistent and fair discipline policies in our schools and classrooms so learning can occur 

for all children, and they can remain in class rather than go to court. In considering appropriate 

approaches, it is important to recognize that there are more than 13,000 school districts across 

our 50 states. To help ensure equity and fairness across schools and districts guidance from both 

the state and federal levels is needed. At the same time we must keep important principles in 

mind about how to make those polices work for children of color and all children, rather than 

against them. 

In assessing appropriate federal level actions to end abuses of zero tolerance discipline policies, 

we urge the Subcommittee to keep at least these basic principles in mind: 

• School-by-school and district-by-district data on in-school and out-of-school 

suspensions and expulsions, the reasons for these actions and their impact on 

students are key to developing an effective response to zero tolerance policies. The 

data should reflect how the discipline policies are being applied and their impact on 

students. Data should be broken down by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other 

student characteristics. 

• School discipline codes should end out-of-school suspensions and expulsions for 

nonviolent offenses. Children should no longer be suspended or expelled for offenses 

that used to result in a trip to the principal's otlice. 

• Meaningful alternatives to suspensions and expulsions for nonviolent offenses should 

be provided for teachers and other staff. Teachers need further training in classroom 

management and the support of their superiors when disciplinary decisions are to be 

made. Teachers need cultural competence training to understand and address the behavior 

of all children. 

• More time, attention and resources must be devoted individually and collectively to 

the causes of the disruptive student behaviors. Evidence-based and promising 

practices should be implemented to improve the learning environment. 

• Principals and teachers currently have too much discretion in deciding who should 

be suspended or expelled. Further guidance and support is needed to ensure these 

policies are applied appropriately and fairly. 

• Students and their parents must be notified oftheir rights and procedures in 

advance and when a child is suspended. No child should be suspended or expelled and 

removed from the school without a parent first being notified. 

7 
226 

• A periodic external review of disciplinary policies and practices and their impact on 

children of different ages, races, ethnicities and with various disabilities can help to 

ensure they are applied appropriately and fairly. 

Building on Action in the States 

The Children's Oefense Fund recognizes that to introduce positive, preventive, supportive 

discipline systems in all schools and to successfully change school climates, all stakeholders 

must work together to reverse the trend toward zero tolerance policies that promote harsh 

discipline and funnel children into the school-to-prison pipeline. 

COF, through its own staff and state offices, has been working in states and school districts, 

often in collaboration with other organizations, to bring school leaders, judges, community 

members. parents and students together to work to dismantle the pipeline to prison. 

Massachusetts 

In Massachusetts, COF first partnered with the Harvard Kennedy School to research the 60,000 

school expulsions and suspensions during the 2009-20 I 0 school year in that state. Of those, 

about 30,000 were "unassigned offenses"-nonviolent, noncriminal offenses which can include 

minor behavioral issues such as swearing, talking back to a teacher and truancy. Of the 

approximately 30,000 unassigned offenses, some two-thirds received out-of-school suspensions. 

And in reality, sinee schools are not currently required to report "unassigned offenses" resulting 

in exclusions of fewer than 10 days for regular education students, the estimated actual number 

of disciplinary exclusions is likely at least two to three times the number reported. These data 

had special implications because Massachusetts spends six times more per prisoner than per 

public school pupil-a greater disparity than in any other state. 

In response to these data, COF is promoting alternatives to zero tolerance discipline policies 

through a multi-pronged approach in the state. COF joined Massachusetts Advocates for 

Children in launching a statewide coalition that successfuHy advocated for legislation that 

ensured for the first time that all students in Massachusetts excluded from public school for more 

than 10 consecutive days are entitled to education services. The coalition is now working with 

regional coordinators in six Massachusetts communities to implement that legislation, challenge 

implicit bias in schools and advance restorative justice approaches as alternatives to zero 

tolerance school discipline policies through hands on training on the alternatives. COF has 

engaged parents and youths directly affected by school exclusion in efforts to promote solutions. 

COF also has been working to incorporate classroom management and restorative justice 

approaches into schools of education starting with the Harvard Graduate School of Education. 

Graduate students from aH over the country have embraced restorative justice practices. They 

have heard moving testimonials from students about how participating in restorative justice 

circles helped with their social skills; helped them learn from other people's mistakes and 

practice leadership; and helped them to process and strategize about how to deal with unfair 

8 
227 

school rules. CDF is also working to train school administrators on alternatives to zero tolerance 

policies. 

Early last month, CDF joined the Massachusetts Restorative Justice Task Force and the Charles 

Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School to co-convene a daylong summit at the law school for 200 community and school leaders from across the state on 

how to implement restorative justice and transformative practices in schools as solutions to 

strengthen school climate and reduce the dropout crisis. Many were engaged to plan the summit 

including the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, local judges who have forged schoolcourt collaborations to divert youths from juvenile detention centers and representatives of 

Boston's workforce investment board which looks to restorative justice practices not only to 

reduce high school dropouts but also to strengthen the local workforce. 

New York 

CDF-New York, a member of the stcering committee of the Dignity in Schools Campaign-NY, is 

working with allies to urge the New York City Department of Education to modify the school 

discipline code to end suspensions for minor behavioral infractions; require the use of guidance 

interventions before suspension is used; end long-term suspensions of more than 10 days; and 

prohibit students from being suspended for more than 10 total days in a school year. CDF-NY 

played a key role in the passage of the New York City School Safety Act in January 2011, which 

requires the New York City Department of Education and the New York Police Department to 

provide data regarding suspensions and arrests in schools. In addition to the more than 69,000 

suspensions in New York City schools in 2010-11, the most recent School Safety Act data 

revealed that each day more than nine New York City public school children were arrested or 

received a summons on school grounds. The New York Police Department School Safety 

division includes more than 5,100 officers-a police force in New York City'S schools that is 

larger than the entire police force of the city of Detroit. 

CDF-NY is working to strengthen training for New York City school police offers to includc 

crisis intervention and positive youth development. Currently, approximately 14 of the 15 weeks 

oftraining that New York City school police officers receive involve basic police tactics similar 

to those received by any new police recruit. In September 2012, CDF trained 141 new School 

Safety Officer recruits on the cradle-to-prison pipeline; facilitated a productive dialogue on 

common misunderstandings between students and officers; and explained the long-term 

consequences of a school arrest or summons. The response of officers to the training was 

extremely positive. 

Mississippi and Louisiana 

CDF's Southern Regional Office headquartered in Mississippi is teaching young leaders, 

including some who have been pushed out of school, to launch campaigns for change in their 

schools and communities. The CDF office has surveyed more than half of Mississippi's 152 

school districts about suspensions and expulsions. African American students, who represent just 

half of public school students in the state, were cited for at least 72 percent of the more than 

9 
228 

600,000 disciplinary dispositions reported over 10 years. A full report will be released in early 

February 2013. In its Louisiana office, CDF has focused on youth, many with mental health 

problems, who were arrested when they were out of school. CDF mobilized a group of 

psychiatrists, social workers, criminologists, parents, educational researchers, community and 

faith leaders to participate in a Child Watch visit to a local secure juvenile detention facility, 

Bridge City, as part of its fourth annual Louisiana Cradle to Prison Pipeline summit. The facility 

housed 114 youths ages 12-17 and 80 percent were out of school when they were arrested. Over 

60 percent ofthese incarcerated youths were diagnosed with severe mental illness. The summit 

focused on the lack of access to preventive mental health services that can divert children from 

the prison pipeline. 

California 

Data from the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Data Collection Survey 

revealed that in the school districts surveyed in California more than 400,000 students were 

suspended at least one time during the 2009-201 0 school year. Nearly one in five African 

American students (18 percent), one in nine American Indian students (II percent), and one in 

14 Latino students (7 percent) in the state sample were suspended at least once compared to one 

in 17 White students (6 percent) and one in 33 Asian American students (3 percent). In March 

2012, CDF -California Beat the Odds scholars, high school seniors awarded a CDF scholarship 

for college and leadership training, mobilized more than 160 high school students from the Los 

Angeles area and almost 30 oftheir adult mentors, teachers and parents for a day-long youth 

summit to focus attention on zero tolerance school discipline policies. Youth participants 

pledged to work within their schools and communities as change agents to educate youth and 

dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. In collaboration with the Dignity in Schools-Los 

Angeles Chapter, CDF-CA is working with the Los Angeles School Police Department to reduce 

ticketing for truancy and strengthen school police data collection practices and transparency, as 

well as promote best practices that involve schools, families and communities. CDF-CA has 

launched a two-year research and analysis project on school exclusion in Long Beach, the third 

largest school district in the state, to identify the biggest factors fueling push outs, while making 

recommendations for how to reduce these zero tolerance policies and promote success for all 

students. 

Ohio 

CDF-Ohio, together with the Ohio Poverty Law Center, released in November 2012 an issue 

brief on zero tolerance and exclusionary school discipline policies that harm students and 

contribute to the Cradle to Prison Pipeline crisis. Ohio law requires all public schools to adopt 

and enforce a zero tolerance policy for "violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior." 

According to the Ohio Department of Education, only six percent of out-of-school suspensions 

during the 2010-2011 school year involved weapons or drugs while 64 percent were for 

"disobedient or disruptive behavior," "intimidation" or truancy. Students identified as 

economically disadvantaged were more than four times as likely to be suspended that school year 

as those not identified as economically disadvantaged. More than one in five (21.4 percent) of 

Ohio's children live in poverty. African American students made up 16.5 percent of all children 

10 
229 

enrolled in Ohio public schools, but 36.6 percent of all out of school suspensions. In Ohio's eight 

largest urban school districts, African American students were on average four times more likely 

to be given out of school suspensions than were White students. The report is a call to action for 

stakeholders in the state to work together to successfully change school climates and introduce 

positive, preventive supportive discipline systems in all schools. 

Conclusion 

We must act tCigether to replace zero tolerance discipline polices with meaningful alternatives 

that keep students engaged and learning in safe schools and out ofthe juvenile and criminal 

justice systems. As the Subcommittee's hearing will highlight, there is much good work to draw 

upon. We can build on promising approaches and join forces for unified action strategies at the 

federal, state and local levels to end the school-to-prison pipeline. Federal direction and support 

are needed immediately to help states and school districts modify school discipline codes to end 

out-of-school suspensions and expulsions for nonviolent offenses and all suspensions for minor 

behavioral infractions, implement alternatives to zero tolerance school discipline policies and 

monitor suspensions, expulsions and their impact on children of color, children with special 

needs, and other special groups. Data are essential on in-school and out-of-school suspensions, 

expulsions, school-based arrests and referrals to alternative schools as well as the race, ethnicity, 

other special needs, socioeconomic status and English proficiency of the students involved in 

each school and school district. There is also a need for technical assistance and training of staff 

at all levels on alternatives to zero tolerance. CDF has long been a supporter of the Youth 

Promise Act (H.R. 2721), which shifts the paradigm toward prevention and early intervention for 

youths. It focuses resources on communities and youths most in need and recognizes the benefits 

of individualized approaches to services and treatment. 

Children must be assured of fair and appropriate treatment. School districts must be reminded of 

their obligation to prohibit school discipline policies that disproportionately impact children of 

color and those with disabilities or other special needs. It is also important to link these data on 

disciplinary practices to the overall performance of these schools and school districts, assessing 

factors like academic performance and graduation rates. New protections and investments to 

replace the cradle-to-school-to prison pipeline with a pipeline to college and productive work 

will positively impact the futures of our children and the economic future of the nation. There is 

not a moment-<:>r a child-to waste as we move forward. 

11 
230 

'=" 

.•.. ~ .. : I Law Center, Inc. 

1555 Georgetown Road 

l.exington, KY 40511 

Phone (859) 431-3313 

Fax (859) 655~7553 

rbdiloreto@khildrenslawky,org 

B(M.RD OF DIRU..-'TORSo 

LouiseR(l.Selle, Esq. 

P~id('nt 

;\-J;t;haI.'IWhileman, Esq. 

~1ce PF/!.~id .. nt 

,lulieRoeseIDl'ltoll 

Treasurer 

JoscphSa"3;,JD 

S<!~row'Y 

J Da .... idB~nder, Esq 

Dr FrankBlfo,:\!D 

Tonya Bums. Esq 

N31ma R Clarke, Esq 

MarcusE COiCtn!l.ll, Esq 

nheHoustc>Il,Esq 

rathyM J.a~ks()n,Esq 

James Kmcr,Esq 

Pau! Lollg 

EliUloothMalloy.Esq 

M,ehaclMarker 

Lat{>ya Moore, MC'P. 

Kevm L Mllrphy, Esq 

Jeffi-eyRa!n~s. Esq 

Jamie M Ramsey, Esq 

RhondaSchechter.Esq 

CarrieShufficbarger, Esq. 

Ahc~Spafks 

Kathryn Stephens 

Andl;'C1l-Stout,CFA 

Klmm:rly TIU11cr Brennen, Esq 

RachelVobuba 

SlephenWolth,Esq. 

Kim Brooks Talldy,f:sq. 

E:cecllllw'f)m_'~'(rn' 

J{)shCr",btn:e,Esq. 

Malwgmg .4l1om"y 

Rebe<:clI DiLorelo. Esq. 

1.II!Rar/{)IIDlr~c/()r 

December 10,2012 

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin 

Senate's Assistant Majority Leader and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226 

RE: Statement for the Record for the December 12" 2012, Hearing Before the 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights Addressing the School to Prison Pipeline 

Dear Senator Durbin, 

As advocates for children in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we applaud you for 

having a hearing on the School to Prison Pipeline and its deleterious impact on our 

children. 

The Problem: 

You know the problem. For the past fifteen years we have seen a trend in this country 

where harsh and exclusionary school disciplinary policies and in~school arrests push 

youth out of school and into the justice system. This process has corne to be known as 

the schooI·to·prison pipeline. 

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center released findings of a study 

on the impact of school disciplinary practices on students' academic success and 

juvenile justice involvement. The study determined that only 3 percent of disciplinary 

actions were for conduct for which state law mandates suspensions and expulsions; the 

rest of the disciplinary actions were made at the discretion of school officials, primarily 

in response to violations of local schools' conduct codes. Minority youth and children 

with disabilities were disciplined more harshly for similar or less serious infractions 

than were their peers. The researchers also found that when a student was suspended or 

expelled, his or her likelihood of being involved in the juvenile justice system the 

subsequent year increased significantly. 

Recently, OJJDP Acting Administrator Melodee Hanes noted that "OJJDP does 

research to support best practices, and one of the things we've learned is that the minute 

a youth sets foot in detention or confinement, their prospects for success and having a 

job decrease dramatically and the likelihood thaI they will end up in the adult criminal 

system increases exponentially." http://www.ojjdp.gov/newsletterI238636/sf_l.html 
231 

Kentucky's Data As Evidence of The Problem: 

Data from the Commonwealth paints a similar picture. In State Fiscal Year 2012, 10,175 cases were 

referred to court from Kentucky public schools. (Contact Children's Law Center, Inc. for Data). 

Kentucky has been number two in the nation in the incarceration of children on non-criminal status 

offenses for the past several years. Most of these status offenses arise out of the school setting. 

Juvenile jail is the default "treatment" option used for children in Kentucky. An in depth study of the 

misuse of incarceration for children charged with status ofTenscs was conducted by the state's leading 

newspaper in 2011. See http://www.courieriournal.com/article/20 1I1211INEWSO I /3 12120002/Status-OfTenders-Truancv-problem-affccts-statespending-damages-future-students. Status offense charges and the reliance on incarceration as 

punishment for the failure of a child charged with a status offense to follow court orders are 

prosecuted in a racially disparate manner in Kentucky. African American youth comprise only 18.1 % 

of all youth age 10 to 17 in Fayette County, Kentucky, yet comprise 53% of all children incarcerated 

for noncriminal, status offenses in that county. To the north, in Kenton County, Kentucky African 

American youth comprise only 6.0% of the population ages 10 to 17 yet comprise 23.1 % of all youth 

incarcerated for noncriminal status offenses. In the far western Kentucky county of Christian, African 

American youth are 25.5 % of the population but comprise 55.6 % of youth who are incarcerated for 

noncriminal status offenses. (Contact Children's Law Center, Inc. for further data reports.) 

Powerful School Lobby Opposes Efforts to Improve the System: 

Despite clear evidence of the problem, school districts, with powerful lobbyists have opposed a 

reinvestment of state and county resources towards more treatment oriented legislative solutions. See 

http://www.kentuckv.com/201 III 0/2511933 724/bill-filed-to-cut-down-on-number.html 

Likewise, those responsible for policy change in Kentucky have not accessed available federal 

government resources. In March 2012, a National Leadership Summit on School-Justice Partnerships 

took place in New York City. As a kick-off for the national Supportive School Discipline Initiative, 

the summit brought together juvenile court judges, school administrators, juvenile justice 

professionals, educators, and researchers from nearly every state and territory to focus attention on the 

importance of school-justice partnerships and evidence-based strategies that can help students stay in 

school and out of the juvenile justice system. Though federal funding was available to cover the cost 

of attendance, no school, court or state government officials from Kentucky attended. Only two 

advocates for children from Kentucky were present as a part of a separate meeting of the Legal 

Strategies Collaborative. 

Kentucky is late in committing resources to address this significant issue. Yet, even today, when 

anyone considers poverty and children in this country, they often first think of Kentucky. See the 

recent editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, as he visited poor families in the mountain community of 

Jackson, Kentucky and noted the high rate and intersection of poverty and illiteracy. 

http://www .nvtillles.colll/20 121 12/09/0pinion/sunday/kristof-profiti ng-frolll-a-cllildsilliteracv.html?pagewanted=2& r=0 

The Need for Greater Leadership to Help At Risk Youth: 

The Children's Law Center, Inc., a private non-profit law firm dedicated to the representation of 

children, has committed itself to litigating the rights of youth of color and youth with disabilities in 

Kentucky's schools and courts. We recognize that a sound education is foundational for the success of 

the economy and community in our State. Unfortunately, bureaucracies are often slow to change. 

Though we have filed systemic complaints at the state and federal level on behalf of youth who have 

been suhject to unfair, exclusionary disciplinary practices, we have not secured large scale, systemic 

reform. See Fayette Board of Education v. Holliday et a!.; U.S. DOE Complaint Number 03-11-1222. 

2 
232 

We have met with success on behalf of individual youth but often only after they struggled mightily 

before accessing our services. 

Josh, a child of 14 was brought to us in his freshman year of high school through referral from another 

family caught in the school to prison pipeline. At 14, Josh had been classified with Mild Mental 

Disability. He struggled academically but was never a behavior problem. For some unexplainable 

reason the school district where he was located skipped Josh from 7th to 9th grade. Moving from 

middle school without finishing- to a large high school was too much for the child. He grew more 

and more intimidated in the larger school environment. He understood nothing in the classroom. His 

Mother worked full time at the deli in a grocery store, struggling with MS. His father was a janitor for 

the school system and suffered intellectual disabilities. Josh could not make himself get out of his 

parents' car and go into school in the morning, scared to ride the bus. His parents tried to secure 

mental health for him but their insurance required that they pay extra for the psychiatric appointments 

so they had to space them out. The school provided no assistance, and made no effort to connect Josh 

with low cost mental health services. At the time we met him, Josh was in court on truancy charges. 

The judge threatened to incarcerate Josh and remove him from home and place him in foster care. The 

case had stalled in court for a year with no services provided to the family and Mom and Dad were 

forced to miss work on a monthly basis to spend an afternoon and evening waiting for the case to be 

called. Once the family accessed our legal services, Josh was able to receive low cost mental health 

services, the school was forced to protect Josh's rights under the IDEIA and the charges against him 

were dismissed. With the appropriate diagnosis of school phobia, Josh was moved to a smaller, less 

intimidating and more supportive educational setting. He graduated in December 2011. Without legal 

advocacy, which is not routinely available to these children, Josh would have failed. 

Brad, a child of 7 was in court on a charge of beyond control of school. The boy was identified under 

the IDEIA as having a Functional Mental Disability. His mother died from congestive heart failure 

shortly after he was arraigned in court. Brad was being raised by his grandmother, uncle and father in 

government assistant housing in a small Eastern Kentucky mountain town. The child did not 

understand what the courtroom was, who his lawyer was or what purpose either served. The school 

that brought the charges against Brad admitted to educational advocates that they sought prosecution 

of the child because they believed the child was being sexually abused as he exhibited strange 

behavior at school. Instead of pressing the state social services office to step up and investigate the 

home or even try to provide supports to the family, they lodged court charges against the most 

vulnerable. least morally responsible person. The school's justification: they could not make the state 

social services act but they could bring down the power of the law upon this child. 

Children are also often in court because of the failure of our mental health system to meet their needs. 

Carole was a child of 14, diagnosed with bipolar and schizoid affective disorders. Her IQ tested in the 

extremely low to borderline range. After an episode at home, Carole was placed in a mental health 

hospital for number of weeks. Upon release, with medicine not yet stabilized, she was made to attend 

school. Carole needed to go to the restroom. A teacher physically blocked her and in the act of pushing 

her way past the teacher, Carole incurred a felony assault charge because Kentucky law elevates 

misdemeanor assault to a felony if it involves an assault on school personnel. Though the teacher was 

not injured, school law enforcement sought and secured Carole's incarceration in the juvenile jail. 

Days later at a special education meeting where it was established that Carole's behavior was a 

manifestation of her disability, Carole was falling asleep on hcr lawyer's shoulder. The appropriate 

dosage of her medicine had still not been stabilized. 

3 
233 

Tracy is a child from the boundaries of Western Kentucky and Illinois. At age 13, in the seventh grade, 

the school district sought prosecution of Tracy for disorderly conduct and assault. Tracy was identified 

as a child with Multiple Disabilities, which included Mild Mental Disability and Emotional-Behavioral 

Disability. Tracy had a full scale IQ of 68, and according to the district did not qualify for a regular 

high school diploma. She was prescribed Abilify and W cllbutrin. Despite an extensive psychiatric 

history and an IQ that would render her incompetent as an adult, Tracy was prosecuted in court by the 

school, and institutionalized out of state for over a year. Only with the intervention of educational 

advocates was Tracy pennitted to return to her community and the school district made to protect her 

rights under the IOEIA. 

Children across Kentucky are being funneled into the court system and out of schools. Following 

individual and systemic litigation, some school districts have committed themselves to approach 

school discipline differently and roll back their reliance upon the courts to discipline their students. 

Yet, there continues to be large resistance in significant areas of the state with significant racial 

implications. Most notably the largest school district in the state refuses to consider systemic change, 

yet that county's prosecutor requires that all school cases go to court for prosecution. We also 

recognize that some judges are assuming a greater leadership role but often community based efforts 

are fragmentary, where judges make the effort, the schools are resistant. In communities, where the 

schools are on board, the courts arc resistant. There are refonns including the use of Positive Behavior 

Intervention and Supports and Restorative Justice, but without a commitment to quit charging students 

in court for a wide range of minor misbehavior, that would traditionally have been handled in the 

school system, the pipeline flows on. 

We appreciate leadership on this issue at the federalleve!' 

Sincerely, 

Rebecca Ballard DiLoreto 

Litigation Director 

Children's Law Center, Inc. 

1555 Georgetown Road 

Lexington, K Y 40511 

rhdiloreto@childrcllslawky.org 

4 
234 

The Department of Court Services 

Research and Statistics 

100 MJ1lcreek Park 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 573-2350 

SCHOOL RELATED OFFENSES 

December 10. 2012 

Prepared for 

Shelley Perdue 

by 

Erin Mosley (Statistician) and 

Tammy Collins (Data Analyst) 

The following report is in response to a request from Shelley Perdue with AOC Juvenile Services 

for an aggregate frequency of school related offenses by county. 'The data has been obtained 

from the Court Designated Worker Case Management System (CDWCMS) for cases filed during 

fiscal year (FY) 2012 and 2013. The data is current as of December 6,2012. 

The data is separated into two datasets, the first is broken down by county and UOR code of 

offense. The second is broken down by county and provides only an aggregate frequency of 

total offenses. Each data set provides a total count of referrals made during FY2012 and thus far 

in FY20 13, along with the distinct count of juveniles. The number of referrals may exceed the 

number of juveniles as some juveniles may have multiple referrals. The juveniles are counted 

only once per their juvenile ID. 

The offenses listed within the dataset are those that have been designated as a 'school related' 

offense within the CDWCMS. The offense data is provided per county in the attached PDF, 

12_CDW303L Not all offenses will occur in each fiscal year examined or in each county. 

Blanks within the data should not be considered missing data, but instances in which referrals did 

not occur. 

The aggregate frequency data is provided in the attached PDF 12_ CDW3030. This data provides 

only a total count of referrals and juveniles per county for each fiscal year examined. 

Page II 
235 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

Research & Statistics 

"School Related" Complaints Filed 7/1/2011 ·12/6/2012 

os 

!ADAIR Referrals 56: 15 71, 

Uuveniles 49 14 61i 

FY2012 FY2013 ~ 

r

lLEN Referrals 7 16 9 

uvenUes 6 16 81 

NDERSON eferra!s 77 q 8 

uveniles 6 7 

ALLARD Referrals 18 2 

uvenUes 1 2 

ARREN eferrals 13 2 15 

uveniles 111 2 13 

ATH feferrals I ;; 3 

uveniles ! ELL -~ 

~~::~i~~: :~; 31 

21 141 

BOONE 

~~::~~~: ~~~ ~~ ;~: OURBON 

0~::~~~: '~: '~: BOYD ~~::~~!: 125 

11 ;~ :~; OYlE referralS 7 :: ;; ~RACKEN Uuveniles 6 

Referrals 

L uveniles ~-~ 

1 

!BREATHITT Referrals - 5 6 

I uvenlles 5 6 

~EC-KINRIOGE Referrals 1 21 

uveniles 1 21 

r'~ Referrals 8 4 13 

uveniles 81 4 11 

"UTLER eferrals 3 3 6 

I uveniles 2 2 5 eFALDWELL Referrals 2 31 

uveniles 2 2 

fALLOWAY Referrals 5 3 8' 

FAMPBELL 

Juveniles 4{ 2 6 

~::~:~: i 

18{ 21 20 

167 21 18 

¢ARUSLE eferrals 4 1 

E - uveniles 1 

Referrals 

i 

3~ 11 5 

uveniles 3 11 4 

L:~.--". Referrals 

• 

9 2 11 

uveniles 8 2 10 

CASEY Referrals 8 2 11 

i uveniles 71 2 8 - HRISTIAN feferrals 

~:~ 3~ 22 uvenHes 3~ 16 

~ ~eferrals 168j 1~ 18 

~uveniles 157: W 171 

~~::~~!: ;~ ;i 51 4 

LINTON 

~~::~~!: ;~ 3 

L-.- 3: 

RE;-,E.\f{C II \ \0 S rUb nc~ DISCL\!\IL!{: 

Page 1 of 5 Run Date: 121712012 
236 

"School Relaled" Complaints Filed 711/2011 -121612012 

RITIENOEN 

FUMBERLAND 

PAVIESS 

STILL 

FAYETTE 

FY 2012 FY 2.'3 

"eferrals 101 uveniles 

eferrals 9 2 112 

uveniles 8 1 9~ 

eferrals 25 12 37 

uveniles 224 11 321 

feferrals 

Juveniles 

feferrals 352 40 

! Wuveniles 333, 46 37 

bLE=MCCINCCG'~----t"'ef::er"'ra::ls'--j---"""22l5r'---~~~---22~ 

uveniles 251 "I 

LOYD Referrals 1431 611 20 

uuvenHes 13~ 611 19 

, ULTON 1':: ~"'"--- II ~~ : ~~ ARRARD '-+--~1~'~-- -2i~ __ . __ ~~enjtes 105: 1 11~ 

GRANT "eferrals ~5~- 3

32 98~~ i uveni!es 0::: 851 

~RAVES referrals 7 2 971 uveniles 6 2 85 

~RAYSON ~~::~~~: ~~4 ~'1, __ .~:c2c4'1,a fiREEN Referrals 1"0 .,' --'" 

~===~ ____ ~uu~ven~l!e~s~ __ ~9~. __ ~~ __ '~ 

!GREENUP Refe-rrals 881 9 

~ANCOCK 

~ARDIN 

"ARLAN 

"ARRISON 

"ENDERSON 

HENRY 

"ICKMAN 

"OPKINS 

ACKSON 

uveniles 88: 9 

Referrals 1 51 1 

uveniles 1 51 1 ~ 

eferra!s 22 3 256 

Uuveniles 18 3 211' 

feferrals: 10 4 15 

~uveniles i 9 4 

Referrals I 471 11 

uveniles 44 11 

Referrals 21 

uveniles 17 

eferrals 2 

,Juveniles 2 

Referrals 

Juveniles 

Referrals 

uveniles 

112 

9 

84 

7~ 

eferrals 5 1 

13 

12 

11 

29 

24 

130 

11 

-E"F;:;FEO:R:::S:::O:-:N----E:7f:"'~r"i~~OC:-L--,-, '=28"'~!-' -~3cooc3'--'CC,5~9 uveni!es i 1, 16~ 29 1,40 

RE"E \!KIJ .. \."\f) "I \.T1Slf(Smo;.,( I.\!\ILR: 

Page 2 of 5 Run Date: 121712012 
237 

"School Related" Complaints Filed 71112011 ·121612012 

rFY201: FY201l Tota 

~SSAMiNE-~---~eferraIS 17 3~ 

Uuveniles I 157 3 ~!~ :JOHNsON Referrals 1 7 

uVeniles 1 74 

KENTON Referra!s I ~~~ 3 222 

uveniles I 3 20 

NOTT Referrals 

~~ 1 

Uuvenites 14 ~; NOX 

~:::~i~~: 102 29 131 9 2& 12 

~ARUE \Referrals 4 B 5 

~uveniles 44 & 5 

AUREL feferrals 

uveniles :~~ ~; :~~ AWRENCE referrals 

Uuveniles ~~. ~ ~; EE ~eferralS 

uveniles ~~ .~ ESUE \Referrals 1E l' -~-~f, 

uveniles 1E " 1E 

ETCHER feferrals 124 60 18 

I --_.- uveniles ... 10e - 51 14, 

lEW'S feferrals 37 -----'f, 

Uuveniles 37 3 

INCOLN 

~:::~~~: 101' 5 151 

I 81: 4 121 

IVINGSTON feferrals 131 uveniles 1 ~ : OGAN Referrals 3 ! L_ uvenHes 31 ;~ ~~ l.YON Referrals 2; 2 

uvenl1es 1 2 

~ADISON Referrals 14 5li 19 

uveniles 13 49 17 

MAGOFFIN Referrals' 3 10 4 

~ARION uveniles 3' 1 ~-f, Referrals 

~~ 11 ~uveni!es 1e 46 

r~-' ,~- ~~ 2e 99 

;Juveniles 1 86 

ARTIN Referrals 34 1 

~~ ~'ASON----~ 32l ___ 1 

2 

2 ~; 

~;N ,efermls 77 1 

uveniles 71 1 ~; CCREARY-··--~- -- - eferrals 17 4~ 22 

~ uveniles 14 3~ 16 

MCLEAN ~eferrals 1 1 

uveniles I ~ 1 1 

~;~E-~ 471 1 6 

4n 1 61 

14 1 11 

Juveniles I " 14 

~RCER ~:::~~~: . ~: ~e 91 

8 

~ETCALFE Referrals 51 1 7 

Uuveniles 5 1 6 

!{ESr \!{( 11.\ ,\1) '; rXII~·IIC~ nl~(L\['\ILH: 

Page 3 of 5 Run Date: 121712012 
238 

"School Related" Complaints Filed 7f1l2011 • 12f6f2012 

I FY 2012 .. ""-,._._.-

FY 2013 Tota~ 

FONROE feferrals ' 71 1 

~ 68 1 ~ MONTGOMERY ---" 9 4 14 

L- __ uvenHes 83 4 11 

~ORGAN Referrals Hi uveoiles I 15 ;~ MUHLENBERG Referrals i 69 1 8~ 

uveniles 69 1 80 

NELsON- eferrals --- 8~ 1 00 uveniles i 7~ 1 8& 

NICHOLAS eferrals I '1 1~ 

uveniles ~~ 11 l' 

OHIO ~eferra!s 4 1~ 61 

Juveniles 3 1 ' 5! 

OLDHAM ~LeferralS 4~ 1 

uveniles 45 ~: PWEN ~:ferraIS W 1 

uveniles 10 ------+, pWSLEY 

~" 1 

19 2 

ENDLETON 11:> 31 14 

82 2 10 

rERRY als 70 2 9 

uvendes 63 21 8~ ~------- efe~BiS- 19 

~ 

3 22~ 

_____ ~ uvendes I 17 3 20 ' 

Referrals 3 1 5 

Juveniles 3 1 4 

flJLASKI Referrals 23 

;~ 30 

~uveniles 19 25 

ROBERTSON Referrals 1 [j 1 

Juveniles 1 [j 1 

ROCKCASTLE Referrals 1 Q 1 

Uuveniles 1 Q 1 

ROWAN Referrals 51 s.' 10 

uveniles 4 51 8 

RUSSELL Referrals 4 5 uveniles 4 

SCOTT eferrals 10 1 "~ 

uveniles 10 1 11 

SHELBY eferra!s 16 5 22 

uveniles 13 5 16 

SIMPSON eferrals 7 1 9 

uveniles 61 1 7 

SPENCER eferrals 

;~ 31 

uveniles 3 -- AYLOR ,eferrals 1 1-

uveniJes 1 1 

"ODD efer~!s 20 i 3 

uveniJes 19 

T~ : RIGG eferrals 12 

uveniles 1 

~RIMBLE eferrals 

i ~u~eniles 

~NION Referrals 3 

~uveni1es 2, 

I ARREN ~~ferra!S 28 ' 11 39 

i uvenUes 26 11 37 

RE:-,E welf \ \1) "" n I .... ·II(~ DlS( L\I:\U~R: 

Page 4 015 Run Date: 121712012 
239 

"School Related" Complainls Filed 7/1/2011 ·1216/2012 

RESEA.RCU A \t) STAt ISTleS HISeL \1i\1ER: 

Dt,>~lgnal('d Worker program 

O",:-.igll<lkd \\'or~t'f Progr:1111 e\edt\>lllc em·co mnnap,'Ill¢J1{ :-.y::temiCD\\,C\,lS1 i~ subjecl to ..:hnng.(,(5). 

reprogramming. nwditic;llhm(s) c)ftonnm and :w:lilal'lhty at the direction of the AtiminiSIn.lli\'c OtTic~' oflhe Courts(:\OCI. and may nOl at any pm'tiwlaf 

moment reflect the true ~tatu" of CO:J.rt casc~ dH(, to ordinal) jimit;ltion(s). dehiyh) or CITo!\s) in the ~y~Km'~ operation 

Page50f5 Run Date: 121712012 
Detentions for Status Offense Contempt of Court Charges Compared to Youth Population (age 10-17} by Race/Ethnicity. 2011 

African-American White Hispanic Other 

% youth of other 

% Afr-Am youth, of all % Afr-Am % White youth, of all % White % Hispanic youth, of % races, of all youth 

youth detentions for youth, of youth detentions for youth, of all youth detentions Hispanic detentions for 

contempt of court contempt of court for contempt of court youth, of contempt of court 

charges on underlying 

all youth charges on underlying all youth charges on underlying all youth charges on 

status offenses age 10-17 status offenses age 10-17 status offenses age 10-17 underlying status 

offenses 

Statewide 17.3% 9.4% 77.5% 82.5% 1.6% 3.9% 3.7% 

Christian 55.6% 25.5% 38.9% 61.5% 5.6% 7.7% 0.0% 

Fayette 53.0% 18.1% 33.0% 65.9% 7.0% 8.3% 7.0% 

Hardin 27.0% 14.5% 59.5% 71.0% 2.7% 7.0% 10.8% 

Kenton 23.1% 6.0% 72.0% 86.6% 0.0% 3.3% 4.9% 

Sources: Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice data processed by Kentucky Youth Advocates. 

2011 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau processed by Kentucky State Data Center and Kentucky Youth Advocates. 
241 

Name: Julie Waterstone City and State: Los Angeles, California 

Organization: Children's Rights Clinic, Southwestern Law School 

Dear Chairman Durban and Members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Human Rights: 

My name is Julie Waterstone, and I am the Director of the Children's Rights Clinic at Southwestern Law 

School. Before that, I worked for Public Counsel in Los Angeles, and also directed the Child Advocacy 

Clinic at the University of Mississippi Law School. I thank you for your attention to the important issue 

of Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline and write to share my first-hand knowledge ofthe challenges 

faced by youth in the public school system, particularly youth from low income families and youth of 

color. 

Over the last nine years, in both Mississippi and California, I have been representing youth on a variety 

of issues, including delinquency, dependency and education. The common thread throughout this 

experience has been watching the devastating impact that the harsh zero-tolerance policies have had on 

our youth, particularly those from low income families and youth of color. This has typically manifested 

itself in what is commonly referred to as the "school-to-prison pipeline." From my experience, this plays 

out in several ways. One is where a child does something contrary to the school rules and is then 

arrested by the police. That child then faces school expulsion and a delinquency charge. Or, a child has 

engaged in conduct after school, not on school grounds and the school finds out about the misbehavior. 

That child then faces school exclusion and a delinquency charge. Another scenario is a child acts out at 

school and is faces school exclUSion and a delinquency charge. That child may be lucky enough to have 

an advocate who suggests that they be evaluated for special education. It turns out that child has 

special needs and acted out as a result of the disability. That child may no longer face school expulsion, 

but will still have a delinquency charge to contend with. All ofthese situations are very troubling. 

Rather than educating our youth, our schools have become very adept at exposing our children to the 

juvenile justice system. 

And these are not children who are bringing guns to school or engaging in other similar criminal 

conduct. These are children who are engaging in behavior that admittedly is against school rules, but 

certainly does not justify the involvement of the police or school resource officers. Twenty years ago, 

these are all incidents that would have been handled on the campus. Police were hardly ever contacted, 

if at all. We are talking about issues like school yard fights, possession of small amounts of marijuana, 

possession of drug paraphernalia, vandalism of school property (which likely means writing on a school 

desk or in the school bathroom), or sexual misconduct (which has very different connotations than the 

actual facts as explained below). 

Presently, I direct a Children's Rights Clinic at Southwestern Law School. We represent low-income and 

minority youth in Los Angeles Country who are facing long-term exclusion from school and youth who 

have special needs. Over the last five years, we have represented at least 100 students who have been 

involved with some form of disciplinary issues. The cases that we receive typically are referred to us 

either by the minor's delinquency or dependency attorney. For the youth involved in the dependency 
242 

system, there are typically other issues at play that contribute to the child's behavior. For a number of 

these youth, they have witnessed some horrible incident, do not have a stable family unit, they have 

been bounced from foster home to group home to foster home, or have some undiagnosed mental 

health issue. Forthe youth in the delinquency system, most often they are court involved because of 

the incident that occurred on the school campus and are not "repeat offenders." After we accept 

representation, our first task is to request and review the child's school records. In more cases than not, 

we see children who have been failing classes for several years, are not performing at grade level, and 

have had repeated behavioral incidents. The next task is to request that the child be evaluated for 

special education. Two of every three children that are being recommended for expulsion that we 

encounter have some undiagnosed special need. We may be able to halt the expulsion and get the child 

the help s/he needs, but we are not always as successful with the delinquency proceedings. 

It is worth highlighting some of the cases that we have had to illustrate how this plays out. We 

represented a 16 year old boy who was in the dependency system. He had lived in fourteen different 

placements and had been hospitalized 8 times for suicide attempts or suicidal ideations. He brought a 

pocket knife to a traditional public school. He did not threaten anyone with it. A girl in his class saw it in 

his pocket. When questioned, he told the principal that he had planned to commit suicide during fifth 

period. He chose that period because he did not have friends in that class that might notice him 

missing. He was not taken to the hospital. Instead, he was arrested. And, the school proceeded to 

expel him. We became involved and sought to overturn the expulsion. By that point, he was so 

distraught that he ran away from his placement and was subsequently arrested. 

Another child we encountered was in third grade. At a traditional public school, a little boy was teasing 

him and said that if he didn't hold this girl's hand that he would beat him up. The child held the girl's 

hand. He was then being recommended for expulsion on the grounds of "sexual battery." We received 

the case from his delinquency attorney. After some investigation, this little boy has high functioning 

autism, which was never diagnosed. His disability lends him to be the subject of other children's taunts. 

Rather than provide him with assistance, our schools decide to punish him. 

We represented another 13 year old boy who attended a traditional public school. He lived with his 

grandfather. He was very bright, but subject to routine teasing. His grandfather had complained to the 

school on multiple occasions. One day, this little boy was being teased and responded "if you don't 

leave me alone, I will slit your throat with a butter knife." He was arrested and faced both expulsion and 

delinquency charges. His dependency attorney referred him to us. Again, after investigation, we 

learned that he also has high functioning autism, which was never diagnosed. 

While these cases illustrate some of the ways that children are funneled into the criminal justice system 

from traditional public schools, charter schools are even more troublesome. Charter schools are not 

required to follow the same state disciplinary code so children can be disciplined for even more minor 

offenses. This case is just one example of how troublesome this situation is: a 16 year old girl attended 

a charter high school, which was considered her school of residence. She was a college bound junior 

who had a 3.7 GPA. Her friends were goofing off during lunch. She saw one of her friends behaving 

suspiciously. She asked him what he was looking at. He was holding something. He placed it in her 

2 
243 

hand without her having a chance to see what it was. She looked down and saw it was a small pocket 

knife. She handed it back to him and said, "you can't have that here. You will get in a lot of trouble." At 

that very moment, an adult on campus saw her give it back to him. She was then arrested and expelled. 

Fortunately, her delinquency case was dismissed. It took us appealing her case to have the expulsion 

dropped. But, she missed months of a proper education because of this incident. 

We have worked with a few other youth have been expelled from charter schools for minor offenses 

such as writing on a desk and getting into a shoving match with another student while playing 

basketball. The results for these youth have been that they are precluded from attending any other 

school within the district. Their only educational options end up being alternative settings, which 

typically involve less instruction with children who have engaged in more problematic behavior. 

While individual representation is important and helps disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline, many of 

these children are not aware of the need to have a lawyer in these school proceedings. Even if they are, 

they may not know how to go about obtaining a lawyer. And, there are not that many lawyers do this 

kind of work. There needs to be systemic reform. Specifically, there should be a call by the federal 

government to decrease the police presence on school campuses. Research does not show that school 

campuses have become safer as a result of increased police presence. If anything, research has shown 

that it has disenfranchised youth and made youth less interested in being on school campus. School 

administrators should use their authority to discipline children in an appropriate and meaningful way. If 

a child engages in vandalism, require that child to do community service or work to pay for broken or 

damaged goods. If a child is involved in a fight, there may be a punitive component, but the school 

should be required to try counseling for the child or anger management classes. Teach the child positive 

life skills. The culture of schools should return to a nurturing environment designed to help children 

grow and become productive adults - not further our incarcerated population. We should also have 

compulsory education in every state even when a child is expelled. If we want to ensure that our 

children contribute to society, we need to be sure to educate them even if/when they misbehave. 

Finally, charter schools should be required to adhere to a similar discipline code as traditional schools. It 

does our children a disservice when they are expelled from a charter school that has more stringent 

discipline codes, but these children are now precluded from attending any traditional school as a result. 

If there is going to be an impact on the child attending a traditional public school, then the standards 

need to be the same or substantially similar. 

With local and national reform efforts aimed at ending the school-to-prison pipeline, we can return our 

schools to the high quality educational institutions that they once were and respect and protect the 

rights of children at the same time. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Julie K. Waterstone 

Clinical Professor of law and Director, Children's Rights Clinic 

Southwestern Law School 

3 
244 

December 5,2012 

To the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 

I write as an attorney who, upon graduation, accepted public defender appointments as I searched for 

my calling in life. I was stunned at the amount of cases I received that originated in public schools (at the 

time, Milwaukee County). The topic of school-to-prison pipeline was one never addressed in my Criminal 

Law courses in law school and I don't blame my professors for forgetting this issue, it is one that should 

not be exist in this country. The thought of children getting arrested in an environment that is supposed 

to be their safest place on the planet is reprehensible. As a civil society, we should not tolerate it. 

Not only is it is an absolute waste and drain to the court system and, subsequently, tax payer dollars, to 

present such minor infractions, it is also a missed opportunity to teach a child. Schools are learning 

institutions, not just for subjects such as math or English but to learn the social skills necessary to be 

productive members of society. I have witnessed children getting arrested for putting gum in 

someone's hair, being in the cafeteria during a food fight (but not actually throwing food), and using foul 

language in the school hallway. If any of these situations had occurred on the street, none of these 

children would have been arrested. Rules in school should match those of the real world instead of just 

limiting a young person's freedom without teaching any core values. 

As the state moves to close prisons and juvenile jails that are underutilized, it behooves us to make sure 

that we won't regret closing these facilities. Let's make sure that we are using actual scientific data 

when we make decisions about our children. For years, all research regarding the best ways to treat 

disciplining children points to the use of restorative practices. There is absolutely NO data that supports 

zero tolerance in school discipline. 

It's as simple as returning back to the basics. When we were in school, there were no police officers, no 

metal detectors, no zero tolerance policies. The amount of money a Chicago Public School spends on 

keeping law enforcement in the building is far greater than the amount of money a school spends on 

providing counselors for college. 

My short stint as a public defender led me to the world of restorative justice and I became a trainer for 

Chicago Public Schools. In one year, when principals were informed and former CEO (now Secretary of 

Education) Arne Duncan was behind the program, we went from training 20 schools to over 60 schools. 

The schools that adopted a restorative justice philosophy fared best as they reportedly saw their arrest 

rates decrease by 86%. Overall, students and staff were most satisfied in a restorative learning 

environment. 

I close with this quote from Psychologist H. Vilaski, "A child draws from within us the inclination and 

instinct for kindness, gentleness, generosity, and love. Accordingly, there is nothing more revolting to 

our humanity than cruelty to children. These truths we knew at one time and, somehow, subsequently 

forgot." Taken from the Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 1993. 

Thank you for your time and consideration, 
245 

Christine Agaiby, JD 

Campaign Director/Restorative Justice Adjunct Professor 

University of Northwestern Law School 
246 

December 10, 2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

-

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-la-Prison Pipeline 

Citizens 

for 

Juvenile 

Justice 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on ending the school-to-prison 

pipeline before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary. My name is Lael Chester and I am the Executive Director of 

Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ), an independent, non-profit organization in Massachusetts 

that strives to improve the Commonwealth'sjuvenilejustice system through advocacy, research 

and public education. I am writing to urge the Committee to take immediate action to 

address and dismantle the School-to-Prison pipeline, and in particular to curb the 

inappropriate use of school-based arrests and school-based police officers to criminalize 

students who are engaged in minor, non-violent misbehavior. 

The growing connection between schools and the juvenile and adult criminal justice system is 

one of the most pressing civil and human rights issues facing our youth and communities today. 

Over the past twenty-years, the United States has seen a dramatic and welcome decrease in 

youth crime. Youth crime rates have reached historic lows in many jurisdictions, in some cases 

reaching levels not seen since the 1960s or earlier. As a result, juvenile court caseloads across 

the country, including here in Massachusetts, have declined sharply. 

Despite these declines, a growing proportion of the caseload in juvenile courts across the 

country are cases that come directly from our schools. Indeed, in one large county in 

Massachusetts, our research found that roughly 40% of the youth being sent before the Juvenile 

Court were being referred there directly by local schools.! It is important to note that, as 

I This statistic is not unusual. See. e.g., Michael p, Krezmien, Peter E, Leone, Mark S. Zablocki, and Craig S. 

Wells, Juvenile Court Referrals and the Public Schools: Nature and Extent a/the Practice in Five States, Journal of 

Contemporary Criminal Justice, Volume 26, Number 3 (August 2010), 273~293 (finding schools as growing source 
247 

opposed to situations in which a student is arrested while being out-of-school due to a suspension 

or expulsion (other significant factors in feeding the "School-to-Prison Pipeline,,2), these are 

cases in which a student is arrested in school, often by a police officer who is permanently 

stationed in the school building. 

Why are so many schools sending kids to court? To answer that question, CDJ, in partnership 

with the Racial Justice Program of the national American Civil Liberties Union and the 

American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, conducted an in-depth review of three years of 

arrest data and incident reports from the three largest schools districts in Massachusetts: Boston, 

Springfield, and Worcester.3 The findings were deeply troubling. Students in Massachusetts 

are handcuffed, booked, and sent to court for behavior once handled by schools and 

parents, including swearing, slamming doors or banging lockers, failing to follow 

directions, or being disruptive in hallways. In all three districts, arrests for disruptive but 

otherwise relatively minor misbehavior made up the majority or a substantial percentage 

of all school-based arrests. 

Our review also found the following: 

• Arrest rates varied dramatically between districts and among schools within districts, 

suggesting that leadership/approach at both the school and district level has a significant 

impact on school arrests. For example, Springfield's overall arrest rate was three times 

higher than Boston's and more than four times higher than Worcester's. 

• Districts with permanently assigned police officers in their school buildings (as opposed 

to on-call officers) had higher arrest rates. 

• African-American students and students with disabilities were more likely to be arrested 

and to be arrested for minor offenses (e.g., "disturbing a public assembly" and "disorderly 

conduct") than other students. For example, although African-American students 

accounted for approximately one-third of Boston's student body during the 2008-09 and 

2009-10 school years, two-thirds of all Boston arrests during that period were of AfricanAmerican students. Seventy percent of those arrested for public order offenses were 

African-American.4 

of referral to juvenile courts in multiple jurisdictions across the country), available at 

http://ccj.sagepub.com/contenti26/3/273. 

2 See, e.g., American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective 

in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. 63, No.9, at 852-62 

(Dec. 2008), available at ~w.apa.org;pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf. 

3 A complete copy of the report, Arrested Futures: The Criminalization of School Discipline in Massachusetts's 

Three Largest School Districts, is submitted herewith and available at http://www.cfjj.orgiarrestedfutures.php. 

4 African-American students and students with learning disabilities are disproportionately affected by punitive 

school policing policies, not because they commit more serious crimes than Caucasian and Hispanic students, but 

because they are more frequently disciplined for minor public order offenses.See Russel J. Skiba & M. Karega 

Rausch, Zero Tolerance, Suspension, and Expulsion: Questions of Equity and Effectiveness, HANDBOOK OF 

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: RESEARCH, PRACTICE, AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES, ed. Carolyn M. Evertson & Carol 

S. Weinstein (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006): 1063-1089. Indeed, according to a University of 

2 
248 

• In Boston and Springfield, the highest arrest rates (up to 10 times the district-wide rates) 

were in schools purportedly designed to deal with children who have behavioral or 

emotional problems, or learning disabilities.s 

• In all three districts, children as young as 11 or 12 were subject to arrest, often as the 

result of childish outbursts. In one case, an upset 1 I -year old was charged with assault 

and battery on a public employee, disorderly conduct, and disturbing a lawful assembly 

after he left his classroom, ran outside the school building, and threw a snowball at a 

teacher. 

Incidents like the following were representative of our findings: 

A 14-year-old middle school student in Springfield, Massachusetts, was arrested after he 

refosed to walk with a teacher to her office and instead returned to his classroom. 

According to the police report, he yelled at the teacher, bounced a basketball in a school 

hal/way, failed to respond to a police officer's request to go with the teacher and 

slammed his classroom door shut. He was subsequently taken into police custody, 

handcuffed, transported to the police station and charged with "disturbing a lawfol 

assembly. " 

A boy at a high school in Springfield was suspended after refusing to go to class. He 

cursed as he was leaving the building, but subsequently changed his mind about leaving 

and stated, "I ain't leaVing it's too far to walk" He was arrested and charged with 

trespassing and disturbing school assembly. 

In 2008, an officer was called to a Worcester school to assist with a 13-year- old student 

who had become uncooperative and disruptive. She had been asked to leave the school 

building but refosed to do so, and threw a pencil at a staff member. She was charged with 

assault and battery, trespassing, disturbing school assembly, and threatening to commit a 

crime. 

In 2007, an ll-year-old student at a middle school in Springfield, who apparently 

believed that he had been falsely accused of wrongdoing, walked through the school 

Chicago analysis, African-American students actually were less likely to commit offenses that triggered a mandatory 

expulsion than their Caucasian and Hispanic counterparts. See, e.g., Matthew P. Steinberg, Elaine M. Allensworth 

& David W. Johnson, Student and Teacher Safoty in Chicago Public Schools, The Roles of Community Context and 

School Social Organization (Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago, Urban 

Education Institute, Chicago, Ill.), May 2011, at 46. 

5 A report by the Justice Policy Institute outlines multiple factors contributing to the disproportionate arrests of 

youth with disabilities. including: late or inappropriately designed individualized education plans or other 

accommodations for students with disabilities, inadequately trained teachers and staff, under-funded special 

education programs, and a reliance on law enforcement to provide discipline in schools. See Justice Policy Institute, 

Education Under Arrest: The Case Against Police in Schools (Nov. 2011) available at 

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrest executivesummary.pdf. 

3 
249 

building yelling "I did not do anything" and banging lockers. He was arrested after he 

was directed to calm down by a police officer, rejitsed to do so, stated that he "didn't 

care, " and threw his book bag. 

Most of the public order offense arrests we reviewed occurred after students refused to follow 

the directive of a teacher, administrator or police officer in a verbally confrontational or an 

aggressive manner. In addition, between one-quarter and one-third of the events that led to 

arrests for "person offenses" (such as assault) began as public order offenses but escalated after 

an officer attempted to physically restrain the student. Several involved aggressive efforts by 

police officers to handcuff students who did not want to be handcuffed, often in a public hallway 

or stairway in full view of the students' peers. The following story is illustrative: 

In 2010, in a hallway at a Springfield high school between classes, a police officer asked 

a student to stop, believing that an administrator was lookingfor her, She ignored him 

and started to walk up a flight of stairs. He pursued her, at which point she allegedly 

swore, refused to go with him, stated that she was going to her next class, and continued 

to walk away. The officer attempted to grab her by the arms so that he could handcuff 

her. She tried to pull away, striking him in the face. They continued to struggle and 

stumbled backwards down the stairs into a crowd of students. The student was charged 

with assault and battery on a police officer, disturbing a lawful assembly and resisting 

arrest. 

It was clear from our study that a significant percentage of the arrests in these schools were not 

because of weapons, drugs, or serious violence -- issues we would expect police officers to 

respond too-but for behavior that most people would expect teachers and administrators to 

address without handcuffing kids or sending them to court. Other researchers have found similar 

patterns, Districts that employ or deploy more police officers per student have higher rates of 

arrest than do districts with fewer officers per student.6 Those arrests frequently are based on 

behavior that, if not for the police presence, would not normally result in an arrest. Large 

numbers (in some cases well over half) of those who are arrested in school are charged with 

public order offenses such as "disorderly conduct," "disturbing school assembly" and "violating 

codes of conduct," or assault-related charges stemming from school yard fights. 7 

'During the 2008-09 school year, for example, Philadelphia's public schools had a security force that was three 

times larger than that of 19 other Pennsylvania school districts combined, despite the fact that it had a far lower 

student enrollment. It also had an arrest rate that was up to 25 times higher than that of some other large districts in 

the Pennsylvania. Advancement Project and Youth United for Change, Zero Tolerance in Philadelphia: Denying 

Educational Opportunities and Creating a Pathway to Prison (2011), at 15, available at 

http://www.advancementproject.orgldigital-libraryipublicationsizero-tolerance-in-philadelphia-denying-educationalopportunities-and-creating-pathways-to-prison. 

7 A 2006 Florida study, for example, found that 76% ofthe roughly 30,000 students arrested for misbehaving at 

school had been charged with misdemeanor public order offenses or assault offenses stemming from school yard 

fights. Florida State Conference NAACP, Advancement Project & NAACP 

4 
250 

Schools have every right to hold disruptive youth accountable for their actions. However, 

criminalizing those actions, and diverting kids away from school and into the juvenile or adult 

criminal justice system, is harmful to everyone. Students who are arrested at school are three 

times more likely to drop out than those who are not. Students who drop out are eight times 

more likely to end up in the criminal justice system than those who remain in school and 

graduate, and the cost of housing, feeding and caring for prison inmates is nearly three times that 

of educating students. 

Using police officers to maintain order and address student behavior is also costly, and an 

imprudent use of taxpayer dollars in these difficult economic times. Evidence-based school 

disciplinary programs that are designed to improve overall school climate, and that can be 

implemented by teachers and administrators, are not only cheaper but more effective at keeping 

schools safe and orderly. Among other things, such programs train teachers on how best to 

manage their classrooms and permit schools to more accurately identify those students who may 

need additional supports and services or a different type of educational program to function in 

the classroom. 

Based on our findings, our report made the following recommendations: 

I. Schools and police should immediately discontinue the use of "public order" arrests to 

exclude students from schoo!. 

2. Schools should transition from using permanently assigned police officers in their school 

buildings to using on-call officers for true emergencies. Money now spent on in-school 

officers should be redirected to programs that support schools in addressing disciplinary 

issues proactively, such as evidence-based behavior management programs or improved 

student support services. 

3. To the extent police are deployed in schools, police and school officials should develop 

formal agreements to clarify the roles of officers in schools, and officers should be 

Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Arresting Development. Addressing the School Discipline Crisis in Florida 

(Spring 2006), at 15, available at www.advancemcntproject.orglsitesldefaultlfileslful1%20report.pdf. A 2009 South 

Carolina study concluded that the single most common charge against a student referred to juvenile court for 

misbehaving at school was "disturbing schools." South Carolina Dep't of Juvenile Justice, Annual Statistical Report 

2008-09, at 13 (Oct. 2009), available at www.state.sc.usldjjlpdfs/200S-09-Annual-Statistical-Report. pdf. A 2005 

study of policing in Denver's schools found that 42% of law enforcement referrals during the 2003-2004 school 

year were for "other violations of code of conduct," which included being a member of an "unauthorized 

organization," destruction of non- school property, use of obscenities, use of slurs, bullying and minor fights. 

Advancement Project, Southwest Youth Collaborative, Children & Family Justice Center at Northwestern 

University School of Law, Padres and Jovenes Unidos, Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse 

Track (2005), at 23-24, available at http://www.advancementproject.orgldigital-librarylpublicationsleducation-onlockdown-the-schoolhouse-to-jailhouse-track. The same report found that of the over S,OOO Chicago public school 

children arrested in school, over 40% were arrested were for simple assaults and batteries which did not involve 

serious injuries or weapons and were often nothing more than threats or minor fights. Id at S. 

5 
251 

required to receive training in conflict de-escalation and child and adolescent 

development. 

4. Data on school-based arrests, including the underlying justification for all arrests, should 

be publicly available to parents and communities, and this data should be used to hold 

schools accountable for inappropriate and harmful policing practices. 

5. Federal and state officials should investigate the disproportionate use of arrest against 

African-American students and students at therapeutic schools. 

In addition to adopting policies that encourage the foregoing, there are numerous steps that this 

Committee can take to ensure that schools are held accountable for inappropriately arresting 

students and to encourage schools to adopt less discriminatory and more effective discipline 

policies. In particular, Cfn urges this Committee to take the following immediate actions: 

1. Instruct the federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education to 

collect data not just on the number of arrests in each school, but the justification for these 

arrests. It is critical to document the fact that many schools are arresting kids for nonviolent, minor misbehavior or even minor violations of the school code of conduct 

(including failure to wear appropriate uniforms). Schools should be required to provide 

the justification for direct referrals to the court system as well. (Both types of referrals -

arrest and direct court referrals are currently tracked in the OCR data.) 

2. Clarify that schools must report arrest data to the OCR even if they do not directly 

employ the police officers who work in their schools. School officials in Springfield, 

Massachusetts, for example, did not report many of the arrests we documented to the 

OCR because they asserted that the Springfield Police officers who worked in their 

schools (with whom they had an Memorandum of Understand) were not school 

employees. 

3. Instruct and fund the OCR, in coordination with the Civil Rights Division of the 

Department of Justice, to fully investigate and take action against schools with 

disproportionately high rates of arrests among students of color or disabled students. 

Alternatively, establish a private cause of action for these students to ensure that they 

have a legal remedy to address discriminatory disciplinary practices in their schools. 

4. Provide incentives to schools to adopt evidence-based discipline practices and to 

discontinue or severely limit the use of on-site school police officers. 

In addition to these steps, I urge the federal government to support communities in their fight to 

end the school-to-prison pipeline. We encourage the government to work to reduce racial 

disparities in discipline, promote alternatives to harsh punishment, and ensure that all young 

people have the opportunity to succeed. 

6 
252 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lael E. H. Chester 

Executive Director 

Citizens for Juvenile Justice 

101 Tremont Street, Suite 1000, Boston, MA 02108 

7 
253 

Department of Community and Cultural Services 

1685 Main Street, Room 210 

PO BOX 2200 

Santa Monica, California 90407-2200 cay",! 

Sallt. MenlcRDecember 10, 2012 

The Honorable Richard Durbin 

Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

United States Senate 

815 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject December 12, 2012 Hearing on Ending the School-la-Prison Pipeline; Hearing Before 

the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Dear Chairman Durbin, 

The Santa Monica Cradle to Career (smC2C) Initiative was bom out of the community's desire 

to create the very best outcomes for all youth, families and communities. The entity's 

leadership committee, the smC2C Working Group, has taken a firm position on the need to 

eliminate fragmentation in services that often result in shuffling of youth from one system to 

another and too often results in the institutionalization of youth for minor offenses. We found 

that they could best be helped by integrating teams of providers so they can offer altematives 

and resources to the otherwise expedient referral to the juvenile justice system. 

The City's smC2C Initiative is a broad collaborative of policy makers and leaders from the City 

of Santa Monica, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Santa Monica College, local 

nonprofits, neighborhood and parent organizations, and the business community, charged with 

developing policies and structures to communicate and accelerate community-wide efforts to 

decrease youth violence and ensure the successful and safe development of all youth. 

The smC2C identifies the need for system development that includes: . 

• Shared data between institutions to track outcomes - in real time - across 

the development continuum; 

• Shared policy to align and integrate human development work across 

institutions; and, 

• Collective impact structures to bridge and get the very best from our 

strong programs and institutions. 

Tel: 310 458-8310 • fax: 310 576-1539 
254 

We have seen success thus far with shared data via the development of a Youth Wellbeing 

Report Card, which can be found on the smC2C website: santamonicayouth.net. This Report 

Card has been shared widely within our community and will help guide our future work. 

Communities across the country need to establish and implement a "whatever it takes· 

approach to support youth including altematives to incarceration as well as services that do not 

stop at the jail door. The infrastructure of this system calls for collaborative case management 

and the application of resources to increase prevention as well as mitigate the stressors in the 

lives of youth. Support to ensure re-entry services when they leave the juvenile justice system 

to lessen the chances for recidivism and other best practices is vit~1 to this endeavor. 

Creativity around the solutions may best be approached at a community-based level, as we 

hope we are demonstrating. Because of the complexity of the problems and the systemic levels 

of the challenges, we hope that the federal government can be a willing and robust partner. 

Community collaborators should be at the forefront of research, data collection, and 

collaborations. We would enthusiastically invite a broad scope of federal partners to this work. 

The federal government would make an excellent resource in identifying and providing material 

support for best practices. Such support will need an investment of time and energy from the 

Congress. 

For these reasons, we applaud the leadership of the federal government and the work of the 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. Your 

hearing on the school-ta-prison pipeline provides a forum to look at these important issues. We 

commit our community to contributing to the best practices and shared knowledge about policy 

conSiderations, program models that work and the resources called for to address and evaluate 

these important issues. 

Sincerely, 

rf .~c£u)20LifL/ 

i/ 

~ Julie Rusk 

Assistant Director, 

Community & Cultural Services 

f;\human5ervicesl.harelcradl. to career inHiatlve,\correspondencelsenate hearing dec 2012.docx 
255 

JL 

COALITION 

FOR TUVENILE 

JDSTICE 

Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

on 

"Ending the School to Prison Pipeline" 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226 

2:00p.m. 

Testimony from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

Nancy Gannon Hornberger, Executive Director 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on ending policies and practices 

that cause students to be referred to law enforcement and the courts for non-delinquent 

school infractions, known collectively as "the school to prison pipeline." I am 

submitting this written testimony as executive director of the Coalition for Juvenile 

Justice. The Coalition has, for 28 years, served as the nonpartisan, national association 

representing state juvenile justice advisory groups in all states, territories and the 

District of Columbia, and our statellocal allies. Since 1974, state advisory groups (or 

"SAGs") have been chartered under the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act (or JJDPA) and appointed by governors or chief executives to serve as 

citizen volunteers with the charge and legal duty to plan and implement the programs 

and requirements of the JJDPA, including supporting, monitoring and reporting on 

compliance with four core protections that are fairly well known in juvenile justice: the 

deinstitutionalization of status offenders (050); the timely removal of juvenile 

offenders from adult jails; the sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults in 

lock-ups, and the reduction of disproportionate minority contact (OMC). Our 

Nancy Gannon Hornberger, Executive Director 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice 1317 F Street, NW Suite 402 Washington, DC 20004 

202-467-0864 www.juvjustice.org 
256 

constituency embodies several thousand public and private sector juvenile court 

professionals, practitioners, community service providers, parents, youth and 

advocates. It is on their behalf that I submit this testimony today. 

In recent years, we have witnessed an unprecedented conflation of school discipline 

policy and sanctions traditionally reserved for the juvenile justice system. In fact, the 

connection between school discipline and the juvenile court has become so close that it 

led to the coining of the phrase "school-to-prison pipeline." The pervasive use of 

exclusionary discipline and zero-tolerance policies have created this pipeline effect, 

which funnels youth out of the school system and into the juvenile justice system. The 

pipeline impacts a broad swath of youth across lines of race, ethnicity, gender and 

sexual orientation, and leads to poor outcomes for the youth themselves, their families, 

schools and communities, ultimately denying educational and emotional support to 

those who may need it the most. 

The Coalition joins many others in applauding the efforts of this Administration to 

address the school-to-prison pipeline through projects like the Supportive School 

Discipline Initiative jointly spearheaded by the Department of Education and 

Department of Justice. Yet, clearly, much more work remains to be done. For example, 

recent data from the U.s. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights ("OCR") 

indicate that exclusionary discipline and zero tolerance policies are disproportionately 

applied to youth of color, an outcome that is directly at odds with the JJDP A mandate to 

reduce disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system. 

According to the latest data, collected from schools across the country during the 2009-

2010 academic year, African American students were three and a half times more 

likely to be suspended or expelled than their white classmates and comprised 46 

percent of those students who were suspended more than once. During the 2009-2010 

school year 39 percent of all expulsions were of African American students even though 

they represented only 18 percent of enrolled students. 

These disparities in suspension and expulsion rates were not accounted for 

by socioeconomic status or by higher rates of misbehavior among African American 

students. According to the OCR data, 96,000 students were arrested and 242,000 

21Page 
257 

referred to law enforcement by schools during the 2009-2010 school year; 70 percent 

were African American or Hispanic. 1 

Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health 

reports that suspension and expulsion can lead to, or worsen, academic problems, 

delinquency, crime and substance abuse, also noting that the children most likely to be 

suspended are those who most need the assistance and supervision of professionals. 2 

In recognition of the counterproductive nature of the policies that feed the pipeline, 

many jurisdictions have taken the initiative to implement reforms to address this 

problem with youth-, family- and community-focused approaches. In Clayton County, 

Georgia for example, Judge Steven Teske, a witness at this hearing and longstanding 

member of our Coalition, successfully led a collaborative that reduced school discipline 

referrals by 73 percent between 2003 and 2011.3 At the same time, community safety 

improved; Clayton County also saw a 51 percent reduction in juvenile felony rates 

during that period. The strategy employed in Clayton County, and increasingly around 

the country, involves a collaborative approach that diverts youth charged with inschool infractions away from the juvenile courts altogether and toward holistic, 

community-based solutions that focus on addressing root causes and unmet needs 

rather than imposing court sanctions. Judge Teske is one of nine judges profiled for 

their ground breaking work to support improved outcomes for children, youth, families 

and communities in a 2012 Coalition for Juvenile Justice publication, Positive Power: 

Exercising Judicial Leadership to Prevent Court Involvement and Incarceration ofNonDelinquent Youth. 

In 2009, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice Council of State Advisory Groups (composed 

of state advisory group chairs, nationwide) unanimously approved a formal 

organizational position on Ensuring School Engagement and Success vs. Exclusion for Youth 

at Risk of Delinquency. The text follows: 

I U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) accessed at: 

http:Uwww2.ed.govlaboutlofficesllistlocrldata.html. 

2 The Committee on School Health, 2003. "Out of School Suspension and Expulsion." Pediatrics: Official Journal of the 

American Academy of Pediatrics: 112(5), 1206-1209. 

3 Coalition for Juvenile Justice, #Positive Power: Exercising Judicial Leadership to Prevent Court hwolvement and 

Incarceration of Non-Delinquent Youth", Washington D.C. (2012) 

3lPagt' 
258 

The Coalition for Juvenile Justice envisions partnerships between educators, school 

resource officers and other law enforcement representatives, parents and students as 

essential to meet the varied needs of individual students. All share a common vision 

of ensuring school engagement and success for all children and youth, yet for some 

youth-particularly those vulnerable to involvement in the justice system-it may 

be challenging to achieve this vision. 

The Coalition sees a primary goal of partnerships to ensure school engagement as 

emphasizing and supporting inclusion and effective responses to youth at risk, 

versus exclusion or responses that seek to remove rather than resolve problems 

generated by students who may disengage, become disruptive or experience 

academic and/or social failure in school. 

Related to this goal. we would ask communities and schools to: 

ensure that all means are taken within a positive school environment to 

ensure that students experience high levels of school engagement and 

success; 

strive to keep students in school. to involve parents, families and other 

responsible adults in assisting in this effort; 

guard against any bias in school discipline or policy that may adversely and 

disproportionately affect students of color and students of linguistic, ethnic 

and racial minority backgrounds; 

provide school-based and family-connected services for students who are 

struggling to learn and those who have emotional and behavioral health 

needs and other disabilities. 

The Coalition shares the goal of every school environment being safe, secure, 

welcoming to students and families, and designed for student success. With this in 

mind, we are concerned that some attempts to increase school safety, such as zero 

tolerance and other school disciplinary policies and practices have had negative 

results for students, especially students from racial/ethnic minority groups and 

those with special needs and other disabilities. In some cases, such policies exclude 

students from schools and push them into juvenile justice systems. 

To effect real change in this area, it is important to understand problems that occur 

as a result of overly-broad application of zero tolerance and other school 

disciplinary practices, including: 

41Page 
259 

high rates of out of school suspensions and expulsions; 

school disengagement and failure among students subject to harsh policies; 

punishments too extreme to fit student infractions; 

over-representation of youth of color adversely affected by school discipline; 

over-representation of students with disabilities, particularly 

behavioral/emotional disabilities and special needs, adversely affected by 

school discipline. 

Furthermore, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice supports approaches for ending the 

school to prison pipeline that integrate the following principles: 

• Demand for evidence-based approaches. There is now ample evidence to support 

the position that policies that exclude youth from schools lead to detrimental 

outcomes for them, their families and communities. Any approach to stem the 

school to prison pipeline should take into account the best evidence we have of what 

works, including reducing referrals to the juvenile justice system, and for those 

youth referred, reduction in the use of out-of-home placement and an increase in 

community-based interventions that focus on addressing unmet needs. For instance 

in 2008, the Denver Public Schools revised the disciplinary policy to state that law 

enforcement should only be involved when there is a serious or immediate threat to 

individual or school safety, and to encourage alternatives to suspension, expulsion, 

and referral to law enforcement, such as family group conferencing, victim-offender 

mediation and classroom peace circles. 

• Balancing of interests. The Coalition for Juvenile Justice supports the use of 

approaches that balance needs for the fair administration of justice, community 

safety and the health and well-being of youth who come into contact with the 

juvenile justice system. Our experience and the evidence shows that these interests 

are not at odds with one another. For instance, one key component of an improved 

approach is to eliminate school exclusion for disciplinary infractions - specifically 

long-term suspension and expulsion practices. In-school interventions and 

alternative services and support produce better outcomes and avert future 

problems. The National Coordinating Committee on School Health and Safety 

reported that suspension and expulsion lead to or worsen academic problems, 

delinquency and substance abuse. They also noted that children most likely to be 

51Page 
260 

suspended are those who most need the assistance and supervision of 

professionals. 4 Additionally, suspension or expulsion has been shown to be a 

primary reason for dropping out of schools and high school drop-outs are 3.5 times 

more likely than high school graduates to be incarcerated. 6 

• Reliance on partnerships. The strategies that work best-examples from the field 

collected over our decades' experience-are those that rely on a mix of publicprivate partnership and support, broad-based involvement from system actors and 

community stakeholders including families and youth. In the Coalition's 2001 

report to the President, the Congress and the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Abandoned in the Back Row: New Lessons in Education and 

Delinquency Prevention, we pinpointed specific strategies and qualities of supportive 

school settings serving low income and at-risk populations. Such supportive schools 

and educational settings involve parents and family members, seek to develop 

children's/youths' strengths and personal assets, and create positive environments 

for communication and learning, including: 

Beacon Schools/Centers: http://www.sfbeacon.orglBeaconCenters/ 

• Families and Students Together (FAST): http:Uwww.familiesandscl100ls.org/ 

• Communities in Schools: http:Uwww.communitiesinschools.org/ 

Specific strategies to resolve disproportionate minority contact ("DMC") and 

racial/ethnic disparities. Both the efficacy and integrity of the juvenile justice systems 

are threatened if school and juvenile justice sanctions are disproportionately applied to 

specific races and ethnic groups. In addition to the steps supported by our Coalition's 

position paper (above), we support the following recommendations for improved 

policies and practices to safeguard the civil rights of students and create more effective 

and equitable learning environments:? 

Educators should routinely collect, reflect upon, and publicly report data on 

school disciplinary removal. Reports at the state, district, and school level (where 

permissible) should include data dis aggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, and 

'The Committee on School Health, 2003. Out of School Suspension and Expulsion. Pediatrics: 112(5), 1206-1209. 

5 DeRidder, Lawrence M. How Suspension and Expulsion Contribute to Dropping Out, The Education Digest, February 

1991. 

'Martin, N., & Halperin, S. Whatever It Takes: How Twelve Communities are Reconnecting Out-of-School Youth. 

Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum, 2006. 

1 Daniel Losen, Civil Rights Project, National Education Policy Center, October 2011. Online at: 

http://civilrightsproject. ucla.edu!research/k -12-education!school-discipline!discipline-policies-successful-schoolsand-racial-justice 

61Page 
261 

disability status in terms of numbers of each group disciplined. These reports 

should also include the percentage of each group that experiences suspension 

and expulsion, as well as disaggregated incidence data on the type of infraction 

and the number of days of missed instruction that results from such removals. 

Civil rights enforcement agents should use the disparate impact standard of legal 

review as grounds to pursue remedies for the unjust and unnecessary removal of 

children from schooL 

Federal and state policy should specify the rate of out-of-school suspensions as 

one of several factors to be considered in assessments of school efficacy, 

especially for low-performing schools. 

Researchers should investigate connections between school diScipline data and 

key outcomes such as achievement, graduation rates, teacher effectiveness, and 

college and career readiness. 

System-wide improvements should be pursued through better policies and 

practices at all levels-including an effort to improve teachers' skills in classroom 

and behavior management. 

For more information, please feel free to contact us at the Coalition for Juvenile Justice: 

202-467-0864 and on email info@juyjustice.orgor on the Web: www.juvjustice.org. 

Many thanks for your consideration of this topic and exploration of changes that will 

re-emphasis student inclusion and school success for all. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/~---

Nancy Gannon Hornberger 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

December 10, 2012 

71Page 
262 

1500 Union Ave, Ste. 2700, Baltimore, MD 21211 

voice 410-889-7400 fax 410-889-0944 

com m unityco nfere n cin g. org 

Statement for Hearing on School to Prison Pipeline 

Submitted by: 

Lauren Abramson, PhD. 

Founding Director 

Community Conferencing Center 

Baltimore, MD 21211 

410-889-7400 

labramso@jhmi.edu 

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) 

Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Dear Senator Durbin, 

I am writing on behalf of the Community ConferenCing Center in BaHimore, a community 

justice program with 14 years of experience providing Restorative Practices in schools, 

to express what we feel is an urgent need to dismantle Zero Tolerance policies that fuel 

the School to Prison Pipeline, and to adopt more effective policies which embrace 

Restorative Practices. 

The Community Conferencing Center has included over 10,000 students, teachers, 

administrators and family members in successful School Community Conferences as an 

alternative to schools suspension and arrest, and has trained over 3,000 Baltimore 

teachers in facilitating "Daily Rap" dialogue circles in their classrooms. 

Schools that use conferencing and Daily Rap have documented 60% reductions in 

suspensions, 50% reductions in the time teachers spend on classroom behavior 

management, reductions in bullying, and huge increases in satisfaction with the 

disciplinary process, and countless reports of remarkable new friendships and stronger 

engagement in learning. 

I will keep this short, and simply share with you one example of a Community Conference 

that illustrates how this social technology can provide far better outcomes at less cost 

than do zero tolerance policies, arrest and suspension. We facilitated this conference in 

Baltimore City Schools as an alternative to expulsion. The outcome not only kept this 

student in school, but provide he and his (guardian) sister with much-needed supportwhich would have otherwise gone un-noticed. 

Transforming Conflict into Cooperation 
263 

A middle school boy was going to be expelled because his teacher saw him showing a 

box cutter to his classmate. . 

Nobody in the school wanted to exert the mandatory expulsion, because this was a really 

good kid. The Community Conference was attended by a suspension services worker, 

the principal, the school secretary (who really liked this boy), his teacher, his 26 year old 

sister (who was his guardian), and the 12 year old boy. 

Everyone sat in a circle, and the boy told the story of what happened. The night before, 

his sister sent him to the corner convenience story to get something for dinner. It was 

dark, and his neighborhood is not safe, so she gave him a box cutter for protection. He 

forgot about it, and when he realized in school the next day that he had it, he showed it to 

his friend. When his teacher saw it, she realized that, because of the school system's 

zero tolerance policy for weapons, she had to report the incident for expulsion. 

But nobody in the school-teachers or administrators-wanted this child expelled. They 

referred the case to the Community Conferencing Center, a community-based 

organization that partners with the school system to provide Community Conferencing as 

an alternative to suspension, expulsion, and arrest. 

The boy was remorseful and apologized through his tears. He also told about how, since 

he had been put out of school, he had to sit home alone during the day because his 

sister-with whom he live-worked. He had also not been receiving the home schooling 

services that were supposed to be provided to him. 

His sister was crestfallen. She had sole responsibility for raising her brother, as her 

parents were lost to street life. She was trying her best to work, raise enough money to 

live on, and give her little brother an upbringing that would help him be successful in life. 

But it was hard; she had little support and they lived in a very tough neighborhood. She 

needed him to be in school. 

Everyone was in tears. The principal, the teacher, and the school secretary all expressed 

their caring and concern for this student, and said they wanted him to stay in school. He 

was a good student, and they were willing to help him get into afterschool programs and 

weekend activities. 

The suspension services worker agreed to the plan that everyone worked out to support 

this student and his sister. They were happy that they did not have to expel him for this 

mistake, which clearly had no intention of harm or maliciousness. 

Community Conferencing and Daily Rap are only 2 of many forms of Restorative 

Practices. 

Restorative Practices are evidence-based approaches to discipline that will truly help 

build 21st century learning environments. Restorative Practices promote the following 

vital capacities that have been proven to be indicators of successful learning and 

emotional development necessary for productive and healthy lives: 

1. create schools where young people feel connected to each other 

2. create schools where young people feel connected to the adults in their schools 

and in their lives 

3. build responsibility for self and others 

4. promote empathy 

5. nurture positive self-concept 

6. give young people and adults an experience of 

Transforming Conflict into Cooperation 
264 

a. having a voice and being heard 

b. feeling like their actions affect and are important to others 

c. working collaboratively 

And heck, I'll just say it: Restorative Practices would work for congress too. 

Feel free to call us if you need any help with that. 

Respectfully, 

Lauren Abramson, Ph.D. 

Founding Director 

Community Conferencing Center 

Baltimore, MD 

www.communitvconferencing.org 

Transforming Conflict into Cooperation 
265 

CONGRESSMAN ROBERT C. "BOBBY" SCOTT (VA-03) 

I I 

1. 

2. 
266 

3. 

4. 
267 

5. 

6. 
268 

Testimony of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on School-to-Prison Pipeline 

December 12, 2012 

We would like to thank Senator Durbin and the Judiciary Committee for holding this 

hearing. While education reform receives a great deal of attention, the role that 

rational discipline must play in improving schools does not. We hope today is the 

beginning of a national conversation. 

Part of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance's mission is to keep kids out of the 

juvenile justice system who can be served more effectively and safely in the 

community. Schools, unfortunately, are a major feeder to the juvenile justice system 

with some sending students to court for trivial matters. 

This wastes public safety resources and lowers educational achievement. Most 

importantly, treating a kid like a criminal is the most effective way we know to turn 

him into one. That's why it is so disturbing to see children enter the system without 

good reason. Actual Connecticut cases include a high school student caught with 

cigarettes and one 5th grader giving another a wedgie on a school bus. 

The rise in school arrests springs from this overreaction to normal misbehavior 

rather than from some increase in youth violence. In fact, juvenile crime is declining, 

and so is violent crime in schools.!. Connecticut's Judicial Branch found that in the 

2011-2012 academic year 19 percent of juvenile arrests that made it to court 

originated in schools. We tell kids to stay in school to keep out of trouble - but that's 

where a shockingly high number of arrests happen. 

Arrest causes a child to miss school and is linked to lower graduation rates, reduced 

achievement and a general feeling of disconnection on the student's part. 

Being arrested in school doubles the chances that a child will drop out, even when 

controlling for other factors like middle school grade point average, a 2006 study 

found. 2 The same research demonstrated that a court appearance quadruples the 

chances a child will not finish high school 

The link between school arrest and dropping out is bad news for students - and for 

the rest of us. A 2011 Northeastern University study calculated the net economic 

contributions of 18- to 64-year-olds by comparing their tax payments with the 

money they withdrew from the economy through public programs like food 

1 Youth Violence Project. http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/vioience-inschools/national-statistics.html Accessed 7/27/2012. 

2 Sweeten, Gary, "Who Will Graduate? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and 

Court Involvement" 24.4, Justice Quarterly, (December 2006) 

Testimony of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance 12/12/12 1 

2470 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport CT 06605 203-579-2727 

www.ctjja.org 
269 

stamps.3 The average annual net civic contribution was more than $10,000 for all 

adults. High school dropouts, on the other hand, cost the public coffers $1,500. 

The emotional cost borne immediately and permanently by a child is even worse. 

As an Advancement Project report so eloquently puts it: 

"Zero tolerance policies inherently conflict with prescriptions for healthy child 

development. They are designed primarily to punish and offer few opportunities for 

instruction or help for students. They frequently fall into the category of overly 

harsh punishment that, in the words of noted psychologists James Comer and Alvin 

Poussaint, 'either destroys a child's spirit, has no effect at all, worsens the problem, 

or makes it more difficult for you to work with the child in school - he or she no 

longer trusts yoU."'4 

Arrest is disproportionately visited upon boys, children of color, special education 

students and children from low-income communities. During the 2010-2011 school 

year in Connecticut, boys were twice as likely to be arrested as girls; black children 

were nearly four times more likely to be arrested in school as white children; 

Hispanic children were more than three times as likely to be arrested as white 

children; special education students were nearly three times as likely to be arrested 

as regular education students; and children in the state's poorest districts were 

more than nine times as likely to be arrested as those from the wealthiest districts. 5 

Around the country, adults who care about kids are stepping up to address this 

problem. But their efforts need to be scaled up considerably. Lawmakers could help 

by demanding transparency from school districts on their arrest practices and by 

funding innovative programs that decrease arrests, rather than offering aid to 

increase policing in schools. 

I would like to call your attention to two Connecticut districts where schools, police, 

courts and the community worked together to reduce student arrests. Manchester 

decreased its student arrest rate 61 percent in a single year. Windham achieved a 34 

percent decrease. These impressive numbers are the result of adults coming 

together in strong teams to help kids, take a hard look at discipline and examine 

how eXisting resources could be better used to help students become good citizens 

in the classroom and the community. 

3 Sum, Andrew, et. aI. "High School Dropouts in Chicago and Illinois The Growing Labor 

Market, Income, Civic, Social and Fiscal Costs of Dropping out of High School" Chicago 

Alternative Schools Network, November 2011. 

4 Advancement Project "Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of ZeroTolerance and School Discipline" July, 2002. 

5 Connecticut Voices for Children analysis of data provided by Connecticut Department of 

Education as cited in testimony of Sarah Esty to the Connecticut General Assembly, March 

12,2012. 

Testimony of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance 12/12/12 2 

2470 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport CT 06605 203-579-2727 

www.ctjja.org 
270 

Schools exist to teach a variety of academic subjects. They also exist to partner with 

families in teaching children how to be respectful and cooperative members of a 

community. Arrest rarely teaches kids anything, except perhaps that the adults in 

his or her life have given up. 

We have seen what happens when communities refuse to give up on their kids, and 

it is truly inspiring. Personal stories from teachers and a student in districts that 

have reformed their discipline policies are attached to this testimony. They have a 

great deal to teach us all. 

Testimony ofthe Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance 12/12/12 

2470 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport CT 06605 203-579-2727 

www.ctjja.org 

3 
271 

Silence Is Not the Answer 

Has anyone ever solved a problem by not talking about it? In Manchester, 

Connecticut, middle and high school students who are given a detention can choose 

the traditional silent detention or they can opt for Play By the Rules, a program 

where they spend their detention time working on improving their behavior. 

Kids talk with each other about their behavior, why it happened, and what they 

might do differently next time. "It's so much more powerful coming from another 

student," explained Brenda Lorange, who facilitates Play By the Rules. The program 

uses a curriculum created by the Alabama Center for Law & Civic Education, edited 

for Connecticut by Civics First, Inc. and Supervisory Juvenile Prosecutor Francis J. 

Carino and brought to Connecticut by Civics First, Inc. 

That session is often just the beginning for kids as they look for adult support to 

succeed in school. "It's like a work in progress," said Lorange. "It doesn't end with 

the hour." She's a monitor, walking the halls of Manchester High School all day. After 

a Play By the Rules session, kids tend to see her as a resource. She tells them that 

they can approach anyone with a radio (monitors, school security or school 

resource officers) and get in touch with her immediately if they're in a situation they 

don't know how to handle. Lorange has been able to defuse conflicts between 

students this way. 

As with many of Manchester's discipline reforms, Play By the Rules focuses on the 

root causes of behavior. "The baggage 1 hear about is so sad," said Lorange. 

For example, she worked with a boy who emigrated from Africa. He's a native 

French speaker who didn't begin attending school until the age of 13. He began 

roaming in the school, a problem that Lorange also sees in kids with special 

education needs that aren't being met. They also frequently leave school altogether. 

"That's their way of taking charge of their lives - by leaving the building," she said. 

Lorange becomes an advocate for these kids and works with administrators to "cut 

through a bunch of red tape" and get them appropriate supports quickly. 

Lorange is excited to offer a lunchtime art therapy option for students that is 

planned to kick off this academic year. "This is going to be absolutely wonderful," 

she said. 

Student arrest reduction has been an energizing. inspiring project for Lorange. "I 

love it," she said." It's very rewarding to actually feel like you're doing something." 

Testimony of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance 12/12/12 

2470 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport CT 06605 203-579-2727 

www.ctjja.org 

4 
272 

"It's About The Kids" 

Heather Sica, a music teacher at Hling Middle School in Manchester, Connecticut, 

does not just prepare kids to play on key at concerts but also to perform well in life. 

Sica is a Manchester Agencies, Police and Schools Collaborative (MAPS) mentor. 

"It's not always about the music," said Sica. "It's about the kids." 

Last year, the School Attendance Review Board linked Sica to a freshman who was in 

danger of not passing enough classes to become a sophomore and possibly of 

dropping out as a result The board paired Sica with the boy because of his interest 

in music. Their relationship began through piano lessons, but she soon found herself 

working with him on homework for his biggest problem subject, science. "Give them 

what they need," Sica figured. The primary thing she did to guide her mentee was 

even more basic than homework help. She thinks her main contributions were to 

"listen, be there," she said. 

His attendance improved over the course of his work with Sica, but he hit a snag and 

stopped coming to school again. Sica called him and said: "Dude, own up to it and 

move on!" He was back at school that afternoon. 

Sica's classroom also serves as "home base" for a girl who has an "oil and water" 

relationship with a classroom teacher. The girl can come in whenever she feels in 

danger oflosing control. If Sica is teaching a class, the student sits quietly. 

Eventually, the two will talk about the conflict. The girl returns to class when she's 

calm and ready to apologize. "She's spending a lot less time in the principal's office," 

said Sica. 

Sica does not have a reduced teaching load, so her days can stretch out as a result of 

the time she spends with her mentees. "If you can make a difference, who cares?" 

she said. Sica gets something out of it, too: "It's just being able to make that 

connection and know you had that positive experience with that kid. You never 

know what that connection can do." 

Testimony of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance 12/12/12 

2470 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport CT 06605203-579-2727 

www.ctjja.org 

.5 
273 

One Teacher, A World of Difference 

"I was horrible. I was so, so, so bad," remembers Sacha Gomez, 18, of Windham 

Connecticut. Poverty was just one of the issues that confronted her at home. Gomez 

was angry, and that anger led her into trouble more than once. 

By 8th grade she would just leave school in the middle of the day. Why not? She was 

flunking out anyway. Police would come looking for her. In high school, she was 

arrested three times at school for fighting. 

Sophomore year she was on the verge of getting expelled - fighting again - when 

she was sent to Lynn Frazier, a reading teacher at Willimantic High School who 

coaches The Young Poets, a group that empowers kids to be writers. (Willimantic is 

a small city within the larger town of Windham.) Gomez was told to read a book 

she'd already read and disliked. "Yo, I'm not doing this for you," she told Frazier, 

before letting loose with a torrent of expletives. 

Frazier let her vent for a while, then asked, "Are you ready? Are you OK?" The 

teacher went on to say that she didn't much like the book either and encouraged 

Gomez to finish the reading quickly so they could move to more interesting work. 

That night Gomez had a dream about doing a talent show at school. "In our school, 

they only focus on the bad stuff. They never focus on what's good, like the talents," 

she explained. The following morning she shared her idea with Frazier, who loved it. 

Gomez did host a talent show that year, and her junior and senior years as well. 

They were fundraisers, contributing to causes like supporting The Young Poets and 

purchasing an accessible van for a disabled student. Gomez, who is now a student at 

community college, also works as a counselor at the town's teen center. Dealing with 

kids at the center, she's adopted Frazier's approach. "You can't ask for respect," she 

said. "You've got to give them some respect." 

Frazier's patient listening was something Gomez could have used much earlier in 

her education. "You want us to go to school and show you some respect, but you're 

not listening to us," Gomez said. Then she was quiet for a bit. "I don't know why 

every teacher can't be like Ms. Frazier," she said. 

Testimony of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance 12/12/12 

2470 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport CT 06605 203-579-2727 

www.ctjja.org 

6 
274 

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. 

A natiol1ail'oicefor ,\lJecial education rights and advoco(}, 

Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

COP AA Comments for the Record 

December 10, 2012 

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) is a nonprofit organization of 

parents. attorneys, and advocates who work to protect the civil rights of children with 

disabilities and ensure that they receive appropriate educational services. Some members are 

in private practice; others work for public interest organizations that serve low-income parents 

and other nonprofit purposes. COPAA members see the successes and failures of our 

education system through thousands of eyes, in schools across this country evelY day of every 

week of every year. This lens brings into focus a profound inequity in schools nationwide. 

This inequity is underscored in the recent Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Report to the President, 

Helping to Ensure Equal Access to Education (2012). Indeed, as the report states, the "data 

portray a disturbing picture for too many students across the nation." Examples from the 

report include: 

Mrican-American students are over 31f2 times more likely to be suspended or expelled 

compared to their white peers. 

One in five Mrican-American boys receives at least one out-of-school suspension, more 

than any other group of students. And, while girls generally receive fewer punishments 

than boys, African-American girls are suspended at a rate higher than Asian/Pacific 

Islander, Hispanic or white boys. 

Students with disabilities who are covered under the IDEA are more than t",ice more 

likely to be suspended out-of-school than are students who do not receive services under 

the IDEA. 

Nearly 30,000 students were expelled under zero-tolerance policies in the CRDC 

sample. And in districts that reported expulsions under zero-tolerance polic.ies, Hispanic 

and Mrican-American students represent 45 percent of the student body but 56 percent 

ofthe students expelled under such policies. 

Never-before-seen data on restraint and seclusion show that while Hispanic students 

represent 24 percent of students without disabilities, they are a full 42 percent of 

students without disabilities who are subject to seclusion. 

The OCR report is not the first to make such claims; in fact there is extensive research showing 

that students of color, particularly African-American male students, students with disabilities, 

and students in foster care are disproportionately disciplined and pushed out of school. 

COPAA members unfortunately see daily examples of students being pushed out through 

unnecessary and counter-productive disciplinary actions. Children with disabilities are being 

ejected into alternative schools, denied access to an education with their peers and appropriate 

PO Box 6767, Towson MD 21285 Ph: (410) 372-0208 Fax: (410)372-0209 WWlV.copaa.lIrg 
275 

Page 2 0/4 

educational services. Behavioral Intervention Plans are often ineffective; Functional Behavioral 

Assessments, poorly conducted. Increasingly, school districts are sending children to face 

criminal charges for relatively minor incidents. 

Despite statutory requirements, school personnel routinely fail to; 

• Uphold the IDEA requirement (20 U.S.C. sec. 1415(k)(6)(b» that school personnel who 

refer a child with disabilities to the authorities (e.g., police, delinquency or criminal 

court) for a possible prosecution send educational records so that the court and the 

court's intake probation people can investigate and NOT accept cases (truancy, minor 

delinquency, etc.) that result, in a sense, from the failure by school personnel to identify 

children's needs and failure to appropriately serve those children. 

• Comply with the IDEA's requirement to provide appropriate related services, including 

school-based social work services, family counseling, parent training, recreation and 

therapeutic recreation, etc. 

• Provide, through the child's IEP Team, evidence-based services, including wraparound 

services that would keep them in school and learning. 

• Use Early Intervening Services (EIS) correctly; often using to avoid finding children 

eligible under IDEA and providing services to them, thus children receive inadequate 

services and are not entitled to IDEA's discipline protections. 

• Implement services in interim alternative educational setting. A child is entitled to 

receive programming and services necessary to enable him or her to receive a free 

appropriate public education consistent with section 612(a)(1) during the period in 

which he/she is in an interim alternative education setting. Too many students are 

incarcerated or moved into settings in which their IEP's are not implemented and 

services are not received. 

• Properly complete a Manifestation Determination Review. Examples of highly 

problematic Manifestation Determinations Reviews (MDRs); 

o Parents are being given a time and place for an MDR and told that it will happen 

with or without them. 

o The decision is typically made by administrators who are not educated in special 

ed. Laws; are not trained on IDEA and have not had any training about specific 

disabilities. This results in over-disciplining of kids who have disabilities, 

especially psychiatric disabilities. 

o There is a trend in schools in California to use the 5150 process (this is the 

process in which a person who is posing a grave danger to himself or others may 

be involuntarily committed for up to 72 hours), or calling law enforcement in 

PO Box 6767, Towson MD 21285 Ph: (410) 372-0208 Fax: (410)372-0209 www.copaa.org 
276 

Page30f4 

cases where the behavior is a manifestation of the disability. 

o A thirteen year old client has Oppositional Defiant Disordet. After a power 

struggle with an administrator at lunchtime (which his behavior plan specifically 

advised to avoid), the child went to class and was taking an exam. The 

administrator, knowing that she had already suspended the child for 10 days and 

would require a MDR before any further action could be taken, called the police. 

The police came to school and came into the child's classroom. The child ran out 

of the class and off school grounds and was arrested for resisting arrest and 

truancy. Although the child did not have any disciplinary measures against him 

at school for this incident, he ended up in the delinquency system. 

• Fail to implement Functional behavioral assessments (FBA's) and behavior 

intervention plans (BIP's). Despite the fact that IDEA 2004,20 U.S.C. § 

1414(d)(3)(B)(I) requires that positive behavioral interventions be considered in 

developing the IEPs of all children, there is a pervasive and uniform failure to 

understand and to complete the cornerstones of positive behavioral intervention: 

appropriate functional behavioral assessments (FBA's) and behavior intervention plans 

(BIP's). 

o Many districts have no idea with an FBA or BIP should contain. The few FBA's 

and BIPs we do see are inadequate and do not use data base decision making 

to measure effectiveness. 

o Too often SD's "experiment" with BIP's with disastrous results for the student, 

including change in placement to a more restrictive setting when an effective 

BIP with proper implementation by trained staff could keep the student in the 

regular education classroom. 

o Students are traumatized, often developing worse behaviors or mental health 

issues such as school phobia - in one case to the point where the parent could 

not drive past the school without the child having a complete meltdown due to 

improper use of behavioral interventions - Le. locking the student (5 yo) in the 

"quiet room" alone several times a day. 

o The lack of a universal definition of what an appropriate Functional Behavior 

Assessment is or should consist of is a serious problem. For example: many of 

the Texas school districts utilize an IEP form which they call a Functional 

Behavioral Assessment. It may be completed by anyone, not even necessarily 

a member of the IEP team or someone with personal knowledge of the c1tild. 

Functions of behavior are at best guessed without any basis for making such 

decisions. There is little to no data collection to back up these "assessments." 

o There are many students who should have been offered an FBA several times 

and yet the schools failed to suggest this on each occasion. Parents must learn 

what and FBA is and advocate for it; often needing to hire attorney to enforce 

the request. One parent states: "My child is so bitter that she may never 

benefit from the very school services for which we advocated and went to due 

PO Box 6767, Towson MD 21285 Ph: (410) 372-0208 Fax: (410)372-0209 www.copaq,org 
277 

Page 4 0/4 

process to receive." 

o Students are routinely suspended and sent home. For example, one student, 7 

years old, suspended 7 times and the child sent home early for 3 month's 

before the parent was informed that there were other options. After ignoring 

the parents written request, the District only provided an FBA when forced by 

the parent attending a Board meeting and exposing the situation. 

o Positive behavior plans, when developed, are not implemented as teachers 

and paraprofessionals/aides are not trained on the implementation of 

strategies. Districts want to limit the involvement of independent clinicians in 

the classroom yet their staffs lack the experience to ensure that 

implementation occurs. 

Schools must implement the law faithfully and work hard to create positive and supportive 

school climates for all students. For students whose behavior challenges, an individualized, 

positive, proactive approach must be used. 

Schools must be diligent about conducting FBAs, writing appropriate BIPs" and implementing 

them with fidelity. 

Everything that can be done to keep students in school must be done, and should be done 

equitably. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comment. 

'~,'t~~~ 

Denise Stile Marshall, M.S. 

Executive Director 

PO Box 6767, Towson MD 21285 Ph: (410) 372-0208 Fax: (410)372-0209 www.copaa.org 
278 

JUSTICE*CENTER 

j,!, ( 

Statement by 

Michael Thompson 

Director 

Council of State Governments Justice Center 

Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

December 12, 2012 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Members ofthe Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony about the growing national concerns 

regarding the link between school's disciplinary actions and students' consequent involvement in 

the juvenile justice system. The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center has 

completed a study in partnership with the Public Policy Institute at Texas A&M University that 

has helped provide new data about this issue that I am pleased to share with you today. The 

center also is currently engaged in a national project--supported through a federal 

agency/private partnership--to gain bipartisan consensus among a broad range ofpolicymakers 

and practitioners from law enforcement, courts, education, health and many other disciplines on 

strategies for helping schools provide safe and engaging learning environments, improving 

student's academic outcomes, and preventing involvement with the juvenile justice system. I 

hope that the information we provide on this project is cause for optimism about potential policy 

options that can spur positive change in schools and districts across the country. 

1 
279 

The Council of State Governments Justice Center 

The CSG Justice Center is a national nonprofit organization that serves policymakers at 

the local, state, and federal levels from all branches of government. Staff provides practical, 

nonpartisan advice and research-based strategies to increase public safety and strengthen 

communities. The center serves all states to promote effective data-driven practices-particularly 

on complex problems found at the intersection of criminal justice policy and other disciplines or 

systems-and to provide practical solutions. The Justice Center's focus on school discipline is 

part of a portfolio that includes such other work as guidance on improving responses to people 

with mental illnesses involved in the criminal justice system, addressing the needs of crime 

victims, promoting successful prisoner reentry, and implementing justice reinvestment (a datadriven approach to reduce corrections spending and to reinvest the savings in strategies that can 

decrease crime and strengthen neighborhoods). 

The Justice Center's leaders decided to examine school disciplinary issues because of 

growing and persistent concerns that large numbers of youth are finding their way into juvenile 

courtrooms for misbehavior in school that often resulted in suspensions or expulsions. We know 

that once involved with the juvenile justice system, the consequences for these students can be 

serious and lasting. After reviewing available research, it became apparent that there were no 

studies that matched statewide individual student data with justice system records to shed light 

on this relationship. Unlike the existing research that has used aggregate data, individual-level 

records make it possible to statistically distinguish the contributions of individual factors that 

could be related to school disciplinary actions, dropout rates, justice system contact, and other 

outcomes. 

The Justice Center's board of directors believed that, given the center's past successes 

with directing large national consensus-based projects that span multiple systems, the 

organization was uniquely positioned to address the challenges that have historically made it 

difficult to generate findings and policy recommendations on student discipline and juvenile 

justice involvement. 

With the bipartisan leadership of Texas legislators (including the chairs of the Senate and 

House Education Committee and the chairs of the Senate and House committees overseeing 

justice and corrections), the Justice Center was able to embark on the largest data-matching study 

2 
280 

in a state to examine school discipline and its relationship to academic and juvenile justice 

outcomes. These leaders, through their legislative committees or by establishing a task force of 

local and state officials, helped guide the Texas research and continue to use its findings to 

inform new policy development. 

Problem 

Millions of U.S. public school students in grades K-12 are suspended or expelled in an 

academic school year, 1 particularly students in middle and high school.2 Between 1974 and 

2006, the percentage of K -12 students suspended each year has approximately doubled, from 

about 1.7 million (3.7 percent of all students) in 1974 to more than 3.3 million (6.8 percent of all 

students) in 2006. J Research demonstrates that when students are removed from the classroom 

as a disciplinary measure, the odds increase dramatically that they will become involved in the 

juvenile justice system and will have poorer academic outcomes, which can affect their ability to 

obtain employment, earn higher wages, and be successful later in life. Additionally, these 

negative consequences disproportionately affect children of color as well as students with special 

needs.4 

1 U.S. Department of Education data do not include in-school suspensions. The data represents 6 I percent of public 

schools and 43percent of districts. An analysis of2009 data is forthcoming. 

2 Russell Skiba and Daniel Losen, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis (Los Angeles: The Civil 

Rights Project at UCLA, 2010); Russell Skiba and M. Karega Rausch, "Zero Tolerance, Suspension and Expulsion: 

Questions of Equity and Effectiveness," Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and 

Contemporary Issues, edited by Carolyn M. Evertson and Carol S. Weinstein (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006): 1063-

89. 

3 Hanno Petras, Katherine Masyn, Jacquelyn A. Buckley, Nicholas S. Ialongo, and Sheppard Kellam, "Who is Most 

at Risk for School Removal? A Multilevel Discrete-Time Survival Analysis oflndividual-and-Context-Level 

Influences," Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (2011): 223-237; Kim Brooks, Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason 

Ziedenberg, School House Hype: Two Years Later, NCJ 182894 (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 

Children's Law Center, 2000); "2006 National and State Projections," u.s. Department of Education, accessed May 

31,2011, http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Proiections 2006.aspx. 

4 Tony Fabelo, Michael D. Thompson, Martha Plotkin, Dottie Carmichael, Miner P. Marchbanks IJI, and Eric A. 

Booth. Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students' Success and 

Juvenile Justice Involvement. (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2010). Hanno Petras, 

Katherine Masyn, Jacquelyn A. Buckley, Nicholas S. Ialongo, and Sheppard Kellam, "Who is Most at Risk for 

School Removal? A Multilevel Discrete-Time Survival Analysis ofindividual-and-Context-Level Influences," 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (2011): 223-37; Michael Krezmien, Peter Leone, and Georgiana Achilles, 

"Suspension, Race and Disability: Analysis of Statewide Practices and Accounting," Journal of Emotional and 

Behavioral Disorders, 14 (2006): 217-26; Linda M. Raffaele Mendez and Howard Knoff, "Who Gets Suspended 

from School and Why: A Demographic Analysis of Schools and Disciplinary Infractions in a Large School District," 

Education and Treatment of Children, 26 (2003); Sid Cooley. Suspension/Expulsion of Regular and Special 

Education Students in Kansas: A Report to the Kansas State Board of Education (Topeka: Kansas State Board of 

Education, 1995). 

3 
281 

In July 20 II, the CSG Justice Center released the Texas study report Breaking Schools' 

Rules. which followed nearly one million public school students in middle school and high 

school over a minimum six-year period,s The study found that the majority of students had been 

suspended or expelled between til and grade, and that only three percent of 

suspensions/expulsions were a result of misconduct for which the state mandates the removal of 

the student from tbe classroom; the rest were made at the discretion of school officials primarily 

in response to violations oflocal schools' conduct codes. Furthermore, African-American 

students and students with particular educational disabilities were found to be disproportionately 

disciplined for discretionary violations, 

Figure 1. Percentage of Students with Discretionary 

Discipline Violations 

11 or More Violations", 1IlIi_~iJ 

6-10 Violations ... 

2-5 Violations", 

1 Violation ... ,lIlIiilll. 

No Disciplinary Violations 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 

The Breaking Schools' Rules study confirms that school disciplinary actions can lead to 

negative outcomes for students, both in and out of school. Students that experienced suspensions 

and/or expulsions were more likely to drop out of school. repeat a grade, and fail to graduate 

trom high school. Of particular concern to this subcommittee, students who experienced 

disciplinary actions were more likely to become involved with the juvenile justice system. 

particularly those students with repeat violations. 

5 Support for the Breukil1K Schools' Rules study was provided by the Open Society Foundations and the Atlantic 

Philanthropies. 

4 
282 

Figure 2. 

More Discipline Actions, Higher Percentage of juvenile 

Justice Contacts 

As Figures 1 and 2 indicate. the report included these tlndings: 

• More than one in seven students was in contact with the juvenile justice system 

(i.e .. contact with a county's juvenile probation department) at least once 

between seventh and twelfth grade, 

.. Nearly half of those students who were disciplined 11 or more times were in 

contact with the juvenile justice system. In contrast, 2 percent of the students 

who had no school disciplinary actions were in contact with the juvenile justice 

system. 

The report also indicated that strong school leadership and staff commitment can 

make a difference in disciplinary rates. 

.. When controlling for campus and individual student characteristics, the data 

revealed that a student who was suspended or expelled for a discretionary 

violation was nearly three times as likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice 

system the following year. 

The tlndings on school disciplinary actions and the academic andjuvcnile justice 

outcomes from the Breaking Schools' Rules study are not unique to Texas. Similar conclusions 

have surfaced in jurisdictions across the country, and many studies have documented increases in 

suspension and expUlsion rates as well as how these practices have dispropotlionately affected 

certain populations of students. The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights 

5 
283 

recently published data with consistent findings on the large numbers of suspensions and 

expulsions and the disproportionate impact on African-American students and students with 

special needs. The Office of Civil Rights' data collection process takes place every two years and 

surveys school districts on a number of school characteristics, including disciplinary actions. 

Data are disaggregated by race and gender for students with and without disabilities, and data on 

individual schools and districts are made available. The most recent data collection process 

(2009) included a survey of more than 7,000 school districts (nearly half of all U.S. districts). 

Some key findings from this survey, released in March 2012, include the following:6 

• National suspension rates show that lout of every 6 (17%) Black school children 

enrolled in K-12 were suspended at least once. That is much higher than the I in 

13 (8%) risk for Native Americans, I in 14 (7%) for Latinos, I in 20 (5%) for 

Whites, or the I in 50 (2%) for Asian Americans. 

• For all racial groups combined, more than 13 percent of students with disabilities 

were suspended. This is approximately twice the rate of their non-disabled peers. 

• One out of every four (25%) Black children with disabilities enrolled in grades 

K-12 was suspended at least once in 2009-2010. 

• Students with disabilities and Black students were also more likely to be 

suspended repeatedly in a given year than to be suspended just once. The reverse 

was true for students without disabilities and for most other racial/ethnic groups. 

The findings from Breaking Schools' Rules and other studies make a compelling case for 

changing the status quo and confirm that individual schools clearly have the potential to reduce 

their dependence on suspension and expulsion to manage student misbehavior. There are many 

schools and districts led by passionate and committed educators and school leaders that are doing 

very exciting and innovative things to create alternative options to suspensions and expulsions, 

and they are achieving very promising results. However, too often these strategies and results are 

not widely disseminated or implemented. Policymakers and practitioners have a growing need to 

not only identify strategies for effectively managing students' behavior and aligning schools' 

policies to support student engagement and learning, but to bring these promising strategies to 

scale through collaborative, multisystem efforts. It is evident from the promising practices that 

have emerged that schools alone cannot make widespread and lasting advancements without a 

'Losen, Daniel J. and Jonathan Gillespie. (2012). Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary 

Exclusion from School. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at The Civil Rights Project. 

6 
284 

commitment from law enforcement, courts, probation, treatment professionals, and the many 

other disciplines that affect students' success. 

School Discipline Consensus Project 

Following the release of Breaking Schools' Rules, Attorney General Eric Holder and 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced at the quarterly meeting of the Coordinating 

Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in Washington, DC, the creation of the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative (SSDI). The initiative is a collaboration between their 

two agencies that focuses on school disciplinary policies and in-school arrests to prevent 

students' inappropriate contact with the juvenile justice system. The focus is part of a larger 

effort to help students succeed by supporting school efforts to find alternative strategies for 

creating and managing safe learning environments. 

As one of the four pillars of the SSDI, with additional support from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Education, Atlantic Philanthropies, The 

California Endowment, and NoVo Foundation, the Justice Center is leading the national 

consensus-building project mentioned earlier to convene experts across multiple disciplines to 

detennine what policies, programs and practices they agree would most likely improve outcomes 

for students who engage in misconduct in school. Youth, parents, and community partners are 

also playing a critical and active role in the project to develop creative solutions. 

The consensus-building project officially launched in October 2012 with a national 

convening in Washington, DC, which brought together a number of critical stakeholders, 

including state legislators, police chiefs, juvenile and family court judges, advocates, school 

district superintendents, educators, parents, and youth. The four multi-disciplinary advisory 

groups focused on the key themes of health, juvenile justice, law enforcement, and school 

climate will work over the coming year to identify key issues related to academic success, 

juvenile justice concerns, and safe and engaging learning environments. Drawing on research, 

promising practices from across the country, and the expertise and experience of individuals 

affected by school disciplinary measures, these groups will reach agreement on recommended 

policies and practices that will make the most effective use of multiple systems' resources. 

To achieve the goals of the consensus project, the Justice Center is also engaging a 

number of organizations with extensive expertise, experience, and a long-standing commitment 

7 
285 

to advancing policies that will keep kids in schools and out of the justice system. Organizations 

such as the Dignity in Schools Campaign, the Advancement Project, and the NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund have played a significant leadership role in elevating this issue 

across the country, and are playing a critical advisory role in supporting the work of the project. 

Staff is also engaging and partnering with a number of education associations and 

organizations to ensure the voices of educators, administrators, and other school support staff 

working with youth are heard. In addition to including these perspectives on each advisory 

group, the Justice Center is partnering with local advocacy and organizing groups at the local 

level to conduct listening sessions across the country with youth and parents who have first-hand 

experience with school disciplinary actions. 

The project will yield a comprehensive and interactive report with policy and practice 

recommendations, guidance on implementation, and examples on promising practices and 

approaches in the field, for federal, state, and local policymakers and practitioners to improve 

school disciplinary systems, with the goal of improving student achievement and reducing 

interaction with the juvenile justice system. 

Student Achievement and Juvenile Justice as Last Resort: A Priority for States and 

Districts 

We all want the same outcomes: schools where educators, staff, and students can feel safe 

in an environment conducive to learning, and where students are connected and engaged in the 

classroom and are experiencing positive outcomes. While we recognize that there are some 

students who must be removed from the classroom for violent behavior and other mandatory 

violations, suspensions and expulsions should be reserved for the most serious offenses. In order 

to change the current system, educators and administrators need the support and resources to 

reduce the need for exclusionary measures and to find alternative strategies and interventions for 

students. 

As a result of the commitment and hard work oflocal communities, advocacy groups, 

educators, and leading policymakers, a number of states, districts, and individual schools have 

begun to make the issue of school discipline a priority, and are employing promising strategies to 

alleviate the problem. Multiple states have initiated legislative and multi-stakeholder taskforces 

charged with making recommendations to change school discipline policies and practices. A 

8 
286 

number of states have successfully passed legislation or regulations revising school discipline 

policies, and/or providing additional support to districts and schools around alternative strategies 

to suspensions and expulsions. Leading examples include the following: 

• In April 2012, the Colorado General Assembly passed legislation amending grounds for 

suspensions and expulsions, requiring training for school resource officers, and requiring 

school boards and districts to revise codes of conduct and disciplinary codes to keep kids 

in school. 

• In 2012, the Maryland State Board of Education approved regulations reforming school 

discipline policies, including using long-term suspensions as a last resort, requiring 

school districts to track disciplinary data, ana revising definitions for what constitutes 

suspensions and expulsions. 

• In 2012, the California legislature passed five bills reforming school disciplinary policies. 

The legislation provides additional flexibility to school administrators in decisionmaking, authorizes the use of alternatives to suspensions and expulsions, and prohibits 

schools from denying enrollment to students who have had contact with the juvenile 

system. 

At the local level, many promising approaches and practices are emerging in which school 

districts and schools are revising policies and practices: 

• Providing training and professional development to educators, school support staff, and 

school resource officers 

• Reforming truancy policies and school policing protocols 

• Developing school-based mental and behavioral health centers 

• Implementing alternative strategies to suspensions and expulsions, such as restorative 

justice, peer mediation, youth courts, among others 

Additionally, over the last several months many urban school districts, including 

Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles, revised their school codes of conduct 

to provide administrators more discretion in handling disciplinary cases, limiting the maximum 

length of time for suspensions, and preventing some infractions from being punished by out-ofschool suspensions. 

Although several states and many districts and schools have been pursuing promising 

approaches and strategies to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions, millions of 

9 
287 

students are still being removed from their classrooms and schools as a result of disciplinary 

practices, increasing their risk for dropping of out of school and future interaction with the 

juvenile justice system. And, policymakers and practitioners in the majority of states and districts 

are still searching for solutions. With the help of our many partners on this project, we hope to 

fill these gaps. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony before the subcommittee, your attention 

to these critical issues, and leadership in helping states, districts, schools, and communities 

address these challenges. We look forward to continuing to work with you on these matters. 

10 
288 

To Whom It May Concern: 

COUNTYWIDE FAMILY DEYELOPI\lENT CENTER, INC 

1987-A Bush Dairy Road 

P.O. !lOX 6486 

LA UREL. MS 39441 

E:xccuti, c Dircctor~Barbara Dcyamport 

Co~Dirc:c1or~K"n}a S Watson 

December 10. 2012 

PHONE: 

OFf·fCE: 

F.'X: 

The Countywide Family Development Center was organized by (wo parents in 2007 as 

community organizers and youth advocates to serve families throughout Laurel and Jones 

County to address the different and harsher disciplinary punishments toward African American 

students. The emergence and development of the Countywide Family Development Center 

(CFDC) came as a result of our own "Jena 6" type situation in ApriL 2006 when two African 

American male middle school students were arrested, charged and detained because of their 

response to racial slurs and epithets directed at African American students by a Caucasian 

student. Our par1nership with the Mississippi Youth Justice Project, Mississippi State Conference 

of NAACP, Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance: and the Mississippi Civil Libel1ies Union 

provides us with the tools: skills. legal assistance and support in an effOlt to dismantle this school 

to prison pipeline in Mississippi and in support of healthy schools. 

MISSION: 

The Countywide Family Development Center. Inc. (CFDC) is a non-prolit community based 

YOUTH service organization (YSO) and Ollr mission is to provide opportunities for 

disadvantaged and at-risk youth to obtain an education, develop leadership and employability 

skills that will reduce and prevent juvenile delinquency, lower teenage pregnancy and enhance 

academic achievement. We accomplish our mission through a comprehensive approach that 

utilizes advocacy tools. legal tools and legislative tools. 

Here are some of our issues: 

In April 01'2006 two African American male middle school students were arrested, charged and 

detained because of their physical response to racial slurs and epithets directed at African 

American students by a Caucasian student. The two Atrican Ameriearl students were 

incarcerated for lour and half days. suspended fi'om school two weeks, arraigned in juvenile 

court and placed at the altemative school. The Caucasian student received no punishment. These 

injustices. along with eighteen other families lead to tiling complaints with the Depa.tment of 

Justice and thc Oftiee of Civil Rights. The Omce of Civil Rights came in and investigated the 

complaints by interviewing students and parents. One ofthe interviews consisted of talking with 

[')fty-live students where African American students reported that on a daily basis they are called 

racial derogatory names such as "porch monkey" "nigger" and "coons". They are called these 

names leaving the bus stop. in the cafeteria. classrooms and hallways. The Office oreivil of 

Rights ruling stated that because students arc still able to learn it was not ruled as a hostile 

environment. The Depat1ment of Justice still has the case or complaints open. Nothing has 
289 

COUNTYWIDE F AMTL Y DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC 

1987-A Bush Dairy Road 

P.O. BOX 6486 

LAUREL, MS 39441 

changed: African American students receive different and harsher disciplinary punishments than 

whites for the same infractions in the Laurel and Jones County school district. We see more and 

more African American students' education disrupted by increasingly harsh discipline practices 

for increasingly minor infractions. African American students are handed draconian punishments 

for things like uniform violation: schoolyardfights, and subjective violations, such as 

disrespect and insubordination. Working as youth advocates in Jones County; we find that the 

overuse of detention is particularly harsh on youth of color. The fact is: the School Districts 

(Laurel and Jones County) send more youth to the Youth Court than any other request or 

referrals. To help you see and understand the need for our program of work look at the following 

statistics: The Jones County Youth Court statistical report reveals that in 2006, its caseload 

consisted of 1,257 intake offenses: 20% became repeat offenders and the majority incarcerated 

was African Americans. The 2007 statistical report was 1,277: 2008 was staggering with 1,626; 

and 2009 reflects a starling change with 1,099; yet 746 was African Americans. 20 10 and 20 II 

statistics are not been released to me yet. Jones County population is a little over sixty-nine 

thousand people. 

African American students are still being pushed out the educational system into the juvenile 

justice system. In the Laurel School District (predominately Black district); if a student engage in 

a fight or integrate a fight they automatically received forty-five days in the Alternative school. 

In the Jones County School District (predominately White district) African American students 

are sent to jail for very minor infractions; then suspended from school three to five days and 

arraigned in youth court. In March of2012 eleven students were arrested and detained in the 

juvenile jail for twenty-three days. Later, they were given sixty to ninety days more. One ofthe 

cases took place at Northeast Jones High where an African American student attended a talent 

show; he was talking and was asked to stop talking, he did. Later, teacher return and said he was 

still talking and he need to leave. He was not talking, but did answer a question from another 

student. He asked the teacher if they would refund his fee. The teacher called for help (Principals 

and resource officer). They pulled this student from his seat, put his head in a head-lock and 

pepper sprayed him, arrested him and pepper sprayed him again. This student spent 113 days in 

jail; twenty-three before court hearing and ninety days after court hearing. He is now at the 

Alternative school for this school year. An honor student was arrested and sent to jail for trying 

to see what was happening to her brother. This student and brother spent twenty-three days in jail 

before court and sixty days after the court hearing. Their mother was one of the Jones County 

Youth Court Counselor and she was fired for being concerned and trying to help her children. 

We are working the Department of Justice and an attorney in the Hattiesburg area to help us deal 

with the many school discipline issues we are facing. Students are rarely release within that 

forty-eight hours period of detention hearing. 
290 

DC lAWYERS fOR YOUTH 

Testimony of Eduardo Ferrer 

Chief Operating Officer 

DC Lawyers for Youth 

Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

December 12, 2012 
291 

My name is Eduardo Ferrer and I am the Chief Operating Officer of DC Lawyers for 

Youth1 - a research, advocacy, and direct representation organization that works with and 

on behalf of court-involved youth. 

Since our inception, one of our core principles has been that the best way to 

improve the juvenile justice system in the District of Columbia is to make sure that a young 

person does not end up in the system in the first place. It is for this reason that the issue of 

school discipline in the District is so important to our organization. Simply put, based on 

our experience representing youth in DC Superior Court, our schools - both public and 

charter - are too often a gateway to a young person's involvement in the juvenile justice 

system, not an antidote to it. Instead of being a source of support and resiliency for our 

youth, our schools rely too heavily on exclusionary school policies and practices that 

increase the likelihood that our youth will be retained,2 drop out,3 or become involved with 

the juvenile justice system.4 

Without getting too much in the details because of confidentiality concerns, I would 

like to share a short story about a young person with whom I work that I believe 

exemplifies the abuse of exclusionary school practices in the District. This young man -

let's call him Joe - was a good student through elementary school and decent student in 

junior high, but began struggling mightily during his freshman year of high school. Like 

many other students, as a result of this struggling, Joe started cutting classes. So, he and I 

1 DC Lawyers for Youth (DCLY) seeks to improve the DC juvenile justice system by advocating for reforms 

that promote positive youth development, effective legal representation, and supportive relationships 

between the community and DC's youth. You can learn more about DC Lawyers for Youth atwww.dcly.org. 

, Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students' Success and 

Juvenile Justice System Involvement, Council of State Governments Justice Center, 54·60 (July 19, 2011). 

'Seeid. 

4 Breaking School's Rules, supra note 1, at 61·72. 

1 
292 

agreed that I would take him to school one day to make sure he got to school and to speak 

to school officials about extra help to get him back on track. I was shocked and appalled by 

what I saw and experienced. Immediately upon walking Joe into the front office, the staff 

was hostile and disrespectful to Joe. Before Joe even opened his mouth, the staff person 

told me: "I can already tell Joe is not here to learn today" and asked Joe for his school lD 

card. When Joe could not produce his school lD card, the staff person told Joe that he 

would have to go immediately to in-school suspension for the day for not having his lD 

card. When I asked what the process was for getting Joe a new lD card so he could attend 

his regular classes, I was informed that the process amounted solely to paying five dollars 

for the new card - five dollars that Joe did not have. So, after I paid the lD card fee and 

literally bought Joe's way out of in-school suspension - a fact that I think in it of itself 

demonstrates the absurdity of the practice - Joe was allowed to go to his normal classes. 

Now, after witnessing the school's contempt for Joe first hand, I knew it would only 

be a matter of time before they found some other way to push him out or discourage him 

from coming to school. Sure enough, the opportunity presented itself two months later. 

After learning that Joe had been living with an undiagnosed learning disability and 

petitioning the school for a special education determination and services - a request that 

the school promptly denied - Joe was accused of participating in a fight at school. Despite 

evidence that Joe actually went to alert the security guard of the situation, the school 

suspended Joe, then expelled Joe, and denied his appeal for reinstatement. The overall 

result Joe now will be retaking the 9th grade, he lost the structure and support of the 

school, and he is still fighting to get adequate educational services and supports in place for 

2 
293 

the fall of 20 12. Oh, and he got jumped and robbed while on the bus after school during his 

first week at his new school placement. 

I know that this case may seem ridiculous, but it is by no means out of the ordinary. 

It is not an outlier. Indeed, I have experienced very similar situations with other young 

people with whom I work. I chose this case because it exemplifies the underlying problem 

with the heavy reliance on exclusionary discipline practices specifically that the use of 

such practices are most often based on false assumptions regarding the individual young 

person and the efficacy of suspension and expulsion. In this case, the false assumption was 

that Joe was a bad kid who did not want to learn. In fact, Joe was a smart kid who really 

wants to succeed in school like his older brother, but had an undiagnosed, unaddressed 

learning disability. The false assumption was that suspension and expUlsion would get Joe 

back on track. Instead, it knocked him further off track. 

At the end of the day, this is the root of the problem: exclusionary disciplinary 

practices used in this city are too often the result of false assumptions, not the result of 

sound pedagogical theory or safety concerns. 

And what is the cost? On a micro level, the cost very well could be the life of a young 

person in our city. We may not be killing our youth in the literal sense, but these 

exclusionary practices are denying them an education, encouraging them to drop out, 

pushing them in the juvenile or criminal justice systems, and banishing them to a life of 

poverty. 

On a macro level, each of these incidents that is handled poorly is a huge missed 

opportunity both to educate ourselves about the needs and struggles about the young 

people of our city and to TEACH our youth in a productive and effective manner that their 

3 
294 

behavior is not appropriate or the right response to a struggle they are facing. At the end 

of the day, that is what our schools should be about - Educating. However, educating 

should not just happen one way - from the teacher to the student. There is a lot that 

administrators and teachers could learn from their students if they stopped making false 

assumptions and just started asking why. Additionally, educating should not just be about 

academics either. The Jesuits at Georgetown - my alma mater and the university that 

inspired my classmates and I to found DCL Y - talk about "Cura Personalis" or "Care for the 

Entire Person." That is what our schools should be about - educating students not just in 

terms of academics, but in terms of empathy, coping, self-advocacy, self-reflection, and 

citizenship. 

The overuse of exclusionary school discipline policies and practices needs to stop 

and it needs to stop now. 

4 
295 

"DIGNITY IN SCHOOLS 

u.s. Senate 

Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Committee Members, 

December 12, 2012 

As a national coalition of parents, students, educators, and advocates, the Dignity in Schools Campaign 

{DSq is proud to be represented by Edward Ward in the Ending the School to Prison Pipeline hearing. 

We thank Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and the full Committee for holding this hearing. 

There has never been a more important time for federal action on the School-to-Prison Pipeline. School 

discipline rates are at their all-time highs - double what they were in the 1970s.' This spike in 

suspension, expulsion, and arrest occurs in the face of significant research on the educational and social 

harms of these practices. The American Psychological Association, the Council of State Governments, 

and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others, have all identified the links between 

exclUSionary discipline and increased grade retention, dropout, and involvement in the juvenile and 

criminal justice systems. 

High discipline rates are occurring in traditional public schools and charter schools alike: 14 of the 15 

highest suspending school districts in Massachusetts are charter schools, two of which are suspending 

over half their students annually.' And as our nation's discipline rates grow, the disparities for 

disenfranchised youth only continue to Widen. Students of color, students with disabilities, foster 

youth, and lGBTQ youth are all far more likely than their peers to receive exclusionary discipline. These 

rates and disparities have led the Dignity in Schools Campaign to conclude that our nation faces, not a 

dropout, but a pushout crisis, and that we have no hope of resolving it or the so-called "achievement 

gap" without addressing school discipline. 

1 Johanna Wald and Daniellosen, Defining and Redirecting a Schaal-to-Prison Pipeline. In Wald & losen (Eds.), 

New Directions for Youth Development (no. 99; Deconstructing the School-to-Prison Pipeline), 9-15 (2003). 

2 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, District Analysis, 

Review & Assistance Tools Headlines, at http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/dart/ 
296 

Amidst these bleak statistics are signs of significant hope. In the last two years alone, thanks to the 

work of our members and allies, states like California, Colorado, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Michigan 

have passed bipartisan laws and policies that call attention to exclusionary discipline, limit its use, 

and/or provide support for educators in implementing practices that keep schools safe and engaging 

without relying on suspensions, expulsions, and arrests. Cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, 

Denver, Baltimore, and New York have made significant positive revisions to their disciplinary policies 

and practices. We have released the_Model Code on Education and Dignity, 3 a set of evidence-based 

interventions/methods to reduce reliance on exclusionary discipline and improve academic performance 

and school climate. Furthermore, we have joined the Opportunity to Learn Campaign and other allies in 

launching Solutions, Not Suspensions, a national call for more constructive disciplinary policies and a 

moratorium on out-of-school suspensions. Finally, a much broader array of stakeholders, from local 

juvenile court judges to national teachers unions and fiscally conservative think tanks, have announced 

the need to reform disciplinary practices and keep students engaged in safe and productive schools. 

These reforms would not have been possible without proven, replicable methods for improving the 

learning environment for all students: 

After a multi-year campaign led by parents and students from Padres y Jovenes Unidos, Denver Public 

Schools revised its discipline code around the principles of restorative practices. To promote trust, 

reconciliation, and mutual responsibility, restorative practices engage all members of a school 

community affected by a conflict in addressing and resolving it. Since implementing the new code in 

2008, Denver has cut its expulsion rate in half and its suspension rate by a third. 

As Judge Steven Teske of Clayton County, Georgia, will testify, the Clayton County Juvenile Court 

experienced an alarming increase in misdemeanor referrals from schools. Judge Teske convened 

leaders from the school district, law enforcement, the mental-health profession, and the greater 

community to develop a "school offense protocol" in 2004. By drawing a line between safety matters, 

to be handled by law enforcement, and discipline matters, to be managed by the school, Clayton County 

reduced its court referrals by almost 70 percent and increased its graduation rate by 20 percent. With 

school resource officers responsible for safety, not discipline, students felt safer, too. 

Discipline rates spiked when two Illinois schools were combined to form Alton Middle School in 2006. 

Alton now implements "positive behavior supports," or PBS-a practice shown to reduce disciplinary 

referrals while supporting gains in achievement, attendance, and perceptions of safety. Schools that 

implement PBS teach and encourage positive student behavior, regularly monitor, and address trends in 

disciplinary data, and provide individualized behavioral supports to students who need them most. 

Alton blended its PBS effort with training to understand and address racial bias and inequality, reducing 

its suspensions by 25 percent-with the most significant drop for African-American students. 

3 Dignitv in Schools Campaign, Model Code on Education and Dignity (2012), available at 

http:// dignityinschools.org/ our-work! model-schoo I-code . 

2 
297 

There is much that can and must be done at the federal level to support these reforms and the parents, 

students, and educators who make them possible. We urge Congress to: 

Annually collect and report school discipline and climate data for all schools. 

To better support student achievement, educators, parents, and policymakers must be able to review 

information on the health of a school's climate. Through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 

the Gun-Free Schools Act, and the Civil Rights Data Collection, Congress and the US Department of 

Education have put the proper mechanisms in place for improved disciplinary data collection. 

Unfortunately, the differences between these data collection instruments also lead to lapses in 

compliance. Congress should require all schools to -annually report in- and out-of-school suspensions, 

students receiving multiple suspensions, expulsions, instances of corporal punishment, school-based 

arrests, referrals to law enforcement agencies, and referrals to disciplinary alternative schools. Congress 

should also require states to collect and report broader information on the health of a school's climate, 

such as information on truancy, attendance rates, bullying and harassment and proactive efforts to 

address them, as well as parent, student, and staff surveys on the health of a school's learning 

environment. The data collected should be disaggregated by race, gender, special educational status, 

socioeconomic status, and English proficiency, and cross-tabulated to allow for more insightful review. 

The data collection suggested in the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students Act (S. 919, Harkin), if 

applied to all schools, would serve this purpose well. 

Use high disciplinary rates and disparities to trigger support - not punishment - from local and 

state educational agencies. 

Discipline should serve as an indicator of a school's success or needs. Just as a student's academic 

record may signal the need for more intensive support, a school's disciplinary data may indicate the 

need for more support and training in best practices for maintaining order school-wide. Discipline 

should be monitored with attendance, achievement, and graduation rates. Representative George 

Miller's Amendment to the Student Success Act (H.R. 3989, Kline), which would track school discipline 

rates as an indicator of school needs and improvement in persistently low-achieving schools, is a 

promising exam pie. 

Provide increased support for best practices in improving school discipline and climate. 

Given the positive effect that efforts to improve school climate can have on academic success, Congress 

should encourage the implementation of evidence-based and promising practices to improve the 

learning environment. The Restorative Justice in Schools Act (H.R. 415, Cohen) and the Positive 

Behavior for Safe and Effective Schools Act (H.R. 3165, Davis/Platts) both direct federal support for 

training schools and teachers in the best practices described above. The Successful, Safe, and Healthy 

Students Act (S. 919, Harkin) would use school data on bullying, harassment, and discipline to target 

support for implementing these best practices as well. 

3 
298 

Support the development of comprehensive local or regional strategies to reduce the use of 

exclusionary discipline and the number of youth entering the justice system. 

The problems described above cannot be attributed solely to schools, or to law enforcement agencies, 

or to parents or students. Likewise, the solutions will also often require the efforts and input of all these 

stakeholders. Congress should promote expanded educational opportunities for our nation's youth by 

funding grant programs to support community-based solutions such as those implemented in Denver, 

CO and Clayton County, GA, described above. Funds should go toward the development and 

implementation of multi-year, comprehensive local or regional plans to reduce the use of exclusionary 

discipline and the number of youth entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The Youth 

PROMISE Act (H.R. 2721, Scott) would help support this purpose. Congress should also place 

meaningful requirements on the use of the u.s. Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) grants, the primary source of federal funding for staffing police in schools. 

End corporal punishment in schools that serve students receiving federal services. 

Corporal punishment is still legal in 19 states despite evidence of both its ineffectiveness in improving 

behavior and its academic and social harms.' The Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act (H.R. 

3027, McCarthy) would prohibit the use of physical punishment at school. We urge that companion 

legislation be introduced in the Senate. 

• •• 

The U.S. Departments of Education (ED) and Justice (DOJ) have taken promising steps to address the 

School-to-Prison Pipeline. We are encouraged by the expansion of the Civil Rights Data Collection and 

the creation of the Supportive School Discipline Initiative. With support from Congress, ED and DOJ 

should strengthen their efforts to address these issues and: 

Conduct an annual, universal Civil Rights Data Collection with higher reporting fidelity. 

We greatly appreciate the breadth and utility of the Civil Rights Data Collection. In an era of greater 

data-based decision-making in education, educators, families, and communities alike would benefit from 

more frequent collections involving all schools. Rather than conducting a semi-biennial collection 

sampling different school districts, the Civil Rights Data Collection should be conducted annually and 

include all schools. Where school districts fail to report all or part of their data, we urge ED to deny 

competitive preference for grants and withhold portions of federal funding. 

, American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health, Corporal Punishment in Schools, 106:2 PEDIATRICS 

343 (2000), availoble at http://aoppolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/!ull/pediatrics;106/2/343. 

4 
299 

Require state and district grant and waiver recipients to address high and/or disparate rates 

of discipline. 

Race to the Top - District (RTT-D) requires grantees to address disciplinary disparities as a condition for 

receiving their grants. We strongly support this approach and urge that ED apply it to all grant and 

waiver programs, including ED's waivers from provisions of the No Child left Behind Act. 

Promptly release gUidance on school districts' civil rights obligations for school discipline. 

It is of paramount importance that students, parents, and educators know their rights and obligations 

when it comes to discipline. ED and DOJ should provide both legal and technical guidance for addressing 

disparities in school discipline. In the legal guidance, ED and DOJ should articulate both disparate 

impact and different treatment standards of liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Place meaningful restrictions on federal grants for school policing. 

As mentioned above, the DOJ-funded Community Oriented Policing Services is the primary source for 

federal funding of school police efforts. Sadly, school police are often the least trained and most 

inexperienced officers, and the academic and social harms of negative police/student contact are 

devastating for students (a first-time arrest doubles the odds of school dropout; a first court appearance 

quadruples the odds'). Requiring grantees to ensure training on developmentally appropriate tactics for 

school police, and requiring efforts to limit students' contact with the juvenile justice system akin to the 

Clayton County, GA, example above, are simply essential modifications to these funds. 

Sincerely, 

The Dignity in Schools Campaign 

Contact: 

Matthew Cregor 

Assistant Counsel 

NAACP legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

mcregor@naacpldf.org 

5 Gary Sweeten, Who Will Graduote? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and Court Involvement, 23 

Justice Quarterly 462, 473-477 (2006). 

5 
300 

Ending the School-to-Pril3on Pipeline 

Hearing Before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 

the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

By Arlene B. Mayerson 

Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund 

3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 

Berkeley, California 94703 

Government Affairs Office: 

1825 K Street, NW, Suite 600 

Washington DC 20006 
301 

Arlene B. Mayerson, Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) 

December 10, 2012 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the critical connection between 

the failure of both general and special education and the school-to-prison pipeline. 

DREDF was founded in 1979 as a unique alliance of adults with disabilities and parents 

of children with disabilities. We are nationally recognized for our disability rights 

expertise. One-third of our work aims to protect and advance the rights of students with 

disabilities, particularly special education rights under the federal Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). With offices in Berkeley, CA and Washington, DC, 

DREDF advances the civil and human rights of people with disabilities through legal 

advocacy, training, education, and public policy and legislative development. We 

address employment, housing, access to government services and benefits, 

transportation, higher education, architectural access, public accommodations, and 

education. 

DREDF focuses on civil rights issues that promote integration of people with disabilities 

into the mainstream of society. DREDF specializes in federal disability rights laws, 

including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting disability based 

discrimination by recipients of federal funds; the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act of 1975 (IDEA); guaranteeing appropriate education services in the "least restrictive 

environment" for children with disabilities; the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 

(FHAA); and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). We also work with state 

2 
302 

Arlene B. Mayerson, Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) 

December 10, 2012 

disability civil rights laws, including the California Fair Employment & Housing Act 

(FEHA), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Government Code 11135. 

DREDF operates a demonstrably successful federal Parent Training and Information 

Center (PTI) that has served three Bay Area counties for 24 years. DREDF has the 

expertise needed to support the role of parents in the education of children with 

disabilities and work with foster families and county agencies and local and state 

organizations focused on child welfare. DREDF's Education Advocates (who are also 

parents of children with disabilities) are in daily contact with California families in the 

disproportionately low-income and of-color communities in Alameda and Contra Costa 

counties. They work closely with DREDF's senior and litigation staffs, providing a 

marginalized community with much-needed access to skilled advocates and attorneys. 

DREDF's Board of Directors has a majority of parents of children with disabilities, 

including foster parents of youth with disabilities, aged 0 to 22, and more than half the 

board members are individuals with disabilities. 

The Education Advocates at DREDF work with approximately 1,000 parents per year 

who are desperate to get help from the schools for their children. Among the most 

underserved are African American and Latino students, for whom the intervention of 

choice by school districts is suspension and expulsion. The failure to provide 

educational interventions cannot be ignored in an examination of the issue of the 

disproportionality in suspensions and expulsions of minority children. 

3 
303 

Arlene B. Mayerson, Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) 

December 10, 2012 

DREDF has a current case that presents an interesting twist on the disproportionality 

issue, while also highlighting general issues that are often left out of the 

disproportionality conversation. Our client is a 14-year-old African American student 

who had been recognized as learning disabled ( SLD) in the lower grades but was 

"exited" from special education after three years. During the year that he was exited, the 

district had been found to have too many African American students classified as 

Specific Learning Disability. Whether the dis-proportionality finding was the cause of the 

exiting is hard to prove but there was no educational reason to exit our client who was 

far below basic proficiency in ali subject areas, and was even retained in the very year 

the student was exited. The student's mother asked for a re-evaluation for special 

education by 6th grade, two years after the exiting, due to increasing concern over 

educational performance, but this request was denied. The district refused to reevaluate the student unless the mother was able to provide them evidence of an 

additional disability. Lacking health care at this time, the student's school experience 

further disintegrated without evaluation until the mother could secure a position that 

offered access to health care and evaluation through her health plan. 1 The student 

received a diagnosis of ADHD from his health care provider and this was provided 

immediately to the school. By this time, the student's 7th grade year included 33 days 

of suspension and continued failure in every academic subject except for A's in P.E. 

The school district conducted an assessment and denied IDEA eligibility, discounting 

1 Lack of health insurance accounts for the under-representation and treatment of poor 

children for ADHD. 

4 
304 

Arlene B. Mayerson, Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) 

December 10,2012 

the medical diagnosis of ADHD and SLD, and instead deciding that the student was 

only defiant and oppositional. Besides being inadequate by any professional standards, 

the assessment suggested racial bias. The ADHD diagnosis was disregarded because 

this failing student's lack of progress and impulsive behavior were considered par for 

the course, a conclusion that suggests implicit bias against African American boys. At 

that point, DREDF got involved and obtained an independent educational evaluation. 

The assessment found that our client had both severe learning disabilities and severe 

ADHD. Because he did not understand the instruction and has an attention span of only 

a few minutes, he had been repeatedly suspended for impulsive behavior, leading 

recently to a recommendation for expulsion. While we were able to address this 

specific case, we know from hundreds of parent calls that this scenario is not 

uncommon. When we went to the IDEA-mandated Individualized Education Program 

(IEP) meeting, I asked if getting all F's for several years wouldn't trigger a deeper look 

at this student. The reply was, nOh, this is very common in 'urban' school districts." 

DREDF is deeply committed to the use of disproportionality monitoring to address the 

historical mislabeling of African American and other students of color that has led to 

segregation, and the extremely shameful disproportionate suspension and expulsion of 

African American and Latino boys. Unfortunately, we have been told by teachers, 

counselors, and school psychologists, that they are instructed to not refer any African 

5 
305 

Arlene B. Mayerson, Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) 

December 10, 2012 

American students to special education because their quota is full. 2 This perversion of 

the purpose of disproportionality triggers raises thorny issues. Suffice it to say that the 

reduction or elimination of racially biased suspensions will do little to change the schoolto-prison pipeline if we do not directly focus on improved outcomes for students who 

have experienced or are in peril of experiencing suspensions and expulsion. Schools 

that reduce suspension rates but do not improve educational outcomes leave students 

with little hope of success. 

In the case I described above, the need for an intensive special education program with 

academic and positive behavioral supports was essential. Tutoring or counseling may 

be needed in other instances. This is particularly true for students who have been 

suspended so often that even the best of students would not be able to keep up 

academically. The administrators at the IEP meeting told me that they have to pick up 

the pieces of a bad general educational system. At some point, a student who has not 

gotten the academic help he or she needs is so far behind, so alienated, and has heard 

themselves described as a "bad student" so repeatedly that misbehavior becomes a self 

-fulfilling prophesy. One of our parent advocates always points out at parent trainings 

that the fear that a child will be labeled in special education ignores the fact that many of 

the kids that face repeated suspensions and sub-par academic performance already 

2 ORE OF Education Advocates have heard from personnel in many districts that they 

have been instructed by school administrators to not refer minority students for IDEA 

eligibility evaluations if the district has a disproportionate number of that minority in the 

suspected category. Not surprisingly, school personnel are not willing to speak on the 

record. 

6 
306 

Arlene B. Mayerson, Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) 

December 10, 2012 

have labels at school: "bad," "lazy", "defiant". Their parents are also given similar 

labels.3 

It seems that disproportionality efforts focus on reducing suspensions, restorative 

justice, racial bias training, alternative-to-suspension models, and other all-school 

efforts. All are vital. In addition to school-wide cultural changes, there needs to be a 

focus on the student's needs, both academic and emotional. In our case, the student 

needed services that, at this point in history, only special education provides. Other 

students may need similar services who are not learning disabled or do not have an 

ADHD diagnosis. We think that a focus on unbiased evaluation, services and 

remediation must be a central part of a successful effort to end the school-to-prison 

pipeline. 

Currently, disproportionality monitoring requires the reduction of suspensions and 

expulsions as a numerical remedy. DREDF urges the Department of Education and the 

3 Unfortunately, the situation of our 14-year-old African-American client reflects a larger 

problem. African-American and Latino children with ADHD are more likely to be 

undiagnosed, misdiagnosed or mistreated than white children. Studies have shown that 

white children have been diagnosed with ADHD at double or close to triple the rates for 

African-American and Latino children, though the underlying prevalence of ADHD does 

not vary by race. The result is two-fold. Schools classify minority students as having 

pure 'behavior problems' and refer those students for ineffective discipline rather than 

effective medical and psycholbgical treatment Second, as longitudinal studies have 

shown, untreated or poorly-treated ADHD leads to worse life outcomes decades later, 

including greater rates and longer periods of unemployment, greater difficulties in family 

and relationships, and more incarceration. Instead of diagnosing and treating minority 

children with ADHD, we convict and incarcerate them years or decades later. It is 

costly, it is ineffective, and it is tragic for the ADHD children and their families. 

7 
307 

Arlene B. Mayerson. Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) 

December 10. 2012 

Congress to look deeper when examining this issue. If a student is not being suspended 

but is continuing to fail. how much have we done to curb the school-to-prison pipeline? 

Reducing suspensions is only a first step. In districts with disproportionate suspensions 

and expulsions. student files should be reviewed to understand the causes of the 

underlying misbehavior. Also. an examination of policies. procedures and practices 

must be completed for the students who fell or are falling into the pipeline of 

suspension. expulsion. removals and failure with no help brought to them. While it 

cannot be disputed that racial minorities are more likely to be called out for the same 

behaviors that majority students are not. the fact remains that many of the suspended 

students of color are also being underserved by both general and special education. 

Specifically. DREDF urges that a finding of disproportionality be accompanied by: 

1. A thorough review of student files to identify students who are in need to 

additional academic and behavioral supports. including. but not limited to an 

IDEA referral. 

2. An examination of the means used by the school district to come into 

compliance with the disproportionality factors. Currently. there is no examination 

of how a district reduced disproportionality. The idea of reducing suspensions is 

to increase educational interventions in the early years. 

Given the systemic use of suspensions to incorrectly address educational malfeasance, 

it is virtually impossible to come into compliance in one or two years. Yet districts 

8 
308 

Arlene B. Mayerson, Directing Attorney 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) 

December 10, 2012 

consistently "clean the books" on disproportionality in a year. Are the students in that 

district better off? Are the very students in peril receiving compensatory and/or remedial 

educational services? Are they being appropriately referred for IDEA assessments? Are' 

they being appropriately assessed? Are they being served in special education or is 

special education being used as a dumping ground to remove students from the general 

education environment without regard to least restrictive environment requirements of 

IDEA? Are they being exited or kept from help to bring the numbers quickly in line? 

Without a deep examination into these questions, we will do little to address the schoolto-prison pipeline. 

Thank you for your consideration of this"testimony and I look forward to continuing the 

dialogue on this critically important topic for all children. 

9 
309 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 2:00 p.m. 

Disability Rights Washington would like to thank Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 

Graham, and the Constitution Subcommittee for holding this hearing and raising 

awareness of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. As more and more of our nation's youth 

end up in the juvenile justice system, the time for federal leadership on this problem is 

now, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Who Are Disability Rights Washington and the Protection and Advocacy Systems 

(P&As)? 

The federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems were established by 

the United States Congress through eight separate statutes to protect the rights of 

people with disabilities and their families through legal support, advocacy, referral, and 

education. P&As are in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories 

(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin 

Islands), and there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium, which 

includes the Hopi, Navaho and Piute Nations in the Four Corners region of the 

Southwest. Disability Rights Washington's mission "is to advance the dignity, equality, 

and self-determination of people with disabilities. We work to pursue justice on matters 

related to human and legal rights," 

Each P&A provides a full array of services for people with disabilities, and work with 

youth to provide assistance with education and services in a variety of settings, 

including juvenile justice facilities, public and non-public schools, and detention and 

correctional facilities. Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of legally 

based advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States. 

The Nature of the Problem 

Children with disabilities should not be punished for their disabilities. Instead, children 

should be provided the education to which they are legally entitled to and the supports 

necessary to obtain that education. Unfortunately, many of our public school students 

do not receive these basic rights. 

Statistics show that a disparate number of youth with disabilities, and especially youth of 

color with disabilities, are involved with the juvenile justice system. As many as 80% of 

youth in the juvenile justice system have some form of disability. i. Children of color are 

also disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system." However, a data 

analysis released in August of 2012 shows there is far more to the story. "Applying [ ... J 

three lenses together - race, gender and disability-yields a more disturbing image than 

anyone of the categories alone ... The group that consistently had the highest rate of 
310 

suspension is African American male students with disabilities. In some of the largest 

districts in the U.S .... suspension rates for this group reached more than 70% of their 

enrollment. .iii 

This analysis shows that a specific sub group of children of color, those who are also 

children with disabilities, receive different treatment than their peers in public school. 

Within this sub group, children who reside in particular public school districts receive the 

worst treatment of all. Many of these youth face suspension or expulsion from school -

a key entry point into the "School to Prison Pipeline." In order to successfully protect 

these children from a future in prison, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the problem 

and tear it out by its roots. 

Disability Rights Washington Work on the School To Prison Pipeline (STPP) 

Disability Rights Washington has been persistently working on preventing improper 

discipline of students with disabilities for many years, before the link between these 

cases and the likelihood of future incarceration was widely recognized. Preventing 

suspension and expulsion of students for the behavioral manifestations of their 

disabilities is and always has been an important part of the advocacy work that we do. 

Disability Rights Washington is engaged in both individual and systemic projects to 

address the school-to-prison pipeline for people with disabilities. 

Disability Rights Washington provided advocacy for youth with mental health issues 

whose special education services and services obtained through the juvenile justice 

system were a SUbstantial part of their mental health wrap around team. We attended 

Individual Education Plan ("IEP") meetings as well worked with probation officers and 

defense attorneys to ensure that aU individuals and providers in the youth's life were 

aware of both their disabilities and abilities. 

Disability Rights Washington is an integral member of the Positive Climate and 

Discipline Advisory Committee (PCDAC) advising the Superintendent of Schools, the 

Board of Directors of Seattle Public Schools, Assistant Superintendent of Operations, 

School Climate Program Director, and the Discipline and Truancy Program Manager on 

matters pertaining to positive school climate and discipline within Seattle Public 

Schools. Our purpose is to support the continued shifting of discipline as merely an 

intervention in the behavior of students with disabilities, to seeing discipline as part of a 

larger strategy to create positive, just environments where stUdents can flourish and 

succeed. Our end goal is to eliminate racial and disability disproportionality in all 

aspects of education and its administration. 

Disability Rights Washington, the University Center for Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities, and the Washington State Developmental Disabilities Council (DOC) have 

recently committed to a long-term collaboration focused on youth with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities in the juvenile justice system. DRW has been conducting 

training and gathering information regarding the numbers of youth with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities currently incarcerated in the Washington State Juvenile 
311 

Rehabilitation Administration system and gathered information on the current 

assessments/evaluations that occur at intake. DDC and UCEDD provided support and 

staff from all network partners served on a statewide task force that has recently 

completed a report to the Washington State Legislature including recommendations for 

legislative reform. 

Finally, Disability Rights Washington worked with local special education Parent 

Teacher Associations ("PTA") units to successfully incorporate the following onto the 

current state legislative platform: including special education data in the State 

Legislature's achievement gap oversight and accountability workgroup and adoption of 

social-emotional learning curriculum. DRW also worked with the state special education 

coalition, the state developmental disabilities council and other education advocates to 

evaluate potential legislation around parent notification when restraint and seclusion 

occurs in school. (There currently is no provision that parents are notified when this 

happens.) There has also been discussion around evaluation of aversive intervention 

regulations and working with the schools and others to promote appropriate training, 

appropriate implementation of positive behavior supports with documented behavior 

plans, and appropriate policy implementation and practice statewide around use of 

restraint or seclusion. 

FEDERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Effective enforcement of current federal protections is the most effective 

way to stem the STPP for children with disabilities. Disability Rights 

Washington is very pleased with a recent complaint filed by the U. S. Department 

of Justice (DOJ) regarding racial injustice in Meridian Mississippi. There are 

similar problems currently with regard to students with disabilities that are also 

worthy of DOJ's attention. We encourage DOJ to continue to work with the P&A 

agencies to identify appropriate cases for enforcement action. 

• Congress should create and appropriate funds for a specific P&A program 

focused on children with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. Funding 

the P&A network to do this work is an extremely cost-effective way to use the 

existing infrastructure of the P&A System. The P&A network is the largest crossdisability network of advocates in the United States, and P&As have extensive 

expertise successfully advocating on behalf of youth with disabilities in childserving systems and advancing systems reforms. All P&As have an interest in 

and commitment to doing this work. but cite lack of funding and resources as the 

primary barrier to being more fully engaged while not diminishing the ability to do 

the other important work the P&As perform. 

• We recommend leadership by all relevant federal agencies, and especially 

OJJDP, in the area of prevention of school removal. There is a need to 

promote and create incentives for the revision of local school codes, so as to 

eliminate the use of out of school expulsion and promote the development of 
312 

clear and specific Memoranda of Understanding regarding the use of School 

Resource Officers, in order to limit their role to matters of real school safety. 

Providing direct federal support for training schools and teachers in the best 

practices to prevent school removal. 

• The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) should 

continue recent efforts to publish Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) data. 

This type of federal effort is desperately needed in order to help state and local 

governments uncover and resolve STPP problems. 

• Disability Rights Washington encourages OCR to consider specific 

enforcement actions (e.g. "compliance reviews") for STPP violations that 

impact students with disabilities. One example would be to address the worst 

offending districts in terms of racial/disability discipline statistics. 

• Disability Rights Washington recommends effective monitoring and 

enforcement of the IDEA and ESEA by Department of Education of 

suspension and expUlsion rates and racial dis proportionality at the state 

and local level. 

• Disability Rights Washington encourages the better tracking of school 

discipline rates as an indicator of school needs and improvement in 

persistently low-achieving schools. This data is a promising example of how 

publicly available data could be used to improve school climate. 

• Congress should fund grant programs to support community-based 

solutions. The solutions to the causes of the STPP at the local level will often 

require the efforts and input of all stakeholders. Funds should go toward the 

development and implementation of multi-year, comprehensive local or regional 

plans to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline and the number of youth 

entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

• Conclusion: Thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic and 

allowing written testimony to be submitted. Disability Rights Washington is 

committed to continuing to be part of the solution to this serious social issue. 

i (Shufelt, L. J., & Cocozza, J. J. (2006). Youth with Mental Health disorders in the Juvenile Justice 

system: Results from a multi-state prevalence study. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Mental Health 

and Juvenile Justice. ). 

Ii "As states have undertaken efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement for youth, they have 

found evidence that dis proportionality occurs at every contact point within the juvenile justice system, 

from arrest to cases transferred to criminal court and not just at detention and correction." DMC Technical 

Assistance Manual, 4th Edition, httDs:llwww.ncjrs.gov/htmlloiidp/dmc ta manual/dmcintro.pdf (page 

Intro-1). 

iH Opportunities Suspended, August 2012, Civil Rights ProjecUProyecto Derechos Civiles, at 36. Retrieved 

from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prisonfolderlfederal-reports/upcom ing-ccrr -researchD 
313 

Adams County 

1000 Judicial Center Drive, Suile 100 

Brighton, Colorado 80601 

Telephone (303) 659-7720 

FAX (303) 835-5522 

DON QUICK 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

December 10, 2012 

Honorable Dick Durbin, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

United States Senate 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Durbin and Committee Members, 

Broomfield County 

17 DesCombes Drive 

Broomfield, CO 80020 

Telephone (720) 887-2199 

FAX (720) 667-2189 

As a District Attorney, and a member of Colorado's Columbine Commission, I 

recognize the importance of keeping our kids safe while in schooL However, after 25 

years as a prosecutor, I also know the strategy of simply funneling youth in trouble out 

of schools and into the justice system does not make sense (or cents.) We need to be 

tough on crime, but also smart about crime. That is why in the spring of 2005, we 

formed a unique countywide partnership, the Adams County Youth Initiative (acyLorg). 

The three goals of ACYl are to: 

• Decrease juvenile crime, 

• Decrease SUbstance use, and 

Increase our high school graduation rates. 

ACYl now includes over 30 partners - including our early childhood partnership, the 

school districts, after school programs, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, human 

services, mental health providers, the faith community, and other community 

stakeholders which serve children and their families in Adams County. 

Reductions in Juvenile Crime 

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that we have made tremendous 

progress in keeping kids out of the justice system over the last seven years. Since 

2005, we have reduced our juvenile criminal filings by 42%. We have experienced 

an even greater impact on direct filed cases with a reduction of 84%. (Direct files 

are the very violent and/or repeat juvenile felony offenders in which the cases are 

filed in adult court.) 

Below you will find my office's annual juvenile filing statistics since 2005 - the 

year ACYl began. As you can see, every year we have experienced reductions. In 

VICTIM WITNESS ASSISTANCE 

TRiAl SUPPORT CENTER 

1100 Judicial Center Drive 

Brighton, CO 80601 

Telephone (303) 659-7735 

FAX (303) 655-3888 

DIVERSION PROGRAM 

12200 N. Pecos Street, Suite 300 

Westminster, CO 80234 

Telephone (303) 453-8535 

FAX (303) 453-8550 
314 

addition, I have attached two graphs demonstrating the significant decreases in juvenile 

crimes in the 17th Judicial District over the last seven years. 

2005-2011 JUVENILE FILINGS 

IN JUVENILE COURT 

17TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

1012 

967 

928 

924 

712 

747 

587 

42% 

Decrease 

2005-2011 DIRECT FILINGS 

IN ADULT COURT 

17TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

25 

20 

20 

18 

10 

9 

4 

84% 

Decrease 

Our data to date for 2012 looks just as promising (533 juvenile filings and only 2 

transfer hearings/direct files.) . 

Use of Data & Evidence Based Programs 

A critical foundation to our juvenile crime reductions is that the ACYl partnership 

is resolute on using, (1) evidence based strategies and programs, and (2) relevant and 

valid data. ACYl has one of the best and most complete student surveys in the country. 

Over the last four years, we have conducted surveys of our middle and high school 

students. Last year alone, 27,000 (77%) of our 6tli to 1ih grade students responded 

and provided information concerning substance use, bullying, gang involvement and 

other behaviors that impede the success of our youth in school and beyond. ACYl 

partners (especially schools) used this detailed information to match the most 

appropriate evidence based prevention and intervention strategies to each school and 

community. For example, in some schools after school and summer programs have 

kept our kids out of trouble and helped them develop skills and abilities that will pave 

their roads to success. Other schools have focused on bullying or substance abuse 

prevention. Parents are also important ACYl partners. We provide a program that 

teaches parents to be effective leaders within their own schools and their communities. 

Students and their parents deserve safe schools. But waiting until kids get in 

trouble and sending them into detention is not a sound strategy. Instead, ACYl 

promotes safe school climates where our youth can focus on learning. 

Start Early for School Success 

From validated research, we know improving high school graduation rates begins 

in early childhood. ACYl has supported evidence based programs to ensure our kids 

are supported from birth until they successfully transition to kindergarten. For example, 

ACYl has funded the Family Nurse Partnership Program. This program partners viSiting 

nurses with young single moms and continues until the children enter quality pre-school 

2 
315 

programs. Also, through the Incredible Years Program we've reached nearly all our 

preschoolers (2,700 kids) and significantly increased their overall social emotional 

competence and problem solving abilities. As a result of increased early childhood 

education funding, Adams County is closing the learning gap of our highest risk children 

when they start school. For a complete list of our evidence based programs, go to 

acyLorg. (Attached is a summary of ACYl's structure and programs.) 

Federal Funding Made ACYl Possible 

Our success would have been impossible without your assistance as ACYl was a 

recipient of a Safe SchooVHealth Student grant We used the funds for programs that 

kept our kids in school and out of the justice system. (ACYl has received national 

recognition as one of the top performing Safe Schools/Healthy Student grant sites in the 

country. Only 14 of the 365 grantees since 1999 have received this recognition.) While 

noting these successes, we still face significant challenges. 47% of the Adams County 

youth qualify for free or reduced lunches. In some areas the rlumber is much higher. 

English is a second language for many of our students. Too many of our youth stifl have 

gang activity in their neighborhood. Finally, with the changes in Colorado marijuana 

laws, we are experiencing significant increases in adolescent marijuana use. (Data 

attached, or go to acyLorg.) 

Addressing Minority Overrepresentation 

The strategy of increased filings of juvenile cases has a significant impact on the 

overrepresentation of minorities in both the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. 

As mentioned above, 47% of the kids in our county qualify for free or reduced lunch. 

Adams County has the second highest number of children living in poverty in the State 

of Colorado. In addition, 55% of our county's youth are identifying as minorities. When 

a community focuses primarily on the filing of juvenife charges rather than proactive 

prevention efforts - it only adds to the existing overrepresentation problem. On the 

other hand, if you assist a chifd in graduating high school, you reduce his/her chances 

of entering the criminal justice system by 50%. In Colorado, our Latino graduation rate 

is 60%, the African American rate is 65% and the Anglo rate is 82%. Decreasing youth 

overrepresentation in the justice system is another reason the Adams County Youth 

Initiative has a goal of increasing our graduation rates. As the attached graph indicates, 

the years of hard work by our schools are paying off. Even with the challenges our kids 

face, graduation rates in Adams County are on the rise and our juvenile crime rates 

continue to fall. 

In conclusion, as a career prosecutor, the safety of the children in my community 

is one of my highest priorities. In addition, I strongly support the Committee's concern 

and focus on the nation's increased pipeline of filing juvenile cases from schools into the 

criminal justice system. We can and must utilize better strategies. As the attached 

record of the Adams County youth Initiative demonstrates, communities can help 

provide safe schools and safe neighborhoods by focusing on juvenile crime prevention. 

However, these prevention efforts must be strategic and cost effective. That is 

3 
316 

accomplished by, (1) using valid data, and (2) implementing evidence based strategies 

and programs. Our county partnership has done both and the results speak for 

themselves. 

Thank you for the opportunity to tender information about the Adams County 

Youth Initiative. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me 

at 303-935-5609 or dquick@da17state.co.us. 

cc: Senator Mark Udall 

Senator Michael Bennet 

4 

Sincerely, 

~ 4~/LJl- Cf/t... 

Don Quick 

District Attorney 

1 yth Judicial District 
317 

High school Graduation Rates 

Adams (ounty saw an increase in graduation rates for the 

class of 2011 Graduation Rates by Year 

number of seniors 'who graduated froM high school in four years 

increased by :,84 percent from 2010 

• Adams County had an even larger lncrei'lsf' th<ln the 5:ate average 

(1.5 percent) 

-0 This :5 equivalent to 100 additional Adan1s County seniors 

obtaining a high school diploma iast year 

;Note: In 2010, ~hE' CDE began using a new formulB for calculating gr8duatlof) 

only -COU:lts "on time' graauates - students WilD completed hl{;h 

~ChDQI wlthm four ,'ears ;:liter entering nmth grildc. ThiS new for1l1uia yields a 

~'1at tends to be lowe" Jnd cannot be cOl'lpared directly with prwf years' 

Juvenile Crime Filings 

Since 2005 Adams County has seen a large reduction in juvenile crime 

42% reduction in Juvenile Filings 

84% reduction in Direct Filings {very violent and/c.; repeat juvenile offender Sl 

Juvenile Filings 

(Juvenile Court· 17th Judicial District) 

Direct Filings 

(AdultCourt • 17th Judicial District) 

Substance Use Rates· 9th 12th grade: 

Substance use is a growing problem among Adams County youth 

• Steady increase in gt"'_li'" graders' reported use of alcohol from 2008 to 2010, and remained high in 

.. Increase in reported marijuana use from 19 percent to 30 percent between 2008 and 2010, with a slight decreQse in 2011 

60 per"cent of high schoo! students think that it wouid be easy to get akohollf they wanted 

65 percent believe it would be easy to get lTlarljuana If they wanted it 

Note that hIgh schools with larger increase in substance use had smaller increases in graduatio!1 rates 

Z008 

AlcohDl Mari.iuana 

2009 

36% 

2010 

41% 

2011 

41% 

2008 

19% 

2009 

ZZ% 

2010 

30% 

2D11 

28% 
318 

ADAMS COUNTY 

YOUTH INITIATIVE SAFE SCHOOlS/HEALTHY STlJDENTS 
319 
320 

TO LEARN MORE OR TO GET lNVOLVED PLEASE VISIT WWW,ACYLORG 
321 

ADAMS (OU NTY 

YOUTH INITIATIVE SAFE SCHOOLS/H£:\lTHY 5TUDENT~ 
322 

tJ1 

Q) 

+-' 

L 

0 

L 

CL 

ro 

+--' 

C 

Q) 

E 

Q 

..s 

Q) 

> 

Q) 

0 

Yo 

Q 

ro u E E U -GJ 

" ro '" 0 u 

4: 0::: 
Steering Committee 

ACYI/ SS/HS Staff i5.0f1q 

Strategio Priority Areas 
324 

Center 

TO: 

FRO;vi: 

The Honorable Members of the Senate Judiciary C'('mmittce 

Education Law Center 

DATF: December 10, ::'012 

SUBJECT: Statement School-to-Prison 

We thank Senator Durbin and the Senate Judiciary Committee for taking time to listen 10 

our concerns about the School-to-Prison and how we can all work to\\'ards dismantling 

it. We are gral.:lul fix the opportunity to \\"()rk 011 these issues with you. \Ve applaud the 

Committee 011 its attention to this issue and its to "ntertain public comment. We are 

pleased to submit these comments on behalf of the Law Center and \yould be pleased 

to submit more comprthensive materials on this topic at any time. 

The Education Law Center of Pennsylvania (ELC) (www.elc-pa.org) is non-profit legal 

advocacy and educational dedicated to that all of Pennsy!vania'S children 

ha\'c access to a quality years. ELC has worked as 11 

backbone ft)J' parents. ad"ocates, community and advocacy and others 

to help multiple strategies to accomplish our mission, traditional legal 

assistance, advocacy. and community collaboration, and education. 

ELC's work focllses on the most Hllnerable children who have historically been at a 

disadvantage in the public education system. 

Unfair and inappropriate di,ciplinary prClctices continue to he a barrier for tbese students, 

IOspccially for low income and minority students as well students with disabilities. In fact. 

students with disabilities twice as likely to be excluded ii'om school for disciplinary reasons 

as their non-disabled peers. And across the country. Ahican-American students more than 

three and a half times more likely to be by their peers who nrc white, In 

Pcnnsylvania, the numbers are even more Ali'ican-Americ,m students in 

County are more than 7 times more likely to be suspended than their peers who arc \\hite. 

fhc School-io-Prison Pipeline refers to the 

criminalization and incarceration of students more 

Data Co!kcrl(,!!l Sllmmar~ 

http: \\ \\ \Y~,~u.gCl\ 

that make the 

"II ° "'>1" ,f'nl of a high-quality 
325 

education less likely. In practice, this often means an emphasis of punitive consequences, student 

exclusion, and justice-system intervention over students' right to an education. 

The School-to-Prison Pipeline operates both directly and indirectly. By criminalizing 

student behavior, schools directly send students in the criminal justice system. We believe the 

School-to-Prison pipeline is fed not only by school based arrests or law enforcement referrals4

, 

but also by the application of unnecessary exclusionary school discipline. This discipline 

includes suspensions, expulsions and transfers to alternative education programs for students of 

all ages, from pre-k to senior year. We encourage the Committee to consider reforms that will 

work to dismantle this pipeline by ensuring, when discipline is necessary, that for all students it 

is fair and appropriate and it maintains school stability and learning time to the maximum extent 

possible. Additionally, we encourage the Committee to reduce reliance on policies, such as 

high-stakes testing, which inadvertently lead to the push out of om most vulnerable and 

underserved students.5 

Too often we witness the School-to-Prison pipeline in action through the experiences of 

the students and families who call om hotline seeking help. Too often these cases are absurd. 

The following are just a sampling of recent callers: 

Six year old Christian's kindergarten teacher complained that her legs were hurting as 

she sat down to read him a story. Christian reached out and patted her thighs, saying, 

"I wish I could make them feel better." For this Christian was permanently expelled 

for "inappropriate touching." 

12 year old DaInian was barred from enrollment because a school did not like what it 

read on his psychological evaluation, even though he had never violated any school 

rules. 

15 year old Darian permanently expelled for a first offense of cutting class. 

18 year old Alonzo suspended for 10 days for "possession of a controlled substance" 

when he asked his teacher for permission to take the two "Aleve" pills he brought 

from home, because of knee pain. 

12 year old Christopher had never been in trouble when he threw on a dirty pair of 

pants in his hmry to get to school, forgetting that his Boy Scout pocket knife was in a 

pocket. When it fell out in gym class he volunteered that it was his. He was then 

arrested, handcuffed, and detained injail for 12 hours. 

There are solutions that do not lead to these harrowing consequences. For example, 

school districts should invest in behavioral health and prevention programs so that students do 

not need to be expelled or sent to alternative education for disruptive youth in such high 

numbers. For example, consider School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS), an 

evidence-based, research driven approach to creating, teaching, and reinforcing students' social, 

emotional, and academic learning skills. Promoting SWPBS is a way to change the conversation 

about school climate. SWPBS focuses on prevention. A SWPBS school sets clear and simple 

rules that apply in all school settings (including the classroom, cafeteria. hallways and school 

bus), and consistently rewards good behavior. This continuum of supportive interventions helps 

all students succeed academically and behaviorally. Schools that have implemented SWPBS with 

'In Philadelphia, some 30% of the cases in the Juvenile Division of Philadelphia Family Court stem from school· based arrests. 

, Deborah Gordon Klehr, Addressing the Unintended Consequenoes of No Cluld Left Behind and Zero Tolerance: 

Better Strategies for Safe Schools and Successful Students, 16 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 585 (2009). 

2 
326 

fidelity (i.e., school-v.ide with all of its components intact) have decreased office discipline 

referrals, decreased out-of-school suspensions, increased teacher retention rates, and increased 

academic success for all students. (And, we might add, SWPBS has its roots in Senator 

Durbin's home state of Illinois, where more than 800 schools now have implemented SWPBS!)6 

Thus, we recommend that the Committee consider the following: 

• Promote evidence-based positive discipline strategies, such as SWPBS, through 

funding, incentives and criteria for Federal grant making and accountability 

measures for Federal monies received by Local Education Agencies. 

• Request the GAO to investigate the link between high-stakes testing and the push 

out of students into both exclusionary discipline and alternative placements. 

• Support the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights so that it can 

devote more resources to providing technical assistance guides, investigate the 

disparate impacts of exclusionary school discipline and school policing. on 

vulnerable and under-served children, and collaborate with the Department of 

Justice to bring about the types of great education change we experienced in the 

1960s & 1970s. 

In addition, we write in support of the statement submitted by our colleagues at the 

Juvenile Law Center. While we seek to ensure that students are not pushed out of our schools, 

we must also be cognizant of the challenges faced by our Youth returning from juvenile 

correctional facilities. 

Respectfully submitted by, 

Education Law Center 

I) Scott A. Spaulding. et aI., Implementation of School-wide paIs across the United States, available a/ 

http://www,pbis.org!evaluation/evaluation_briefsfnov_08_(2).aspx 

3 
327 

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

CHANDLEE JOHNSON KUHN 

CHIEF JUDGE 

U.S. Senate 

NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

500 N. KING STREET. SUITE 9445 

WILMINGTON. DELAWARE 19801.3736 

December 10,2012 

Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Delaware's Support of Ending School (Disruption) to Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Committee Members, 

The State of Delaware seeks to end the school disruption to prison pipeline. This is an 

important issue on a national level, and Delaware supports the efforts of those organizations that 

have brought it to the national stage. Going forward, states and local jurisdictions will have to 

address the causes and consequences of the pipeline because it is a local issue. Delaware hopes 

to be a leader in this movement by building a collaborating, consensus building project statewide 

that will include a task force to set forth the factors that contribute to this trend, but also to 

implement solutions in different school districts. The collaborative is using the national 

framework and with a sense of urgency bringing that framework to Delaware. 

As the Chief Judge of Family Court, I see how school disruption impacts youth in the 

juvenile justice system and in the child welfare system. In Delaware, Family Court has the 

juvenile delinquency jurisdiction and youth charged with a crime come before our court. Youth 

charged with crimes, whether school offenses or crimes alleged to have occurred outside of 

school, are often suspended or expelled from school and as a result, suffer additional 

consequences for this school disruption. Youth in foster care also come within the Family Court 

jurisdiction. The child welfare system recognizes that youth in foster care are often 

disproportionately arrested for school offenses. Research shows that youth in the juvenile justice 

system more often end up in the adult prison system. 

I became involved in the national discussion on ending the school disruption to prison 

pipeline earlier this year in part due to the research of Kerrin Wolf, Ph.D. As part of his 

dissertation, Dr. Wolf compiled data on all school arrests in the State of Delaware for the 2010-

2011 school year. As a result of Dr. Wolfs persuasive research, Delaware's Family Court was 
328 

asked to present at Judge Judith Kaye's National Leadership Summit on School-Justice 

Partnerships: Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court. The event was sponsored by the 

Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children. By August of this year, we were asked 

to present at a School Discipline Institute of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe 

and Healthy Students in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Later, I participated 

as a member of the Law Enforcement Advisory Group in the Council of State Governments' 

Consensus Project. I am also a member of the School Pathways Committee on the National 

Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges which is looking to identify several jurisdictions 

to work on school disruption to prison pipeline issues. 

Learning from the frameworks established by these national organizations, Delaware has 

established a small group of committed partners from various agencies. Casey Family Programs 

is working with us in this endeavor. Improving school outcomes will requires a multifaceted 

approach and Delaware's collaborative is looking at several evidence based programs to improve 

outcomes in one school district. One specific program is Transformative Life Skills program 

from the Niroga Institute that improves self-control. We hope to infiltrate school districts 

throughout the State with successful programming to improve outcomes. 

From a national platform to bringing the issue home to Delaware, we are filled with 

optimism that our statewide partnerships will identify the issues and be able to address the 

problem of school disruption to prison pipeline. Delaware is here to support the national effort as 

well. We applaud the Senate's efforts at convening the experts who will be testifying at the 

Senate hearing on the school disruption to prison pipeline, and hope that their testimony and the 

written submissions of testimony will assist the Senate in addressing this critical issue. If I can be 

of further assistance to the Committee, please do not hesitate to contact me or any of my 

colleagues in the State of Delaware. 

cc: Tom Carper, U.S. Senator 

Chris Coons, U.S. Senator 

Respectfully submitted, 

lsi 

Chandlee Johnson Kuhn 

Chief Judge 

Michael Thompson, Council of State Governments 

Shawn Marsh, Ph.D., NCJFCJ 

Bidyut K. Bose, Ph.D., Niroga Institute 

Kerrin Wolf, Ph. D. 

CJK/ebt 
329 

5,000 Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, 

Prosecutors, other Low Enforcement 

Leaders, and Violence Survivors 

Preventing Crime and Violence 

Committee Oil the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 20 J2 

Written Testimony of: 

Daniel E Johnson 

Solicitor 

Fifth Judicial Circuit of So 11th Carolina 

On Behalf of: 

FIGHT CRl~IE: I:-;VEST TN KIDS 
330 

Mr. Chainnan, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee on Constitution, 

Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. My name is Daniel E. Johnson 

and I am the Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. I have been a 

prosecutor for 7 years. Through my work as a Deputy Sheriff, Prosecutor and Coach, I 

havc seen first hand how crime impacts our children. I am also a member of Fight Crime: 

Invest in Kids, a national anti-crime organization of over 5,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, 

prosecutors, attorneys general, other law enforcement leaders, and victims of violence 

who have come together to take a hard-nosed look at the research about what really works 

to keep kids from becoming criminals. 

Law enforcement leaders finnly believc that crime and violence have no place in our 

nation's schools. Every child should feel safe at school and not have their learning 

disrupted by classroom disorder or discipline problems. There are instances when 

suspension and/or expulsion are not only appropriate, but also necessary. However, 

school discipline is a delicate balance betwecn the need to make the school environment 

safe and the importance of keeping kids in school and on the path to graduation and life 

success, rather than failure and crime. 

Law enforcement leaders know that we must stop discipline problems before students end 

up on the streets. The consequences of student misbehavior that is improperly addressed 

do not stop at the schoolhouse door. Students can go on to commit more serious offenses 

unless successful interventions are provided. Simply suspending or expelling students 

does not solve students' behavior issues. Students expelled and sent to the streets face 

long odds of success. A Center for Disease Control and Prevention study found that outof-school 12- to 19- year olds were more likely to be involved in a physical fight, carry a 

weapon and engage in risky behaviors like drug use. 

If students drop out of or are removed from school, they are more likely to become 

involved in crime. Students who are suspended or expelled are almost three times more 

likely to havc contact with the juvenile justice system. A study found that nearly 10 

percent of those students with at least one disciplinary contact dropped out of school, 

compared to just 2 percent of students with no disciplinary action. Ultimately, high 

school dropouts are eight times more likely to be incarcerated. While staying in school 

even one year longcr reduces the likelihood that a youngster will turn to crime, graduating 

from high school has a dramatic impact on life outcomes. 

Our country needs to do more, to ensure kids feel safe at school and grow up to be 

productive members of our society. The best way to help students learn and to prevent 

later crime is to ensure students can rcmain in school and off the streets. Teachers need 

help managing classroom behavior and schools need new approaches for responding to 

students' misbehavior. Fortunately, there are proven and promising approaches that can 

help ensure that schools are safe and that troubled students are given more opportunities 

to learn. 
331 

Improve data collection 

Schools should be required to collect and report publicly on accurate data (disaggregated 

by income, race, type of incident, etc.) on the use of school suspensions, expulsions and 

other discipline approaches, as well as on incidents of bullying, drug use and violence. 

The best way to address a problem is to understand it fully, and it's difficult to do that 

without data. 

Implement evidence-based programs with fidelity 

There are several effective evidence-based alternatives to reduce suspensions, expulsions 

and referrals to law enforcement. Effective school-based interventions can also help 

combat the alarming levels of bullying, drug use and violence among young people. 

These interventions must be implemented as designed, with the proper staffing, services 

and follow-through. lfprograms stray from the evidence-based model, they may not 

demonstrate any results. Local, state and federal initiatives must support programs with 

the strongest evidence and provide sufficient support for proper implementation. 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) 

PBIS is a universal, school-wide prevention strategy for improving behavior and 

school climate. At the universal level, schools create three to five clear behavioral 

expectations and rules that all students and teachers know. Responses to 

inappropriate behavior are clearly defined, such as a teacher response - like a 

warning, time out, privilege loss or parent contact - vcrsus sending a student to 

the principal's office of suspensions or expulsions. Disciplinary data is used to 

guide decision-making about the program implementation and student response. 

A study in Maryland found that the percentage of students suspended dcclined 

significantly over time in schools with PBIS but did not significantly decline in 

control schools. 

Good Behavior Game 

The Good Bchavior Game is a relatively inexpensive, elementary school 

classroom-wide intervention in which a class is divided into groups and the 

groups compete for simple privileges, such as lining up first for lunch or recess. 

Children had a 37 percent higher risk of suspcnsion, on average, in sixth grade if 

they were assigned to a classroom without the Good Behavior Game and 

enhanced curriculum, compared to children in classrooms with those elements. In 

eleventh grade, students left out had 2.5 times higher risk of suspension than 

those with the Good Behavior Game and enhanced curriculum, and the program 

also cuts conduct disorders (a behavioral disorder with high correlation to 

delinquency) and experimenting with illicit and hard drugs by more than half. 

Researchers found a return of$96 dollars for every dollar spent on this 

elementary school intervention. 

Bullying Prevention Program 

Bullying and violence are serious problems facing our nation's schools. The 

National Center for Education Statistics reported that 32 percent of students age 

12-18 reported being bullied at school in 2007. The most serious bullies are seven 

times more likely than other kids to carry a weapon to school, and one study 
332 

demonstrated that four out of every ten boys who bullied others as kids had three 

or more convictions by the time they turned 24. Victims of bullying may also be 

at risk for future crime. A study by the u.s. Secret Service, conducted in 

collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education, examined 37 school 

shootings in the U.S. since 1974 and found that nearly three-quarters of the 

school shooters had previously been bullied or injured by fellow students. 

Fortunately, evidence-based programs can effectively combat bullying and reduce 

later crime and violence. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, for example, 

produced a 50 percent reduction of bullying in Norway and a 20 percent 

reduction when it was replicated in South Carolina. This program enlists the 

entire school community, from the principal to the bus drivers, in an effort to 

communicate clearly to all students that bullying is not accepted, and works 

individually with both victims and perpetrators along with their parents to stop 

further bullying. 

Life Skills Training (LST) 

Life Skills Training is a three-year intervention that targets middle and junior 

high school students in the 6th or 7th grade (with booster sessions in the two 

subsequent years), is aimed at preventing use of gateway drugs. More than 15 

years of research with the LST program have consistently shown that 

participation in the program can cut drug use in half. Researchers have found a 

return of $42 for every dollar invested in this intervention. 

Fund training for school staff on alternatives to suspension 

Despite serving all students, not just those with discipline problems, many of these 

approaches are low-cost because they involve primarily policy changes and some training 

for teachers and administrators. The expense is particularly low compared to the amount 

of teaching time and resources currently dedicated to managing disruptive students in 

school, in juvenile facilities and in the courts. Up-front investments can be far more 

fiscally responsible and cost taxpayers far Jess in the end than removing students from 

school unnecessarily. 

To conclude, the over 5,000 members of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids nationwide believe 

in punishment that fits the crime. Just like law enforcement authorities need to sanction 

criminal offenders, school leaders need the authority for serious cases, to suspend, expel, 

or take other school discipline actions including referral to the juvenile justice system. 

However, in most cases, students and schools are better served by alternative responsesand better yet, prevention approaches that reduce behavior and discipline problems before 

they happen. Several promising programs can improve school climate and reduce 

disciplinary problems. Local, state and federal officials should support these approaches 

and encourage schools to implement effective discipline approaches that can help 

students, improve the learning environment and prevent more children from entering the 

criminal justice system. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony. 
333 

Fighting for Our Right to Children's Education FORCE 

TESTIM:ONY OF 

Fighting for Our Right to Children's Education (F.O.R.C.E.) 

Mobile, Alabama 

regarding 

ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 

Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

December 12, 2012 

P.O. BOX 1923 

Mobile AL 36633 
334 

Fighting for Our Right to Children's Education FORCE 

Dear Senators: 

P.O. BOX 1923 

Mobile AL 36633 

My name is Vanessa Byard. I am writing this statement as a parent and on behalf 

ofF.O.R.C.E -- Fighting for Our Right to Children's Education-- a community 

organization in Mobile, Alabama. 

F.O.R.C.E. was founded by parents, community leaders and students in the Mobile 

County Public Schools who were concerned that only 50 percent of students graduate. 

F.O.R.C.E. members organized several community meetings to determine the source of 

the dropout problem. At these meetings, parent after parent talked about the overuse of 

suspension in schools and how repeat suspensions pushed their children further and 

further out of school until they eventually dropped out. 

In Mobile County, students can be suspended up to 10 days for uniform violations, 

being unprepared for class, and even talking in the cafeteria. We have heard of students 

being long-term suspended, which in Mobile can last anywhere between 11 days and the 

end of the semester, for eating a bag of chips in class. The problem in Mobile got so bad 

that the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against the schools for violating 

students' due process rights. Students are often long-term suspended without receiving 

any notice or an opportunity to defend themselves. 

F.O.R.C.E. began to look at the problem not as "drop out" but "push out." Our 

children, through harsh discipline practices and a lack of oversight of school 

administrators, are being pushed out in record numbers. Once suspended from school, 

2 
335 

Fighting for Our Right to Children's Education FORCE 

P.O. BOX 1923 

Mobile AL 36633 

students begin to fonn negative attitudes towards school and administrators. In Mobile 

County, you can lose all your credits after you miss 10 days of school in one semester. 

Unfortunately, we see the reality of the school-to-prison pipeline in Mobile. Many 

Mobile children are funneled into the juvenile justice system through our schools. In 

Mobile, many students are arrested for criminal trespassing. This happens when a student 

comes on the school campus when they are supposed to be on suspension. But, because 

students don't receive notice, they don't know how long they are suspended or when they 

are allowed to return to campus. This is not right. These students clearly want to be in 

school. This is exactly why it was so important that F.O.R.C.E. be a voice in the 

community for parents, community members, and students to speak out about the 

injustices happening to our children. 

From the start of our organization, F.O.R.C.E. members have advocated on behalf 

of Mobile students. We developed a petition that we presented to the Mobile School 

Board with over 300 signatures. In March 2012, we co-hosted a Stand Up for Our 

Children rally where over 100 people gathered to share stories of children who are 

constantly being pushed out of school through suspension, expulsion and a lack of 

services. Even with all of our efforts, the problems still continue in Mobile. 

F.O.R.C.E.'s motto is: Bringing vale back to education. I know this problem is 

bigger than Mobile County, even bigger than Alabama. I am so glad that Congress is 

3 
336 

Fighting for Our Right to Children's Education FORCE 

P.O. BOX 1923 

Mobile Al36633 

acknowledging this problem and urge Congress to make it mandatory for public schools 

to have alternatives to suspensions for minor offenses, get rid of zero tolerance policies 

and began to use proven research based methods that keep our children in school. Our 

children's success depends on what we do now! Thank You. 

Sincerely, 

Vanessa Byard 

4 
337 

December 18, 2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chaimlan Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of tho Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

On behalf of the Florida State Conference of the NAACP, I want to thank you for bringing 

attention to the crisis facing our communities by hosting the Dec. 12, 2012 hearing on Ending the 

School-to-Prison Pipeline before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Human Rights. Founded in 1909 by a multiracial group of activists, the NAACP was 

poised for a long. tumultuous, and rewarding history. From the ballot box to the classroom, the 

dedicated workers, organizers, and leaders fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of 

African Americans would be heard. Thc fundamcntal goal of the NAACP's education advocacy 

agenda is to provide all students access to quality education. The NAACP Education Department 

seeks to accomplish this goal through policy development, training, collaboration, negotiation, 

legislation, litigation, and agitation. 

In 2005, a five-year-old African American girl was arrested and forcibly removed frol11 her St. 

Petersburg, FL elementary school by local policc for having a temper tantrum in class. In 

response to this arrest, and growing community discontent with hanl1fu! and racially disparate 

school discipline practices, the Florida State Conference NAACP, Advanccment Project, and the 

NAACP Legal Dcfcnse and Educational Fund, Inc. convened public hearings throughout 

Florida.! Since that time, we have worked diligently to bring attention to this issue, dcmand 

policy changes that keep Ollr young people in safe and etTeetive learning environments, and cnd 

the disproportionate impact of zero tolerance on students of color. 

Responding to nomml childhood behavior or even minor misbehaviors with arrests, suspensions, 

and expUlsions docs not make sense. However, these zero-tolerance responses are the noml in 
338 

Florida. Data from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights showed that over 

58,000 students in Florida were suspended or expelled from school in the 2009-2010 school year. 

Gadsden County, which had the highest rate of suspension in the state, suspended one of of every 

five students. Moreover, these suspensions are disproportionately borne by students of color 

Black students are more than twice as likely to be suspended and three times as likely to be 

expelled as White students.2 

Florida also has the highest documented number of school-related arrests and referrals to law 

enforcement in the nation - 16,377 in 20 I 0-11 alone. A shocking 68% of those arrests were for 

minor misdemeanors, most of which could and should be handled by a school's internal 

discipline system. Criminalization, like exclusionary school discipline, is disproportionately 

impacting students of color. Black students make up only 21 % of the youth in Florida, but 46% 

of all school-related referrals to law enforcement. Black male students are most likely to be 

arrested for subjective, discretionary offenses like disrupting a school function or disorderly 

conduct, criminal charges that can be issued for behavior as simple as raising your voice in 

class.3 

School-related arrests take up 15% of the Department of Juvenile Justice's caseload and cost the 

state approximately $5,000 each time we label a young person a criminal for talking back in 

class or neglecting the dress code. We have made schools the entry point for a life behind bars 

for a whole generation, 58% of students arrested in school in 2010-11 had never been involved in 

the Juvenile Justice System before being arrested at school. 4 

Suspensions, expulsions, and arrests are not common sense responses to minor student 

misbehavior. In fact, national studies have shown that schools with high rates of suspension and 

expulsion have lower student achievement and lower ratings of school climate.5 Students who 

are suspended have an increased likelihood of dropping out of school, being left back, or 

entering the juvenile or criminal justice system.6 

Despite these jarring statistics, there is good news. School-related offenses have declined 42% 

over the past seven years. In 2009, we worked with the Florida State Legislature and Governor 

Charlie Crist to pass legislation that urged all school districts to draw a line between the "petty 

acts of misconduct" unnecessarily being referred to law enforcement and the "serious act of 

misbehavior" that threatened school safety and required more intensive interventions. This step 

2 Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, available at http://ocrdata.ed.govJ 

3 FL Dept. of Juvenile Justice, Delinquency in Florida's Schools.' A Seven Year Study (Nov. 2011). 

http://v.',,..-w. d; L state. f1 us/docs/research2l20 1 O-Il-delinquency-in-schools-analysis. pdf. 

4 FL Dept. of Juvenile Justice, Delinquency in Florida's Schools. 

5 American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools?: An 

Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, American Psychologist, 63 at 854 (Dec. 2008), available at 

http://wv.rw.apa.org/pubs/infoJreports!zero-tolerance.pdf.; Daniel Losen and 10nathan Gillespsie. Opportunity Suspended: The 

Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion from School 42 (August 2012), available at 

http://civilrightsprojcct.ucla.edulresources/projccts/center-for-civil-rights-remediesfschool-to-prison-folder/fe.deralreports!upcornillg-ccrr-research/losen-gillespie-opportllnity-suspended-ccrr-20 12.pdf. 

6 Justice Center - The Council of State Governments and Public Policy Research Institute, Breaking Schools' Rules, A State)1/ide 

Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement [hereinafter Breaking Schools' 

Rules] (July 2011). available at http://justicecenter.csg.orglresources/juveniles. 

Florida State Conference of the NAACP 

397 West Church Street. Orbndo. FL 32801 

\\"\V\\ "tlan~wcp"org 
339 

helped bring the rate of criminalization down, but there is still much work to be done. Far too 

many school districts have failed to implement these changes in their own codes of conduct or 

create meaningful change in the way discipline works in their schools. In 2011, we published a 

follow up report that explored the lack of implementation and gave further recommendations for 

successful policy change.7 Some districts, like Broward, Miami-Dade, and Duval are already 

working with community members towards creating common sense discipline policies. If we are 

serious about ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline in Florida, every school district must make a 

commitment and take real steps towards that goal. 

In order to support local communities in dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline, we 

recommend: 

Providing funding incentives to support multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaborations 

charged with reducing school-based arrests, suspensions, and expulsions; 

Creating stronger accountability systems for schools, districts, law enforcement agencies, 

and states that rely on zero-tolerance school discipline; 

Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data on school-based arrests, suspensions, and 

expulsions, and disaggregate that data by race, gender, special education status, 

socioeconomic status, and English language proficiency; 

Encouraging local districts to work with students, parents, and community advocates to 

explicitly address racial disparities in school-based arrests, suspensions, and expulsions; 

and 

Supporting revisions to local and state law that eliminate zero-tolerance policies in 

schools. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony and for taking steps to ensure that students 

have the opportunity to be on a path to success, and not to prison. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Shirley Johnson 

Education Chair 

7 ACLU ofFL, Advancement Project, FL State Conference of the NAACP, Still Haven't Shut Off the School-to-Prison Pipeline: 

Evaluating the Impact of Florida's New Zero Tolerance Law (Mar. 2011) 

http://www.advancementproject.org/resources/entry/still~haventwshut-off~the-school-to-prison-pipeJjl1e-evaluating-the- impact-D. 

Florida Stale Conference of the NAACP 

397 Wesl Church Slree!, Orlando, FL 32801 

\v\V\v.tlanaacp.org 
340 

Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226 

2:00p.m. 

Statement Submitted by: 

GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) 

Gay-Straight Alliance Network 

Family Equality Council 

Human Rights Campaign 

National Black Justice Coalition 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 

National Center for Transgender Equality 

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund 

PFLAG National (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays) 

The Trevor Project 

SMYAL (Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League) 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement on ending the school to prison pipeline. 

The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is the leading national education 

organization working to create safe schools for all students. Established in 1990, GLSEN works 

to ensure that every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual 

orientation or gender identity/expression. We applaud our partners throughout the advocacy 

world who have spent considerable time and energy to study this problem and propose 

solutions, and we look forward to continuing to partner with them. 

GLSEN is pleased to work with other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) 

organizations to submit a statement highlighting the impact that exclusionary discipline and 

zero tolerance policies have on LGBT youth. While our work has largely focused on bullying 

and harassment, GLSEN and our partner organizations have worked tirelessly to ensure fair 

treatment for LGBT youth within the school discipline and criminal justice systems. We know 

that many youth face excessive discipline practices that may result from their perceived sexual 
341 

orientation or gender identity. We believe such issues should be taken into consideration in any 

conversation examining the school to prison pipeline. 

In recent years there has been an unprecedented conflation of school discipline policy and 

sanctions traditionally reserved for the juvenile justice system. In fact, the connection between 

school discipline and the juvenile courts has become so close that it led to the coining of the 

phrase "school-to-prison pipeline." The pervasive use of exclusionary discipline and zerotolerance policies that have the effect of funneling youth out of the school system and into the 

juvenile justice system impacts a broad swath of youth across lines of race, ethnicity, gender 

and sexual orientation and gender identity/expression; and at their core, these policies threaten 

our national aspiration to make schools safe and supportive environments for all young people. 

GLSEN, along with our diverse coalition of LGBT advocacy organizations, share a concern for 

the well-being of all students, and applaud the many federal efforts-such as the U.S. 

Department of Education and u.s. Department of Justice's Supportive Schools Discipline 

Initiative-to understand and address this issue. Still recent data from the U.s. Department of 

Education's Office of Civil Rights indicates that we have a long way to go, particularly where 

exclusionary discipline is applied to youth of color. For instance, although black students made 

up only 18 percent of those enrolled in the schools sampled, they accounted for 35 percent of 

those suspended once, 46 percent of those suspended more than once and 39 percent of all 

expulsions. Further, one in five black boys and more than one in 10 black girls received an outof-school suspension. Overall, black students were three and a half times likely to be suspended 

or expelled than their white peers. And in districts that reported expulsions under zerotolerance policies, Hispanic and black students represent 45 percent of the student body, but 56 

percent of those expelled under such policies. 

GLSEN and partner organizations have for some time been exploring intersections between the 

work of organizations seeking to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline for reasons related to 

disproportionate impact on youth of color, and our own work focused primarily on LGBT 

youth. What we now know as a result of this exploration is that the interest in making schools 
342 

places where youth are valued regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression is 

wholly consistent with those of other civil rights organizations that are seeking to stem the flow 

of youth of color from schools and into the juvenile justice system. In fact, many youth of color 

subjected to exclusionary discipline are also LGBT. Still, while many civil rights organizations 

have the benefit of ample data, collected by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil 

Rights, to support their contention that students of color are disproportionately affected by zero 

tolerance and other exclusionary discipline policies, there is a relative scarcity of data on how 

these policies may affect LGBT students. 

Only one key study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, exists that 

expresses what we believe anecdotally to be true, that "non-heterosexual youth suffer 

disproportionate educational and criminal-justice punishments that are not explained by 

greater engagement in illegal or transgressive behaviors."i While we have ample support-from 

GLSEN's widely-recognized National School Climate Survey, for instance-for the contention 

that many schools remain hostile climates for LGBT students, not only because of bullying and 

harassment from other students but because of mistreatment by school officials, there is a 

relative lack of scrutiny given to the question of whether, and to what extent, LGBT students 

are: 1) disproportionately subjected to exclusionary discipline, and 2) funneled into the juvenile 

justice system as a result. 

This data gap has proven to be a significant impediment to our administrative advocacy efforts 

to protect the rights of LGBT students-as co-equal with all other students-in schools. While 

there are several interdepartmental working groups in the federal government focused on 

studying bullying of LGBT students (which we applaud) there is no serious effort to examine 

the extent to which official school discipline policy has similar effects on LGBT students as on 

students of color. Nor do we know whether a disproportionate number of students of color 

affected by exclusionary discipline may be LGBT. What we do know is that in juvenile justice 

systems across the country, there is a disproportionality of LGBT youth with some estimates as 

high as 30 percent of youth in locked confinement being identified as LGBT. 
343 

We firmly believe that the increasing use of exclusionary discipline and zero tolerance policies 

in our schools is the wrong approach and contributes to unhealthy school climates, strengthens, 

rather than dismantles the school-to-prison pipeline and may be a contributing factor to the 

disproportionally high numbers of LGBT youth in custody. 

Relatedly, over the last several years, the issue of bullying and harassment in schools has 

garnered increased public attention and media coverage. Each story has generated new and 

increased public interest, leading to calls for Congress to pass anti-bullying and anti-harassment 

legislation and for the White House to take action. We recognize that there are currently a 

number of legislative approaches before Congress on how best to address bullying and 

harassment in our nation's schools, including the Safe Schools Improvement Act, the Student NonDiscrimination Act, and the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students Act. Each bill addresses the 

problem of bullying and harassment in various ways, with the same overall goal: to ensure that 

America's schools are safe for all children and to create productive and effective spaces for 

learning. But our support for these pieces of legislation should not be understood to be a call for 

continued disproportionate application of punishment against those who engage in bullying 

behavior. Indeed, the goal of safe schools cannot be accomplished if some children are 

disproportionately subjected to exclusionary discipline and funneled toward the criminal justice 

system, whether because of their race, ethnicity sexual orientation, or gender 

identity/expression. 

Moving forward, we respectfully request that in addition to supporting a balanced legislative 

approach, any proposed solutions will include measures that collect and examine data about 

the experiences of LGBT youth with exclusionary discipline and zero tolerance policies, and 

interpret current civil rights protections to include and protect LGBT students who also 

disproportionately experience bullying and harassment. 
344 

Examples of Disproportionate Discipline on LGBT Youth 

After a surveillance tape showed him and another male student kissing on school 

grounds, a 17-year old male student at Alice High School in Texas claims he was 

removed from the cheerleading squad and suspended from school for two days as 

punishment. Since public displays of affection are common occurrences in the school 

and rarely disciplined, the student claims his sexual orientation was targeted by the 

administration. Though the school has denied these accusations, they have refused to 

articulate a reason for his punishment and have stood by his suspension. 

Darnell "Dynasty" Young, an openly gay 17-year-old student, was suspended and 

subsequently expelled when he fired a stun gun into the air to ward off bullies. On April 

16,2012, Young found himself surrounded by six students who hurled homophobic 

insults as well as rocks and glass bottles at him. Young fired the stun gun into the air as 

a warning and was then handcuffed and disciplined by school administrators for 

breaking their 'zero tolerance' policy. Previous to this incident, the school administrators 

had blamed Young for his harassment, saying his dress and behavior was too 

'flamboyant' and needed to be more stereotypically masculine. 

Asante Cotman, a 17-year-old openly gay junior at Charles City High School in Virginia, 

was suspended by school officials told him the pair of heels he was wearing was 

"disrupting the school." Refusing to take the heels off, the school administration 

suspended him for three days. Asante believes his outfit was not bothering anyone nor 

was inappropriate for the school. After serving out his suspension, Asante hopes this 

incident sparks discussion and reflection within his community to prevent similar 

incidents from happening again. 

i Criminal-justice and school sanctions against nonheterosexual youth: A national longitudinal study, KEW 

Himmelstein, H Bruckner - Pediatrics, 2011 - Am Acad Pediatrics 
345 

sane~~~R ~I\\~ I \,,' '~r·j ~ 

December 10,2012 

Gay-Straight Alliance Network 

1500 Bryant Street, Suite #800 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

empowering youth to fight homophobic end transphobia in schools 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constiiution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the hearing on ending the schoolto-prison pipeline before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSA Network) is a national youth leadership organization that 

empowers youth activists to fight homophobia and transphobia in schools by training student 

leaders and supporting student-led Gay-Straight Alliance clubs throughout the country. In 

California alone, GSA Network has brought GSA clubs to 56% of public high schools, impacting 

more than 1.1 million students at 890 schools. GSA Network's youth advocates have played a 

key role in changing laws and policies that impact youth at the local and state level. GSA 

Network operates the National Association of GSA Networks, Which unites 37 statewide 

networks of GSA clubs throughout the country. 

School discipline disproportionately impacts certain student populations and has devastating 

effects on students' ability to achieve and succeed. This is particularly true for youth who 

identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans gender, or questioning (LGBTQ). In the last decade we 

have seen a significant increase in students who openly identify as LGBTQ at school despite 

very high levels of harassment, bu\lying, ridicule, rejection and violence. As demonstrated in 

"Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right: Why Zero Tolerance is Not the Solution to Bullying," a 

report published by GSA Network, the Advancement Project, and the Alliance for Educational 

Justice, LGBTQ students are often doubly punished: they are harassed by their peers, and then 

blamed by their administrators for causing trouble by refusing to hide their identities or 

defending themselves when attacked. 

v'>'\'I/\v.gsonetwork.org 

national office: central voHey: 

1295 N. Wishon Ave. #6 

Fresno, CA 93728 

tel: 559.268.2780 

tax: 559.268.2781 

southern california; 

1145 Wilshire Blvd. #100 

los Angeles, CA 90017 

tel: 213.482.4021 

fox: 213.482.4027 
346 

gsan~~ \~,S7/ 

empowering youth to fight homophobia and transPhObi;~n schools 

For example, San Francisco Unified School District reported 16% of middle school students and 

11% of high school students identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning in a 2011 Youth 

Risk Behavior Survey. We have anecdotal evidence to suggest that the increased visibility has 

also led to an increase in punishments for LGBTQ students. 

LGBTQ youth continue to feel unsafe and underachieve 

Data from the California Healthy Kids Survey found that students who are harassed based on 

actual or perceived sexual orientation are more likely to report low grades, more than three times 

as likely to carry a weapon to school, and more than three times as likely to report being truant in 

the last month because they felt unsafe. The experiences of bias based bullying and violence is 

thus compounded by harsh and punitive school discipline practices, which disproportionately 

punish and push young people of color and LGBTQ students out of the public education system 

and into the juvenile justice system. 

Schools attempting to create safer schools by utilizing a "get tough on bullying" or "Zero 

Tolerance" approach to bullying often punish both the victim and the aggressor making an 

already unacceptable situation worse. 

LGBTQ youth face bias from school administrators 

The increased visibility of LGBTQ students has also led to an increase in the ways in which antiLGBTQ bias may play out in school discipline policies. In 2011, the Journal of Pediatrics 

reported, based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add 

Health), that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were 1.4 times more likely to be expelled than their 

straight peers. This is the only national survey to examine disproportionate impacts of school 

discipline on LGBTQ youth. Beyond this, most of what we know is either anecdotal or data from 

community surveys. 

One of the largest challenges and one unique to LGBTQ youth engaged in the school discipline 

process is the risk of being "outed" to their parents by school officials. When this happens 

LGBTQ students face the additional risk of family rejection. Fifty percent of youth who come 

out and/or are "outed" to their parents face initial rejection, and 30% are kicked out or leave 

home due to threats of violence from their parents. 

LGBTQ youth often have stressful home lives, which adds to their school discipline issues 

Up to 40 percent of homeless youth' and up to 40 percent of youth in foster care are LGBTQ 

identified. According to a 2010 report by the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, youth in foster 

care are 3 times more likely to be suspended or expelled than those living in the care of a 

guardian. 

www gs<:::network:.org 

national office: central vaHey: 

1295 N. Wishon Ave. #6 

Fresno. CA 93728 

tel: 559.268.2780 

fax: 559,268.2781 

southern california: 

1145 WUshire Blvd. # 1 00 

Los Ange!es, CA 90017 

tel: 213.482.4021 

fax: 213.482.4027 
347 

gsane~~ \-'4/ 

"----~, 

empowering youth to fight homophobia and fronsphobia in s·chools 

In California, youth of color comprise the majority of GSA club members. According to a 2012 

Gallup surVey and report by the UCLA School of Law Williams Institute, the LGBT population 

is less wealthy than the non-LGBT population. LGBTQ youth of color who are more likely to 

live in low-income communities and have limited access to educational opportunities, also face 

racism and existing socioeconomic and institutional challenges common to youth of color which 

intersect with challenges created by homophobia and transphobia. Thus, for LGBTQ youth of 

color in particular, the confluence of school discipline disparities, anti-LGBTQ bias, bullying, 

and harassment have left many LGBTQ youth struggling to succeed by nearly every health and 

academic achievement metric. 

To help us better understand, document, and remedy these experiences, GSA Network believes 

that we need the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights and other 

federal and state agencies to collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity and school 

discipline. 

We need state-funded and nationally-funded surveys including surveys collected by the 

Department of Education on school discipline and other surveys such as the CDC's Youth Risk 

Behavior Survey, to include demographic questions about sexual orientation and gender identity. 

As a result, our public education and school discipline systems will be able to adequately identify 

and then address educational needs as well as discipline disparities based on sexual orientation 

and gender identity that are compounded by the racial inequities in school discipline. 

GSA Network has been a leader in interrupting the school.to.prison·pipeline for LGBTQ 

youth 

Since pUblication of our report with the Alliance for Educational Justice and the Advancement 

Project titled, "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right: Why Zero Tolerance is Not the Solution to 

Bullying," GSA Network along with its education rights partners successfully passed five 

discipline-related reform bills in California alone, 

GSA Network gathered testimony from youth for the Office of Civil Rights Hearing on School 

Discipline held in Los Angeles, California on September 10,2012. The following is testimony 

shared by Brandon Serpas, Racial and Economic Justice Program Intern at Gay-Straight Alliance 

Network. 

My name is Brandon Serpas, and I'm a queer youth activist at GSA Network. I'd like to tell 

you about my own experience and the experience of other queer youth in schools. The 

current model of school discipline in dealing with queer youth in general and anti-WBTQ 

bullying and bias in particular is failing queer youth. 

www.gsonctwork.OIQ 

central vaHey: 

1295 N. Wishon Ave. #6 

Fresno, CA 93728 

tel: 559.268,2780 

fax: 559,268,2781 

southern california: 

1145 Wilshire Blvd. #100 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

tel: 213A82A021 

fax: 213.482,4027 
348 

gsa netf~./;~~~:)-R l,\~/ \" ",,,,,--~)J- -.. / '~~ 

empowering youfh to fight homophobia and transphobia in schools 

In my soplwmore year a student I didn't know called me the 'I-word' in a classroom. A 

teacher heard the slur and didn'l do anything. I left in fear slwken by the incident and 

emailed a GSA Network staff member asking for help. I learned that in CA I had the right to 

report the incident to sclwol officials. 

I reported the incident to the assistant principal and subsequently heard from the student's 

friends that he had been suspended for three days. Since this was the first time I'd reported 

harassment I made the assumption that this was the appropriate course of action. 

Three days later the same student was in the hallway giving me dirty looks, and I found out 

that he was speaking ill about me. It was clear to me that he hadn't learned anything from 

his suspension, that the schools solution to "send the student home for a few days and hope 

he stops harassing people" didn't change his behavior. I stayed away from him the rest of the 

year, avoiding specific hallways and restrooms because I remembered seeing him there. I 

thought about reporting the continued harassment but I was afraid that the student wouid be 

suspended again and come back even angrier. 

This experience helped me see the ineffectiveness of punitive discipline as a way to address 

bullying and harassment. Ifwe don't educate youth who are engaging in bullying behavior 

by using restorative justice or social and emotional learning practices then students like me 

will continue to face bullying and harassment and be afraid to go to school. 

My story is not unique; GSA Network solicited stories about school discipline from LGBTQ 

youth. 

One student said she was disciplined for defending herself: "I was suspended after a girl was 

in my face teasing me about my sexuality and tried to block her hand from hitting me." 

Another student explained: 

"I was in 5th grade. I was accused of sexual harassment for coming out, for saying I was 

transgender. I went to the principal's office because I wore mascara and a feather 

extension in my hair. The sclwol psychologist called my mom and told her that I could not 

say I was transgender. They wanted me to leave the school but I did not. I've been 

suspended many times mostly for wearing make up or saying I was transgender or 

wearing hair extensions." 

. Other LGBTQ students have reported: 

Ww\v.gsanetvvOI"k.org 

notional office: central vaHey: 

1295 N, Wishon Ave. #6 

Fresno, CA 93728 

tel: 559.268.2780 

1m: 559.268.2781 

southern california; 

1145 Wil'shire Blvd. #100 

Los Angeles, CA 900 17 

tel: 213.482.4021 

fax: 213.482,4027 
349 

gsane~~ '--::, .. /~ .. 

empowering youth to fight homophobia and tronsphobia in schools 

HI was given detentions jor any form of light physical touching with my significant other: 

hugging, holding hands, and sitting close. This was described as inappropriate behavior, 

while heterosexual couples doing the same thing were not disciplined." 

HI got detention and my teacher said 'If I had my chaice, all the queers in this school 

would be out of here in a second.'" 

HI was outed by my school when .. J wrote a note to my ex-girlfriend and the teacher took 

it. The counselor told my mom I was gay." 

HI was instructed to enroll in another school and not return to campus--eJtectively kicked 

out-10rorganizing with other LGBTyouth." 

LGBTQ youth are incredibly resilient. Young people are coming out at younger ages (average 

age is now 13.5 years old) often without the support of their families. This leaves young people 

particularly vulnerable to punitive and excessive school discipline and institutionalized bias. 

While GSA clubs and organizations like Gay-Straight Alliance Network help keep LGBTQ 

youth in schools, it is not enough - and it shouldn't be the responsibility of young people to 

make schools safe, fair, and equal. All students have a right to a safe, quality education and to be 

supported at school for exactly who they are. 

GSA Network and WBTQ youth across the country are grateful for the opportunity to 

contribute written testimony to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human 

Rights. It is vital that we expand our understanding of school discipline disparities so that it 

includes all targeted students. 

Given this, we urge the federal government to support communities in their fight to end the 

school-to-prison pipeline. We encourage the government to work to reduce racial disparities as 

well as sexual orientation and gender identity disparities in discipline, promote alternatives to 

harsh punishment, and ensure that all young people have the opportunity to succeed. 

Sincerely, 

Carolyn 

~ Laub 

Executive Director 

www.gsanetwork.org 

nationa! office: central valley: 

1295 N. Wishon Ave. #6 

Fresno. CA 93728 

tel: 559.268.2780 

fax: 559.268.2781 

southam caHfornla: 

1145 Wilshire Blvd. #100 

los Angeles, CA 900 17 

tel: 2 J 3.482.4021 

fox: 213.482.4027 
350 

Ms. GEETA N. I<APUR 

ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW 

ADJUNCT PROFESSOR 

**NC BOARD CERTIFIED CRIMINAL LAW JUVENILE DELINQUENCY SPECIALIST** 

POST OFFICE BOX 51035 

DURHAlV!, N.C. 27717 

December 10, 2012 

Senator Dick Durbin, Chairman 

TELEPHONE: 919.260.1977 

EMAIL: GKAPUR@AOL.COM 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on ending the 

school- to-prison pipeline before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. My name is Geeta Kapur and I am a 

lawyer committed to indigent defense. For the past ten years, I have represented children 

before the trial and appellate courts of this state and I have witnessed the school-to-prison 

pipeline first- hand and urge the committee to resolve to keep students in our schools, and not 

in prisons. 

I have documented several powerful testimonies of the danger of police in our schools 

in the attached report that I have prepared for the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Human Rights. I urge the federal government to support communities in their 

fight to end the school-to-prison pipeline by culling federal funding for school resource 

officers and investing that money into education. 

I am honored to provide this report. I am deeply gtateful for your commitment to this 

issue. Please contact me if you need any additional information. 

Sincerely, 

lsi Geeta N. Kapur 

Geeta N. Kapur 

Attachment: Report 

PIlK"lofl 
351 

= 

A CALL To 

NC CERTIFIED BOARD 

For 

-
352 

THE HISTORY OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOLS 

In August of 1995, a six-member Committee of the North Carolina Governor's 

Crime Commission published a report entitled "Preventing School Violence by Helpin3 Communities Help Children: School Resource Officers: An Analysis Overview." 

In its report, the Commission exaggerated and sensationalized school violence as an 

epidemic in an effort to convince the public that placing police officers in North Carolina 

was necessary and the most effective way to combat school violence and to socialize 

young people who were from "diminished capacity" households. 

The Commission opens its report with the following quantitative data to support 

its characterization that school violence is an epidemic and its recommendation for school 

resource officers. 3 "More recently, the Annual Report on School Violence 1993-1994 

Baseline Year published by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction reports 

6,683 incidents or criminal acts occurring on school property including two kidnappings, 

four armed robberies, and four rapes.,,4 This data is not clearly defined nor is it 

contextualized for meaning. An incident and a criminal act are given vastly different 

meanings under the law, and as a result, carry different consequences. Moreover, the fact 

that in 1993-1994 ten violent crimes of two kidnappings, four armed robberies, and four 

rapes occurred in North Carolina's schools does not necessarily lead to the conclusion 

that school violence is an epidemic nor does this data lead to the conclusion that school 

resource officers are the most effective program and method to address and prevent 

school violence. 

After sensationalizing the ten violent crimes, the Commission presents racially 

biased arguments to support its conclusion that school resource officers. Without citing 

any evidence or data to support its conclusion, the Commission states, "in the past thirty 

five years a demographic shift from the nuclear family of the 1950s to an ever increasing 

proportion of single-parent families has taken place. The rate or illegitimacy has grown 

alarmingly. Many new families are headed by females who are at or just above the 

poverty line. Moreover, in those families where mother and father are present, the dual 

income family is becoming the norm, producing latchkey children who tum to peers and 

media for advice before family." Thus the Commission concludes that these 

demographic trends indicate a "diminished capacity" of many families to deal with 

adolescent development.6 Factors such as poverty, single parent homes and lack of 

adequate supervision are predictors and determinants of delinquent behavior and produce 

discipline problems in public school, the Commission finds.? However, the Commission 

states that the causes of youth violence require a long-term approach but the 

consequences of youth violence must be dealt with immediately because "in the short 

run, we need to apply a tourniquet and stop the bleeding.,,8 The way to stop the 

hemorrhaging of school violence was to deploy law enforcement into the schools of 

North Carolina to prevent violence.9 

The Commission defines three roles of school resource officers. IO First, the school 

resource officer is a peace officer and must maintain order on campus with the legal 

authority to arrest.ll Second, the school resource officer is a resource to teachers in areas 
353 

of law enforcement in the classroom such as traffic and drug laws.l2 Finally, school 

resource officers are to be counselors and refer children to community resource~ to 

address their problems. 13 After the publication of the Commission's report, the General 

Assembly allotted funding for school resource officers and the presence of school 

resource officers in schools across North Carolina grew by 220% from 234 officers 

deployed in 1995-1996 to 773 officers deployed in 2005-2006. 14 This historical context is 

critical to understand that the deployment of police in the public schools has created the 

"School to Prison Pipeline" in North Carolina. 

To assess the effectiveness of school resource officers, the Commission suggested 

surveying the experiences of students and teachers. IS While I am not a teacher, for the 

past seven years I have been privileged to represent scores of poor children before the 

trial and appellate courts of North Carolina and have witnessed the horrors of having 

police in our State's schools. The following testimonies are not anomalies or aberrations. 

They are the norm for racial and ethnic minorities and the poor. These testimonies 

demonstrate that school resource officers across the State of North Carolina are 

overzealous and racially-biased in their role as peace officers tasked with keeping order 

in the schools and ineffective in their roles as counselors. These stories show the danger 

of having police act as disciplinarians and administrators arid the consequences that are 

dealt to racial and ethnic minority and poor children. 

I began my dream job defending the poor as a Public Defender in 2005 in Orange 

County, NC. Soon thereafter, I told my boss that I wanted to work in juvenile court 

because I am deeply passionate about children, especially poor children. One of my first 

cases in juvenile court will remain in my memory as long as I am alive. As I looked at the 

petition in the manila folder on my desk, I could not believe the words I read. An elevenyear-old African-American boy was charged by the School Resource Officer for stealing 

(i.e., "larceny") because he picked up a piece of chewing gum from an open locker. 

The most difficult part of the case was not litigating the case before a Juvenile 

Court Judge who ultimately found him delinquent or guilty. The Judge believed that 

juvenile court was a court to deliver social services to children. At the close of the trial, I 

had to explain to the child that he was convicted of the crime of stealing and would be 

placed on probation for one year. The collateral consequences of his conviction included 

missing school to attend court hearings, being labeled delinquent and a thief and him 

internalizing this label, and the possibility of more severe. punishment, such as placement 

in the custody of the Department of Social Services or in a wilderness camp if he did not 

comply with any condition of probation. The look of disbelief and disappointment on his 

face began to break my trust in juvenile courts to regulate the conduct of School 

Resource Officers. 

TRAYVON 

THE SCHOOL TO PRlSON PIPELINE IN NC. By: Geeta N Kapur, J.D. Pg.3 
354 

In 2007, in Durham, North Carolina, a fifteen-year-old African American boy was 

charged with assaulting a substitute teacher at Hillside High School. The white male 

teacher turned his back to the class to write the day's lesson on the board. As he was 

writing on the board, a student in the class threw a piece of paper at this back. When he 

turned back to face the class, the students erupted into laughter but none of the students 

would admit throwing the paper. Trayvon had been suspended for minor school 

misbehavior before and had a reputation as a trouble-maker at the school. The School 

Resource Officer charged Trayvon with assaulting the teacher but he denied doing so 

repeatedly. Trayvon is the son of a 35-year-old, single mother of four children and the 

son of a man in prison whom he had never met before. 

Despite my best efforts during a trial, Trayvon was found delinquent and placed 

on probation for six months for common adolescent behavior. As we walked out of the 

courtroom, he laughed at the substitute teacher, the judge, and the juvenile court 

probation officer. I had a very difficult time explaining to him why his misbehavior was 

criminal. 

The delinquency label becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for some children. In 

Delinquent by Reason of Poverty, Professor Tamar Birckhead explains the stigmatization 

and the consequences of labeling a child as delinquent: 

"This concern draws on the sociological literature on 'labeling theory' or 

the concept that attaching a label to a behavior creates further 'deviance.' 

Once the label of "juvenile delinquent" is formally imposed, it is readily 

accepted by both the child and the community, and the child is defined and 

perceived by others through the lens of this label. Community members, 

police officers, teachers, and potential employers then interact with and 

judge the child according to that description. In this way, children can be 

stigmatized through even the most minimal contact with the juvenile court 

system."l7 

Trayvon accepted and internalized the label that he was delinquent, guilty, bad 

and a criminal. A few months after the incident at school, while he was still on probation, 

he was charged with several crimes of breaking and entering around his neighborhood. 

When I asked him why his fingerprints were in some of the homes, he told me he needed 

money to buy clothes and shoes for school. I believed him because every time I met with 

him, I noticed the clothes and shoes he was wearing were old and outdated and he always 

had dirt under his nails. He decided to plead guilty to three incidents of breaking and 

entering. He was placed on the next highest disposition - Level 2. This meant if he 

violated any conditions of his probation, he would be brought back into court, placed on 

the next highest disposition and could be incarcerated in a youth development center, 

North Carolina's misleading term for a youth prison. He was one step away from 

incarceration. 

If a child is found guilty of a felony, the Juvenile Court Counselor's Office 

reports the felony conviction to the child's school. Trayvon faced further stigmatization 

THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE IN N. C. By: Geeta N. Kapur, J.D. Pg.4 
355 

at Hillside High after they learned he was a felon. One day he asked his teacher if he 

could use the bathroom. The teacher said he could, but he left without the hall pass. As he 

was leaving the bathroom, an assistant principal stopped him and asked him to show a 

hall pass. The School Resource Officer was called after Trayvon said he did not have a 

hall pass. Trayvon was suspended for a few days for not obeying school rules. Attending 

school was a condition of his probation; so, he was charged with violating probation. 

Luckily, Trayvon's teacher wrote a letter indicating she had given him permission to go 

to the bathroom. At the court hearing for the probation violation, Trayvon's mother told 

me that the school was targeting him again because he was charged in adult court the 

following week with pulling the fire alarm. He was removed from the community and 

sent to a wilderness camp by the Juvenile Court Judge. As a result, his education has been 

permanently disrupted and his distrust and sense of being treated unfairly by the criminal 

system will remain with him forever. 

KHALIQ 

On February 18, 2009, a teacher found marijuana on the classroom floor of a 

Wake County school. The teacher accused Khaaliq, a 12-year-old African-American boy, 

of possessing the marijuana and he was taken to the assistant principal's Office. The 

principal called the School Resource Officer and told him that he had "a kid in his 

custody." When the School Resource Officer arrived, he saw the principal questioning 

Khaaliq and began to participate. The School Resource Officer then left the questioning 

and went to the classroom to see if he could determine which student had the marijuana. 

The School Resource Officer returned and they decided to move Khaaliq to another 

building on school property. 

Khaaliq was escorted by the School Resource Officer who was dressed in a 

uniform and armed with a gun to his patrol car, which was located in the school's parking 

lot. The School Resource Officer searched Khaaliq before putting him in the patrol car 

and drove him to another building. During the drive, the School Resource Officer 

questioned Khaaliq; however, Khaaliq remained silent. 

Once they arrived at the building, Khaaliq was escorted out of the patrol car by 

the School Resource Officer and led into the principal's office. Khaaliq was alone with 

the School Resource Officer as they waited for the principal. For the next six hours, from 

9:00 am to 3:00 pm, Khaaliq was confined and interrogated by the Principal and the 

School Resource Officer. Khaaliq was not read his Miranda rights, nor was Khaaliq told 

that because he was 12-years-old his parent or guardian must be present during the 

interrogation, pursuant to North Carolina law. 

During the six hours, Khaaliq did not eat or drink, but he was allowed to use the 

bathroom. Khaaliq was told he was not free to leave or attend classes. At the end of the 

school day, at approximately 3:00 pm, Khaaliq's mother was finally contacted and 

informed that she needed to pick her son up. 

THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE IN N.C. By: Geeta N. Kapur. J.D. Pg.5 
356 

After Khaaliq admitted that the marijuana was his, the School Resource Officer 

charged him with possession. The trial court denied his lawyer's motion to suppress the 

incriminating statement. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court 

erred in denying the motion to suppress because the Officer's presence and conduct 

significantly increased the likelihood that Khaaliq would give an incriminating 

response. IS Because Khaaliq gave the incriminating. statement while he was in custody 

and was not afforded his Miranda rights or his right to have his mother present during the 

interrogation, the Court of Appeals held that his incriminating statement was 

inadmissible.I9 Most importantly the Court of Appeals noted that "police interrogation is 

inherently coercive for young peop1e."zo However, by the timc the Court of Appeals 

issued its opinion, Khaliq had already completed his tenn of probation and the collateral 

consequences of juvenile court could not be overturned by the Court of Appeals. 

JACOB 

On the morning of April 26, 2012, Jacob, a.thirteen-year-old, African-American 

boy and a white classmate had an argument over candy, which ended when the classmate 

tore Jacob's shirt. Jacob then attempted to leave school. Rather than the teacher calling 

his mother or the designated teacher who was an advocate for Jacob at the school, she 

called the Carrboro police officer who was assigned to the school as a School Resource 

Officer. Jacob used his cell phone and called his mother. She told him to leave school 

immediately and come home on the city bus. As a single mother struggling in poverty, 

she could not afford a car. Jacob's father was serving a long sentence in federal prison 

and Jacob had only met him once or twice. The School Resource Officer ordered Jacob to 

go to the principal's office. Jacob attempted to leave the school. 

As Jacob walked out of school toward the city bus stop to return home, as his 

mother had directed him to do, the School Resource Officer grabbed him to prevent him 

from leaving. Jacob pushed him back and the two shoved each other. As Jacob walked 

out of the school door and crossed the school parking lot, the school resource officer 

followed him and used his radio to call for additional officers to assist him. When Jacob 

reached the bus stop, three Carrboro police officers and the School Resource Officer 

grabbed Jacob and slammed him face down onto the ground. They cuffed his hands and 

feet.,Jacob was not resisting; there was an ant pile near by and the ants were stinging 

Jacob on his legs. The immense stress created by the School Resource Officer caused 

Jacob to have a severe asthma attack. The attack was so bad that the police called for 

emergency medical services. 

After his breathing was stabilized, the School Resource Officer threw Jacob into 

the patrol car and drove him to the Durham County juvenile detention center. Every child 

who enters a juvenile detention center is searched. Jacob was strip-searched and detained 

overnight. The school resource officer charged Jacob with the crimes of Assault on a 

Government Official, Resisting a Public Officer and Disorderly Conduct. The next day, 

Jacob, his mother, and a teacher went to court and argued that Jacob should be released. 

Thankfully, the Judge released him. Jacob was suspended from school for three days. His 

white classmate was not disciplined at all. 

THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE IN N. C. By: Geeta N. Kapur, J.D. Pg.6 
357 

Jacob completed 40 hours of community service. His psychologist conducted an 

evaluation and found that Jacob had severe mental health issues and a learning disability. 

She further concluded that the police brutality had exacerbated his mental health issues 

and his adjustment to the school environment. The criminal charges against him were 

dismissed. Fearing retaliation from school officials and the School Resource Officer, 

Jacob's mother moved him to the alternative school. His life is forever changed and 

impacted by that one horrific day at school. 

TRACY 

On November 5, 2008, a fifteen-year white girl named Tracy and 133 other 

children arrived by bus to their school, Brunswick County Academy, located in Bolivia, 

N.C. Brunswick County Academy is an alternative school in Bolivia, N.C. A segment of 

the student body population was assigned to attend the Academy for committing 

behavior, substance, and weapons violations in traditional schools. However, other 

students are at Brunswick Academy for code of conduct or behavioral offenses, 

pregnancy, because they are parenting teens, high school dropouts or for administrative 

placements. 

As they got off the school bus and walked to the doors of the school, all the 

children were expecting a regular school day. Consistent with the daily routine of 

entering the schoolhouse doors, the children passed through a metal detector search 

located at the back doors of the school. What occurred for the next few hours of their 

school day on November 5, 2008 was extraordinary and not routine for the children, 

especially for all the girl students at the Academy. After passing through the metal 

detectors, all the children were ordered to go directly into the lunchroom. Once they had 

all been herded into the cafeteria, it was secured as the "holding area". The children were 

then directed to remain in the lunchroom and they were told they could not leave until 

they were called. The students were informed that there would be a general school-wide 

search of each individual student's person and that they would be called one by one to be 

searched. All the teachers of the school stood monitoring the children in the lunchroom. 

The children, including Tracy, were escorted into a classroom one by one where 

Captain White, the coordinator for the alternative to suspension program and the school 

resource officer, both men were present. As Tracy and other children were brought into 

the classroom they were told this was a search. Once in the classroom, each child was 

asked to remove their coats, turn their pockets inside out, and remove their shoes. School 

officials searched through the book bags, jackets, and shoes of the juvenile. During the 

next phase of the search, the socks and clothing of Tracy were patted down and felt by a 

man. 

A more extensive, intrusive, and traumatic search was conducted on all of girls in 

the school. Without any individualized suspicion that Tracy was carrying contraband in 

her clothing or bra, Tracy was required to loosen and untuck her shirt, pull her shirt out, 

shake her shirt, and then using her hands, go underneath her shirt and pull her bra out 

THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE IN N. C. By: Geeta N. Kapur, J.D. Pg. 7 
358 

from against her body so that any contraband would fall out. This was called a "bra-lift". 

The bra-lift created the possibility that she would expose some portion of her torso or 

breasts in the presence of a male administrator and male school resource officer who 

were observing the search of all of the girls. During the search of the Tracy, the male 

official found a half of pill and a half piece of a straw. She was charged with possession 

of controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. She was placed on probation because the 

trial court refused to rule that the strip search violated her 4th amendment rights. 

CONCLUSION 

In 2011, 43% of complaints to NC juvenile courts were from the schools. 

Common minor school offenses were 31% of the referrals to juvenile court. 21 12% 

percent of the minor complaints were for simple assault, 9% were for larceny, 5% were 

for simple affray (fighting or arguing), and 5% were for disorderly conduct at school.22 

Referrals to juvenile court for serious school crimes only comprised 8%: 2% for 

Assaulting a Governmental Officer, 2% for Resisting a Public Officer, 2% for Possession 

of Marijuana and 2% for Weapons on educational property.23 Thus, most of the 

complaints to juvenile court during the 2011 school year were for minor misbehavior and 

common adolescent behavior. 

In 2011, 12,076 black youth were referred to juvenile court while only 9,650 

white youth were referred to juvenile court for misdemeanor offenses such as simple 

assault, larceny, simple affray (fighting or arguing), disorderly conduct at school, assault 

on a governmental officer, resisting a public officer, and possession of marijuana. 24Th us, 

black youth were 49% of the referrals to juvenile court while white youth were 38%.25 

Yet, in 2011, of the 2,277,967 children living in North Carolina, 548,973 were 

black and 1,311,809 were white.26 Black children constitute 24% of the child population 

in NC yet 49% of those referred to juvenile court by school official~ for misdemeanors. 

By comparison, white children are 58% of the child population in NC but they are 

referred to juvenile court at a rate of only 38% for misdemeanors. Since cases are referred 

to juvenile court at the discretion of school resource officers and school officials, it is 

clear that African American youth are disproportionately referred to juvenile court by 

school officials for misdemeanor offenses. 

The consequences of walking into a juvenile court room for a child are severe and 

long-lasting. A child who is referred to juvenile court is more likely to become 

disengaged from school and drop out which is directly correlated to being incarcerated in 

prison. 80% of the prison popUlation dropped out of school. 27 Incarceration at a 

minimum-security prison in North Carolina costs $23,491 per inmate per year.28 By stark 

comparison, educating a single student for through high school in North Carolina costs 

only $142,027. 29 Thus it is more costly to incarcerate than it is to educate a child. 

This is unique moment in the history of our nation. We are faced with a critical 

choice. We can remove police from our nation's schools and use our limited resources to 

invest in prevention and intervention strategies that will reduce the school to prison 

THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE IN N.C. By: Geela N. Kapur, J.D. Pg.8 
359 

pipeline. Alternatively, we can continue to use our public education system as a gateway 

to incarcerate the poor and minority people among us. The prophet Isaiah warns us that 

the latter is an immoral, unjust, and dangerous path to follow: 

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue 

oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold 

justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their 

prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of 

reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run 

for help? Where will you leave your riches?,,30 

1 Protected by Common Law Copyright. All rights reserved by Author Geeta N. Kapur. 

2 Governor's Crime Commission, Preventing School Violence by Helping Communities Help Children: 

School Resource Officers: An Analysis Overview, 1995. 

3 Idat3. 

4Idat3. 

5 Idat 3. 

6Idat4. 

7 Idat4. 

8 Idat4. 

9 Idat5. 

10 Id at 9-1 1. 

II Id. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 

14 Attorney General Roy Cooper and Bryan Beatty, A Report to Governor Mike Easley: Keeping North 

Carolina Schools Safe and Secure, November 2006 at 10. 

15 Governor's Crime Commission, Preventing School Violence by Helping Communities Help Children: 

School Resource Officers: An Analysis Overview, 1995 at II. "The ultimate desired outcome of an SRO 

program is to maintain and improve the safety of the learning environment in our schools through the 

reduction and prevention of school violence. The best way to measure whether an SRO program is 

achieving this desired outcome is to ask those who are directly involved in such a program - the students 

and teachers in the schools. Thus, surveys of students and teachers are important tools to measure program 

effectiveness. " 

16 To protect the identity of the children, a pseudonym will be used instead of their legal names. 

17 Tamar Birkhead, Delinquent by Reason of Poverty, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 

Vol. 38, p. 38, 2012. 

18 In the Matter ofK.D.L., 207 N.C. App. 453, 700 S.E.2d 766 (2010). 

19 Id at 461. 

20 Id at 458. 

21 North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice, Annual Report 2011, p. 13. 

22 Idat 20. 

23 Id at 20. 

24 Idat II. 

25 Id. 

26 Children's Defense Fund, Children in North Carolina at http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-researchdata-publications/datalstate-data-repository/cits/20 III children-in-the-states-20 II-north-carolina. pdf 

27 Sam Dilon, Srudy Finds High Rate of Incarceration Among Dropouts, NY Times, October 8, 2009. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/education/09dropout.html 

28 North Carolina Department of Safety, Cost of Supervision for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011 located at 

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/cost/ 

THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE IN N. C. By: Geeta N. Kapur, J.D. Pg.9 
360 

29 John W. Pope Civitas Institute located at http://www.nccivitas.org/201OIhow-much-does-it-cost-educatehigh-school-gr~guatel ,0 Isaiah 10:1-3. 

THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPb'LINE IN N.C. By: Geeta N. Kapur, J.D. Pg.lO 
361 

HEARING BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND 

HUMAN RIGHTS 

ON 

"ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE" 

Statement 

of 

Georgia Appleseed Center for Law & Justice 

Sharon N. HilI, Executive Director 

Robert L. Rhodes, Jr., Director of Projects 

December 12, 2012 
362 

Effective Student Discipline: Keeping Kids in Class 

Creating a "School-to Success Pipeline" 

The Georgia Appleseed Center for Law & Justice ("Georgia Appleseed") appreciates the 

opportunity to present this statement to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and 

Human Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. We commend Subcommittee Chair 

Durbin and Ranking Member Graham for their focus on this critical issue. 

Georgia Appleseed is a non-partisan not-for-profit organization devoted to law that 

serves the public interest. Using the skills of hundreds of volunteers, mainly lawyers and other 

professionals, Georgia Appleseed focuses on achieving grassroots changes to laws and policies 

that unfairly impact children, the poor and marginalized people in our state. Our mission is to 

increase justice in Georgia through law and policy refonn. Georgia Apples~ed is an independent 

affiliate ofthe national Appleseed network. 

Introduction 

In 2009, Georgia Appleseed, ultimately with the assistance of over 100 volunteer lawyers 

and other professionals, began a comprehensive study of student discipline policies, practices 

and outcomes in Georgia's K-12 public schools. The investigative phases of this project were 

completed and a detailed report of findings and recommendations was issued in June 20 II.' 

Georgia Appleseed is now in the advocacy phase of this project: We have presented the 

findings of the Report to more than 1,000 public education stakeholders; we have advocated for 

policy changes at the state government level, and we are attempting to serve as a catalyst for 

local change initiatives at the district and school level throughout Georgia. 

In this statement we (a) explain the reasons for our effort, (b) describe the scope of our 

analysis, (c) summarize key findings, and (d) recommend actions that the Congress and the U.S. 

Department of Education (",Department") should take to help end the "School-to Prison 

Pipeline." 

Rationale 

The importance of a obtaining at least a high school diploma in the Twenty-First Century 

and the existence of the school to prison pipeline are facts beyond reasonable dispute. 2 

Stakeholders have suggested several reasons for low high school graduation rates and for the 

high rate of incarceration of undereducated persons in this country. 3 

At Georgia Appleseed, we believed intuitively that one significant factor affecting these 

challenges could be the extent of exclusionary discipline being imposed in our public schools. 

J GEORGIA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, EFFECTIVE STUDENT DISCIPLINE: KEEPING KIDS IN CLASS 

(2011) [hereinafter "Report"], available at http://www.gaappleseed.org/publications/. 

2 Report at 19-20. 

1 Report at 21-22. 
363 

After all, to the extent that a child is removed from the class room, he or she will likely not be 

learning. 4 In addition, we wondered whether expansive use of a discipline tool that denied access 

to instructional time made sense especially if there were reasonable alternatives available that 

would provide for school safety and a good learning environment. 

Our concern was heightened by the issuance of multiple reports from other jurisdictions, 

including Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, as well as the cities of New Orleans and Philadelphia, 

raising very significant concerns about the use of exclusionary discipline especially with regard 

to potentially disparate impacts on poor students and students of color. 5 In addition, we 

examined a review of statewide discipline data issued by the Georgia Department of Education 

("GaDOE") in 2005. The report called for further research in a number of areas including the 

potential for " ... disproportional application of discipline to African-American students:,6 

For these reasons, Georgia Appleseed committed to undertake a comprehensive 

assessment of the student discipline system in Georgia's K-12 public school system. 

Scope 

Data Analysis - With the cooperation of GaDOE, Georgia Appleseed was given access to 

a comprehensive set of student discipline data covering seven years (School Years 2003-04 

through 2009-10). 7 With the assistance of professionals from the Atlanta office of a major 

national accounting firm, we have created a comprehensive student discipline data base. Key 

findings based upon an analysis ofthese data are discussed below. 

Stakeholder Interviews - In the fall of 20 I 0, Georgia Appleseed volunteers conducted 

over 200 interviews with public education stakeholders including district and school-level 

personnel from twelve school districts around Georgia. With the cooperation of the Georgia 

PTA, we also conducted an electronic survey designed to capture the views of parents and 

students. The views on student discipline and related issues expressed in the interviews and 

through the survey are compiled in the Report as "Voices from the Field."s 

Law & Policy Review - Georgia Appleseed reviewed and summarized the state law 

governing student discipline. 9 In addition, our lead pro bono law firm carried out a review of the 

district-level codes of conduct in effect in 15 school districts. 10 

4 Our intuitive reaction has been bolstered by an internal study done by the Georgia Department of Education in 

2011 which concluded that absences from class for any reason beyond five days can result in measurable adverse 

academic consequences .. See GA. DEP'T OF EDUC., STUDENT ATTENDANCE AND STUDENT 

ACHIEVEMENT (unpublished report)(2011) on file in the offices of Georgia Appleseed. 

• Report at 22-26. 

, Report at 22·26. 

6 Report at 26, citing GA. DEPT OF EDUC., POLICY DIVISION REPORT:2004·2005 ANALYSIS OF STATEWIDE 

DISCIPLINARY DATA (2005) 

7 With GaDOE's continuing cooperation, we have integrated an eighth year (2010-11) into our data base and, as of 

this writing, are working to add the 2011-12 data as well. Some of the information provided below is based upon 

the updated data. 

'Report at 61·78. 

9 Report at 79.88 and Appendix E. 
364 

Key Findings 

In our data analysis we focused primarily on the incidence rate for out of school 

suspensions ("OSS") as a means of comparing school districts and individual schools. Thus, the 

OSS ratio discussed below refers to the percentage of students in the district or the school that 

received at least one out of school suspension in <I particular school year. 

It is encouraging to note that the overall statewide OSS ratio appears to be on a 

downward trend during the period of our review. In the years from 2004 through 2008. the ratio 

hovered between 9.3% and 9.5%. In 20 I 0, the rate was 8.1 %.11 Our review of the 2011 data 

puts the ratio at 7.7% On a statewide basis. in the latter years of the review timeframe, high 

school and middle school average OSS rates were in the 12-15% range while only four percent 

or less of elementary school students on the average were given an out of school suspension. 12 

Wide ass Rate Variability Among and Within Districts - Georgia's 159 counties plus 20 

municipalities each operate an independent school district. 13 The districts are widely variable in 

student population with four Metropolitan Atlanta school districts each having more than 

100,000 students and eleven rural school districts each having less than 1,000 students. The 

districts reflect widely varying demographics and socio-economic settings. 14 

The student discipline data reviewed also reveal sharp differences among the school 

districts in the use of exclusionary discipline. 15 In 20 II, eight school districts reported overall 

OSS rates of less than one percent including one district with a student population in excess of 

30,000. On the other hand, ten districts reported OSS rates in excess of 15%, i.e., about double 

the state average. Stakeholders must continue to identify and address the factors that would lead 

to such wide variability in discipline practices. 

Disparity in the use of OSS also exists within individual school districts. For example, 

one large Metro Atlanta district had an average OSS rate in 2011 that fairly closely tracked the 

state-wide average. An examination of individual school data in that district, however. shows 

that high schools in the less affluent southern section of the county have OSS rates well above 

the state average including one high school that suspended in excess of 30 percent of the student 

body at least once in 2011. On the other hand. OSS rates in most of the high schools in the 

northern more affluent reaches of the county had OSS rates of less than five percent. Similarly, 

in a mid-sized urban school district. the "magnet" high school with a selective admission policy 

reported an OSS rate of 2.1 percent in 2011 while most other high schools has OSS rates in 

excess of 20% with one school reporting a rate of 36.3 percent. 

10 Report at 29 and Appendix B. 

11 Report at 35. 

12 Report at 37. 

13 Certain special state schools are also considered as separate districts for data reporting and other purposes. 

14 For extensive infonnation concerning student demographic infonnation for each school district and each school in 

Georgia, see the "School Reports" section on the GaDOE website at http://www.doe.kI2.ga.us/PageslHorne.aspx. 

15 Report at 42-43. 
365 

ass Ratios and Graduation Rates - In the Report,16 we compared the graduation rates 

reported for school years 2005 through 20 I 0 by school districts with the highest historical use of 

OSS with the reported graduation rates for the same years for school districts that historically 

had the least reliance on OSS discipline, This analysis showed that the "Iow OSS" districts 

consistently out-performed the state average graduation rate and graduated students at rates 

substantially higher than the "high OSS" districts. For example, in 2011, the low OSS districts 

reported an average rate of 89.39% compared to the state average rate of 80.80%. In that year, 

districts that imposed OSS at the highest rates reported an average graduation rate of 74.84%. 17 

For 2011, a consistent methodology for calculating graduation rates was adopted 

nationally. Under the revised approach, Georgia's four-year graduation rate was 67.5. 18 

In this school year, school districts with relatively rare use of OSS reported graduation rates on 

the average of 77.2 percent as compared to a 64.4 percent average rate in high OSS districts. In 

three medium sized high OSS districts with relatively large urban populations, the reported 

graduation rates were only between 50 and 55 percent. In the high school mentioned above with 

the OSS rate exceeding 36 percent, less than one-half of the students graduated I9 

Low graduation rates no doubt are the result of a number of factors, but there exists a 

clear negative correlation between extensive use of exclusionary discipline and educational 

attainment in Georgia's public schools. 

ass Disproporfionalify - Our analysis demonstrated that African-American students in 

Georgia K-12 public schools were consistently the subject of OSS discipline at a rate on the 

average more than three times that of students of other racial or ethnic subgroups.20 

When analyzed on a district-level basis, the race/ethnic risk ratio data 

reflect some variability but not to the extremes reflected in the overall OSS 

incident rates... . For the period under review, in each year only 12 to 20 

school districts had calculated risk ratios for African-American students of less 

than 1.5 and many of these districts had a very limited enrollment of AfricanAmerican students. Put another way, approximately 90 percent of Georgia' s 

school districts consistently had OSS ratios for African-American students that 

exceeded the level that experts say require further assessment to evaluate potential 

racial disproportionality. 

On the other end of the scale, each year 12 to 15 school districts reflected risk 

ratios for African-American students greater than 4.0. These were not always the 

same set of districts but some districts regularly were in this category.21 

]6 Report at 43-44. 

17 Report at 44, Figure 4. 

18 This rate ranks Georgia among the lowest perfonning states. See Jeff Martin, Ga. high school graduation rate is 

67 percent, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTfON (November 27,2012), avai/able at 

http://www.ajc.comlap/ap/educationlga-high-school-graduation-rale-is-67-percentlnTGT2/. 

]9 The 2011 average rates were derived from infonnation available on the GaDOE website referred In in Note 14 

supra. 

20 Report at 54-55. 

21 Report at 56. The "Risk Ratio" methodology is discussed at pages 53-54 of the Report. 
366 

Our analysis also showed that students eligible for the free or reduced cost meals program 

were between 2.25 and 2.56 more likely to receive an OSS than ineligible students. 22 English 

language learners also were at elevated risks of exclusionary discipline ranging from 1.9 to 2.46 

times that oftheir English proficient c1assmates. 23 Students with special needs received OSS at a 

rate a bit in excess of 1.5 times that of general education students.24 

Nature of ass Discipline Incidents - In school year 2010, nearly 70 percent of OSS in 

Georgia were imposed for nonviolent behaviors. 25 While we recognize that certain nonviolent 

behaviors may arguably be serious enough to warrant an OSS, we believe that many of these 

behaviors could be better addressed through the use of non-exclusionary alternatives discussed 

below. 

The GADOE discipline reporting program requires that the nature of the disciplinary 

event be identified with a code number. Twenty-seven specific code entries are provided for 

offenses such as arson, fighting, tobacco use, vandalism, etc. One of these code entries is "24 

Other." Our review demonstrated that for the period ,under review more than half of all OSS 

were imposed when the only description for the incident was ·'Other." In 2009 and 2010 more 

than 61 percent of the OSS were based solely on an incident characterized as "Other.',26 We are 

pleased to report that GaDOE has recently decided to issue guidance that would prohibit the use 

of this incident code when the proposed disciplinary action is an OSS greater than 10 days. 

Alternatives to Exclusionary Discipline - In our Report we recognized that effective 

student discipline is vitally important to maintaining the safety of all school children and to 

assuring that all that all students are provided with an environment that is fully conducive to 

learning. We also believe that each child in our public school system, even one who is 

sometimes unruly, should have a reasonable opportunity to obtain a quality high school 

education. We recognize the very difficult "balancing act" that public school educators must 

perform every day to support these two vital interests.27 

It would, therefore, be unfair to the thousands of Georgia K-12 educators who are 

committed to the success of their students to criticize arguable overuse of exclusionary discipline 

in the absence of effective alternatives. The good news is that there are sound, evidence based 

practices that can maintain collective safety and order while nurturing individual students. 2s 

Such practices may include the implementation of school-wide climate enhancement efforts 

using the framework of positive behavioral intervention and support ("PBIS',). PBlS initiatives 

are now under way in many Georgia schools. Another approach may be more effective use of in 

school suspensions. While there is no "one size fits all" answer, there is growing evidence that 

22 Report at 57. 

23 Report at 59. 

24 Report at 60. 

2S Report at 46-47. 

26 Report at 47-49. 

21 Report at 20-21. 

28 Report at 89-100. 
367 

effective alternatives to exclusionary discipline can be implemented given focused leadership 

and adequate resources. 29 

Recommendations 

Georgia Appleseed recommends that the Congress and the Department consider taking 

the following steps: 

National Conversation on Zero Tolerance In the Report, Georgia Appleseed calls for a 

"conversation" within school districts about the wisdom and efficacy of zero tolerance policies. 30 

We urge districts to consider certain changes to such policies. The emergence of student 

discipline zero tolerance policies around the country arguably finds its genesis in the mandates 

imposed by the federal Gun Free Schools Act enacted in 1994. 31 Accordingly, a national 

conversation sponsored by the Department could be a way to trigger effective dialogue on this 

issue. 

Disclosure of Disciplinary Actions - Georgia Appleseed believes that schools and school 

districts should be required at least annually to disclose to parents the rate of use of exclusionary 

discipline and to compare those rates to state and district averages. The rates should be disclosed 

for all students and should also be disaggregated based on racial/ethnic subgroups, on eligibility 

for free and reduced cost meals, on English language learner status, and on special needs status. 

These data are collected by Georgia schools and districts currently under state law so that the 

requirement for transparent disclosure would not impose a significant burden on the school 

system. Ready access to this infomnation should enhance effective parental involvement. In 

addition, the requirement for regular public dissemination of this information will likely serve to 

focus the attention of the school administration on this issue. 

We urge the Department to consider whether this obligation could be implemented under 

existing statutory authority. If not, we urge Congress to consider establishing this requirement as 

part ofthe reauthorization process or as free standing legislation. 

Resource Allocation - As noted above, effective alternatives to exclusionary discipline 

are available. In the long temn, the implementation of such programs will save money by 

reducing the number of individuals who would otherwise be housed in the country's prison 

system and by unlocking the economic potential of an increasing stream of high school 

graduates. In the short term, resources must be expended to support the professional 

development and other expenses always associated with change. State-level resources in 

Georgia (and throughout the country) are scarce. A key role of the federal government in 

supporting quality K-12 public education is through the provision of adequate federal funds to 

supplement state efforts. We urge the Department to clarify the extent to which existing federal 

29 For a compendium of recent academic articles on professional development in this area, see 35 TEACHER 

EDUCATION AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 265·344 (2012). 

30 Report at 100-104. 

Jl 20 U.S.c. Sec. 7l51(b)(I). Many school districts in Georgia have adopted zero tolerance policies that go well 

beyond those mandated by federal or state law. 
368 

resources may be used to support student discipline change initiatives. We urge the Congress to 

assure that future appropriations and authorizations carefully consider the long term value of 

investing in programs designed to assure that all public school students are provided with a 

reasonable chance to be productive citizens. 

Conclusion 

Whether one views the issue from a moral/ethical perspective, from a legal/constitutional 

perspective, or from an economic development perspective, it is simply unacceptable that fully 

one-third of Georgia'S public school children do not timely graduate; that in some school 

districts just over one-half of the students graduate, and that in some high schools less than 50 

percent of the students can take that important walk at graduation to the cheers of their families 

and friends. 

We do not doubt at all the personal commitment of our state's executive leadership to 

enhancing Georgia's K-12 public education system. We are profoundly aware of how hard the 

vast majority of district staff members, principals, teachers and guidance counselors work every 

day in the face of ever dwindling resources. We are, however, in a crisis. Business as usual will 

not solve this challenge. All of Georgia including government, nongovernmental organizations, 

parents, students, and those members of the public who may feel that they do not have a direct 

stake in the success of the public school system must playa role in initiatives for meaningful 

change. 

There are many reasons for low graduation rates. We do not believe that addressing 

school discipline issues is a "silver bullet" solution to this challenge. We do believe, however, 

that the changes discussed above can be implemented at relatively low cost and will be a 

meaningful part of the necessary overall comprehensive strategy to lead to a time when most of 

Georgia's children will graduate from high school. 

Georgia Appleseed is committed to working collaboratively with federal and state 

stakeholders in this effort. 

Sharon N. Hill, Executive Director 

Robert L. Rhodes, Jr., Director of Projects 

Georgia Appleseed Center for Law & Justice 

1100 Peachtree Street 

Suite 2800 

Atlanta, Georgia 

(404) 685-6750 

shill@gaappleseed.org 

rrhodes@gaappleseed.org 
369 

December 10,2012 

Em Elliott 

Georgia Safe Schools Coalition 

1530 DeKalb Ave 

Suite A 

Atlanta, GA 30307 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

SubcommIttee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

lliilllion,D.c.20510 

Re: Hearing on Ending the SChOOI-to-prison Pipeline 

Dear Chainnan Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on ending the school-to-prison 

pipeline before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary. My name is Em Elliott and I am a member of the Georgia Safe 

Schools Coalition. We have witnessed the school-to-prison pipeline firsthand in Georgia and as a 

coalition of parents, teachers, counselors and students, we urge the committee to resolve to keep 

students in our schools, and not in prisons. 

We believe that all students deserve a safe, quality education free from bullying and harassment 

and we work hard to help Georgia school districts pass policies that are inclusive of LGBTQ 

youth. In fact, our coalition was fonned in response to the suicides of several Georgia youth, all 

of whom were bullied due to their perceived sexual orientation and immigrant status. We 

understand the real cost of human suffering that comes from bullying and unsafe schools and we 

know how important strong policies are. However, in their zeal to address peer-to-peer bullying 

and harassment, policy makers and school officials have often adopted harsh, zero-tolerance 

discipline policies and practices - such as suspensions, expulsions and arrests - that exclude 

students from school. This unyielding approach to discipline results in students being pushed out 

of school and placed onto a path into the criminal justice system called the "school-to-prison 

pipeline." The students primarily hanned by this approach are students of color, students with 

disabilities, and LGBTQ youth, the very youth we are working to protect. 

Zero-tolerance disciplinary measures fail to address the root causes of bullying or end the cycle 

of bullying by teaching appropriate behavior. Responding to bullying with harsh discipline 

measures often hurts the very students they are designed to protect. To defend themselves, 

victims of bullying may carry weapons or employ other survival tactics that endanger the school 

community. As a result, those who have been bullied are more vulnerable to being suspended, 

expelled and arrested. 
370 

So-called "bullies" are typically youth struggling with their own insecurities (about intelligence, 

social skills, physical appearance, gender expression, etc.) and are just learning to understand 

themselves. Interventions that rely on exclusion and criminalization miss critical opportunities to 

respond students' unique needs and teach misguided youth the social and emotional skills they 

will need to grow into healthy adults. 

Zero tolerance practices and student-on-student bullying often affect students in the same way, 

resulting in lower academic scores, truancy, psychological trauma, diminished self-worth, acting 

out due to frustration or embarrassment, and dropping out of school altogether. Schools 

essentially become the bullies when they employ "get tough" tactics to address bullying. 

Instead of criminalizing youth misbehavior, policymakers should implement common sense 

solutions that make schools safe environments for all students. Instead of pushing kids out of 

school, they should train teachers, administrators and security officers, invest more in guidance 

counselors and school psychologists, and facilitate the re-entry and re-enrollment of students 

returning from expulsions and long-term suspensions. 

The Georgia Safe Schools Coalition in partnership with Georgia Equality work together to create 

a balance in Georgia schools by encouraging comprehensive anti-bullying policies that include 

LGBTQ youth, while simultaneously training teachers to properly and effectively respond to 

bullying in a way that does not re-victimize students and send them into the school-to-prisonpipeline. We have seen firsthand how effective a restorative justice approach is and we work 

hard to educate communities in Georgia about the school-to-prison pipeline and its 

consequences. 

Given this, we urge the federal government to support communities in their fight to end the 

school-to-prison pipeline. We encourage the government to work to reduce racial disparities in 

discipline, promote alternatives to harsh punishment, and ensure that all young people have the 

opportunity to succeed. 

Sincerely, 

Em Elliott and members of the Georgia Safe Schools Coalition 
371 

Testimony of Geoffrey Canada, 

President/CEO, Harlem Children's Zone & 

Harlem Children's Zone Promise Academy Charter Schools 

Submitted to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

December 12, 2012 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony to this committee regarding "Ending the School-toPrison Pipeline". I am Geoffrey Canada, PreSident/CEO of the Harlem Children's Zone®, and President of 

the Harlem Children's Zone Promise Academy® Charter Schools. My testimony is influenced by almost 

30 years of work with children of color in Central Harlem, NY. I also serve as Chair of the Children's 

Defense Fund's Board of Directors. CDF's Cradle to Prison Pipeline'" Campaign has been instrumental to 

the process of ending the well-worn path that leads large groups of our young people to incarceration. 

Unfortunately, many of the solutions to increasingly dangerous and violent schools have relied on police 

presence, zero tolerance poliCies, metal detectors, and the juvenile justice system. I believe that the 

solution is to raise our children in a culture of excellence, with college and a career in their future, and 

that high expectations matter. 

To that end, I am proud that the United States Department of Education modeled their Promise 

Neighborhood competitive grant program after our work at HCZ®. To date, 41 grants have been 

awarded to urban, suburban, rural and tribal communities around the country, including places like 

Berea, KY; St. Paul, MN; Buffalo; NY; San Antonio, TX; Charlottesville, VA; and Fresno, CA. These grants 

support communities as they build place-based, comprehensive initiatives that will transform the odds 

for entire neighborhoods, rather than just help a few kids overcome the odds. While high-achieVing 

schools must be at the core of any Promise Neighborhood, the work is not only about creating 

successful schools. It is about a coordinated, integrated system of high quality programs for children of 

all ages, spanning from birth through college graduation and career. Promise Neighborhoods strive to 

break the cycle of poverty by improving academic, social and health outcomes. 

The Cradle to Prison Pipeline"' 

The types of community challenges I have observed over several decades in Harlem are the same ones 

I now see in communities around the country whether they are Black or White; rural or urban; big or 

small cities; or Native American reservations. 

Using Harlem as an example, a child faces nearly insurmountable risk in his formative years. 

He is likely born into poverty' and born to a young woman without adequate insurance, 

employment, or familial support.1i In fact, 72.5% of all children born in Harlem are born into 

poverty. 64.4% of births are to single mothers. Hi 

1 
372 

• If such a child follows the trajectory of the vast majority of his peers, he will fail to attend an 

early childhood education program and find himself developmentally behind before even 

entering schooL'v 

He then will enroll in a struggling, low-quality school: 

His family may need to be strengthened through social services. Central Harlem has the second 

highest rate reported child abuse in the city and the second highest number of children living in 

foster care in the city:' 

He will see his peers over-represented in grade retention, suspension, expulsion, and drop-out 

rates ,vii 

By eighth grade, he may be among the 86% of Black public school students who cannot read at 

grade level:I'1 

He may already be familiar with the criminal justice system. Black children are nearly nine times 

as likely as White children to have an incarcerated parent.l, 

His neighborhood may be overwhelmed with drugs, crime, and violence. Central Harlem has the 

highest number of reported violent felonies in Manhattan', as well as the highest number of 

youth in detention." 

Eventually, he may be one of the many Black teens in his community who never graduate with a 

high school diploma."1 Nationwide, only 52% of Black students graduated from high school 

within four years.';;; 

lastly, he will enter a tough economy where unemployment is rampant.,lv He will lack the 

education necessary to compete. In Central Harlem only 25% of adults 25 years and older are 

high school graduates and only 20% of adults 25 years and older are college graduates. 

The point is, such a child has enormous odds to overcome to avoid prison. Nationally, 1 out of every 3 

Black boys born in 2001 can expect to be imprisoned at some point during his lifetime.'" These 

systematic disadvantages have led to what the Children's Defense Fund terms The Cradle to Prison 

Pipeline®. 

This pipeline leaves us with more than one type of loss. First and foremost, there is the wasting of 

human potential and devastated lives. For moral reasons alone, this must end. 

Then there is, of course, the literal and direct cost of incarcerating our population. In New York State, we 

spend $265,000 per child on average each year to incarcerate youth in facilities run by the Office of 

Children and Family Servicesxvi• Generally, not only are we spending upwards of $52 billion a year 

nationally in correctional costs, but recidivism rates remain too high - 43% of prisoners nationally return 

in three years.'~i 

2 
373 

Next, there are the additional costs that arise as a result of incarceration. For example indirect costs like 

providing additional social services, child welfare, and education programs, generally born by other 

government agencies, non-profit groups, and private citizens alike. 

Finally, when children are not able to reach their full potential and become successful, educated, 

citizens, this leads to major economic loss for our nation. And as today's poor children enter tomorrow's 

economy, under-educated and ill-prepared, the cost to America's future competitiveness in the world 

marketplace is incalculable. In America's inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high 

schoo!.""m The impact of this is devastating communities: consider that, "by their mid-30's, 6 in 10 black 

men who had dropped out of school had spent time in prison."'" 

The Children's Zone" Strategy 

In the mid-1990s it became clear to me that despite heroic efforts at saving poor children, success 

stories remained the exception. Few children beat the odds. My kids in Harlem faced not just one 

problem that could be tackled by anyone specific program, but encountered obstacles everywhere that 

they turned. Our piecemeal approach was of limited value against a perfect storm of problems and 

challenges. Vast numbers of kids were still failing out of high school leading to unemployment, antisocial 

behavior, drug abuse, and of course, prison. 

Instead of celebrating the few children who beat the odds, we needed to change the odds for the entire 

community by working with these kids and their families and their communities, enveloping them in 

healthy and encouraging environments at every stage of life, starting from birth all the way until they 

graduate from college, effectively ending the cycle of generational poverty. This is a long process, but 

today we are beginning to see big results in the form of a new generation of college graduates coming 

back to Harlem, not only to bring economic prosperity back to their neighborhood, but also to be the 

role models and eventually parents for the next generation of children growing up here. 

We started the Children's Zone" in the late 1990s with 24 blocks and over the last decade have grown in 

three phases to a neighborhood encompassing 97 blocks and over 11,000 children. In FY12, HCZ, Inc. 

served 23,026 clients-11,746 youth and 11,280 adults. 

In this testimony I've included images of two important maps." Using rarely accessible data from the 

criminal justice system, laura Kurgan at Columbia University's Spatial Information and Design lab 

partnered with the Justice Mapping Center to create maps depicting a few neighborhoods in the 

country's biggest cities where a disproportionate number of those incarcerated come from. In many 

places, including in Harlem, the concentration is so dense that states are spending in excess of a million 

dollars a year to incarcerate the residents of single city blocks. 

3 
374 

Image 1: Map of Manhattan 

Created by Columbia University's 

Information and design lab, Boxed area in upper 

portion of the island Is the Hariem Children's 

Zone, The redder the area, the higher the 

percentage of the population from thBt area in 

prison, 

Image 2: Map of Herlem Children'. Z"ne 

Celltral Harlem, 

2003 Univ'i'rsity's Spatial Information 

Design lab found that there were 7 

dollar blocks" the HCZ, with costs per block 

ranging from $1,,225,000 to $3,040,000, 

In 2003 this data indicated that the lifetime cost of imprisonment for residents living in the Harlem 

Zone was approximately $42 we at He;: estimate that average we are 

investing approximately $5,000 per yeaI'. Our results'" speak for the return on this investment: 

Parents are reading mOre to their children, At The Baby a program for parents of 

children aged 0-3, our pre and post surveys of parents showed that 88% of parents who read to 

their children fewer than 5 times per week at pre-test increased the amount of lime they spent 

reading to the children, 

4 
375 

• Four year olds are school-ready. After only a year in our early childhood programs, 99% of our 

children attained a "school readiness" classification of average or above compared to 89% at 

pre-test on the Bracken Basic Concept Scale. Also, at pre-test, 35.4% of children (57 of 161) had 

a school readiness classification of advanced or very advanced; at post-test, 73.3% (118 of 161) 

were in these categories. 

Our families remained intact. Only 0.6% of those families enrolled in our preventive program 

had children placed into foster care. 

Poor minority youth are narrowing and closing the racial achievement gap, dramatically 

reducing incarceration and pregnancy rates, and increasing college acceptance. Harvard 

economist Dr. Roland Fryer and his colleague Will Dobbie evaluated the outcomes of Harlem 

Children's Zone Promise Academy· Charter Schools and HCZ programs combined. According to 

Fryer, these charter schools closed the achievement gap in mathematics for elementary and 

middle school students and closed the gap in English for the elementary school students (Dobbie 

and Fryer, 2011). In more recent, unpublished results, Fryer has found that students who were 

juniors and seniors in the HCZ high school had higher New York State Regents scores, 

dramatically reduced incarceration and pregnancy rates, and high rates of college acceptance 

than a comparison group who did not win the lottery to enter the charter school. 

Teenagers are graduating from high school and going to college in historic numbers. 97% of 

our high school seniors were accepted into college in spring 2012. We continue to support 841 

college-enrolled students through their quest for higher education. 

In short, we have created a cradle-to-college pipeline for our children, instead of a Cradle to Prison 

Pipeline®. The theory of change for the Harlem Children's Zone model is embodied in five key 

prinCiples. Whenever policymakers and other communities ask us how we achieve our results, we point 

to our five prinCiples, rather than to any specific programs. They are: 

Serve an entire neighborhood comprehensively and at scale. Engaging an entire neighborhood 

helps to achieve three goals: it r<eaches children in numbers significant enough to affect the 

culture of a community; it transforms the physical and social environments that impact the 

children's development; and it creates programs at a scale large enough to meet the local need. 

Create a pipeline of high-quality programs that starts from birth and continues to serve 

children until they graduate from college. The continuum should include everything that 

children need to succeed: parenting education, early childhood programs, strong schools and 

after-school programs, health initiatives, SOCial services; support before and during college. 

Programs must be: high quality, accessible and linked to one another so that they provide 

uninterrupted support for children's healthy growth, starting with pre-natal programs for 

parents and finishing when young people graduate from college. The pipeline must be 

surrounded by additional programs that support families and the larger community such as 

family counseling, benefits counseling, legal services and assistance filing for taxes (i.e. EITe). 

Build community among residents, institutions, and stakeholders, who help to create the 

environment necessary for children's healthy development. 

5 
376 

Evaluate program outcomes; create a feedback loop that cycles data back to management for 

use in improving and refining program offerings; and hold staff and partner organizations 

accountable. 

Cultivate a culture of success rooted in passion, accountability, leadership, and teamwork. 

The Promise Neighborhoods Program 

Today, poverty and its repercussions are no longer unique to places like Detroit, Harlem, and South 

Central los Angeles. In 2010, the Census Bureau estimated that 7,879,000 children were living in areas 

with poverty rates of 30% or more. The chance that a child will live in an area of concentrated poverty 

has grown significantly over the last decade. We need to transform poor communities around the 

nation: in rural areas; on Indian reservations; in small and large towns; in Cincinnati, OH; New Haven, CT; 

laredo,1X; Madison, WI; Richmond, VA; and Washington, D.C. In 2007 President Obama was inspired to 

build on the success of the Harlem Children's Zone by pledging to create a federal Promise 

Neighborhoods program. 

The Promise Neighborhoods program incorporates the Harlem Children's Zone principles and a common 

set of outcomes while maintaining the flexibility for each community to adapt the program locally to fit 

their needs. Promise Neighborhoods wrap children in high-quality, coordinated health, social, 

community, and educational support from the cradle to college to career. 

The vision of the program is that all children and youth growing up in Promise Neighborhoods have 

access to great schools and strong systems offamily and community support that will prepare them to 

attain an excellent education and successfully transition to college and a career. The purpose of Promise 

Neighborhoods is to significantly improve the educational and developmental outcomes of children and 

youth in our most distressed communities, and to transform those communities byIdentifying and increasing the capacity of eligible entities that are focused on achieving results 

for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood; 

Building a complete continuum of cradle-to-career solutions of both educational programs and 

family and community supports, with great schools at the center; 

Integrating programs and breaking down agency "silos" so that solutions are implemented 

effectively and efficiently across agencies; 

Developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources needed to sustain and scale up 

proven, effective solutions across the broader region beyond the initial neighborhood; and 

learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods program and about the 

relationship between particular strategies in Promise Neighborhoods and student outcomes, 

including through a rigorous evaluation of the program."''' 

The number of communities applying for Promise Neighborhoods speaks to the need in communities all 

overthe nation: in the last 3 years over 850 applications have come in from 48 states; Washington, DC, 

American Samoa, and Puerto Rico. The program began with 21 one-year "planning grants" of $500,000 

6 
377 

or less, to support the development of communities across the country. As oftoday, 41 grants have 

been awarded in total, some of which have been five-year "implementation grants" of up to $5.9 

million, for communities who have successfully demonstrated their ability to begin implementing this 

work."m By the end of December, ED is expected to announce the names of a new group of planning and 

implementation grantees. Promise Neighborhood grantees currently exist in 18 states and the District of 

Columbia. Over two hundred communities who have applied for these limited funds each year, many 

communities have continued to commit to this work and this model without federal Promise 

Neighborhoods funding. 

Promise Neighborhoods nationwide are creating continuums of programs from birth through college 

and career that include a range of other important federal programs such as Nurse Home Visiting 

programs, AmeriCorps, Community Schools, Head Start, Community Health Centers, and the Healthy 

Food Financing Initiative. Choice Neighborhoods in HUD is similar to Promise Neighborhoods in its 

holistic, neighborhood wide approach. These programs help to break down the traditional silos that 

exist between programs, departments, levels of government, and funding streams. 

Conclusion 

Economist and Nobel Laureate James Heckman writes that "about 50 percent ofthe variance in 

inequality in lifetime earnings is determined by age 18."""' My challenge to you is to consider what we 

might gain as a country by taking a fraction of the costs currently wasted imprisoning our population""", 

and in particular, our young men of color, and instead investing that money in excellent early childhood 

programming, education, and social service supports to create a cradle to college and career pipeline. 

This other option has a far higher return on investment: for significantly less money than the Cradle to 

Prison Pipeline® costs us, we can educate our children, help them graduate from college, and bring them 

back to our communities ready to be successful, productive, contributing citizens. I believe the choice is 

obvious. 

! Black children are nearly three-and-a-half times as likely as White children to live in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty is 

defined here as half of the poverty level or less ($11,511 for a family ollour in 2011). See U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. "Historical 

Poverty Tables - People/J Table 3: Poverty Status, by Age, Race and Hispanic Origin. 

II Fifty-one percent of Black children live with only their mother. Black children are more than three times as likely to live with 

their mother only as are White children. See U.S. Census Bureau. ZOllo "America's Families and Living Arrangements: ZOl1," 

rable C9. 

Hi See Citizen's Committee for Children. Keeping Track of New York CitYs Children. 2010. 

Iv See Child Trends. 2009. "Disparities in Early learning and Development: lessons from the Early Childhood longitudinal Study 

- Birth Cohort (ECLS-B)." 

v See http:Uwww.aIl4ed.org/about the crlsis/schools for data about the nation's Ndrop~out factories." 

According to Aud, Fox and KewalRamani (2010), minority students are also significantly more likely than Whlte students to have 

low-quality teachers. In high schools with 50% or greater Black student enrollment, 25% of the teachers have neither a college 

major nor standard certification in the subject that is their main teaching assignment. The percentage for schools with a 

majority of white students is 8% 

Vi.see Citizen's Committee for Children. Keeping Track of New York City's Children. 2010, 

vii See Children's Defense Fund analysis of U.S. Department of Education. Office of Civil Rights. 2012, 112009~10 Civil Rights Data 

Collection (CRDC): Suppressed Reported District-level and School-level Datl!." 

See also U.S. Department of Education. 2012. "Office for Civil Rights: The Transformed Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)." 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/listfocr/docs/crdc-2012-dala-summary.pdf 

Viii As measured by the NAEP, National Center for Education Statistics. Data from 2011. 

Ill. See America's Cradle to Prison Pipeline Report, Children's Defense Fund. 2007. http://www.childrensdefense.org!child* 

research-data-publications!data/cradle-prison-pipeline-report-2007-full-highres.htm! 

7 
378 

j( See Citizen's Committee for Children. Keeping Track of New York City's Children. 2010. 

xi See Community Snapshot 2010, http:Uwww.nyc.gov/html/acs/htmllstatisticslstatistics cd snapshot.shtml 

xli See Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count: 2011 

xiii From The Urgency of Now: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and Black Males. See http:UBlackboysreport,orgi. 

)liv'n 2010, Central Harlem's 18.2% unemployment rate was nearly double the City-wide rate at 9.6%. See Citizen's Committee 

for Children. Keeping Track of New York City's Children. 2010. 

'K'I See http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/datalcradle-prison-pipeline",summary-report.pdf 

~; See http://www .correctionatassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/0S/VouthJn_confinement_ 2011. pdf 

:w:vll See http://www,pewstates,org!research/reports!state-of-recidivism-8S899377338. 

INUl Eckholm, Eric. Plight Deepens for BJack Men. New York Times. March 20th, 2006. 

'"'bid. 

IOC Created by the Spatial Information Design lab, GSAPP, Columbia University and the Justice Mapping Center using 2003 

Prisons Admissions data. 

IQU From HCZ's internal evaluation department. All results from FY 2012. 

nil See http://www2.ed,gov!programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.htm! 

nm 1bid. 

JOlW See http://www.heckmanequation.org/content/resource/schools-skills-synapses 

JttV 1 in 104 American adults is behind bars. See http://www.pewstates,orglresearch/data-visualizations!the-high-cost-ofcorrections-in-america-infographic-85899397897, 

8 
379 

Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Submitted by Health & Disability Advocates 

Address: 205 W. Monroe St., Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60606 

Phone: 312.223.9600, 312.265.9091 

Fax: 312.223.9518 

cwalker@,hdadvocates.org 

soconnor@hdadvocates.org 

Elizabeth Walker, Project Attorney, Chicago Medical-Legal Partnership for Children 

Sarah O'Connor, Senior Attorney, Chicago Medical-Legal Partnership for Children 

1) Health & Disability Advocates has extensive experience with children with 

disabilities and the school-to-prison pipeline 

Founded in 1992, Health & Disability Advocates is a national nonprofit based in Chicago, 

lIIinois that uses multiple strategies to promote income security, enhance work and educational 

opportunities and improve healthcare access for children, low-income older adults and people 

with disabilities and special health care needs. 

HDA pioneered one of the first medical legal collaborations in the country. Today, our awardwinning Chicago Medical Legal Partnership for Children (CMLPC) helps hundreds of children 

and youth each year with a wide range of physical, mental, developmental and behavioral health 

challenges access Early Intervention (El), Special Education and Medicaid-funded services. 

CMLPC then conducts systemic advocacy to expand our impact far beyond the number of clients 

we work with and improve overall access to quality health care, education and income supports. 

Partnership sites serve some of the most vulnerable children across Cook County, with locations 

on the south, west and north side of Chicago at La Rabida Children's Hospital, University of 

Chicago's Corner Children's Hospital, Friend Family Federally Qualified Health Center and 

Lurie Children's Hospital. CMLPC brings together doctors, lawyers and social workers to tackle 

difficulties - such inadequate educational supports- that negatively impact child health and 

development. 

Through our partnership with our medical sites, our organization assists more than 800 families 

of children with disabilities every year. We see time and again children with special needs in the 

school system who are undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, misunderstood. Instead of getting timely, 

1 
380 

quality interventions, these children are denied a free and appropriate education. When the 

school system doesn't identifY children with disabilities and provide them with the supports and 

services they need, the risk factors for involvement with the criminal justice system increase. 

2) Vulnerable cbildren witb disabilities are disproportionately affected by inadequate 

disciplinary policies in scbools, leading to a prison-to-scbool super-bighway for tbese 

cbildren. 

A body of literature, notably the American Psychological Association's 2008 'Zero Tolerance 

Task Force,' a recent longitudinal study of Texas public school seventh graders and a Chicago 

youth-led report show harsh disciplinary measures occur disproportionately among children who 

are minority, male, low-income, have special nceds, ELLs, and/or attend overcrowded schools. 

This, in turn, is directly tied to the burgeoning dropout rate, an educational achievement gap that 

is likened to "the economic equivalent of a permanent national recession," incarceration, 

recidivism and other devastating adverse outcomes. 

The third largest public school district in the country, Chicago Public Schools officially ended 

"zero tolerance" discipline in 2007 and adopted a restorative justice framework. Yet CPS fails to 

implement this policy, and suspensions and expulsions remain high. As well, there is a lack of 

consistency and accountability in policy, practice and funding within and between the city's 

traditional public schools, contract (turnaround) schools, alternative schools, juvenile justice 

facilities and charter schools, particularly ones run by large Education Management 

Organizations (EMOs). In general, charters shape their student bodies by using "enrollment 

practices, discipline and expulsion" and other tactics that exclude and underserve children with 

special health needs. In Chicago, charter operators were found to be unwilling to fully comply 

with requests to share even basic budget information, with some going to great lengths to avoid 

transparency of public fund use altogether. 

CMLPC works with many school district stakeholders and families of children with disabilities 

to address many of the types of system failures that undermine educational equity. Using our 

clients as a window, we see where current policy breaks down and delivers grim rather than 

superior outcomes. CMLPC has identified the following current system failures and suggestions 

improve the quality of educational services and supports for vulnerable students (see attached 

chart). 

One sucb example involved a CPS high school student with a mild cognitive impairment and 

behavior problems with an IEP. During his transition from elementary school to high school, his 

placement was changed from a self-contained special education classroom to placement in 

regular education classes for more than 60% of the school day even though he was reading at a 

first grade level. Once he started high school, he was repeatedly suspended due to behavior 

problems. During one of his outbursts, the student was locked in a classroom and left unattended 

2 
381 

to allow him to "cool down." While in the locked room, he punched his arm through a glass 

window requiring medical care at the ER and stitches. After this incident, the school told the 

parents not to send him back to school until they could assure he would not have any other 

incidents during school hours, and threatened to call the police if the parents were unable to 

control their son, even while he was at school. Please see the attached list of Case Examples for 

a further description of system issues as identified by CMLPC attorneys. If children with 

behavioral and learning disabilities are provided with adequate interventions before their 

behaviors become serious enough to risk involvement with the criminaIjustice system, they can 

achieve positive outcomes and remain in school. Unfortunately, school districts are often 

reluctant to even identify children with disabilities or provide them with adequatc services once 

they have been identified, instead choosing to blame the family and label the child as "bad". See 

Chicago Tribune article,"l Child Left Behind," August 26, 2009 for a discussion of such a child 

represented by our organization. 

CMLPC has identified a pattern of systemic issues through our individual clients and legal 

representation. There is evidence of a clear connection between a disproportionate use of harsh 

disciplinary policies, suspensions, expulsion and push out tactics by gender, class, ethnicity and 

school type. Furthermore, students with disabilities are often disciplined, expelled or sent home 

without regard for IDEA rights and protections. Through our work we have identified a complete 

lack of school-based supports for proven and promising school-based discipline frameworks, 

resulting in inappropriate and archaic responses to the needs of children with mental health 

issues or other diagnosed medical problems and disabilities. 

The attached chart provides additional data regarding identified systemic issues with suggested 

objectives to support reform at the local, state and federal levels. At the federallevcl, there is a 

need for laws and policy mandating School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports, restorative justice 

practices and accountability. Additionally, schools should be required to provide uniform, 

consistent and fair discipline policies across all publicly funded schools. The standard for 

appropriate and positive-based behavior intervention plans for students with IEP's, or for 

students any student suspected of having a disability must be uniform for all publicly funded 

schools. Schools should be required to conduct a functional behavior assessment and or IEP 

evaluation for any student who displays a pattern of misconduct, and in all cases before any 

student is expelled. 

In closing, there is a critical need for laws and policy at the federal level addressing the systemic 

failure of school districts to adequately meet the behavioral needs of children before they become 

irrevocably involved in the criminal justice system. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Elizabeth R. Walker, Project Attorney 

Sarah M. O'Connor, Senior Attorney 

3 
382 

www.chicagotribune.comlncwsllocallchi-cps-devon-26-aug26 {J ,4803692 .story 

chicagotribune.com 

TRIBUNE WATCHDOG 

1 child left behind 

Devon Manard, 11, needs special education, but Chicago Public Schools isn't complying with a court 

order to help 

By Rex W. Huppke 

Tribune reporter 

August 26.2009 

In March, an independent hearing officer made official what Shnette Tyler already knew: Her 1 I «year-old son, !ldvertisement 

who has severe leaming and behavioral djsabilities,had not been receiving a proper education from Chicago 

Public Schools. 

Detailing how the school system had repeatedly failed .Devon Mallard, the hearing officer wrotc: ttDespite a history of 

disability as well as documented behavioral difficulties, it took two years of decreasing reading scores, increasingly aggressive 

behaviors, and the filing of a due process complaint for the district to take notice of this student and fo(..'Us on his specific 

needs for special cducation services." 

Within 45 days, the school district was ordered to set up a proper education plan for Devon - who attends Ray Elcmental}' 

School in Hyde Park -- and provide him with an anay of weekly services including psychological counseling,occupational 

therapy and a reading tutor. 

More than five months later, nearing the start ofa new school year, Devon remains without services or an Individualized 

Education Plan that properly addresses his needs. Tyler's attorneys filed another due proccss complaint July 22 to compel the 

school district to meet its obligations. 

But with a hearing at least a month away and school about to start,Devon's mother must decide whetherto send him back into 

a school environment that has both failed and frustrated himorpuB him out of school and let the legal system 11m its C{)urse. 

tlrmjust trying to get my son a good education,get him in a plaec where he can learn/I Tyler said. liMy son has a learning 

disability and somebody needs to recognize that. It just feelslikc we're at a dead cnd. 1I 

This is a common refrain among parents ofsehoo1children with disabilities in Chicago. Rodney Estvan. the youth and 

education outreach coordinator for Access Living, a disability rights group, said Chicago Public Schools officials often "fcel 

like they can push the limits and don't have to follow the letter of the law" in providing services for disabled youths. 

"CPS is not being held accountable ,I! Estvan said. HOlle of the problems is that really very few ofthe families that have spccialeducation compliance problems ever take the s[Cp of filing an administrative complaint." 

And even when they do take legal steps and prevail,Estvan said, it can still be difficult to get district officials to do what 

they're supposed to do. 

MichaelO'Connor, one of the attomeys representing .Devon, said: NThcy fight a lot of cases that they losc. and then they kcep 

fighting after they've 10st." 

School district spokcswoman Monique Bond said she could not discuss specific aspects of Devon's case. 

ijWe are concerned any time the system has failed to meet the needs ofa student." she said. "We're going to comply with the 

order." 

Bond e-mailed a statement that said the district Ilwould have preferred for the proccss to proceed more expeditiously, however, 
383 

the summer break created communications challenges." 

But according to the court order, the district had to begin providing services within 45 days. or about the middle of April--

before summer break had begun. 

The district's statement said its Office ofSpeciaUzed Services !twin be attempting to schedule a meeting before the school year 

officially begins for Ray School so that his needs are met." 

But Devon's attorneys said they tried twice to hold such a meeting, only to be ignored by school district attorneys. 

The first attempt at creating an IndividuaJized Education Plan was scheduled for May 29. According to the new due process 

complaint,school attorneys were advised of the meeting by Devon's case manager at Ray School. 

A draft education plan was created at that meeting but was not finalized, Devon's attorneys, in the new complaint, said the staff 

at Ray had not even seen a copy of the March order and were, unaware of the additional services Devon was to receive. 

According to the new complaint. the school officials didn't want to proceed without district representation. so another meeting 

was scheduled for June 8 .Devon's other attorney. Santh O'Connor of Health & Disability Advocates~said she notified the 

school district's attorney who had been handling the case about the June 8 meeting and told the attorney that she and Michael 

01Connor would be there. 

Again. no school district attorney showed up. 

Bond said in the e~mailed statement that the attorney was busy with other cases and that both of Devon's meetings "were 

scheduled without input from the due process attorney.1I 

t'lt's just disingenuous ofthern to say they weren't aware of the meeting," Michael O'Connor said. "They were aware of it, they 

just didn't respond. They're doing this aU the time. they're doing this in ca,;;e after case after case." 

He said the only part of the March court order that the district has heeded is to pay for severdl independent evaluations of 

Devon. 

In a 1etter to Chicago Public Schools dated Aug. 24, Andrew Eulass. due process coordinator for the TIHnois State Board of 

Education, wrote that the district has provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has complied with the March order." 

'1 remind you that CPS was required to submit satisfactory proof of compliance no later than April 16,2009. Given that four 

months have now passed since proof of compliance was due, prompt attention to this matter is imperative." 

When the ruling ordering Devon's services first came down in March.his mother was elated. 

ItI felt really good,!! she said. "I felt like my efforts all these years hadn't been in vain. I thought things were finally reany going 

to change." 

Tyler had always known Devon was different, but his academic struggles didn't surface until 2005 when he was in 2nd grade. 

By the end of that grade, a teacher's assessment showed Devon perfonning at a kindergarten level and he was identified as 

having a learning disability. But he was never fully evaluated and no special services were provided,according to court 

records. 

He wasn't found eligible for spcciaJ education classes until January 2007. An IndividuaHzed Education Plan was created, but 

Devon's emotional problems swiftly became worse. In September 2007 ,the boy's doctor diagnosed him with anxiety disonier, 

dyslexia and oppositional defiant disorder, which can cause temper tantrum. ... and hostile behavior toward authority figures. 

From that point on, Devon's mother never felt she was able to get herson's educational plan amended to meet his developing 

needs. 

"I tried and tried, but I couldn't get anywhere,lI she said. IIIt was like they wouldn't listen to what his doctors were saying and 

they tried to tell me he was fine. He's [11 years old] and he's still reading at a 1 st-grade level. That's not fine.!! 

Feeling she could no longer fight on her own, Tyler sought legal counsel and her first due process complaint was filed Aug. 5, 

2008. 

Thinking he would find himself in a better school situation in the faU, Devon has enjoyed the summer, spending his days at 

the Regal Theater on the South Side. Tyler's godparents own the theater and hired her so she could have a more flexible work 

schedule while caring forDevon, who has turned the cavernous hal] into a personal playground. 
384 

Like many ll-year-olds~ he loves video games, idolizes NBA star Kobe Bryant, likes riding bikes with his older brother and. 

perhaps most significantly I wants to be in a classroom where he's comfottable. 

But now he's anxious about returning to Ray School. Uldont want to be in that classroom," he said. 

Tyler said Devon is a confident little boy~and she believes he can do well if he's put in a situation where his uDique needs are 

being met. 

UIn his mind,he can do it all," she said. "He just needs some guidance along the way.1t 

rtJuppkc@tribune.coID 

Copyright © 20 11, Chicago Tribune 
385 

Health & Disability Advocates Chicago Medical Legal Partnership for Children 

CASE EXAMPLES 

1. Student expelled hom charter school and neighborhood public school without due process: Student Is a 

13-year-old African American boy who attended sixth grade at a charter school authorized by the Chicago 

Public School's (CPS) board. Without providing proper notice or holding a hearing, the charter school expelled 

the boy for one semester because he allegedly brought a box of bullets to school. The charter school did not 

claim the Student also brought a firearm or threatened other students or staff. After the expulsion from the 

charter school, CPS sent Student a letter stating that he could not enroll in his neighborhood public school 

until the expulsion from the charter school was completed. CPS issued its expulsion even though the charter 

school did not comply with the due process procedures required by CPS Student Code of Conduct orthe 

Illinois School Code. CMLPC is currently handling this matter. 

2. Student with unidentified disability who was disciplined and not evaluated for special education: Student 

is an 11-year-old African American boy who attends sixth grade at a CPS neighborhood school. He was 

retained in the third grade and ~as a long history of disruptive behavior, including self-injury. In three years, 

Student's mother reports that he was suspended 15 to 20 times. Student was also admitted on five occasions 

to a psychiatric hospital. Nonetheless, the school has not evaluated Student for special education services. 

Instead, the school continues to discipline Student by suspending him from school, and Student's behavioral 

and emotional needs go unaddressed. CMLPC is currently handling this matter. 

3. Student with disability where IEP fails to appropriately address behavioral/emotional needs: Student is an 

18-year-old African American girl who attends a Chicago public high school. After suffering two strokes at age 

9, she has severe cognitive and physical impairments. Her IEP places her in a separate classroom for students 

with disabilities. She uses a wheelchair and requires assistance for all activities of daily living. Her verbal 

abilities are limited and she does not communicate in complete sentences. The school has suspended 

Student on multiple occasions for shouting profanity when she is physically or socially uncomfortable. The 

teacher described Student as "unruly.' The school has failed to perform a functional behavioral assessment 

that would help craft an appropriate and effective behavior intervention plan in her IEP. CMLPC is currently 

handling this matter. 

4. Student with disability and established IEP, upon transition to high school her services are terminated: 

A 14-year·old African American Student with IEP eligibility based on learning disability and emotional 

disturbance and a history of psychiatriC hospitalizations for a mood disorder and anxiety. Upon entering high 

school, alilEP services stopped, including academic and social work services. The mother requested meetings 

with the school and complained that her daughter was being bullied and not receiving services. School staff 

told mother they don't have speCial education in high school unless you are in a wheelchair. Student began to 

have behavior problems, developed school phobia, was involved in fights and was suspended nUmerous 

times. A due process case was filed. This student is nowata private therapeutic day school for students with 

emotional disturbance and learning disabilities. 

5. Charter student with unidentified disability who was expelled and not evaluated for special education: 

A &year-old African American boy attended kindergarten and first grade at a charter school authorized by CPS. 

Beginning in kindergarten, Student was sent to the prinCipal's office nearly every day for disruptive behavior in 

class. After multiple suspensions in kindergarten, Student'S mother sought the treatment of a psychiatrist over 

the summer. The psychiatrist diagnosed Student with ADHD. Student began taking medication and attending 

weekly therapy sessions with a psychologist. When Student returned to school in the first grade, his behavior 

did not improve. Student's psychologist wrote a letter to the school stating that Student needed additional 

supports due to his ADHD diagnosis in order to regulate his behavior. The school did not evaluate Student for 

special education or provide additional supports. Based upon Student's five suspensions during the first 

semester of first grade, charter school referred Student for expulsion. Such an "offense" did not exist in CPS's 

Student Code of Conduct. As the result of advocacy efforts, Student was evaluated for special education and 

found eligible. He Is now a second grader with an IEP and receives appropriate education services. 

6. CPS Ignores provisions of Student's IEP from another District: Student is a 14-year-old African American 

ward of the state. After she entered foster care, she was psychiatrically hospitalized and diagnosed with 

bipolar disorder. She was evaluated and found eligible for special education services. The IEP team 

determined that she should be placed at a therapeutic day school due to her behavioral and emotional needs. 

Several months later, Student was moved to a new group home and transferred school districts. When her 

caseworker attempted to enroll her in CPS and have her placed at a therapeutic day school, the caseworker 

was told that the Student must be placed at a neighborhood school, in violation of her IEP. As the result of 

advocacy efforts, the student is now attending a Therapeutic Day School. 
Problems Current state Objectives 

DisproportiOnate • Lack of reported data and accountability across aU school types 1, Require consistent and fair discipline poliCies ac

use of harsh public, charter, contract, altemative, juvenile justice facilities); publicly-funded schools; 

disciplinary • Inconsistent application of due process protections in expUlsion proceedings, 2, Require charter schools to accurately report all 

poliCies, e,g. CPS can adopt expulsions made by charters which routinely lack due suspensions, expulsions and push outs; 

suspension, process (see attached case example 1); 3, Require charter schools to route expulsion case

expulsion and • Children with IEPs assigned in-school suspensions (instead of Office of Student Adjudication; 

push out tactics appropriate behavloral supports) up to 10 days total per year without triggering 4, Require use of appropriate behavior interventio

by gender, class, their IDEA rights; students with IEPs instead of in-school suspens

ethnicity and • Children with behavior andlor social/emotional issues may be pushed out of a 5, Monitor accurate measurement and reporting o

school type; school, especially before key dates such as high stakes standardized testing suspension' and expUlsion rates; 

and deadlines by which districts allocate funding per head to each school; 6, Require proper use of BARJ before student can 

• Inconsistent, and in cases, inappropriate standards for schools to contact local expelled or counseled out of a school; 

law enforcement; 7, Disincent schools from pushing out students by 

• Illinois General Assembly recenHy enacted S,B. 79, establishing a new funding to pupil school year completion; 

independent charter school commission with statewide power to authorize and 8, Require consistent and appropriate policies for 

regulate charter schools; local law enforcement across all publicly-funded 

• ESENNCLB up for reauthorization and currently does not include provisions 9, Represent individual clients referred through pa

supporting positive school discipline reform; 

Lack of school- • Lack of positive behavior intervention supports, social work services, 1, Improve Behavioral Intervention Assessments a

based supports meaningful sociallemotional goals leading to inadequate or no behavior Planning for children at all schools; 

and proven and intervention plans that address andlor effectively manage andlor prevent 2. Work OSEP as they monitor IDEA Part B 

promising schoo/- disruptive behaviors for children with and without specia I education needs; compliance and request investigation of system

based discipline • Children not evaluated for special education when repeated behavior, deprivations; 

frameworks; social/emotional issues or other determinants occur; 3, Require (i.e., IEP evaluation, MDR, functional b

• Lack of specialists to perform functional behavior assessments; assessment, "cooling off period,") prior to discip• Failure to perform appropriate MDRs (Manifestation Determination Reviews) for actions; 

children with IEPs prior to disciplinary actions; 4. Engage subject matter experts from Ceasefire 

• Upon elementary graduation IEP service provision for sociallemotional inform behavioral intervention assessments and 

behavioral needs terminated; for children and model "interventionist" service 

• Children with behavior/emotional issues not placed in LRE (Least Restrictive at pilot des; 

Environment); 5. Advocate for local, state and federal law and po

• Children transferring into CPS required to enroll in a neighborhood school when include Positive Behavior Support

the previous district's IEP requires placement at a TDS (Therapeutic Day restorative justice practices and accountability; 

School); 6, Represent individual clients referred through pa

• Schools inapproprlately.using RTI (Response to Intervention) to avoid special 

education obligations; 

-----------

... 

----- --- ----- ------- --------

! Vevea, Chicago News Cooperative, "Putting School Suspensions on the Agenda," April 26, 2011: Jean .. Claude Brizard (now CEO ofepS) lowered Rochester's suspension rate from 15 

Switching most punishments to in-school. In-school suspensions were not counted in the suspension rate, which lowered the outcomes measured but failed to address behavio

Ii expertise and track record was not deployed as an asset during implementation of tile $16.6 million Culture of C81m program run by Youth Advocate Programs Inc. by fonner C

Huberman. As well, CPS has a history of removing community-led efforts; at Fenger B.S., a nearby church started a volunteer program where pwishloners were stationed on every block of th

make sure kids were getting to and from school safely. CPS decided to fund it, but removed the volunteers and awarded a contract to an outside entity instead. 
387 

Statement for the Record 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Hearing on the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 

2:00pm Dirksen Senate Bldg. Rm. 226 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham and Members of this Committee: 

The United States Congress chartered Howard University, located here in the nation's capital, in 1867 to 

provide academic opportunities for promising African Americans who had long been denied access to 

educational opportunity. Howard University School of Law opened its doors in 1869 during Reconstruction. 

On the heels of the Civil War, the Reconstruction era highlighted the great need for trained legal professionals 

who displayed a strong commitment to ensuring Black Americans could secure and protect their newly 

established rights. Today, the School of Law remains committed to producing skilled professionals, capable of 

achieving positions of leadership in law, business, government, education, and public service. Howard 

University School of Law remains dedicated to producing advocates committed to solving the challenges facing 

our communities and eradicating conditions of inequality for all Americans. In fact, this core mission is shared 

throughout the Howard University community and is especially highlighted within the walls of its graduate and 

professional schools, places of intellectual cultivation and professional molding for those that do and will 

interface with this country's most vulnerable populations. Howard's future physicians, dentists, social workers, 

pharmacists, clergy, business executives, academicians, scientific researchers, and legal professionals submit 

this statement for the record to the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Human Rights to further our goal of ending the school-to-prison pipeline. 

The school-to-prison pipeline refers to the national trend of criminalizing-rather than educating-our nation's 

children. The pipeline involves the growing use of zero-tolerance discipline, school-based arrests, disciplinary 

alternative schools, and juvenile detention referrals; often while simultaneously ignoring or bypassing important 

due process considerations. It is a system that views young people as a "problem" or "danger" that must be 

suppressed, rather than our country's most important and indispensable resource. 

More students are being suspended and expelled than ever before for minor misbehaviors like disruption and 

insubordination. Most of these suspensions and expulsions disproportionately fallon our most vulnerable 

children--economically depressed students, students of color, students with disabilities, and English language 

learners. More and more police officers, not subject to school administration guidelines, are being placed in 

schools and engaging in a pattern of unlawful conduct through which they routinely and systematically arrest 

and incarcerate children, without even the most basic procedural safeguards. Students cycled into the juvenile 

or criminal justice system lose out on substantial classroom instruction and face serious and destructive lifelong consequences. 

We recognize that, as many of the students most impacted by the pipeline are students of color, our respective 

professions and our efforts to diversify those among our ranks suffer as a result. As our nation becomes more 

ethnically diverse, it becomes imperative that we act to eradicate systems in place that undermine our efforts to 

cultivate a workforce that reflects, at every level, the composition of our nation. The school-to-prison pipeline is 

such a system. 
388 

Research has consistently demonstrated that strict, zero tolerance policies and an increased use of police officers 

in schools have done little to improve school safety or deter the likelihood of disruption.' Schools with higher 

rates of suspension and expulsion have lower satisfactory ratings of overall school climate and safety. In fact, 

high suspension rates often lead to higher rates future of future misbehavior and suspension; failure to graduate 

on time; and higher dropout rates. Research has also demonstrated that strict discipline policies do little to 

enhance discipline implementation integrity or produce uniform, color-blind systems of discipline? Empirical 

evidence has consistently refuted the assumption that African-American students exhibit higher rates of 

disruption or violence, yet, they are more than three times as likely to receive at least one out-of-school 

suspension as White children.' Additionally, research has found that zero-tolerance policies not only fail to 

make schools safer; they, in fact, work to push students away from school.4 The increased use of and reliance 

on security technology, security personnel, and student profiling blUr the line between schools and the juvenile 

justice system and ultimately push students of color out of school, into the criminal justice system, and away 

from their educational futures. Strict, zero tolerance discipline policies-just one of many problematic elements 

of the school-to-prison pipeline--have become the "mandatory-minimums" of the school discipline world. 

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan once noted, the "qualitative differences in the level and effects of 

discrimination in our [criminal justice system] are not the fanciful product of mere statistical artifice," but 

rather, are the result of a dual system that reflects a race-conscious application of punishment. 5 Ifwe are ever to 

realize a system that ensures equal access to education, we must address the race-conscious application of 

punishment that is the foundation of zero tolerance policies and the school-to-prison pipeline. 

We as future professionals are not interested in merely enjoying the symbolic legal victories that often provide 

the illusion of change but do little substantively to change our social climate. We are interested in immediate 

and constructive reform. There is no dispute that schools must do all that can be done to create safe learning 

environments. And while we recognize the challenges in altering current school discipline strategies, now must 

be the time for a convergence and galvanization of the moral, social, legal and economic interests that are 

common to us all and are at the core of realizing an equitable education system. All of us must commit to the 

hard work of transforming our society; eradicating the vicious cycle of students into the criminal justice system; 

and ensuring that every child has equal access to a just, safe, comprehensive, and enriching educational 

experience. 

In accordance with these general comments, we would like to make several recommendations which we believe 

are essential in confronting the school-lo-prison pipeline. They are as follows: 

Remove the largely unregulated and ineffective police presence currently placed in our nation's public 

schools; 

Critically re-examine all school discipline and violence prevention strategies to assess whether they have 

a beneficial impact on student behavior and school safety; 

Improve disciplinary alternative education policies to ensure that suspended or expelled students have 

access to quality alternative education programs and have the opportunity to re-enter mainstream 

schools as soon as possible; 

Use evidence-based prevention strategies targeted at all students (such as early childhood programs, 

voluntary home visits, mentoring, mental bealth support, job training and school-based programs) that 

recognize the constitutional rights, human dignity, and capacity for achievement in all students; 

1 RUSSELL J. SKIBA, ZERO TOLERANCE, ZERO EVIDENCE, Indiana Education Policy Center 1-11 (2000). 

'Id. 

3 Children's Defense Fund, State of America's Children, 2012, available at http://www.childrensdefense.orglchild-research-datafublicationsldatalsoac-201 2-handbookpdf . 

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, ARE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES EFFECTIVE IN THE SCHOOLS?: AN EVIDENTIARY REVIEW 

AND RECOMMENDATIONSl-l1, available at, http://www.apa.orglpubslinfo/reportslzero-tolerance.pdf. 

5 McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (Brennan, J., dissent). 

2 
389 

Refocus resources on improving student engagement and reinvest in effective teaching practices to 

minimize student disruption; and 

Educate teachers, administrators, and school staff on the dangers of implicit bias in school discipline 

implementation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. This hearing provides a unique 

opportunity to critically examine and proactively address the school-to-prison pipeline. We commend the 

Subcommittee's efforts and insistence on taking a solutions-based approach to the resolution of this most 

destructive mechanism. Furthermore, we urge you to take these recommendations under consideration. Please 

contact us if you have any remaining questions. We are committed to the breakdown of the school-to-prison 

pipeline as we recognize it robs each of our professions of students who could be the agents of progress we need 

to move our America forward. As such, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee on 

addressing the issues contained within this statement. 

Sincerely In Service, 

George L. Davis 

Former New York City Educator 

J.D. Candidate, Class of2014 

Howard University School of Law 

Aaron Hamilton 

Student Council President 

MBA Candidate, Class of2013 

Howard University, Graduate School of Business 

Nathan Zewdu 

Student Bar Association President 

J.D. Candidate, Class of2013 

Howard University School of Law 

Damion Myers 

Student Council President 

D.D.S. Candidate, Class of2013 

Howard University College of Dentistry 

Porscha L. Johnson 

Pharmacy Student Association President 

Pharm.D. Candidate, Class of2014 

Howard Univcrsity College of Pharmacy 

Courtney B. Scrubbs 

Graduate Student Trustee 

D.O./J.D. Candidate, Class of 2013 

Howard University School of Law 

Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine 

D' Angela Pitts 

Student Council President 

M.D. Candidate, Class of2013 

Howard University College of Medicine 

Tai Smith 

Student Council President 

M.Div. Candidate, Class of2013 

Howard University School of Divinity 

Kelechi C. Anyanwu 

Graduate Student Council President 

PhD Student, Class of 20 15 

Howard University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences 

Christian Johnson 

Student Council President 

MSW Candidate, Class of 20 13 

Howard University School of Social Work 
390 

WRITTEN STATEMENT 

OF THE 

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER 

FOR THE HEARING ON 

Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL 

RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

PRESENTED ON 

December 12, 2012 
391 

STATEMENT OF THE 

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham and Members of the Committee: 

The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to 

protecting the human rights of persons incarcerated in prisons, jails and other detention facilities. 

HRDC publishes Prison Legal News (PLN), a monthly print magazine that reports on corrections 

and criminal justice-related issues nationwide. 

Although PLN's coverage primarily concerns the approximately 2.3 million people held in state 

and federal prisons and jails in the United States, PLN also reports extensively on issues related 

to the juvenile justice system. 

Recently, PLN staff assisted in investigative reporting concerning a disturbing development in 

Arizona that Caroline Isaacs, program director for the Tucson office of the American Friends 

Service Committee, described as "the most direct expression of the 'schools-to-prison pipeline' I've 

ever seen." 

The school-to-prison pipeline is generally defined as a process in which certain students - often 

minorities, those with social and financial disadvantages, and those with learning disabilities or 

mental health problems - are channeled into a path that leads to incarceration as part of a continuum 

that includes school disciplinary actions, alternative programs for "problem" students, involvement 
392 

of the juvenile justice system and, eventually, placement in adult prisons. Elements that contribute to 

the school-to-prison pipeline include zero-tolerance policies and high levels of law enforcement 

participation in the education system, with the latter involving school police resource officers, the 

use of metal detectors and school drug sweeps/searches. 

In Arizona, several public schools in Casa Grande, the largest town in Pinal County, are using a 

private prison company Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) - alongside police officers to 

conduct drug sweeps. PLN assisted in reporting on this issue, which was published by DBA Press 

(dbapress.com). and by The Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) on 

November 27, 2012. A condensed version of the resulting report is included in the December 2012 

issue of Prison Legal News, and is attached as Exhibit I to this Statement. 

On October 31, 2012, the Casa Grande Police Department, Arizona Department of Public Safety, 

Gila River Indian Community Police Department and CCA - which operates six correctional 

facilities in Pinal County - conducted a joint drug sweep at the Vista Grande High School. 

According to Principal Tim Hamilton the school was placed on "Iockdown" status, in which 

"everybody is locked in the room they are in, and nobody leaves - nobody leaves the school, nobody 

comes into the school. Everybody is locked in, and then they bring the dogs in, and they are teamed 

with an administrator and go in and out of classrooms. They go to a classroom and they have the kids 

come out and line up against a wall. The dog goes in and they close the door behind, and then the dog 

does its thing, and ifit gets a hit, it sits on a bag [e.g., student's backpack] and won't move." 

2 
393 

Although Arizona state law requires that persons engaging in the duties of a "peace officer" must be 

certified by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board, according to POST 

executive director Lyle Mann, CCA employees are not POST certified. 

Regardless, CCA provided two canine units, consisting of dogs and handlers, to participate in the 

October 31, 2012 Vista Grande High School drug raid. Previously, CCA canine units were used in a 

similar drug sweep at the Casa Grande Union High School in Pinal County in 2011. According to 

Casa Grande Police Department public information officer Thomas Anderson, the involvement of 

CCA employees in the drug sweeps was "pretty regular," and he assumed the police department 

would continue partnering with CCA in future drug operations at public schools. 

Three students were arrested on marijuana-related charges as a result of the Vista Grande High 

School drug sweep: two female students, ages 15 and 17, and a 15-year-old male student. Principal 

Hamilton stated the school was commencing expulsion proceedings against the three students, thus 

starting them on their journey through the school-to-prison pipeline. 

The Human Rights Defense Center believes that involving employees from private prison companies 

- which directly profit from incarceration - in law enforcement operations at public schools is a 

disturbing addition to the existing practices that contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. 

The use of private prison employees in drug sweeps at public schools, which result in arrests and 

channeling students into the school-to-prisiln pipeline, ultimately leads to increased incarceration and 

thus greater profits for the multi-billion-dollar private prison industry. 

3 
394 

HRDC believes that such involvement of for-profit prison companies constitutes a clear conflict of 

interest and should be prohibited. For example, legislation could be introduced on the federal level 

to prohibit schools which receive federal funds from allowing private prison companies or their 

employees to participate in· drug sweeps or other law enforcement operations on school property. 

This Statement is submitted on behalf of the 

Human Rights Defense Center by: 

Executive Director Paul Wright. Mr. Wright founded the Human Rights Defense Center and 

serves as editor of Prison Legal News. He was incarcerated for 17 years in the Washington State 

prison system. 

Associate Director Alex Friedmann. Mr. Friedmann serves as the managing editor of Prison 

Legal News and president of the Private Corrections Institute. He was incarcerated for 10 years 

in Tennessee. 

Human Rights Defense Center 

P.O. Box 2420 

W. Brattleboro, VT 05303 

(802) 257-1342 

www.humanrightsdefensecenter.org 

www.prisonlegalnews.org 

4 
395 

Decemb~r 2012 Prison Legal News (wwwprisonlegalnews.org) 

EXHIBIT 1 

America Eats its Young: Arizona Communities Embrace use of Private Prison Employees in 

Drug Raids at Public Schools 

by Beau Hodai 

In Arizona an unsettling trend appears to be underway: the use of private prison employees in law 

enforcement operations. 

The state has graced headlines in recent years as the result of its cozy relationship with forprofit prison companies - for the role of the private prison industry in assisting in the dissemination of 

constitutionally-questionable immigration enforcement laws based on Arizona's controversial SB 1070, 

for a private prison escape that resulted in the death of an elderly couple and a nationwide manhunt, 

and for a failed attempt to privatize almost the entire state prison system. 

And now, recent events in the central Arizona town of Casa Grande show the hand of private 

prison corporations reaching into the classroom, assisting local law enforcement agencies in drug raids 

at public schools. 

Trick or Treat 

At 9 a.m. on the morning of October 31, 2012, students at Vista Grande High School in Casa Grande 

were settling in to their daily routine when something unusual occurred. 

Vista Grande High School Principal Tim Hamilton ordered the school - with a student 

population of 1,776 on "lock down," kicking off the first "drug sweep" in the school's four-year 

history. According to Hamilton, "lock down" is a state in which, "everybody is locked in the room they 

are in, and nobody leaves - nobody leaves the school, nobody comes into the school." 

"Everybody is locked in, and then they bring the dogs in, and they are teamed with an 

administrator and go in and out of classrooms. They go to a classroom and they have the kids come out 

and line up against a wall. The dog goes in and they close the door behind, and then the dog does its 

thing, and if it gets a hit, it sits on a bag and won't move." 

While such "drug sweeps" have become a routine matter in many of the nation's schools, along 

with the use of metal detectors and zero-tolerance policies, one feature of this raid was unusual. 

According to Casa Grande Police Department (CGPD) Public Information Officer Thomas Anderson, 

four "law enforcement" agencies took part in the operation: CGPD (which served as the lead agency 

and operation coordinator), the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Gila River Indian Community 

Police Department, and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). 

It is the involvement of CCA - a private, for-profit prison corporation - that causes this high 

school "drug sweep" to stand out; CCA is not, despite CGPD's evident opinion to the contrary, a law 

enforcement agency. 

"To invite for-profit prison guards to conduct law enforcement actions in a high school is 

perhaps the most direct expression of the 'schools-to-prison pipeline' I've ever seen," said Caroline 

Isaacs, program director of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker 

social justice organization that advocates for criminal justice reform. 

Welcome to Prison Town, U.S.A. 

CCA, the nation's largest for-profit prison/immigrant detention center operator, with more than 92,000 

prison and immigrant detention "beds" in 20 states and the District of Columbia, reported $1.7 billion 
396 

in gross revenue last year. This revenue is derived almost exclusively from taxpayer-funded 

government (county, state and federal) contracts for the warehousing of prisoners and immigrant 

detainees. 

CCA has a substantial presence in Casa Grande and throughout Arizona's Pinal County (Casa 

Grande is the largest town in the county). The corporation owns and operates a total of six 

correctional/detention facilities in Pinal County, distributed through the towns of Florence and Eloy. 

In 2009, the Central Arizona Regional Economic Development Foundation listed CCA as the 

largest non-governmental employer in Pinal County. To boot, CCA is a "Board Level" member of the 

Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a powerful trade/lobby organization, and is active in the 

Eloy, Florence and Casa Grande chambers of commerce. 

And in September 2012, CCA was awarded a contract with the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (ADC) to house 1,000 medium-security prisoners at the corporation's Red Rock 

Correctional Center in Eloy. 

This strong CCA presence, coupled with the location of two correctional facilities operated by 

GEO Group (the nation's second largest for-profit prison/immigrant detention center contractor) in the 

county, as well as two ADC-run prison complexes, makes Pinal County - which once cited mining and 

agriculture as its economic bedrock - a de facto prison industry community. 

Despite the obvious differences between CCA and actual law enforcement agencies, those 

involved in the Vista Grande High School drug sweep seem unable to differentiate between CCA 

employees and law enforcement officers. 

"CCA is like a skip and a hop away from us - as far as the one in Florence," said Anderson. 

"We work pretty closely with all surrounding agencies, whatever kind of law enforcement they are - be 

they police, or immigration and naturalization, or the prison systems. So, yeah, this seems pretty 

regular to me." 

Questions of Legality 

But they are not the same. Aside from the fact that CCA is a private corporation that derives its profits 

from the incarceration of human beings, the Arizona Administrative Code provides that, in order for 

any individual to engage in the duties of a "peace officer," that individual must obtain certification 

from the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board. 

And the Arizona Administrative Code is very clear on this point: "[A] person who is not 

certified by the Board or whose certified status is inactive shall not function as a peace officer or be 

assigned the duties of a peace officer by an agency .... " 

According to POST Executive Director Lyle Mann, POST provides two types of certification: 

standards and training certification for "peace officers," and standards and training certification for 

correctional officers. The Arizona Administrative Code mandates that ADC officers be POST certified. 

However, according to Mann, employees of private prison contractors are exempt from these standards 

and training requirements. As such, said Mann, no CCA employee is POST certified as either a 

"peace officer" or a correctional officer. 

It is important to note that the Arizona Administrative Code explicitly states that non-regular 

"peace officers" - secondary parties engaging in certain limited aspects of law enforcement under the 

command or supervision of regular peace officers - must also be POST certified. 

According to the Code, a "limited-authority peace officer" is defined as "a peace officer who is 

certified to perform the duties of a peace officer only in the presence and under the supervision of a 

full-authority peace officer." The Code goes on to state that duties which may be performed by a 

"limited-authority peace officer" in the presence of a "full-authority peace officer" include: 

"investigative activities performed to detect, prevent, or suppress crime, or to enforce criminal or traffic 

laws of the state, county, or municipality." 
397 

This definition seems to fit the description of what occurred at Vista Grande High School on the 

morning of October 31,2012 - with the exception that the CCA employees aiding CGPD "peace 

officers" are not POST certified. 

According to Anderson, CCA provided two canine units consisting of handlers and dogs to aid 

in the high school "drug sweep." 

As to the general role canine units play in school drug raids, Anderson stated that the dogs and 

their handlers are typically utilized to detect the presence of illicit materials in classrooms and school 

parking lots. 

The use of the CCA canine teams would seem to fall squarely under the Arizona Administrative 

Code description of duties performed by "limited-authority peace officers" - officers who may perform 

"investigative activities" for the purpose of detecting, preventing, or suppressing criminal activity, and 

who are only authorized to do so while in the presence of "full-authority peace officers," such as 

CGPD. Such "limited-authority peace officers" are required to be POST certified. 

According to Anderson, a similar "drug sweep" utilizing CCA canine units was conducted at 

Casa Grande's Union High School in 2011. He was unable to provide further details related to that 

event. 

CCA did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding their involvement in law 

enforcement operations at public schools in Pinal County. 

Conflict ofInterest: From the Cradle to the Cell 

According to Anderson, three students were arrested as a result of the October 31 Vista Grande raid: 

two female students, ages 15 and 17, as well as one 15-year-old male. He said the 15-year-old female 

was found in possession of .I 0 grams of marijuana; the l5-year-old male student was found in 

possession of .50 grams of marijuana; and the l7-year-old female was found in possession of 10 ounces 

of marijuana that was "individually packaged." 

Under Arizona law, individuals arrested for illicit activity/possession of illicit substances on or 

near school grounds may face "drug-free school zone" sentencing enhancements. Those convicted of 

drug offenses (including marijuana), and sentenced under "drug-free school zone" sentencing 

enhancements, lose the possibility of sentence suspension, parole or probation. The sentencing 

enhancement also adds a year to any prison term handed down by the court. 

While the 1,000 Arizona prison beds recently contracted to CCA have yet to come online, it is 

exactly this kind of low-risk, minimum- to medium-security drug offender that corporations such as 

CCA derive much of their profit from. 

Furthermore, according to Anderson, the Vista Grande High School marijuana arrests have 

sparked a broader, ongoing investigation. Given the fact that such high school raids may serve as the 

foundation for larger narcotics investigations which may net adult offenders, concerned citizens say 

that CCA's involvement in such raids constitutes a clear conflict of interest. 

"They're [CCAl not the criminal justice system. They are benefactors of the criminal justice 

system," said correctional specialist and prison reform advocate Carl Toersbijns. 

Toersbijns, now retired, served as a deputy warden of operations at ADC-operated Arizona State 

Prison (ASP) Eyeman, deputy warden of operations at ASP Safford, deputy warden of operations at the 

New Mexico Department of Corrections-operated Western New Mexico Correctional Facility (in 

Grants, New Mexico), and associate warden at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility (in Los 

Lunas, New Mexico). Collectively, Toersbijns' career in corrections has spanned over 25 years in both 

Arizona and New Mexico. Such work, he said, has entailed everything from details with prison canine 

units to prison gang units. 

"They [CCAl use the criminal justice system as a means of making income - for profit," added 

Toersbijns. "So, their interest in the criminal justice system is totally opposite of the police officer. The 
398 

police officer is public safety. The primary interest for CCA and associated entities is profit. So, there 

most definitely is a conflict of interest." 

Introducing the "War on Drugs" to the Classroom 

As some opponents of prison privatization attest, CCA embodies the worst pitfalls of public-private 

partnerships, in that the corporation has worked in the past to advance criminal justice legislation that 

has contributed to both a swell in U.S. prison/detention center populations and, consequently, CCA's 

bottom line. 

For example, CCA was active (both as a co-chair and member) in the American Legislative 

Exchange Council's (ALEC) Public Safety and Elections Task Force, formerly the ALEC Criminal 

Justice Task Force, through the 1990s to the end of 20 I O. 

ALEC is a pUblic-private legislative partnership whose membership is overwhelmingly 

comprised of Republican state lawmakers, over 300 of the nation's largest corporations and influential 

law/lobbying firms. ALEC's primary objective is to adopt and disseminate "model legislation," much 

of which is drafted entirely by its private sector members. 

ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force was instrumental, during the years of CCA's 

membership and leadership, in proliferating such tough-on-crime legislation as "three strikes," "truth in 

sentencing" and "mandatory minimum" sentencing laws. 

Largely as a result of such harsh sentencing laws advanced by ALEC, the U.S. experienced a 

boom in its prison and jail population - from just over 1.1 million people incarcerated in 1990 to nearly 

2.3 million in 2010. 

During the years of CCA's Criminal JusticelPublic Safety and Elections Task Force 

involvement, ALEC also advanced "model legislation" for greater law enforcement presence in public 

schools. ALEC's "Drug-Free Schools Act," for example, called for "enhanced apprehension, prevention 

and education efforts" in joint cooperation between law enforcement agencies and school districts. 

In April 2012, following widespread criticism and loss of corporate sponsorship due to such 

pieces of "model legislation" disseminated by the Public Safety and Elections Task Force as the "Stand 

Your Ground Act," "Voter ID Act" and "No More Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act," ALEC 

announced that it would disband the task force. 

And in the wake of reporting on CCA's involvement with ALEC and the spread of immigration 

laws based on Arizona's SB 1070, CCA told the Arizona Republic in September 2011 that the 

corporation left ALEC in 2010. 

Unfortunately, as the October 31 Vista Grande High School drug raid illustrates, the purported 

discontinuation of the ALEC task force, and CCA's exit from ALEC, came only after the damage of 

two decades of private prison industry influence has taken its toll. 

Thanks to Alex Friedmann, associate editor of Prison Legal News, for his contribution to this article. 

Center for Media and Democracy staff researchers Rebekah Wilce and Alex Oberley also contributed 

to this article. A longer version of this article was originally published on dbapress. com and 

www.prwatch.org. 
399 

Statement by Lisa 5. Jacobs 

Vice-Chair, Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission 

Chicago, Illinois 

December 12, 2012 

Dear Senator Durbin, 

I am writing as Vice-Chairperson of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission to thank you for your leadership in 

convening this hearing on the 50-called "School to Prison Pipeline" and for supporting strategies to keep young 

people in schools and out of the criminal justice system. As an attorney, I have worked for more than a decade to 

enhance our state's justice system and have seen great progress in improving the efficacy and fairness of the 

Illinois juvenile justice system. But a fundamental fact remains: pushing kids out of school and into the justice 

system unnecessarily is a deeply flawed approach. It produces negative outcomes for children, undermines the 

ability of the justice system to function effectively, wastes scarce resources and can actually increase risks to public 

safety. Simply put, kids belong in schools and communities, where they can learn, grow and become productive 

members of our communities. 

In Illinois and across the country, punitive "zero tolerancel! policies produce harsh and counter-productive 

sanctions for ordinary adolescent behavior that can be better addressed by teachers, administrators and families 

in the school setting. In other cases, these punitive approaches ignore serious underlying trauma, educational, 

mental health or other needs and cause irreparable harm to young people and families without any long-term 

benefits to public safety. Spending scarce dollars on punitive approaches which appear attractive in the short 

term not only fails to address the real needs of students, schools and teachers, but creates unnecessary obstacles 

to the kind of outcomes we want for young people. Criminal justice records can create insurmountable barriers to 

college, military service and employment and undermine long-term well-being for kids and communities across the 

nation. And lastly, relying on police to handle school discipline issues diverts much-needed resources from law 

enforcement efforts to prevent serious crime and protect public safety. 

The evidence is clear: pushing kids out of schools and into the justice system is a failed approach. It doesn't work 

for kids. It doesn't work for communities. And it doesn't work for taxpayers, wasting precious resources which 

could be invested in kids, teachers1 schools and communities. Instead} we need common~5en5e disciplinary 

approaches which empower teachers and administrators to deal effectively - and fairly - with disruptive behavior 

that would otherwise undermine the learning environment. We need to invest in school counselors and other 

community-based supportive services to bolster school safety, with the justice system as a last resort. And we 

need to redirect resources from ineffective punitive approaches which push young people into the justice system 

unnecessarily, to those strategies proven to produce positive outcomes for schools, young people and taxpayers. 

It is my hope that this hearing will be the first of many to bring together concerned educators, policy-makers, 

juvenile justice practitioners, young people and parents to work together to address the challenges our 

communities face and to realize the potential our young people possess. Thank you for your leadership and 

commitment to these critical issues. 

Very truly yours, 

Usa S. Jacobs 

Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission 
400 

The Judge David l. 

BAZELON CENTER 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

AmmLA!1eo 

l'.ufPenn,yh.ama bwSchnul 

Rhond<\R(}hn,()n·P,~a!e 

Optumt!enlth Bd1:\\'lor~l Solutions 

R(lben:AFlmt 

YaieLnwSd1t"-li 

W. AlienSch.]ltcr, MD 

ACldm]-{,,;!,!tal 

M,utIl1T{\khm 

W\bim1)::h,n, nc 

Mmam Ra:<'lon Knox 

1914~2CJ I 

TRl'STEES EMERITI 

Martha L. \1il)ow 

H~rmrd bw Schonl 

H. Rmherfc)rJ Turnbull 

Ik:adl Ctnt~l f", F.lmdy & Oi$,lrility 

PRESlDE:'\'T & CEO 

Ruher! Bern'tein,PhO 

for Mental Health law www,bazelon.org 

TESTIMONY OF THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER 

FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 

December 12, 2012 

The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law submits the 

following testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on "Ending 

the School-to-Prison Pipeline." The Bazelon Center thanks the Committee for 

the opportunity to participate in this hearing. 

The Bazelon Center's mission is to protect and advance the rights of 

adults and children who have mental disabilities. The Bazelon Center pursues a 

progressive mental health policy agenda, through litigation, legislative and 

regulatory advocacy, and research and analysis, to reform systems and 

programs to protect the rights of children and adults with mental disabilities to 

lead lives with dignity in the community. Among these initiatives, the Bazelon 

Center has developed innovative strategies to reshape how public school 

systems respond to children with behavior issues so that they avoid isolation, 

suspension, expulsion, and involuntary placements in juvenile correctional 

facilities, inferior residential schools, or other institutions. 

The Bazelon Center agrees with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 

that education, including the education of students with disabilities, is one of 

the most significant civil rights issues of our generation - a claim well 

supported by statistical data. Youth with disabilities are twice as likely to be 

suspended as their peers without disabilities, and among black students with 

disabilities the rate jumps to one in four. Students with disabilities are 

disproportionately affected by punitive school poliCing policies because they 

are more frequently disciplined for minor public order offences. They are 

disproportionately arrested - often for behaviors that are manifestations of 

their disability. Poor children of color are at greatest risk of this treatment. 

Students with mental health disabilities, or emotional disorders, are 

disproportionately pushed out and into the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Expert 

studies indicate that as many as five percent of all school-age children have a 

functional impairment that may interfere with learning due to an emotional 
401 

Baze/on Center testimony on the "Schoo/-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Page 2 

disorder. Most children who exhibit behavior problems that interfere with their education 

qualify for and are entitled to positive and effective interventions under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They are also often entitled to effective interventions under 

the Medicaid Act's Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) mandate, and to 

reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act to give them access to programs and services in the most integrated 

setting. 

Currently, however, schools identify only a little over 0.5 percent of children as having 

an "Emotional Disturbance" (the term used in IDEA for most emotional disorders) and a little 

under one percent of children as having "Other Health Impairments," largely Attention 

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Schools are therefore identifying just over one fourth of 

the students with serious emotional disorders that result in extreme functional impairments as 

needing special education services. In all likelihood, virtually all of these students have 

impairments that significantly affect their ability to learn (the basic standard for IDEA). This 

means that nearly three million potentially eligible students likely do not receive the 

educational supports and special services they need, and that are required under the IDEA, the 

ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. 

Instead .of supporting these students, all too often schools push them out. Schools in 

the United States suspend approximately 3.3 million students annually and expel more than 

100,000 - rates that have doubled since 1974. These rates have risen, in part due to adoption 

of "zero tolerance" policies, even as school violence generally has been stable or declining. In 

Massachusetts, for example, a newly enacted law permits school administrators to exclude 

children for up to 90 days - an entire semester - for school code violations that do not involve 

weapons, drugs, assaults on school personnel, felony charges or convictions. Students who are 

suspended or expelled lose valuable instructional time, fall further behind, and more likely to 

be retained in grade. Many will eventually drop out. 

Students with emotional disorders are far more likely to be suspended or expelled. 

Three quarters of students with emotional disturbance have been suspended or expelled at 

least once by the time they reach high school. Although students with emotional disturbance 

make up less than 5 percent of all special education students, they account for 35 percent of 

special education students who are subjected to disciplinary action. 

Moreover, schools now use suspension and expUlsion for very minor infractions by 

students with mental health disorders. 
402 

Baze/on Center testimony on the "Schoo/-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Page 3 

• For example, an 11-year-old girl was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail for bringing 

a plastic butter knife to school. 

A high school junior who shot a paper clip with a rubber band at a classmate, missed, 

and broke the skin of a cafeteria worker was expelled, taken to jail, charged with 

misdemeanor battery and then advised by school officials to drop out. 

Many schools shift responsibility for children with emotional disorders onto police and 

juvenile courts. More than a third of youths in juvenile corrections have a disability and need 

special education. Almost half are students with emotional disturbance. More than four times 

as many youths who have emotional disturbance and need special education are in juvenile 

facilities than in schools. 

Judges who see these students in their courtrooms, however, increasingly reject these 

school "push out" practices, calling for these children's education, not punishment. 

Unsurprisingly, after schools push out students with emotional disorders repeatedly and 

for long periods of time, these students have the highest drop-out rate of all groups of 

students. Ten percent of all students drop out before completing high school, but fully 44 

percent of students with emotional disturbance drop out. Two thirds of youth in custody, many 

with serious emotional disorders, drop out after their release. Almost three fourths of school 

dropouts are arrested within the first few years of leaving school. Only one third are employed. 

Another form of "push out" for students with emotional disorders is to remove them 

from the regular classroom and from their own neighborhood school. Children with serious 

emotional disorders are often placed in segregated settings: special classrooms, alternative 

schools for students with disciplinary problems (who are often predominantly students with 

disabilities), special schools, or residential placements. Over 13 percent of students with 

emotional disturbance are in completely separate schools for students with disabilities only, 

compared with three percent of all students with disabilities. 

Research confirms that students with disabilities benefit from being included in regular 

classrooms with their non-disabled peers. Separate schools or programs are not more 

effective. But students with emotional disturbance spend only about a third of their time, on 

average, in a regular classroom with other non-disabled students. 

Both "traditional" public schools and newer public charter schools too often push out 

students with disabilities. In May 2011 the Bazelon Center filed a disability discrimination 

complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division against the District of 
403 

Baze/on Center testimony on the "Schoo/-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Page4 

Columbia. District charter schools often require parents to disclose detailed information that 

reveals a student's disability, which the school then uses to screen out applicants with serious 

disabilities. Charter school officials frequently tell parents that the school cannot or will not 

meet a student's special education needs, despite legal obligations to meet those needs. 

District charters that do admit students with disabilities often then warehouse those students 

in restrictive and costly private schools at taxpayer expense. 

As a result of the unlawful practices described in the Bazelon Center's complaint, District 

charter schools have served a disproportionately low number of students with disabilities 

compared with the District's traditional school district, the District of Columbia Public Schools 

(DCPS). Within the District's charter school student population, students with the most 

significant disabilities are concentrated in just two highly segregated charter schools. 

If we are to keep these students out of the "School-to-Prison Pipeline" - if America's 

schools are going to keep these students in school, learning, and achieving - we need a 

thoughtful, comprehensive, and systematic strategy for our schools to meet the needs of 

children with serious mental health disorders. These students must get the excellent education 

they deserve, guided by ambitious goals for their academic achievement and personal growth. 

They should be educated in classrooms with their non-disabled peers and participate fully in 

school life. They should receive needed behavioral and academic interventions regardless of 

whether they have been determined eligible for services under the IDEA. 

Approaches with proven effectiveness exist and should be implemented. Unfortunately, 

such initiatives are scattered haphazardly. The problems - academic failure, overuse of 

suspension and expulsion, dropout, and juvenile and criminal justice involvement - are related, 

but the solutions are never linked. 

We know what works to keep students with significant emotional disorders in school 

and learning. These students need: 

• Timely, thorough assessments of their strengths and needs, and effective planning 

based on such assessments. Assessments of behaviors should be based on data, and 

should identify specific target behaviors, the triggers for those behaviors, and the 

consequences of the behaviors. Individual Education Program (IEP) plans and behavior 

plans should identify the interventions, based on the stUdent's strengths and interests, 

that school staff will employ to promote positive behavior and prevent or de-escalate 

disruptive behaviors. They should identify how the school will assist the student and 

family with administration of medication. The plan should also identify strategies for 
404 

Baze/on Center testimony on the "School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Page 5 

when the student has a crisis at school, so that school staff can respond appropriately 

and productively; 

• Readily available and effective mental health interventions delivered by teachers, 

paraprofessionals, and other staff in classrooms and other parts of the school; by school 

medical personnel in school health clinics; or through school psychologists or social 

workers. The array of possible interventions should indude: identifying adults at the 

school with whom the student may develop a mentoring relationship; teaching social 

skills or anger management techniques in small groups (and helping students practice 

those skills and techniques in classes or in extracurricular activities); group or individual 

counseling, including counseling on understanding and coping with trauma or other 

student concerns; and, for adolescents, work experiences, meaningful career 

exploration, and other planning and skill building for transition to adult life; 

• Engaging, individ ualized instructional strategies that helps students who may be behind 

their grade-level peers catch up. Many students may need additional instructional time 

during the day to work on basic academic skills. Other students may need 

accommodations to lessons or tests, including alternative ways to demonstrate mastery 

of the curriculum; 

• Engagement with families, and other natural supports forthe student, to make use of 

their knowledge of the student in planning, and to ensure that what happens at home is 

consistent with the school's plan. The family should be a principal partner with the 

school as the school plans for and serves the student; the school should communicate 

frequently with the family about what is happening at school and at home (but should 

not continually call the student's parents to come pick up the student because of 

disruptive behavior); 

• Someone at school to collaborate and coordinate with community providers that also 

serve these children. Non-school services and activities such as mentoring, tutoring,or 

summer employment can help advance the school's plan for the student -although the 

plan may need to adjust to take advantage of these opportunities. The school should 

also coordinate with outside medical providers, including by collecting data about 

behavior and, with the parent's consent, sharing that information with the doctor, to 

help determine the most effective medication regimen; 
405 

Bazelon Center testimony on the "School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Page 6 

A school climate conducive to learning. An approach such as positive behavior 

interventions and supports (PBIS) can reduce discipline problems; this approach offers 

simple strategies, including effective early interventions, for helping many children with 

mental health problems. A robust school wide PBIS program, including collection and 

analysis of trends in behavior data, can also help the school identify students who need 

more intensive interventions; 

Freedom from cruel and ineffective practices such as bullying and seclusion and 

restraint; and 

• To be considered full participants in the school community and not be encouraged to 

drop out, subjected to harsh discipline, or referred to the police for minor behavioral 

lapses. Schools should reform their disciplinary policies to give staff the discretion to 

modify punishments based on individual student circumstances, including whether the 

student needs significant behavioral interventions. School disciplinary policies must also 

be implemented consistent with the procedural protections of the IDEA. 

Not just schools need to change. Government at all levels, including other local and 

state agencies that serve children, also need to step up. This includes community mental health 

agencies and state and local mental health authorities, so that children have increased access 

to mental health services and teachers have support. These efforts can include: 

• Consultation and education from mental health providers for general education 

teachers on how to recognize and work with students with emotional disorders; 

• Services of local mental health agency personnel placed in the school building; and 

• Collaboration between school and local mental health agencies around the intensive 

services needed by the small subset of children who have the most serious disorders. 

The Bazelon Center welcomes the interest of the Committee in the "School-to-Prison 

Pipeline," and hopes this focus will result in statutory and regulatory changes that will assist 

schools and their community partners in successfully meeting these challenges in the future. 

Please feel free to contact Lewis Bossing, Senior Staff Attorney, by email at lewisb@bazelon.org 

or by phone at (202) 467-5730 x307 with any questions about this testimony. 
406 

Name: Judge Patricia Koch ofthe 9th Judicial District Court, located in Alexandria, 

Rapides Parish, Louisiana 

I have submitted infonnation to Judge Steve Teske concerning the success of programs within 

the public schools in Rapides Parish. I hope that he is able to share those items during his 

testimony. I write to give more background to my interest and role in this issue. My connection 

to schools began first as a PTA president of my oldest child's elementary school in 2000. (I am a 

parent to 3 boys - ages 17, 13 & II) As a result of that involvement, I later pursued election to 

bench for the parish and with the support of many teachers, parents and friends I was elected in 

2005. For six years I served as the local juvenile judge and further explored ways that children 

could remain in school and not be placed in any out-of-school or out-of-home placements. Our 

parish was selected as a one of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundations Models/or 

Change sites. I currently serve on the adult criminal bench and continue to strive to increase 

educational possibilities for defendants and victims. 

Rapides Parish was blessed to have a forward thinking superintendent who immediately 

recognized the need for School Resource Officers to not chose arrest over resolution of in-school 

issues. As a result of that oversight, Rapides Parish, whose student population is 25,000 in 52 

schools spread throughout the parish, rarely sees an on-campus arrest except for the most severe 

public safety crimes. All other matters, especially those that are ''tyPical teenage behaviors" are 

handled within the school setting. Even students who have experimented with illegal substances 

are offered counseling services so that they can remain or return to their home school settings in 

a short period of time. The commitment of the superintendent, the school resource officer and 

the courts have shown that keeping kids in school benefits not only the child but the community. 

Rapides Parish has experienced higher graduation rates than the state's average. 

This all began in 2006 when the superintendent was approached by a local ministerial alliance as 

well as myself as the newly elected judge. Exploration of the data indicated that too many 

minority youth were being pushed out, especially those who were identified as special ed. A 

partnership was created between the ministerial alliance that they would offer mentors within the 

schools for those at-risk youth, the parish school board invested not only financial support but 

also commitment to the positive behavior support program (PSIS) along with the support of the 

school resource officers that students would be offered alternatives to arrest when faced with 

typical teenage behavior (i.e. school fights, petty theft, alcohol, marijuana) and in addition the 

special education department developed a tiered behavioral approach based upon the PBIS to 

reduce the number of expulsions of special ed students. The data for the special ed students 

shows that expulsion went from in excess of 350 down to less than 30 within a 3 year period. 

They have done an amazing job not only with special ed students but regular ed as well since the 

behavioral approach is not just for special education students. As you can see zero tolerance is 

not the nonn for the schools in the parish any longer EXCEPT if a danger to public safety is 

present. 

So what can be done from the federal level- encourage the elimination of zero tolerance. 

Provide education and training opportunities for schools to explore alternatives within their 

schools. Offer technical assistance to schools for the purposes of exploring the data that is 

available. (by exploring the data we found that within schools that some just did a better job 
407 

than others which led to asking why - the result was the identification of 

personnel/skills/techniques that could reduce the level of anxiety in students and allowed for 

behavioral changes in a student population) 

It is truly my belief that it is not always about the financial support but instead the opportunity to 

explore what does work and how to replicate that effort. Old dogs can be taught new tricks 

when the data supports that effort. 
408 

= LEGAL AID 

JUSTICE CENTER 

December 10, 2012 

Senator Dick Durbin, Chairman 

Angela Ciotti 

Legal D(re,'tor. JustChildrcn 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

RE: Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Senator Durbin and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comment for the record in advance of your 

hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline." 

JustChildren is a program of the Legal Aid Justice Center that provides free legal services to 

low-income children in the areas of education, juvenile justice, and foster care. Through 

community organizing, policy advocacy, and impact litigation, JustChildren also works to 

improve the systems that serve the Commonwealth's most vulnerable children. 

As the largest children's law program in Virginia, every year JustChildren represents countless 

youth who have been suspended, expelled, or placed in inferior educational settings as a result of 

their behavior. We also provide technical assistance to legal aid and pro bono counsel in similar 

cases across the Commonwealth. We see firsthand the devastating effect school exclusion has 

on young people, families, and communities. 

Last year, J ustChildren published a report, Educate Every Child: Promoting Positive Solution to 

School Discipline in Virginia, which found that ovcr 90,500 individual students were suspended 

or expelled from a Virginia school in 2010-2011, many of them more than once. Most 

suspensions were for relatively minor misbehavior, such as disorderly conduct, minor 

insubordination, or misuse of electronics. The Report's other findings include: 

• In 2010-11, Virginia schools administered over 159,000 suspensions and expulsions. 

This is a rate of 884 suspensions or expUlsions per school day. 

Over 27,700 short-term suspensions were issued to elementary school students. 

• Virginia's students with disabilities and students of color disproportionately suffer the 

effects of harsh discipline policies. In 2010-11, Virginia'S students with disabilities 

received short-term suspensions at a rate that was 2.4 times as high as the rate for nondisabled students. In 2009-1 0, 16% of black students had received at least one 

suspension or expUlsion, compared with 5% of white students. 

In Virginia, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (formerly "Effective 

School wide Discipline") has significantly reduced office disciplinary referrals, in-school 

suspensions, and out-of-school suspensions. Most significantly, it has reduced out-of.. 

school suspensions by 75% for general education students and 85.6% for special 

1000 Prc.'Itan Avenue, Suite A, Charlottesville, VA 22903 ! www.justke4I111.org 

Phone: 434-977-05531 Fax: 434-977-0558 I Ton-free 800-763-7323jemail: 8ngela@justice4alLorg 
409 

education students. PBIS has also saved 9.2 hours of administrative time and 4.6 hours 

of instructional time weekly. Despite its impressive results, ESD is in only 12% of 

Virginia's 1,838 schools. 

School exclusion hurts everyone. Poor behavioral climates in schools are associated with low 

student achievement, high dropout rates, increased contact with the juvenile justice system, and 

higher teacher turnover. Most obviously, students who miss school often return to school with 

the same problem behaviors and falI behind academically. School discipline should be about 

teaching self-control, right from wrong, how to follow the rules, and that others have rights and 

feelings. School discipline should not be a short-term solution that ultimately does more hann 

than good. 

We want safe, high quality schools that care about our children and give them the opportunity to 

succeed. By putting common sense and fair discipline policies in place, we could save taxpayer 

dollars and send young people to a college or career, not prison. 

Policymakers can put our students on the track to success by: 

Investing in Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a proven program for 

improving school climate, reducing disciplinary referrals, and decreasing the use of outof-school suspensions - all while increasing instructional time; 

Rolling back failed zero tolerance legislation and restoring discretion to school-based 

officials for making decisions about expulsion and reporting school-based misdemeanors 

to law enforcement; 

• Developing and implementing plans to reduce discipline disparities based on race and 

disability; and 

• Promoting strategies that increase learning time for everyone and emphasize more 

effective alternatives to suspending students out of school. 

We know that it is possible to reduce the cost to society ofhigh dropout rates, crime, and teacher 

attrition rates by adopting more effective approaches to managing challenging behavior in 

school. We also know that by breaking the school-to-prison pipeline, we will have a better 

opportunity to adequately educate and prepare all students to succeed in our communities. 

We thank Senator Durbin for calling attention to this important matter, and look forward to 

working with you to improve school climate for our students, teachers, and communities across 

the country. 
410 

-- ----------------------~-- ---~~-------------1 

Educate Every Child 

State of the Commonwealth: 

• In 2010-11, more than 90.500 Virginia students were suspended or expelled, many ofthem 

more than once. 

• In 2010-11, Virginia schools issued 159,117 suspensions or expulsions: 

• 708 expulsions 

• 5,761 long-tenn suspensions 

• 152,648 short-tenn suspensions 

• Suspension rates vary: In 2006-07, Virginia high schools suspended 2.9'1.. to 58°!.. oftheir 

student body at least once. 

Who gets suspended? 

• Students of all ages. In 2010-11, over 27,700 short-tenn suspensions were issued to 

elementary school students. 

• Stndents with disabilities. In 2010-11, suspension risk for Virginia's students with 

disabilities was 2.4 times higher than for non-disabled students. 

• Stndents of color. In 2010-11, suspension risk for black students was almost 4 times the risk 

for white students. In 2006-07, the average Virginia high school suspended 1 in 4 of its 

black students. 

Why are students suspended? 

• In 2009-10, approx. 75% of all short-tenn suspensions were for minor acts of misconduct, 

such as defiance/refuses request/disrespect/walking away, classroom/campus disruption, 

confrontation w/ no injury (not including fighting), electronic devices/cellular phones, or 

"other inappropriate behavior." 

• In 2009-10, at least 1,544 students were suspended for more thalt 10 days for behavior that 

did not involve weapons, drugs, or injury or threat to another person. 

Virginia can raise student achievement and prevent juvenile 

delinquency by replacing school exclusion with effective 

approaches to improving student behavior. 

This flyer is produced by the JustChildren program of the Legal Aid Justice Center, 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A, Charionesvllle, VA 22903. 

Angela Ciolfi is the ottorney responsible for this material, gngelg@justice4olLorg (434) 977w0553 )t 110. 
411 

Educate Every Child i 

SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION HURTS EVERYONE: 

1. Excluding students from school does not improve their behavior. There is little or no 

evidence that suspension improves student behavior in either the short or long-term. 

2. Today's sus[lendt'd and expelled youth are more likely to become tomorrow's dropouts. 

The University of Virginia's Curry School of Education found that Virginia high schools that use 

suspension most frequently tend to have high dropout rates, even after controlling for student 

demographics and attitudes. The Virginia Department of Education has reported that students 

who repeated grades, attended multiple schools, or were frequently absent were more likely to 

drop out of school. 

3. Poor school climate leads to lower student achicnment and increased teacher turnowr. 

Research indicates that high snspension rates are related to lower student achievement scores, 

even after controlling for race and poverty. Many studies have found that teacher turnover is 

related to a school's behavioral climate. 

4. Harsh penalties for minor misbehavior do not make communities safer. Failure to attend 

school is linked to delinquent behavior, including substance abuse, gang involvement, and 

daytime crime. 

What can we do to maintain safe and orderly schools? 

• Provide professional development to promote effective classroom management practices, which 

are linked with improved learning and behavior. 

• Expand Virginia's Effectiw Schoolwide Discipline (ESD) program. From 2007 to 2011, ESD: 

• Reduced Office Disciplinary Referrals by 51 % for SWD and 29% for non-SWD 

• Reduced In School Suspension by 65% for SWD and 45% for non-SWD 

• Reduced Out of School Suspension by 86% for SWD and 75% for non-SWD 

• Saved 9.2 hours of administrative time per week 

• Saved 4.6 hours of instructional time per week 

But onl~' 12%, of Virginia', 1.838 schools are using ESD. 

• Promote use of evidence-based responses to misbehavior, including restorative practices, peer 

mediation, individual counseling, threat assessment, and imposing creative consequences that 

minimize loss of instruction and unsupervised time at home. 

• Recognize in the Standards of Quality the instructional value of support services and programs 

provided inside and outside the classroom to students whose academic, behavioral, and emotional 

challenges prevent them from accessing the curriculum successfully. 

This flyer is produced by the JustChlldren program of the Legal Aid Justice Center, 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A, Charlottesville, VA 22903. 

Angelo Ciolfi is the attorney responsible for this material, angelo@jusfice4oll.org (4301) 977·0553 j( 110, 
412 

FAMILIES UNLOCKING FUTURES 

December 5, 2012 

Senator Dick Durbin 

Room 226 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline Congressional Testimony 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The following testimony is submitted on behalf of Justice for Families 04F), a national 

alliance of local organizations working to end the nation's youth incarceration epidemic. In 

furtherance of its national report, Families Unlocking Futures: Solutions to the Crisis in 

Juvenile justice, Justice for Families, its twelve local partners, and its research partner, the 

DataCenter, surveyed more than 1,000 parents and family members of system-involved 

youth from 20 cities spread across nine states and conducted 24 focus groups of 152 youth, 

parents, and family members from twelve cities across nine states, among other research. 

In focus groups and surveys, families described how the rapid growth of the prison system, 

'zero-tolerance' school discipline policies, and aggressive police tactics coupled with the 

decline of social services and public education have wreaked havoc on their predominantly 

low-income communities of color. In this context, rather than being a deterrent, school 

disciplinary systems and juvenile justice systems have functioned as a principal feeder into 

our nation's vast prison system. 

The parents and families of court-involved and incarcerated youth love their children and 

are hardworking individuals with deep ties to, and concern for, their communities. Yet, 

more often than not, "tough-on-crime" rhetoric and 

Justice for Families 

900 Alice St. Suite 400 

Oakland, CA 94607 

www.justice4families.org 
413 

uninformed stereotypes about youth and their families have governed the policies of 

schools and juvenile justice systems. In Families Unlocking Futures: Solutions to the Crisis in 

Juvenile Justice, families challenge those misperceptions. J4F was founded and is run by 

parents and families who have experienced "the system" directly with our own children, 

and who are taking the lead to change it. The following reflects a brief summary of the 

findings of the Families Unlocking Futures Report The full report is available at 

www.justice4families.org. 

FAMILIES UNLOCING FUTURES SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

The Present: The Problem 

Nearly one in three families surveyed reported that their child's first arrest took 

place at school. 

Ninety-one percent of family respondents said that courts should involve families 

more in decisions on what happens to a child found delinquent/guilty. 

• Yet, more than eight in ten family members surveyed reported that they were never 

asked by a judge what should happen to their child. Once cases were called, families 

described court hearings as proceeding quickly with no time to understand what 

was going on or provide input. 

• Just 18 percent of families reported that professionals in the youth justice system 

Gudges, probation officers, public defenders, facility staff, and others) were either 

"helpful" or "very helpful" during the court process. 

Eighty-six percent of family members surveyed said they would like to be more 

involved in their children's treatment while they were confined in a youth prison or 

other residential placement. 

• Three out of four survey participants reported facing serious impediments to 

visiting their children and over half said that it was difficult to contact staff at the 

facility to ask how their child was doing, or get information about their child's 

progress and/or safety. 

Only 32 percent of parents and families surveyed reported discussing release plans 

with juvenile justice system personnel prior to their child's release. 

Sixty-nine percent of families surveyed said it was either "difficult" or "very difficult" 

to get their child back in school post-release. 

• Though measures of recidivism vary across states, roughly 70-80 percent of youth 

released from youth prisons are rearrested in two to three years. 

Justice for Families 

900 Alice St. Suite 400 

Oakland, CA 94607 

www.justice4families.org 2 
414 

The costs associated with a young person's involvement in the justice system weigh heavily 

on families of modest means. 

More than half of family members who took part in the Justice for Families survey 

reported that their households live on less than $25,000 per year. 

One in three families said they have had to choose between paying for basic 

necessities like food and making court related payments. 

One in five families reported having to take out a loan to make court related 

payments. 

Two out of three parents surveyed reported that they have had to take time off from 

work without pay to support their family member as a result of their involvement 

with the system. 

More than one in three families indicated that the cost of phone calls was 

prohibitive, and kept them from having contact with their loved one. 

The Future: Family-Driven Solutions 

Families surveyed indicated ways youth justice system officials might be more responsive 

to families during the court process and while youth are in youth or adult prisons: 

• < Give families more timely notification of court dates (87 percent); 

Hold court appearances when it is easier for families to attend hearings (85 

percent); 

Support families' transportation to court (84 percent) and residential placements 

(81 percent); 

Discontinue taking away visits for misconduct in the facility (76 percent); 

Eliminate burdensome fees and fines that hurt working families 

Maintain a staffed hotline or call center for families who have questions about 

visitation (92 percent); 

Notify families of expected release dates to allow them sufficient time to prepare (93 

percent); 

Locate facilities/programs closer to family residences (91 percent); 

Have more visitation opportunities (91 percent) and fewer limits on who can visit 

(83 percent). 

In addition to ending practices that exclude families, youth justice systems should 

proactively create opportunities for families to participate in the redesign of these systems. 

Justice for Families 

900 Alice St. Suite 400 

Oakland, CA 94607 

www.justice4families.org 3 
415 

Schools and youth justice systems should work to ensure that parents and families 

playa central role in all decisions that impact their children. 

Schools and youth justice systems should work with community-based 

organizations to provide peer support to families. 

• Across the country, school discipline and youth justice policy needs to be thoroughly 

reexamined and families must be involved. An overwhelming 92 percent of families 

surveyed stated that families should be engaged in local, state, and federal policy 

discussions regarding how juvenile justice systems work and the kinds of programs 

that are made available. Yet, just 27 percent reported they had ever been part of 

such discussions. 

When asked how judges could assign better options for youth, surveyed families pointed to 

the need for 

• job opportunities (91 percent) 

educational opportunities (86 percent) 

mentors hip opportunities (84 percent) 

mental health programs (77 percent) 

community-based services that keep kids in the home (75 percent). 

In addition to the recommendations above, f4F supports the recommendations outlined in 

the Dignity in Schools letter. 

A rethinking of school discipline and youth justice systems based on the recognition of the 

deep strengths and reconciliatory values held by communities is desperately needed. 

Nearly half of families J4F surveyed have either personally survived a crime or have a 

family member who has. Nevertheless, surveyed families who have a crime survivor in 

their family were actually more likely to support alternatives to incarceration and 

detention. Families understand the need for community safety but also see the way youth 

are treated in school discipline and juvenile justice systems as part of the problem. 

In these systems, when critical decisions are being made about how a young person is 

treated, families are outright excluded, disregarded, or not provided the information and 

tools necessary to actively participate in proceedings dominated by legalese and jargon. 

Most of the youth at-risk of becoming engaged in the school-to-prison pipeline come from 

families that face extreme financial vulnerability. While these families struggle to meet 

basic needs, they also find it increasingly difficult to access and afford positive recreational 

and educational opportunities for their children. If they have the misfortune of 

Justice for Families 

900 Alice St. Suite 400 

Oakland, CA 94607 

www.justice4families.org 4 
416 

encountering school disciplinary and juvenile justice systems, they'll face exclusionary 

policies that: (1) create and deepen economic instability; (2) discriminate against families 

that deviate from the nuclear family norm; and (3) reinforce the incorrect assumption that 

their families are apathetic or worse, that they are part of the problem. 

Meanwhile, a vast research base shows that: (1) zero tolerance policies do not enhance 

school safety (2) locking children up in adult and adult-like prisons and jails puts them at 

grave risk, increases their chances of being violently abused and locked up again, and 

ultimately decreases the safety of communities; (3) families are crucial to youth success; 

and (4) family-centered youth programs work. Yet these solutions are too often ignored 

because families do not have a seat at the table and are too often assumed to be the 

problem. 

The recommendations outlined above offer a path toward building youth and family 

leadership into the design of school discipline and youth justice systems. Ultimately, much 

of the vast trove of resources currently geared toward faiiing 'zero-tolerance' policy 

implementation in schools and in incarceration should be re-directed toward investment in 

social goods and opportunities within communities. Through justice reinvestment, tapping 

into the resiliency of communities harmed by decades of failed tough-on-crime policies, we 

can end the school-to-prison pipeline and enhance genuine public safety. 

For citations, J4F's full suite of policy recommendations and descriptions of promiSing 

justice reinvestment approaches, please download Families Unlocking Futures available at 

www.iustice4families.org. 

With Appreciation, 

lSI GRACE BAUER ZACHARY NORRIS 

Grace Bauer and Zachary Norris 

Co-Directors, Justice for Families 

Justice for Families 

900 Alice St. Suite 400 

Oakland, CA 94607 

www.justice4families.org 5 
417 

Written Testimony of Cheryl Kreager 

Director Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota 

United States Senate Sub-Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and 

Human Rights 

Committee on the Judiciary 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Washington, D.C. 

Thank you Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and distinguished members of 

the Committee for the opportunity to discuss the school-to-prison pipeline and the 

positive work in Minnesota to address this important issue. 

I am submitting this testimony on behalf of our organization, the Juvenile Justice 

Coalition of Minnesota (JJC), a coalition of key stakeholders involved in Minnesota's 

juvenile justice system. A 30 member Steering Committee with representation from 

Minnesota State agencies, professional associations, advocates and key community 

voices guides our efforts. Over 3,300 system professionals connect with our 

organization through our monthly newsletter, training events, crossover youth practice 

model project and statewide work groups. 

Whether a young person is struggling with stressful life circumstances, mental health 

issues, drug or alcohol use, school challenges or engaging in dangerous and 

unacceptable behavior, they deserve a chance to become a successful adult. We 

advocate for a system we would want for our own family members. Our goals are to 

create a model juvenile justice system where only those youth who pose a high risk to 

public safety enter the formal court system and the vast majorities are served in their 

communities, treated as typical adolescents or youth in need of services, and not 

criminals. 

Research indicates students' time in class, present and participating, is the single best 

predictor of student achievement (Skiba and Sprague, 2008). However, school 

participation can be negatively impacted by school disciplinary policies and direct 

referrals from schools to the juvenile justice system for youth behaviors. These policies 

disproportionately impact youth of color and directly contribute to the large 

achievement gaps we see. 

MINNESOTA DATA 

The state of Minnesota is challenged by disproportionate minority representation in 

suspensions and expulsions as well as disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile 

justice system. The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) 2010 report on 

suspensions and expUlsions found the following: 
418 

• Black, Hispanic and American Indian students are overrepresented in 

suspensions and expulsions compared to White youth. 

• Mrican American students are 5.6 times more likely to be involved in a Discipline 

Incident Reporting System (DIRS) incident, 5.9 times more likely to be 

suspended, and 3.8 times more likely to be expelled than White students. 

• Hispanic students are 2.2 times more likely to be involved in a DIRS incident, 2.5 

times more likely to be suspended and 2.5 times more likely to be expelled than 

White students. 

• American Indian students are 3.9 times more likely to be involved in a DIRS 

incident, 4.1 times more likely to be suspended and 6.2 times more likely to be 

expelled than White students. (Disproportionate Minority Representation in 

Suspension and Expulsion in Minnesota Public Schools 

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/EdExc/SchSaf/SchClimate/index.html.) 

Overview of Disciplinary Incidents and Actions in Minnesota Public Schools 

2010-2011 2011-2012 

Reported incidents 62.147 60,036 

Actions resulting in and out-of-school suspension 49,414 49,366 

for at least one day or more 

Actions resulting in an expulsion/exclusion 265 238 

Students removed for one day or more :W,!)09 ~0,046 

School days missed 126,791 123,997 

Referrals to Law Enforcement 

2010-2011 2011-2012 

School disciplinary actions referred to law 8,941 7-492 

enforcement 

For behaviors such as disruptive/disorderly 44.6% 26% 

conduct/insubordination and fighting 

For behaviors such as weapons, bomb threats, 13.1% 31.8% 

illegal drugs and assault. 

In 2009-10, MDE conducted workshops and focus groups around the state regarding 

disproportionate minority representation in suspensions and expulsions to identify 

strategies the agency could enact to help districts address disproportionality in 

discipline. The report and recommendations can be found at: 

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/EdExc/SchSaf/SchClimate/index.html. The impact 

of school staff's cultural competency or lack thereof was raised in this report and that 

issue is imbedded in programming at MDE. Health disparities also impacts student 

ability to stay in school. 

2 
419 

CHALLENGES 

Impact of Mental Health 

Nearly 70% of youth in Minnesota's juvenile justice system have one or more diagnoses 

for mental illness, making this a critical issue in Minnesota. In 2007 the Minnesota 

Department of Corrections, in partnership with state and local agencies, established the 

Juvenile Justice and Mental Health Initiative to improve the outcomes for youth in the 

justice system with mental illness or co-occurring disorders. The group consensus was 

mental illness plays a huge part in why young people end up in the juvenile justice 

system and the juvenile justice system is not an appropriate system to serve as the last 

resort for mental health care. Some students are diverted from mental health services to 

the justice system because oflack of resources to pay for such services. 

Data Limitations 

There is missing data that would provide a more dynamic portrait of conditions in 

Minnesota. For instance, there are no required reporting procedures to any state agency 

for the following: 

• What happens after the school referral to law enforcement? 

• How are decision made regarding the youth's placement? 

• Who are the youth under corrections supervision but not in a facility (i.e. 

Probation)? 

• What happens to youth while in detention? 

Collateral Consequences 

A juvenile record can severely impact a youth's future. The trend of increasing barriers 

for people with criminal records is now impacting individuals with juvenile records, 

sometimes with the exact same result as those with adult convictions. For example, the 

Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) accesses private juvenile delinquency 

records for background studies for professional positions having any contact with 

children or vulnerable adults. Some juveniles may even be disqualified for life from 

many areas of employment, including foster care and adoption, based upon conduct as a 

juvenile that may not even result in a delinquency adjudication or finding of guilt. A 

juvenile's record may also limit acceptance into the U.S. military and higher education 

institutions, some housing opportunities and private employment, all potential barriers 

to transitioning successfully into adulthood. 

Negative Impact on Youth and Families 

For youth and their families, the experience in the juvenile justice system can be 

extremely frustrating, unhelpful and harmful to their child's present and future. Below 

are excerpts from a letter submitted by a parent of a youth describing their experience. 

We have attempted to take a problem-solving approach from the beginning, but 

have discovered that there are gaps in the school, mental health andjuvenile 

justice service system that don't address the needs of families and troubled 

youth. We continue to criminalize normal adolescent behavior or behavior that 

should be dealt with informally, outside oftheformaljuvenilejustice system 

and we pay a huge price as a society. We know these systems can do better 

3 
420 

and the solutions are already out there. We just need to find a way to 

implement them in our community. 

We mistakenly believed that L.E.s record would be extinguished or sealed when 

he turned 18. Unfortunately, we've had to learn the hard way that any charge 

against a child, misdemeanor or felony, is serious. We didn't realize that we 

needed to work to get infront of these chargesfrom the beginning and that a 

juvenile record can be long lasting and will have a significant impact on his 

ability to go to college,find employment, join the military, rent an apartment 

or get a credit card. Ajuvenile record may also preclude an adultfrom 

working in the health care field, educationalfield or foster care. 

We have been inadvertently tasked with trying to coordinate shared 

information and connection between the multiple interdependent systems, 

agencies and professionals that have been in and out of our life. Because of this, 

so much of our time and energy has been spent writing letters, appealing 

insurance decisions, setting up school meetings, attending court hearings, 

meeting with individuals from corrections, treatment professionals, physicians, 

school etc. that L.Eo's services have been extremelyfragmented and inconsistent 

and a multi-disciplinary plan still has never occurred despite our best efforts. 

The time it takes to obtain all the information needed often leads to 

unnecessary referrals, duplicate services, inaccurate information, and 

service delays. It is the child who suffers the consequences of this highly 

inefficient system of information sharing 

L.E. is a work in progress and not seeing his disorder as a true disability 

dismisses the problems, and instead, blames himfor not taking control of them. 

Treatmentfor Oppositional Defiant Disorder is usually a long-term 

commitment. It may take a year or more of treatment to see any noticeable 

improvement. 

We know we don't have control over L.E.'s choices or the outcome of his life but 

we do have a responsibility to guide him to a better place and the school, 

juvenile justice and mental health system has a responsibility to ensure that 

vulnerable kids are provided with protection and services they need to become 

happy, healthy and productive adults. 

The order states that lesser consequences were not successful in restoring law 

abiding behavior however, due to the gaps in services we have not had an 

effective comprehensive treatment approach to address the needs of L.E. or our 

family. 

Their son spent 3 weeks at a Minnesota corrections camp for a probation violation of a 

minor consumption. The family is required to pay a portion of the cost of this 

placement, even though they tried to work with the courts to keep him at home. He will 

soon be off probation and the family will now need to navigate Minnesota's confusing 

expungement process to attempt to secure their son a future. 

4 
421 

MINNESOTA INITIATIVES 

There is growing awareness in Minnesota and across the country on the role of 

education and youth involvement in the juvenile justice system. Multiple communities 

in Minnesota are working collaboratively across youth-serving systems to change 

policies and responses to youth's behaviors by reducing referrals to the juvenile justice 

system, reducing the use of suspensions and expulsions, and changing school 

environments, while still protecting public safety. Examples are described below. 

Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota 

Statewide Forum December 2012 

JJC is co-sponsoring a forum, "Improving the Relationship between the Education and 

Juvenile Justice Systems," with the Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota 

Department of Human Services, and Minnesota Judicial Branch's Children's Justice 

Initiative on December l1i' to highlight Minnesota specific data and successful local 

initiatives. The purpose is to engage in a statewide conversation on this important 

issue, share successful models, provide networking opportunity across disciplines and 

dialog statewide solutions. Interest is high, with the limited available spaces filling up 

within two weeks of registration opening. If resources allow, JJC will continue similar 

advanced training and networking opportunities throughout 2013 to promote solutions. 

MN Department of Education (MDE) 

Primary Prevention 

The Minnesota Department of Education recommends a comprehensive approach using 

aspects ofthe Public Health Model and a multi-tiered system of support (universal, 

selected and indicated). Programming should be informed by resilience-based Youth 

Development principles that provide developmentally appropriate supports and 

opportunities, ensuring basic needs are met, such as respect, safety, belonging, power, 

challenge, mastery, and meaning. Both prevention and intervention practices should 

include strengths-based strategies focused on assets, building competency in academic, 

social/emotional and behavioral skills. 

Many students come to school with extra burdens making it difficult to perform well. 

School staff is encouraged to use trauma informed practices and MDE is developing 

program'ming informed by Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) data and growing 

knowledge regarding brain development. MDE provides an array of preventative and 

focused intervention strategies: 

• Addressing bullying and harassment 

• Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) 

• Restorative Justice Practices 

• Alternatives-to-Suspension 

• Reintegration Framework 

• MDE's monitoring and compliance activities 

• Physical activity in the classroom initiatives 

• Coordinate Smool Health and school nutrition programming 

• Out of School Time programming. 

5 
422 

In addition, MDE developed a data system that provides district level discipline data for 

school districts and developed the Minnesota Early Indicator and Response System 

(MEIRS) to help identify students who may be in danger of dropping out of school. The 

Minnesota Student Survey, which on a three year basis garners participation from 90% 

of the state districts, provides data on student health, strengths, assets and protective 

factors as well as risk factors. 

Alternative Interventions 

• MDE has a standing workgroup reviewing data and issues regarding drop-out 

prevention, school to prison and traditional school discipline practices. 

• Staff work with state agency and community partners on prevention and 

intervention, including the Office of Justice Programs at the Minnesota 

Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota 

Department of Human Services; the Greater Twin Cities United Way, the 

Minnesota Alliance for Youth, The Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota, 

Prevent Child Abuse Minnesota, the Minnesota Sexual Assault Association and 

the University of Minnesota, among others. 

• Share information regarding data privacy laws and practices across multiple 

settings, and dissemination and training using the Reintegration Framework: 

http://education.state.mn. us/MDE/StuSuc/SpecEdProglindex.html. 

• Collaborates with the University of Minnesota's Institute on Community 

Integration (ICI) OSEP grant to support juvenile offenders to re-enter 

postsecondary education and employment opportunities. 

• Looks to collaborate with care and treatment providers and settings to assure 

compliance with state and federal education laws and work with higher education 

training programs to teach essential knowledge and skills on prevention and 

intervention across agencies. . 

For further information, contact Karen Carlson, Supervisor, 651-5820398; 

karen.carlson@state.mn.us. 

Hennepin County Collaborative Effort 

All school learning environments should be orderly, safe, and secure for students, 

teachers, staff, guests and visitors. The juvenile justice system has a role in supporting 

schools in maintaining safe learning environments, but prosecutors and juvenile courts 

need to focus their resources on youth who are committing serious offenses or who 

continue to offend after school-based interventions have been tried and failed. 

In 2007, the Hennepin County Attorney's Office re-examined the referrals from law 

enforcement for crimes committed in schools. In the 2006-207 school years, almost 

twenty-five percent (25%) of all the juvenile delinquency referrals from law enforcement 

to the county attorney's office were for offenses committed in schools. Eighty-six 

percent (86%) ofthe referrals involved minor offenses, either misdemeanor or petty 

offenses; and the largest category of offenses were disorderly conduct, making up fifty 

percent (50%) of the referrals. These referrals included misbehavior that in the past 

may have been addressed through a call to the parents, after school detention, or other 

in-school interventions. Additionally, the juvenile justice system was not providing an 

immediate and meaningful response in addressing this type of misbehavior in schools. 

6 
423 

Working with law enforcement and schools, by the most recent school year, Hennepin 

County cut school crime referrals to less than one-half of their level in the mid-2000s. 

In Minneapolis, the county's largest and most diverse city, school crime referrals have 

been reduced even more dramatically, with a seventy-two percent (72%) decrease from 

the 2006-2007 school years to the 2011-2012 school year. Over the same period of time, 

law enforcement referrals for disorderly conduct offenses were reduced by eighty 

percent (80%). These dramatic reductions were achieved by collaboration among 

juvenile prosecutors, schools, and law enforcement that included prosecutorial charging 

policies, school climate practices, and changing the focus of the school resource officers 

from primarily enforcement to building positive relationships with students. Most 

importantly, the partners developed a shared commitment to addressing minor 

misbehavior within the schools and only involving the juvenile justice system when 

necessary. 

In-School Children's Mental Health Services 

Many school suspensions and expulsions are rooted in social-emotional problems for 

children and youth. Minnesota has identified a need to systematically address the 

social-emotional needs of children and youth in schools directly through a School 

Linked Mental Health Grant to 20 mental health community based agencies that 

provide services in partnership with the school. Since the grant started in 2008, SLMH 

grantees have served 12,962 children from every grade in 420 schools and 63 counties. 

While suspension/expulsion rates for children participating in the SLMH program is 

unknown, the project has had an impact on students: 

• An increasing number of students utilize SLMH supports. During the 2009/10 

school year 51 out of every 10,000 children in the Minnesota counties served 

received SLMH services. In the first half of 2009, programs served 3,759 

students compared to 4,891 students served in the first part of 2011. 

• SLMH children are experiencing a reduction in mental health systems and 

functioning. An individual student may experience a significant change in 

functioning after a 1-3 months of treatment, others after longer length of 

services. Between 25-37% of children experience significant changes in 

functioning at each quarter of service. 

• Children with serious mental health needs are getting services for the first time 

because they are available in connection with their school. Approximately 

60% of the SLMH students who met the criteria for emotional disturbance and 

45% of the students who met the criteria for serious emotional disturbance 

were getting mental health services for the very first time. 

• Insured and uninsured children are accessing services through the SLMH 

program. 41% of children in the SLMH are enrolled in Minnesota Health Care 

Programs, and 33% have private insurance. Along with the first time mental 

health indicator, this data suggests access is not merely a function of insurance 

coverage. Providers bill insurance when feasible, to support program 

sustainability . 

7 
424 

School-Based Diversion Model for Students with Co-Occurring Disorders 

A cooperative project between the Minnesota Department of Human Services Children's 

Mental Health Division and Intermediate School District 287 is developing a front-end 

school-based diversion model for students with co-occurring disorders. The model 

intends to reduce the number of school-based arrests and juvenile justice referrals as 

well as emphasize the importance of access to mental health and substance abuse 

services. A key strategy is for schools and law enforcement to share responsibility for 

school safety by working together to ensure consistent response to behavioral incidents, 

clarify the role of law enforcement in school disciplinary matters, and reduce 

involvement of police and courts for misconduct at schools and school-related events. 

Parent and student involvement is encouraged at multiple stages. The goal is to develop 

the model by March 2013 and then become available for replication statewide and 

throughout the country. 

wRight Choice- an Alternative to Suspension Program 

Through a collaborative effort, fostered by Wright County's Safe School Initiative, the 

local education system and juvenile justice system combined efforts to address 

alternatives to out-of-school suspension. Wright County is located close to the Twin 

Cities Metropolitan area and is one ofthe fastest growing in Minnesota. Buffalo High 

School and Wright County Court Services introduced wRight Choice two years ago. This 

program is a unique combination of structured homework time, a restorative approach 

to "repairing the harm", community service, and daily workshops facilitated by 

probation officers, mental health workers, truancy specialists, chemical health 

providers, etc. 

Recommendations by Kathryn Quaintance, Juvenile Court Presiding Judge, 

Fourth Judicial District 

As the presiding juvenile court judge in Hennepin County, Minnesota's largest, the 

Honorable Kathryn Quaintance developed the following recommendations for 

Minnesota's judicial branch and education systems to work together to reduce the 

school to prison pipeline. 

• Instill educational advocates in the court system to help with credit recovery and 

educational planning for Child Protection youth and others. 

• Require representatives from the school to appear in court with students. 

• Since many behaviors that result in suspension are trauma based, educate the 

systems on alternative responses to youth's behaviors attributed to their history 

of trauma. 

• Special Education needs of youth should not be grounds for suspension. 

• . Schools need to partner with the juvenile justice system on delinquency and 

child protection cases since schools playa huge role in the health (mental and 

physical) and welfare of children. 

• Inform disciplinary policies using adolescent brain development. 

• Include disciplinary interventions as e part of school performance measures. 

Suspensions would be an indicator of dysfunction. 

8 
425 

• Raise awareness about disparities by collecting and analyzing the data to see the 

impact of policies and decision on youth of color. Remove discretionary, 

sUbjective grounds for suspension and require a reason for any exceptions. 

CONCLUSION 

Minnesota is making progress to address the school to prison pipeline. However, too 

many youth are still becoming inappropriately involved in the juvenile justice system 

through the schools. We need all of our youth to successfully transition into adulthood 

with the skills and education they need to compete in our interconnected world. We ask 

the committee to continue to focus attention on the school to prison pipeline, 

encouraging the use of evidence based primary prevention practices, and restorative and 

formative interventions, to ensure all students have access to a safe and caring learning 

environments. Thank you for spending time on this important issue and learning about 

the positive work in Minnesota. 

Information provided by the Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota, Minnesota 

Department of Education, Minnesota Department of Human Services Children's Mental 

Health Division, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Council on Crime and Justice, 

Minnesota Council of Child Caring Agencies and Wright County Corrections 

Department and the Honorable Kathryn Quaintance. 

9 
426 

JUVENILE JUSTICE INITIATIVE 

518 DAVIS, SUITE 211 

EVANSTON, IL 60201 

847.864.1567 

WWW.JJUSTICE.ORG 

Illinois - Stopping the School to Prison Pipeline 

Truancy Reduction Efforts focus on Individualized Community 

Based Interventions 

Youth Suspensions/Expulsions Successfully Redirected to 

Appropriate Advocacy and Services in One Redeploy County 

But 

Disparate Referrals to Law Enforcement in Another County 

Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

VVednesday, Dec. 12,2012 

We are grateful to Senator Durbin and the fellow members of the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, for this 

opportunity to present written testimony on the impact of ending the school to 

prison pipeline in the United States, with specific information on efforts in Illinois. 

lIIinois statutory reform to address truancy prior to court involvement: Seven 

years ago, members of the Illinois State Advisory Group (SAG) grew alarmed over 

the increasing number of youth who were truant but ended up referred to court and 

held in detention for violation of a court order to attend school.. The increasing 

number of truants in detention was threatening Illinois' compliance with the 

prohibition against confinement of status offenders under the Federal Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, thereby putting Illinois' receipt of federal 

delinquency prevention dollars at risk. The Illinois SAG Chair proposed a statutory 

reform to encourage the use of state prevention and intervention services prior to 

court referral of truant youth. The reform was called Truant Minors in Need of 

Supervision, and it was adopted by the Legislature and took effect in 2006. 

1 
427 

Graduated Community Based approach - Truant Minors in Need of Supervision, 

705 ILCS 405/3-33.5, clarifies that a minor who meets the statutory definition of a 

chronic truant can only be referred to juvenile court if prior to the filing of the 

petition the local school "has provided appropriate truancy intervention services to 

the truant minor and his or her family." Appropriate truancy intervention services 

are defined as services designed to help the minor return to an educational program 

and include, but are not limited to: "assessments, counseling, mental health services, 

shelter, optional and alternative education programs, tutoring and educational 

advocacy." If these services do not work, then the local community must refer the 

youth to a comprehensive community based youth service agency for truancy 

intervention services, assuming the agency is capable of providing intervention 

services. The agency must submit immediate and regular reports to the local 

schoolfschool truancy review board within 20, 40 and 80 school days of the referral, 

documenting the extent of the minor's progress and participation in truancy 

intervention services. 

If the local intervention services fail and the minor is ultimately referred to court, 

dispositional options do 1lQ1 include confinement. Rather, there is a range of 

options including a student assistance team staffing, requirement to comply with 

the local agency's plan, a fine, community service, and/or loss of driver's license. 

In the areas in the state where this graduated approach to truancy reduction has 

been embraced, it has succeeded. The success was documented recently in a series 

of news articles. The news articles highlighted the individual nature ofthe 

challenges faced by youth who end up defined as truants. Outreach workers in 

Galesburg, Illinois, have saved the district $234,000 in additional state money that is 

tied to attendance through individualized truancy intervention services. 

The Chicago Tribune reported Monday (http://trib.in/RxrJDH ) that a 

program in Galesburg is succeeding where Chicago has failed, reducing the 

number of chronically truant students. Truancy officers in Galesburg make 

home visits and can issue $75 tickets to parents whose children have 

repeated absences. 

Outreach workers sometimes give a child an alarm clock or a pair of shoes. 

Other cases are harder to solve when there's domestic violence or mental 

illness involved. Galesburg outreach workers have walked into meth houses 

and been threatened in their efforts to get kids to school. ... At one 

Galesburg elementary school, outreach worker Joe Pilger hands out alarm 

clocks to students who tell him they can't wake up in time to catch the school 

bus. He sometimes buys shoes for students, using the school's "miscellaneous 

funds" account. At the beginning of each school year, he said, "I'm looking 

down at the feet to see which shoes have dollar-size holes in them. It's 

alarming." 

http://www.saukvalley.com/2012/11/12/galesburg-finds-success-withanti-truancy-push/avgmm6c/ 

2 
428 

While Chicago has all but abandoned anti-truancy programs for elementary 

students, districts across Illinois - from Lake, Will and McHenry counties to 

Murphysboro, in southern Illinois, and Galesburg, near the Iowa borderare using an array of tools to get students back in school. 

Outreach workers who make home visits and provide services can help 

reduce truancy, records and interviews show. With rising rates of child 

poverty and homelessness contributing to the problem, sometimes the fix is 

as simple as an alarm clock or winter boots. 

Other cases can be dauntingly complex. Some children are kept out of school 

to serve as surrogate caretakers for younger siblings. Others come from 

families roiled by domestic violence, mental illness or homelessness, where 

the adults lack the will or wherewithal to get their kids to class. 

For problems the outreach workers can't solve, regional school authorities 

convene truancy hearings with the student and his or her family to hammer 

out attendance strategies and contracts. 

But - successful communities exhaust an extensive array of community-based services 

prior to turning to the courts: 

And if need be, indifferent parents can be held accountable through tickets 

like the one issued to Lee - or, in the most extreme cases, through 

misdemeanor charges against the parents, or juvenile court actions that 

allow judges to order supportive services or impose sanctions. 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-12/news Ict-met-truancygalesburg-20121112 1 truancy-hearings-school-attendance-outreachworkers 

This graduated approach to truancy intervention, requiring individualized 

treatment with the use of an array of school and community-based alternatives 

prior to referral to court has been successful in the communities that have 

embraced this holistic and individualized approach. The stories in the Chicago 

Tribune series documented the wide range of barriers to attendance faced by youth, 

ranging from issues rooted in poverty (loss of electricity so alarm clock did not go 

oft) to issues faced by single parent families (needing child to babysit younger 

siblings so mom could go to work) to failure of the school system to address 

underlying learning disabilities. Such a range of challenges can only be successfully 

addressed with a comprehensive array of educational and community based 

services. 

SUSPENSION/EXPULSION: 

A problem - Cook County suspended over 18% of their student population in 

2009-2010: 

3 
429 

We know that school push out comes in many forms whether it's expulsion, entry 

into the juvenile or criminal justice system, or drop out from the school setting. We 

know that education's value across the lifetime and the lack of a quality education 

can severely impair life outcomes. Each student we lose costs the student a lifetime 

of decreased wages, but it costs the community in lost tax revenue and beneficial 

civil engagement, which can severely impact communities with a high number of 

students failing to complete their education. With this knowledge, every option to 

keep kids in school and learning would seem to be the logical investment for longterm public safety. 

However, this is not the case delineated in the report released in August 2012 by 

The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at The Civil Rights Project, which explains: 

Well over three million children, K-12, are estimated to have lost instructional 

"seat time" in 2009-2010 because they were suspended from school, often with 

no guarantee of adult supervision outside the school. That's about the number 

of children it would take to fill every seat in every major league baseball park 

and every NFL stadium in America, combined. 

Chicago schools suspended over eighteen percent oftheir total student 

enrollment in 2009-2010. 

The oft-repeated claim that it is necessary to kick out the bad kids so the good 

kids can learn is shown to be a myth. In fact, research suggests that a relatively 

lower use of out-of-school suspensions, after controlling for race and poverty, 

correlates with higher test scores, not lower. 

http://civilrightsproiect.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rightsremedies !school-to-prison-folder !federal-reports !upcoming-ccrrn~s~arch/losen-gill~spie-opportunity-suspended-ccrr-2012.pdf 

School push-out in Chicago has been documented to be racially disparate and 

primarily based on low level offenses such as simple battery, disorderly conduct and 

drug violations. Project Nia in Chicago documented the disparate application of the 

sweeping arrest of low level offenses in Chicago Public Schools in a report earlier this 

year - Policing Chicago Public Schools: A Gateway to the School-to-Prison Pipeline, 

http://policeinschoolsJiles.wordpress.com 120 11/12/policing-chicago-publicschools-finaI2.pdf 

With the recent release of the Civil Rights Project's report on school disciplinary data 

across the nation, we learn about disparities in school discipline for children enrolled 

in K-12: 

One out of every six Black students were suspended at least once. That is 

much higher than the one in thirteen risk for Native Americans; one in 

fourteen for Latinos; one in twenty for Whites; or the one in fifty for Asian 

4 
430 

Americans. 

For all racial groups combined, more than thirteen percent of students with 

disabilities were suspended. This is approximately twice the rate of their nondisabled peers. 

Most disturbing is the fact that one out of every four Black children with 

disabilities was suspended at least once in 2009-2010. 

Students with disabilities and Black students were also more likely to be 

suspended repeatedly in a given year than to be suspended just once. The 

reverse was true for students without disabilities and for most other 

racial/ethnic groups. 

Unfortunately, the state of Illinois holds first place for the racial gap between Blacks 

and Whites in the rate for risk of being suspended at over twenty-one to one. More 

shocking may be that nearly forty-two percent of Black student with disabilities 

were suspended. http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-forcivil-rights-remedies Ischool-to-p rison-folder Ifederal-reports lupcoming-ccrrresearchllosen-gillespie-opportunity-suspended-ccrr-2012.pdf 

One county's solution· st. Clair County utilized Redeploy Illinois services to 

provide individualized educational services and advocacy for youth facing 

suspension/expulsion: 

There is one example in Illinois of a county, St. Clair, that has used a very small 

amount of state funds (Redeploy Illinois) to keep youth out of state juvenile prison, 

and has discovered the efficacy of including individualized educational advocacy as 

part of their intervention package. 

Counties agreeing to participate in Redeploy Illinois agree to reduce commitments 

to state juvenile prison by 25 percent. In exchange, the state provides funding to 

develop or expand local alternatives designed by local officials to meet the needs of 

delinquent youth in their communities, who are screened and assessed by probation 

staff prior to admission to the program. Services include educational assistance. 

The Redeploy Illinois evaluator reports the educational assistance has been 

successful, with 70% of the youth successfully completing educational services 

including GED services and tutoring. 

St. Clair County added an additional component - educational advocacy through the 

Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation. The staff attorney assigned to this 

advocacy program is an AmeriCorps VISTA Program volunteer. The legal advocate 

assists youth in three (3) educational areas. The attorney can advocate and assist 

5 
431 

students attempting to enroll in a school setting. This includes assistance in the 

transfer of transcripts from one school district to a new school district. In addition, 

legal advocacy is available for applying for evaluations for special education 

programs. The legal advocate attends IEP meetings related to the youth once an IEP 

is established. Finally, the legal advocate can assist those students expelled from 

school districts. This assistance includes advocacy at expulsion hearings and 

advocating for alternative placement for the youth in an educational setting if 

expulsion is ordered. The attorney involved in the program estimated that between 

twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) youth have been served since mid January 2012 with 

legal services from the Land of Lincoln Program. 

These are the kinds of individualized, community-based services that can 

successfully address the unique needs and issues of each youth facing 

suspension/expulsion. 

CONCLUSION 

The graduated, individualized response created through the Truancy Reduction 

Statute could be equally effective if broadened to address school suspensions and 

expulsions. This approach requires schools, school districts, and local communities 

to address discipline issues with a graduated and individualized approach, ensuring 

that any underlying issues including undiagnosed learning disabilities and 

developmental disabilities are identified and addressed with appropriate and 

individualized services. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your examination of the critical issue 

of stopping the school to prison pipeline in the United States. Please let us know if 

you need further information. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Elizabeth Clarke 

President 

bc@jjustice.org 

Nora Collins-Mandeville 

Policy & Communications Director 

nc@iiustice.org 

Juvenile Justice Initiative 

518 Davis, Suite 211 

Evanston,IL. 60201 

847.864.1567 

www.iiustice.org 

6 
432 

Jolon McNeil 

jmcneil@jjpl.org 

Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 

New Orleans, LA 

Senate Jndiciary Subcommittee on tbe Constitntion, Civil Rights, and Hnman Rights 

Testimony 

Rebuilding the educational landscape in post-Katrina New Orleans created the opportunity to 

think innovatively about school structure, governance and management relative to school and 

student performance. Following the devastation, the Recovery School District (RSD) took OVer 

failing schools and more charter schools were opened, ushering New Orleans into the school 

choice conversation. The nation has called it an "experiment," an opportunity to right the wrongs 

of the past. After 7 years, public education in New Orleans is at an important crossroads; the 

debate continues about the efficacy of this course of reform with its focus on charter schools and 

now there is a city-wide conversation about the return of schools to the authority ofthe locally 

elected school board. These conversations open the door to a dialogue about the importance of 

considering all the available data to inform us of the reality of individual school and Charter 

Management Organization (CMO) perfonnance. 

Education reform has been largely based on analyzing academic data to improve instruction, and 

student and school performance and New Orleans has been a large part of that conversation. 

However, in order to provoke significant, sustainable reform that. improves outcomes for all 

students and moves us toward a more equitable system of schools, the discourse must include the 

data that gives us insight into individual school climate. School climate, including school and 

classroom-level discipline are important to ensure a positive learning environment and we must 

look at the "discipline gap" as it relates to the "achievement gap." Consequently, discipline data 

must play an explicit role when determining the expansion of chartermanagement organizations. 

Neglecting to factor in discipline data constricts the narrative of school perfonnance and 

provides the public with a narrowed view of the refonn efforts. 

It is timely and important to question the metrics that are used to determine which CMOs are 

invited to apply to take over schools, as well as those that ultimately get charter applications 

approved. It is an undeniable honor to be an educator; education is the cornerstone of our 

democracy. It defies logic that managers of schools with failing academic records, who are also 

failing in their duty of care, should remain unquestioned in their pursuit to educate our young 

people. 

Across the country, education "refonners" have set forth a big, bold, audacious vision of school 

choice and high student perfonnance. In New Orleans, we see a different picture; the recently 

released School Perfonnance Scores not only flatten that fantasy, they make us question the core 

convictions of the reform itself - to transform failing schools into high-performing, quality 

learning environments. The data that is presented does not tell us the entire story, especially 
433 

when many students continue to be pushed out of schools because of exclusionary discipline 

practices. According to the 2011-2012 data, 69% of the Recovery School District direct-run and 

charter schools are failing and 34% of schools had an out-of-school suspension rate above 20%, 

well over the state average. Yet, year after year, failing schools and failing CMOs are given the 

opportunity to take over other schools. Low performing schools and high suspension rates do 

not serve our children or our city or any city. 

There is a relationship between school discipline and student achievement; ineffective discipline 

policies, like the over-use of suspension, often push students out of school, increasing the 

likelihood that they will drop out and increasing the likelihood of becoming involved in the 

juvenile justice system. Independent charter schools, school districts and state boards of 

education must be transparent about all of the data and consider all of the available data to 

determine school and CMO performance, including the data on the impact of discipline practices 

on student learning, especially when the policies and practices often push young people to 

criminalization. instead of civic en{!a{!ement and leadershin. 
434 

STATEMENT 

Lauren Fine, Zubrow Fellow 

Katherine Burdick, Equal Justice Works Fellow (sponsored by Greenberg Traurig, LLP) 

Juvenile Law Center 

Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 

the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

December 12, 2012 

We are pleased to submit these comments on behalf of Juvenile Law Center, as the 

Subcommittee addresses "the school-to-prison-pipeline." Juvenile Law Center has identified 

causes and symptoms of this phenomenon, both in the school and juvenile correctional 

settings, and provides recommendations for how Congress can best address the issue. 

Specifically, Juvenile Law Center urges the Subcommittee to consider reforms that will stem the 

tide of the school-to-prison-pipeline by (1) preventing unnecessary school referrals to the 

justice system; (2) providing a quality education to youth placed in juvenile correctional 

facilities; and (3) facilitating the transition of youth from delinquency placements back to their 

community schools. We wish to underscore that the pipeline does not end at the point a youth 

is adjudicated delinquent or convicted of a crime. We therefore encourage the Subcommittee 

to consider the needs of youth not only in their home schools, but also in the juvenile 

correctional system and upon re-entry to the community. 

Juvenile Law Center, the oldest non-profit, public interest law firm for children in the United 

States. Founded in 1975 in Philadelphia, Juvenile Law Center is a national advocate for 

children's rights, working to enforce and promote the rights and well-being of children who 

come into contact with the justice, child welfare and other public systems. Juvenile Law Center 

has been working to end the school-to-prison-pipeline since the mid-1990s, shortly after the 

passage of the Gun Free Schools Act. Juvenile Law Center has litigated over the denial of 

education to youth who were in the juvenile or criminal justice systems or who were returning 

to community schools. We helped advance anti-zero tolerance policies through the American 

Bar Association. We have written extensively for professional and lay audiences on the dangers 

of zero tolerance policies and the school-to-prison pipeline. Most recently, Juvenile Law Center 

helped expose the "kids for cash" judicial corruption scandal that was fueled, in large measure, 

by schools' reliance on the Luzerne County juvenile court to serve as school disciplinarian. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony today, and would be pleased to 

submit more comprehensive materials on this topic at any time. 

1 
435 

Background 

The school to prison pipeline undermines America's promise of equality of education 

opportunity. The pipeline increases the number of students referred to the justice system, and 

it reduces educational opportunities for students returning to school after being in the justice 

system. 

Equality of education opportunity has been a central and dramatic part of the civil rights 

narrative in this country. Yet, the dream underlying that narrative has not been realized in 

many ways. Today, children of color continue to be overrepresented in "underresourced 

schools." They are more likely to be involved with the juvenile and criminal justice systems 

than are their white peers,i and they are also more likely to be classified as requiring special 

education. African American male students are disciplined at far greater numbers than are 

their white classmates-in 2003, 18 percent of all African American males enrolled in public 

school were disciplined, as compared to only 7 percent of their white counterparts. Many 

commentators have described the link between the overrepresentation in both school 

discipline and the juvenile or criminal justice systems as a "school-to-prison-pipeline" (STPP). 

Generally, the "school-to-prison-pipeline" is the practice of criminalizing student misconduct, 

which sets off a chain of events that increases the chances that low-income students of color 

will end up involved in the juvenile or criminal justice system.ii 

Increased referrals to the justice system 

One cause of the STPP is the increased presence of School Resource Officers (SROs), or sworn 

employees of local police departments who are permanently assigned to patrol a school or 

mUltiple schools. Almost all are armed.HI These officers intensify the linkage between schools 

and the juvenile and criminal justice systems and contribute to the criminalization of 

misbehavior in the school setting. SROs represent part of a larger trend toward integrating 

police tactics into the culture of American education: law enforcement techniques such as drug 

tests, sweeps at random, searches of students, and interrogations contribute to an atmosphere 

of police surveillance at public schools. The result is an increasing number of arrests and 

convictions for conduct that occurs on school grounds, with a disproportionate number 

affecting African American students.iv 

The routine presence of SROs-especially in urban schools-- is illustrative of a two decade 

transformation of school responses to student misbehavior. Schools, even those without 

SRO's-too often criminalize behavior that previously would have been handled by internal 

school disciplinary procedures. National studies have found that the numbers of arrests and 

referrals to the juvenile and criminal justice systems for minor crimes, such as disorderly 

conduct, rises in schools with full-time police officers. 

Results of this transformation of school disciplinary practices include the following: 

1. Increased referrals from schools means an increased number of youth who 

2 
436 

become involved with the adult criminal, and not just juvenile justice system. 

2. Referrals to the juvenile or criminal justice systems impede students' ability to 

stay on track in school, where they are dually punished for whatever incident led 

to the juvenile or criminal referral. 

3. Students who have been disciplined often are prohibited from participating in 

sports and other activities, which may be the only element of their experience at 

school that they perceive as positive. 

o This increases the likelihood of the students dropping out and, even 

those who do come back to or stay in school often face stigmatization by 

teachers, administrators, and classmates, which isolates them further 

and makes them more likely to act out again. 

Together, these circumstances make it more likely that a student will end up back in the 

criminal justice system-the "school-to-prison-pipeline" in practice. 

Barriers to educotion for justice-involved youth 

Importantly, the school-to-prison pipeline does not stop at the moment the youth is 

adjudicated delinquent or convicted of a crime. Youth adjudicated delinquent often fail to 

receive adequate educational services while in placement: According to the Survey of Youth in 

Residential Placements conducted by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

48% of youth in custody.are functioning below the grade level appropriate for their age, 

compared to 28% of youth in the general population. 

Causes of this problem include the following: 

1. Schools onsite at juvenile correctional facilities typically are characterized by low 

academic expectations for students, an under-skilled and demoralized teaching 

staff, and a culture where security and discipline dominate over education. 

2. Youth in juvenile correctional facilities often receive fewer hours of instruction 

per day than their peers in the community. 

3. Many onsite schools do not provide eligible students with appropriate special 

education services as required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act. 

4. State and local school districts do not properly monitor educational programs 

inside these institutions; these programs often fall far short of state academic 

standards. 

5. Career and technical education in residential placements is often obsolete. 

Even in the rare instance that a youth receives a quality education while in custody, the 

challenges of re-enrolling in a home school district may undermine the youth's ability to learn. 

Frequently, delays in transferring educational records from the facility to the student's home 

district cause delayed enrollment, or prevent the youth from receiving appropriate services or 

receiving credit for schoolwork done in the facility. Differing school policies governing the 

3 
437 

awarding of credits also prevents many adjudicated youth from receiving academic credit for 

classes taken inside the facility, and makes it more likely that they will drop out of school. 

Finally, many school districts outright refuse to re-enroll youth returning from a delinquency 

placement, or funnel them directly to restrictive alternative education programs, despite the 

youths' ability to succeed in a traditional school setting:; 

In light of the obstacles to educational success youth face before, during, and after being placed 

in a juvenile correctional facility, we urge the Subcommittee to consider these 

recommendations: 

Recommendations 

• Establish a federal standard for alternative education to handle students with behavioral 

issues in a more thoughtful matter. 

1. Schools must not simply warehouse students who have disciplinary issues in 

alternative schools; as currently constituted, most alternative education 

programs exacerbate rather than alleviate students' problems. 

2. Alternative schools concentrate the worst behaving students in an environment 

in which they have far fewer role models for positive behavior, and often offer 

far less rigorous curricula, which together makes it difficult for enrolled students 

to stay on track and transition back to their assigned schools. 

3. The concept of alternative education should comport with the federal standard 

that governs special education, which mandates that students who need extra 

support be placed in "the least restrictive environment." 

Examine and propose changes to federal law affecting youth in or returning from 

correctional facilities, specifically: 

1. Propose amendments to Title I, Part D of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act governing neglected and delinquent youth, to increase 

accountability of programs that receive funding under the Act, and improve 

planning for the transition between the facility and home school. 

2. Ensure that states include children in secure correctional facilities when 

measuring "Adequate Yearly Progress" as required by the No Child left 

Behind Act. 

• Work with our nation's governors and state legislators to provide incentives for state 

and local policies that: 

1. Minimize the role that School Resource Officers (SROs) play in the school setting, 

and to properly train them for the school environment. 

2. Promote evidence-based positive discipline strategies, such as School-wide 

Positive Behavioral Supports, trauma-informed education, and restorative 

4 
438 

justice practices, and limit exclusionary discipline and school referrals to law 

enforcement. 

3. Maintain youth in their community rather than in secure placements through 

diversion policies. 

4. Ensure schools onsite at correctional facilities meet state academic standards, 

provide the same or more hours of education that students receive in 

community schools, and generate career and technical education certificates as 

well as academic credit that counts toward graduation requirements. 

5. Require comprehensive multi-disciplinary after-care planning, facilitate the 

transfer of records from the institution to the home school district, and prevent 

school districts from refusing to enroll youth returning from delinquency 

placements.vii 

In addition, we write in support of the statement submitted by our colleagues at Education Law 

Center of Pennsylvania, which provides additional detail on the inappropriate and unfair 

discipline practices that push our youth out of schools and into the justice system, as well as 

effective policies to combat this trend. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement on this important issue. 

'See generally Catherine Y. Kim, Daniel J. Losen, and Damon T. Hewitt, The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Structuring 

Legal Reform, New York University Press (2010) [hereinafter The School-to-Prison Pipelinel at 2. In 2003, for 

example, African Americans accounted for 45 percent of all juvenile arrests, despite only representing 16 percent 

of the youth population in this country. Id. 

"Id. at 34 (citing Daniel J. Losen, The Color of Inadequate School Resources: Challenging Racial Inequities that 

Contribute to Low Graduation Rates and High Risk for Incarceration, 38 Clearinghouse reo J. of Poverty Law & Policy 

616, 625 (2005)). See also Jane R. Wettach, Disproportionate Representation of Minority Children in School 

Discipline, 2010 Juvenile Justice & Children's Rights Section Annual Meeting (March 26, 2010), Daniel J. Losen & 

Russell Skiba, Southern Poverty Law Center, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis (2010). 

iii Some larger urban school districts, such as those in Houston and Los Angeles, employ their SROs directly. The 

School-to-Prison Pipeline, supra Note 1, at 113 (citing Houston Independent School District Police Department, 

http://www.houstonisd.org/portal!site/Police; Los Angeles Schools Police Department, http://www.laspd.coml). 

Some SROs are off-duty police officers who work in schools for additional compensation. See Jason langberg, 

Barbara Fedders, and Drew Kukorowski, "Law Enforcement Officers in Wake County Schools: The Human, 

Educational, and Financial Costs," http://www.legalaidnc.org/public/learn/statewide%5 Fprojects/acs/ACS 

Publications/lssueBrief Feb-ll LawEnforcementOffierslnWakCountySchools-Human-Educ-FinanciaICosts.pdf, at 2. 

The majority of high school teachers surveyed in 2004 observed the presence of armed police at their schools. Id. 

This statistic serves as a proxy for the number of police officers in schools, as there have not been any studies that 

attempt to quantify their presence in schools nationwide. See Catherine Y. Kim and I. India Geronimo, Policing in 

Schools: Developing a Governance Document for School Resource Officers in K-12 Schools (2009) at 5, available at 

http://www.aciu.org/pdfs/racialjustice/ whitepaper policinginschools.pdf. 

" The Supreme Court has noted that, "[tleachers and school administrators, it is said, act in loco parentis in their 

dealings with students: their authority is that of the parent, not the State." New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 336 

(1985) (citing R.C.M. v. State, 660 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. App. 1983)). Notably, under the Fourth Amendment, school 

officials do not need probable cause to search and seize stUdents' personal belongings; they need only reasonable 

suspicion. See, e.g. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985); U.S. Canst. amend. IV. See also The School-toPrison Pipeline, supra Note 1, at 3 (citing that, "One juvenile court judge in Massachusetts, for example, reported 

5 
439 

(Continued ... ) 

that he handles more school discipline in his courtroom today than in his former position, as a public school 

principal." American Civil Liberties Union, Race and Ethnicity in America: Turning a Blind Eye to Injustice 149 

(2007), available at http://www.aclu/org/pdfs/humanrights/cerd full report.pdf). 

, See, e.g., Peter E. Leone & Sheri Meisel, Improving Education Services for Students in Detention and Confinement 

Facilities, 17 Child. Legal Rts. J.2, 5-7 (1997); Peter E. Leone, A Review of Special Education Programming at 

Catalina Mountain Juvenile Institution (November 1988) (report submitted to U.S. District Court, District of 

Arizona, Johnson v. Upchurch, No. 86-195 (D. Ariz., filed August, 1986)); Peter E. Leone, Evaluation of Educational 

and Vocational Services at Cedar Knoll and Oak Hill Youth Centers(December 1990) (report submitted to the Office 

of the Monitor, Jerry M. v. D.C., No. 1519-85 (D.C., filed April, 1985)); Peter E. Leone, Education Services for Youth 

with Disabilities in a State-Operated Juvenile Correctional System: Case Study and Anolysis, 28 J. SPECIAL EDUC. 43, 

48-54 (1994); Peter E. Leone, Ted Price & Richard K. Vitolo, Appropriate Education for All Incarcerated Yauth: 

Meeting the Spirit of P.L. 94-142 in Youth Detention Facilities, 7 REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUC. 9,9-11 (1986). 

" For more information on the educational challenges youth face in and returning from juvenile correctional 

facilities, see Katherine Burdick, et aI., Creating Positive Consequences: Improving Education Outcomes for Youth 

Adjudicated Delinquent, 3 Duke F. Law & Soc. Change 6-13 (2011), available at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/ 

dflsc/voI3/iss1/2/. 

,;; For more information on current promising policies around the country geared at stopping the school-to-prison 

pipeline, see Jessica Feierman, et aI., Stemming the Tide: Promising Legislation to Reduce School Referrals ta the 

Courts, 111-127, in Keeping Kids in School and Out of Courts (2012), available at http://wwwschooljusticesummitorgfpdfsljournal-web paper 8.pdf. 

6 
440 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Submitted by: 

Marsha Hockensmith, Director 

Leslie A. Jones, Sr. Attorney 

Kentucky Protection & Advocacy 

100 Fair Oaks Ln, Suite 302 

Frankfort KY 40601 

Kentucky Protection & Advocacy would like to thank Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 

Graham, and the Constitution Subcommittee for holding this hearing and raising 

awareness of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. As more and more of our nation's youth 

end up in the juvenile justice system, the time for federal leadership on this problem is 

now, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Who Are Kentucky Protection & Advocacy and the Protection and Advocacy 

Systems (P&As)? 

The federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems were established by 

the United States Congress through eight separate statutes to protect the rights of 

people with disabilities and their families through legal support, advocacy, referral, and 

education. P&As are in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories 

(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin 

Islands), and there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium, which 

includes the Hopi, Navaho and Piute Nations in the Four Corners region of the 

Southwest. The KY P&A has been established as an independent state agency that is 

administratively assigned to the Department of Public Advocacy. 

Each P&A provides a full array of services for people with disabilities, and work with 

youth to provide assistance with education and services in a variety of settings, 

including juvenile justice facilities, public and non-public schools, and detention and 

correctional facilities. Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of legally 

based advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States. 

The Nature of the Problem 

Children with disabilities should not be punished for their disabilities. Instead, children 

should be provided the education to which they are legally entitled to and the supports 

necessary to obtain that education. Unfortunately, many of our public school students 

do not receive these basic rights. 
441 

KY Protection & Advocacy 

Senate Hearing: SPTT 

December 10, 2012 

Page Two 

Statistics show that a disparate number of youth with disabilities, and especially youth of 

color with disabilities, are involved with the juvenile justice system. As many as 80% of 

youth in the juvenile justice system have some form of disability. i Children of color are 

also disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system.ii However, a data 

analysis released in August of 2012 shows there is far more to the story. "Applying [ ... ] 

three lenses together - race, gender and disability-yields a more disturbing image than 

anyone of the categories alone ... The group that consistently had the highest rate of 

suspension is African American male students with disabilities. In some of the largest 

districts in the U.S .... suspension rates for this group reached more than 70% of their 

enrollment."iii 

This analysis shows that a specific sub group of children of color, those who are also 

children with disabilities, receive different treatment than their peers in public school. 

Within this sub group, children who reside in particular public school districts receive the 

worst treatment of all. Many of these youth face suspension or expulsion from school -

a key entry point into the "School to Prison Pipeline." In order to successfully protect 

these children from a future in prison, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the problem 

and tear it out by its roots. 

Kentucky Protection & Advocacy Work on the School To Prison Pipeline (STPP) 

Kentucky P&A has been working on preventing improper discipline of students with 

disabilities for many years, before the link between these cases and the likelihood of 

future incarceration was widely recognized. Preventing suspension and expulsion of 

students for the behavioral manifestations of their disabilities is and always has been an 

important part of the advocacy work that we do. Kentucky P&A is engaged in both 

individual and systemic projects to address the school-to-prison pipeline for people with 

disabilities. 

Recently, Kentucky P&A represented a male youth of color age 13 who had been 

charged with terroristic threatening in the second degree a Class 0 felony, subject to 

I five yeafSyears' incarceration/detention. The youth had remarked, ~1f I don't get my 

jacket, I could hurt someone". The youth had never been in a physical altercation. The 

youth had never brought a weapon to school". 

The youth had an Individual Education Plan under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). Although under IDEA a manifestation determination had found 

that the youth actions were a result of his disability. the school refused to withdraw the 

terroristic threatening charge. A P&A attorney partnered with the public defender 

attorney to file a motion asking that the charge be dismissed. 
442 

KY Protection & Advocacy 

Senate Hearing: SPTT 

December 10, 2012 

Page Three 

The P&A attorney in light of the determination through IDEA asked the school district to 

drop the charges asking the school district to withdraw the charge, the school district 

refused. The judge held oral arguments and dismissed the charge. 

Kentucky P&A partners with several organizations, Department of Public Advocacy, 

Children's Law Center, Legal Aid Society, Access to Justice, KY Youth Advocates, 

Southern Poverty Law Center, and others to stop the school to prison pipeline and to 

make changes Kentucky's juvenile justice system. These are examples of systematic 

initiatives. . 

• Filed class action complaints with US Department of Education, Office of 

Civil Rights alleging disproportionality in discipline for students with 

disabilities, students of color and students of color with disabilities. 

• Drafted legislation to require alternatives to detention bel§. considered 

because a status offender youth is placed in detention. 

• Held community forums to inform citizens about the STPP. 

• Educated the Kentucky Department of Education of certain school district 

about their disproportionality in discipline for students with disabilities, 

students of color, and students of color with disabilities. 

• Provided joint represent through KY P&A and PO for youth who have been 

charges with offenses by the school district or the security officer working 

in the school. Through this representation we education the judge and the 

county attorney about student rights under IDEA. 

FEDERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Effective enforcement of current federal protections is the most effective 

way to stem the STPP for children with disabilities. KY P&A is very pleased 

with a recent complaint filed by the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding 

racial injustice in Meridian Mississippi. There are similar problems currently with 

regard to students with disabilities that are also worthy of DOJ's attention. We 

encourage DOJ to continue to work with the P&A agencies to identify appropriate 

cases for enforcement action. 

• Congress should create and appropriate funds for a specific P&A program 

focused on children with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. Funding 

the P&A network to do this work is an extremely cost-effective way to use the 
443 

KY Protection & Advocacy 

Senate Hearing: SPTT 

December 10, 2012 

Page Four 

existing infrastructure of the P&A System. The P&A network is the largest crossdisability network of advocates in the United States, and P&As have extensive 

expertise successfully advocating on behalf of youth with disabilities in childserving systems and advancing systems reforms. All P&As have an interest in 

and commitment to doing this work, but cite lack of funding and resources as the 

primary barrier to being more fully engaged while not diminishing the ability to do 

the other important work the P&As perform. 

• We recommend leadership by all relevant federal agencies, and especially 

OJJDP, in the area of prevention of school removal. There is a need to 

promote and create incentives for the revision of local school codes, so as to 

eliminate the use of out of school expUlsion and promote the development of 

clear and specific Memoranda of Understanding regarding the use of School 

Resource Officers, in order to limit their role to matters of real school safety. 

Providing direct federal support for training schools and teachers in the best 

practices to prevent school removal. 

• The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) should 

continue recent efforts to publish Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) data. 

This type of federal effort is desperately needed in order to help state and local 

governments uncover and resolve STPP problems. 

• Kentucky P&A encourages OCR to consider specific enforcement actions 

(e.g. "compliance reviews") for STPP violations that impact stUdents with 

disabilities. One example would be to address the worst offending districts in 

terms of racial/disability discipline statistics. 

Kentucky P&A recommends effective monitoring and enforcement of the 

IDEA and ESEA by Department of Education of suspension and expUlsion 

rates and racial dis proportionality at the state and local level. 

• Kentucky P&A encourages the better tracking of school discipline rates as 

an indicator of school needs and improvement in persistently lowachieving schools. This data is a promising example of how publicly available 

data could be used to improve school climate. 

• Congress should fund grant programs to support community-based 

solutions. The solutions to the causes of the STPP at the local level will often· 

require the efforts and input of all stakeholders. Funds should go toward the 

development and implementation of multi-year, comprehensive local or regional 
444 

KY Protection & Advocacy 

Senate Hearing: SPTT 

December 10, 2012 

Page Five 

plans to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline and the number of youth 

entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

Conclusion: Thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic and allowing 

written testimony to be submitted. Kentucky P&A is committed to continuing to be 

part of the solution to this serious social issue. 

I (Shufelt, L. J., & Cocozza, J. J. (2006). Youth with Mental Health disorders in the Juvenile Justice 

system: Results from a mUlti-state prevalence study. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Mental Health 

and Juvenile Justice. ). 

II "As states have undertaken efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement for youth, they have 

found evidence that disproportionality occurs at every contact point within the juvenile justice system, 

from arrest to cases transferred to criminal court and not just at detention and correction." DMC Technical 

Assistance Manual, 4th Edition, htlps:/Iwww.ncjrs.govlhtmllojjdpldmc ta manualldmcintro.pdf (page 

Intro-1). 

III Opportunities Suspended, August 2012, Civil Rights ProjectiProyecto Derechos Civiles, at 36. Retrieved 

from htlp:llcivilrightsproject.ucla.edulresourceslprojectslcenter-for-civil-rights-remedieslschool-to-prisonfolderlfederal-reportslupcoming-ccrr-researchl} 
445 

S LABOR/COMMUNITY C ~ ~ ~ 9 T RAT f G Y f N T f R Centro de Estrategia 

December 10,2012 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

CIO U.S. Senator Dick Durbin 

Re: Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin & Subcommittee Members: 

We write to support this Subcommittee, on behalf of the students, parents and community members 

the Community Rights Campaign represents, to take action to protect and value the civil, human and 

educational rights of students and school community members by ending the school-to-prison 

pipeline. 

Please find attached with this correspondence. several personal statements from the students 

themselves that speak directly to the impacts and a call for action to end the school-to-prison 

pipeline. 

The LaborlCommunity Strategy Center's Community Rights Campaign works with students and 

families throughout Los Angeles County public schools to address the devastating impacts that 

excessively punitive policies and practices are having on students and families, and particularly on 

low-income communities of color. The Campaign specifically seeks to deter the criminalization of 

student conduct that occurs through the use of exclusionary forms of student discipline and the 

increased use of law enforcement in response to various educational issues. 

The presence and extent of policing of our public school students is not limited to Los Angeles' 

schools. We are facing a crisis nationwide despite numerous accounts that the current practice of 

policing in our schools is creating rather than preventing a problem that is having lasting 

educational impacts for public school students. 1 In addition to the higher likelihood that students 

will enter the juvenile justice system simply as a result of the. presence and manner of policing on 

their campus, the daily access of police to students compromises their educational and civil 

rights with the potential for unchecked searches, handcuffing, interrogations and restraints. The 

alienation and trauma that students can experience as a result of persistent policing may affect 

their attitudes toward school, their behavior and their overall mental health and well-being. 

1 See. i.e., Justice Policy Institute, Education Under Arrest: The Case Against Police in Schools (October 2011) 

available at http://www.justicepolicy Drg/research /3177; and the Advancement Project, Zero Tolerance in 

Philadelphia: Denying Educational opportunities and Creating a Pathway to Prison (January 2011) available at 

http://www.advancementproject.org/digital-library/publicationsIzero-tolerance-in-philadelphia-denying-educationalopportunities-and-cr. 
446 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Re: Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

December 10,2012 

Page 2 of3 

We believe there is a great urgency to address the widespread practice of policing our students 

within the educational system. Students and families that rely on a public system of education 

cannot choose to avoid or prevent the daily presence of police in their lives. It is also apparent 

that race is a factor in the perception of what is disruptive and what necessitates law enforcement 

involvement. For many students, and particularly our Black students, the criminalization process 

begins at emollment and increases with intensity when they transition to Middle School. 

In Los Angeles, the LAUSD school police department ("LASPD") is the largest in the nation. 

While LASPD has been in existence since 1948, their role has changed dramatically over the 

years from patrolling school property after hours to regulating and penalizing student conduct 

through the juvenile court system. For examples, in addition to school-based arrests, citations 

are routinely issued to students primarily for behaviors that could have been handled 

administratively with school-based responses. 

The Community Rights Campaign had the opportunity to analyze the citation data for the 

LASPD between 2009-2012. The following are some of the more troubling trends. 

Students are cited with frequency at very young ages 

Students as young as seven years old have received citations; 

In 2012, to date, 47% of citations were issued to youth 14 and younger; 

Between 42% - 44% of citations issued to 11 -13 year-olds were for Disturbing the Peace 

The majority of citations are for non-violent offenses and student conduct where effective 

alternatives exist that are less discriminatory, including implementation of school-wide positive 

behavior support interventions and restorative justice programs 

In 2012, to date, 93% of the citations were for truancy, disturbing the peace (a.k.a. 

fighting), defacing or damaging property, possessing tobacco and possessing marijuana; 

An overrwresentation of Black students is present for the maiority of offense categories and is 

particularly high for younger students and certain categories of offenses 

In 2012, to date, 20% of all citations were issued to African-American students despite 

their student emollment of 10.2% 

African-American students are disproportionately represented at extreme rates for 

disturbing the peace, representing 36% of those citations 

Males are significantly overrepresented in all categories 

White students are significantly underrepresented in almost all categories 

Each year, White students are cited at rates much lower than their student emollment of 

9.5% 
447 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Re: Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

December 10,2012 

Page 3 of 3 

In 2012, to date, White students make-up only 3.5% of the citations 

Latinos students receive the most citations and patterns of overrepresentation are present in 

certain categories of offenses 

In 2012, to date, 74% of the total citations for ~chool age youth were issued to Latino 

students 

We remain encouraged that with exceptional leadership and meaningful collaboration amongst all 

the stakeholders, change-is achievable. In Los Angeles, for instance, the Community Rights 

Campaign and community allies successfully chipped away at the school-to-prison pipeline by 

challenging the practice of issuing citations for truancy and tardiness. Our efforts ultimately resulted 

in revisions to the underlying daytime curfew law that included important protections for students. 2 

The campaign to reverse the widespread use of police and citations for truancy and tardiness was 

based on an in-depth survey of students that described these tickets and the police interactions as 

contributing to a hostile school environment that left them feeling alienated and often choosing not 

to go school. This progress required meaningful engagement with the community by leaders in City 

Council, the school district, law enforcement and the juvenile court to reassess a punitive practice 

that was harming rather than supporting student achievement and growth. 

We are confident that your attention and leadership on this issue is of the utmost importance. 

We are grateful to the Subcommittee and hope that this hearing is a major step forward towards 

reversing the school-to-prison pipeline. 

Sincerely, 

Manuel Criollo 

Director of Organizing 

Zoe Rawson 

Legal Advocate 

2 For a detailed discussion on the problem of the L.A. daytime curfew law please see Community Rights Campaign, 

End the Tickets: Alternativesfor Youth Campaign (October 2009). Attached herein as Attachment 1 for your 

convenience, 
448 

December 10, 2012 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Committee Members, 

Lambda Legal appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights in its hearing on Ending the 

School-to-Prison Pipeline. We seek to provide the committee with information, insight and 

examples regarding the negative impact of school disciplinary actions that inappropriately push 

students out of schools, into alternative schools, or into juvenile justice systems. These actions 

ravage some of the most marginalized and victimized students in schools: those who are or who 

are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning (LGBTQ). 

Our Background 

As the oldest and largest national legal organization committed to achieving full recognition of 

the civil rights ofLGBT people and people with HIV, Lambda Legal has focused for years on 

young peoples' rights both in public schools and in state custody. Our docket has included 

numerous cases on behalf of LGBTQ youth in schools and their allies, I a high priority because 

of the devastating impact discrimination in schools has on all members of the school community. 

We are committed to helping schools become welcoming environments for all students, 

including those young people who identify as, or are perceived as, LGBTQ. 2 Youth who are 

unsupported by families and schools often end up in foster care or juvenile facilities. Lambda 

Legal's work to support youth in out-of-home care3 reflects their needs-and informs us that 

LGBT students unsupported in schools and at home are at immense risk for juvenile detention 

and, later, incarceration. 

Lambda Legal has also been involved in engaging students, educators and community members 

in convenings about the intersection of safe schools for LGBT youth and dismantling the schoolto-prison pipeline. We have participated for two years in the southern regional conferences 

"South Star: Safe Schools Convening ofthe South," where more than forty organizations 

1 See http;!!www.lambdalegal.orgiissues!schools. 

2 To this end, we provide online toolkits and resources for LGBTQ youth and their allies, including Out, Safe and 

Respected (http://www.lambdalegal.orgipublications/out-safe-respected) and our interactive online tool located at 

http;!!www.lannbdalegal.orglkyr!youth. 

3 See http;!!www.lambdalegal.orgiissues!youth-in-out-of-home-care. 
449 

collaborate on workshops and strategy sessions to address anti-LGBT bullying and harsh 

disciplinary policies. 

THE PROBLEM 

In our cases and in calls we receive, we note patterns that clearly feed into the disturbing 

scenario dubbed "the school-to-prison pipeline." Students targeted for harassment are isolated or 

sent to inappropriate alternative schools, driven from their school placements rather than 

protected. Without appropriate official leadership and intervention to address school 

environments, students avoid school in attempts to keep themselves safe. They become truant, 

lose educational opportunities, and are more likely to be found on the street and in encounters 

with law enforcement that result in juvenile and criminal records. Those who are harassed and 

targeted and remain unsupported in schools may finally attempt to defend themselves and end up 

lashing back at tormenters-for which they are disciplined, often harshly. 

A review of calls to our Legal Help Desk shows that in recent years Lambda Legal has received 

more than 50 reports of students having been unfairly and unequally punished, including students 

expelled because of their sexual orientation or gender expression; school officials pressuring 

parents to homeschool their children because of a student or parent's sexual orientation; and 

children uprooted and sent to alternative schools simply because school officials were 

uncomfortable with their sexual orientation. Too often this blatant discrimination cannot be 

remedied through litigation. Students are a fairly transient population, while unhealthy school 

environments tend to take root and fester if unaddressed. And remedies after the fact can barely 

approximate justice for students previously damaged and deprived oftheir educational 

opportunities. But practically all students on whose behalf we advocate and litigate have had 

some experience with damaging dynamics that feed the pipeline. 

While discipline, including expulsion or even criminal or quasi-criminal prosecutions directed at 

students who violate rules against harassing other students, may sometimes protect LGBT youth, 

too often disciplinary measures that push youth out of schools are also applied to the targets of 

harassment, or disproportionately meted out to students who are or are perceived to be LGBT 

and/or are students of color. Through our case load we observe that hostile school environments 

and harassment escalate, as a rule. Well-executed and well-publicized educational policies, 

comprehensive curricula, high-quality staff training, and support for LGBT-affirming activities 

and clubs like gay-straight alliances contribute to environments that help prevent discrimination 

and foster an atmosphere where problems are addressed early, before they escalate to the point 

where severe discipline might be appropriately considered. 

In short, we support measures to comprehensively address the school environment and foster an 

atmosphere where all students can learn peacefully and with mutual respect. And where 

disciplinary measures are needed, we support interventions that protect all students and endeavor 

where possible to avoid depriving young people of the opportunity to learn and fulfill their 

potential. We offer the following information and suggestions in support of sensible laws and 

policies to interrupt the school-to-prison pipeline. 

2 
450 

I. LGBT students face harsher punishments for similar infractions than their 

heterosexual counterparts. 

Research has finally emerged showing what LGBT advocates who work with youth have long 

known: our LGB teens and young adults are more often punished by school and criminal 

authorities than are straight youth. 4 Data from a nationally representative sample of more than 

15,000 people interviewed both as teens in grades 7 through 12 and again when they were 18 to 

26 years old show that LGB5 adolescents are about 40 percent more likely than other teens to be 

punished by school authorities, police and the courts. As noted by the lead author, Kathryn E.W. 

Himmelstein, 

We found that virtually all types of punishment - including school expulsions, arrests, 

juvenile convictions, adult convictions and especially police stops - were more 

frequently meted out to LGB youth. 6 

According to the research, these disparities in punishments are not explained by differences in 

the rates of misbehavior. In fact, the study showed that adolescents who identified themselves as 

LGB actually engaged in less violence than their peers. As Himmelstein reported, 

Our numbers suggest that school officials, police and judges, who should be protecting 

LGB youth, are instead singling them out for punishment based on their sexual 

orientation. LGB teens can't thrive if adults single them out for punishment because of 

their sexual orientation. 7 

Students of color also experience disproportionate rates of discipline and expulsion from school. 

Data released by the U.S. Department of Education this year showed, for example, that AfricanAmerican students are far more likely to be suspended or expelled from school. Black students 

made up 18 percent of those included in the government survey, yet comprised 39 percent of 

students who were expelled. For LGBT students of color, therefore, the risk of facing 

disproportionate punishment is compounded. 8 

II. Unchecked anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in school leads LGBT students and 

students perceived to be LGBT to take matters into their own hands, resulting in 

higher rates of school violence, discipline and incarceration. 

'Kathryn E. W. Himmelstein & Hannah Bruckner, Criminal-Justice and School Sanctions Against Nonheterosexual 

Youth: A National Longitudinal Study, 127 Pediatrics 49, 49-57 (2010). 

5 The study did not explore the experiences of trans gender youth, but anecdotal reports suggest that they are 

similarly at risk for excessive punishment. 

6 Karen N. Peart, Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Teens Singled Outfor Punishment, Yale News, Dec. 6, 2010, 

http://news.yale.edul20 I 0!12!06Ilesbian-gay-and-bisexual-teens-singled-out -punishment. 7 Id 

8 U.S. Department of Education, New Datafrom U.S. Department of Education Highlights Educational Inequities 

Around Teacher Experience, Discipline and High School Rigor, March 6, 2012, http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/new-data-us-department-education-highlights-educational-inequities-around-teache. 

3 
451 

A 2011 study found that 63.5% of LOBT students felt unsafe in their school because oftheir 

sexual orientation. 9 Not surprisingly, the result is that lout of every 3 LOBT students reports 

skipping school based on safety concerns 10, rendering them truant and pushing them closer to 

suspension and expulsion. 

Such commonplace harassment and abuse also leads to a more dangerous environment for all 

students, and puts LOBT students at higher risk of being pushed out of school. Victims of such 

harassment and abuse "may tum to physically defending themselves against bullies, carrying 

weapons, and other survival tactics that endanger the school community."ll Common sense 

leads to the sad conclusion that unchecked harassment (84.5 percent of LOBT students in a 2011 

survey reported that when anti-LOST remarks were made, faculty or staff "never" or only 

intervened "some ofthe time") 12 triggers increased fights with other youth. Because "zerotolerance" policies generally disregard the circumstances leading to an altercation, the result is 

push-out discipline for the victim ensnared in the fighting. This result is especially likely where 

schools routinely refuse to protect the target from continued anti-LOBT harassment. (Note that 

71.3 percent of LOST students in a 2011 study reported hearing remarks such as "faggot" or 

"dyke" frequently or often at school).13 

III. LGBT students who do not feel safe at school are more likely to be truant, to drop 

out, and to engage in other risky behaviors such as substance abuse and sexual 

exploitation. 

Schools should provide a safe environment for all students; unfortunately, many schools fail to 

protect their LOBT students. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledges the 

adverse health effects of an unsafe school environment, noting that "[ n ]egative attitudes toward 

gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people put LOBT youth at increased risk for 

experiences with violence, compared with other students." 14 The CDC notes that these stresses 

experienced by LOBT youth put them at greater risk for mental health problems, substance use, 

and physical health problems. 

The cycle of harassment, violence, and discipline leads to students being pushed out or dropping 

out of school. One report found that, "[z]ero-tolerance discipline sends a clear message to 

9 Joseph G. Kosciw, et aI., Gay. Lesbian & Straight Education Network, The 201 I National School Climate Survey 

xiv (20 II), available at http://www.glsen.orgibinary-datalGLSEN_ A TTACHMENTS/file/000/002/21 OS-I.pdf. See 

also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health, 

http://www.cdc.gov/lgbtheaJthlyouth.htm(lastvisitedDec. 10,2012) (citation omitted). 

10 Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, FAQs: Top 5 Frequently Asked Questions From the Media, 

http://www.glsen.orglcgi-biniiowalalllnews/recordJI970.html(last visited Dec. 10,2012). 

1l Advancement Project, Alliance for Educational Justice & GSA Network, Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right: Why 

Zero Tolerance is Not the Solution to Bu/lying4 (June 2012), available at http://gsanetwork.orgifiles/aboutus/APJ005_ D5-FINALsmaU.pdf. 

12 Joseph G. Kosciw, et aI., supra note 9, at 17. 

JJ Id. at 14. 

14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health, 

http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealthlyouth.htm(lastvisited Dec. 10,2012) (citation omitted). 

4 
452 

students that they are not valued; unfortunately that message has gotten through to far too many 

students who have been pushed out of school by unnecessarily severe disciplinary measures.,,15 

Given the tragic reality that many LGBT students are not welcome in their families, many of 

these LGBT youth end up on the streets. Indeed 20 to 40 percent of homeless youth identify as 

LGBT. 16 Once homeless, LGBT youth are at higher risk for victimization (LGBT youth are 

roughly 7.4 times more likely to experience acts of sexual violence than heterosexual homeless 

youth), mental health problems, and unsafe sexual practices. 17 The path to prison for young 

people pushed out of schools and into the streets is both predictable and avoidable. 

IV. Potential solutions limit interventions that push students out ofschool, and provide 

accountability and clear guidance and support for LGBTQ youth. 

Measures that help interrupt the school-to-prison pipeline may include but not be limited to the 

following: 

I. Establish enumerated antibullying policies that include sexual orientation and gender 

identity and expression. Make these policies clearly accessible in student handbooks and 

online. 

2. Incorporate comprehensive curricula regarding difference, tolerance, and respect for all. 

3. Train administrators, educators, and school safety officers on effectively addressing antiLGBT bullying, harassment, and name-calling. 

4. Support LGBT-affirrning clubs such as gay-straight alliances, and promote safe spaces 

for LGBTQ youth in schools. 18 

5. Limit the use of expulsions, disciplinary transfers, out-of-school suspensions, referrals to 

law enforcement, and school-based arrests to conduct that poses a serious threat to 

students and staff. 

6. Comply with or create a public reporting system for school discipline data including 

expulsions, in- and out-of-school suspensions, school-based arrests, and referrals to law 

enforcement with data disaggregated by offense, age, grade, gender, gender identity, 

race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, and school. 

7. Consider alternative disciplinary programs when appropriate, including peer mediation, 

conflict resolution, guidance counseling, peer juries and courts, mentoring, character 

education, and parental and community involvement initiatives. 

15 Advancement Project, et aI., supra note II, at 6 

16 Lambda Legal, Know Your Rights: Homeless LGBTQ Youth, http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-yourrightslhomeless-lgbtq-youth (last visited Dec. 10,2012). 

17 National Coalition for the Homeless, LGBT Homeless, http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheetsllgbtq.html 

(last visited Dec. 10,2012). 

" Advancement Project, et aI., supra note II, at 14. 

5 
453 

On behalf of Lambda Legal, we thank you for this opportunity to provide information relevant to 

dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline. We would be pleased to address further inquiries. 

Sincerely, 

Hayley Gorenberg 

Deputy Legal Director 

Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. 

National Headquarters 

120 Wall Street, 19th Floor 

New York, NY 10005-3904 

hgorenberg@lambdalegal.org 

Beth Littrell 

Staff Attorney 

Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. 

Southern Regional Office 

730 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1070 

Atlanta, GA 30308-1210 

blittrell@lambdalegal.org 

Holiday Simmons 

National Community Educator 

Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. 

Southern Regional Office 

730 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1070 

Atlanta, GA 30308-1210 

hsimmons@lambdalegal.org 

6 
454 

December 10.2012 

U.S. Senate 

Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. Civil Rights. and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

RE: Ending the School-tn-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durban. Ranking Member Graham. and Committee Members: 

Thank you for this opportunity (0 submit testimony for the December 12. 

2012 hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline." The Lawyers' 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is a nonpaltisan. nonprofit organization 

iormed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy 10 involve the private 

bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. Our principal 

mission is to secure equal justice under law by utilizing the skills and resources of 

the bar to address the factors that contribute to racial justice and economic 

opportunity. We seek to guarantee that all students receive equal educational 

opportunities in public schools and institutions of higher learning. and we believe 

that to do so. we must eliminate the opportunity gap between minol'ity students 

and their non-minority peers. To that end, we share your commitment to ending 

the School-to-Prison Pipeline. 

Public education is the cornerstone of Our nation's deeply held belief that 

anyone can risc above his or her circumstances regardless of race or status. The 

U.S. Supreme Court attested to this in BrOHm 1.'. Board (?l Education~ 

acknowledging "it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to 

succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an 

opportunity. where the state has undertaken to provide it. is a right which must be 

made available to all on equal terms,'·1 With the passage of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964. Congress also recognized the importance of education in creating equal 

0PP011unity. specifically prohibiting discrimination in our schools and colleges.2 

However. too many of our most vulnerable youth find themselves caught 

in the School-to-Prison Pipeline (STPP). which has transionned our schools into 

pathways to incarceration instead of places oflearning. 

S 4~3. 493 (1054) 
455 

To combat these inequities, we advocate that federal education reform (1) pennit the use 

of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Titlc I funds to implement school-wide 

behavior supports: (2) prohibit ESEA funding for exclusionary discipline measures; and 

improve accountability by mandating inclusion of school discipline data in ESE A state 

Report Cards. 

Within the past two decades, many schools have increased their reliance on law 

enforcement officers and exclusionary policies, such as out-ol~school suspension and expulsion. 

as a means of reducing school disruption. As a result. more students are arrested or referred to 

juvenile court illr what might be viewed as common misbehavior. While incarcerated, many 

children do not receive an adequate education. Moreover. juvenile delinquency can lead to longterm barriers to many life opportunities. such as access to public housing. military service, 

student financial aid, and professiona]]icen,cs. 

Exclusionary and punitive student discipline policies implicate a fundamental civil rights 

issue. As of 20 I !, over three million students were suspended at least once. and over I (lO.OOO 

were expelled. causing them to lose valuable instructional time3 Students of color and those 

with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by such policies. According to the US 

Department of Education's Office le,r Civil Rights, Black students across the country are over 3 

Y2 times more likely to be sllspended or expelled than tbeir White peers.s Latino students also 

suffer under these policies and are 1.5 times more likely to be suspended and twice as likely to 

be expelled as their White peers.5 Additionally, students covered under IDEA arc over twice as 

likely to receive onc or more out-of-school suspensions.' 

L The Inequities ofthe School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Of the many troubling aspects of STPP, there are three we highlight: (I) the racial 

disparities in exclusionary school discipline policies are unjustified; (2) exclusionary discipline is 

ineffective and harmful; and (3) exclusionary student discipline policies perpetuate the cycle of 

incarceration within communities of color. 

A, Racial DisfJlldlies ill Exclusiona,.!, School Discipline Polides Are Unjustified 

Despite strong evidence of disparities in school exclusion for students of color, research 

confirms that these students violate school rules at a rate equal to their White peers. III a study 

analyzing national discipline data, it was noted "research on student behavior, race, and 

discipline has l"und no evidence that the over-representation of macks in out-of~school 

, Dame! J Loscn <Ulll Jonathan (i!lkspH.\ Opport1llllfies Suspended: the Dis/urate Impact ~~rDisciplinm:r L>:clwlO1!fi"om S'dl{)ol, The Cn'tl 
456 

suspension is due to higher rates of misbehavior.,·7 This conclusion is bolstered by The Council 

ofSlale Governments' analysis of Texas school districts in Schools' Rules: A Statewide 

Stll'~r of' How Discipline Relotes to Student Success and Justice Involvement, which 

notes thaI Black students are "no more likely than students of other races to commit serious 

offenses that mandate that a student be removed from the campus:,8 A North Carolina study of 

iirst-time discipline violations further found that Black students were far more likely to be 

suspended for minor infractions than White students Ill!' the same offense: 

NOI·tII Carolina Black/White Suspension Rales' 

Cell Phone Dress Code Disruptive Display of 

Affection 

Black 

first-time 

offenders 

suspende.d 

at hlgher 

rates than 

\Vhlte.S for 

the same 

mmor 

offenses 

Black 

Whlte 

These studies, and others like them, cast doubt on the theory that disparities in discipline 

arc justified by differences in behavior between students of color and their White peers. 

Furthermore, the data from these studies highlight the harm sutTered by srudents of color under 

vague discipline policies that allow immediate removal for violations snch as being "disruptive" 

or ent~aging in 3 "'display of atfection," 

Exclusion should be permitted only for the most serious and dangerous offenses, where 

personal perceptions and cultural dissonance have no inlluence in the decision-making. 

Vagueness in school policies as to what triggers removals from the classroom. including under 

tbe zero-tolerance rubric. allow bias to infiltrate discipline decisions involving discretion. III 

Research indicates that while White students arc more likely to be excluded ii'om school for 

violating mandatory policies, such as drug or weapon possession, the offenses at the root of the 
457 

majority Black and Latino exclusions are subjective school code violations. such as 

defiance. 

B. Exclusionary Discipline l~ Ineffective lInd Harmful 

Out-of-sch,.)t,j 'suspt.'!1sions. expubinns and n\.)t (Jt11y indfeclivc 

school misbehav they reinlclrct it There is little evidence that school exclusion 

improves school climate. student behavior, or school salety. In fact schools "illl ja" 

enforcement oilleers hal C cl'nducl at almost five times those of 

comparable schools without officers. Instead. the "get tough" practices designed to ensure 

school safety often have the opposite effect of increasing feelings of school-wide rejection and 

isolation. 

Exclusionary policies negatively impact the educational experience of all students. The 

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention revealed that suspension greatly increases the 

likelihood of retention. dropout, criminal involvement, and/or future incarceration. Furthermore. 

students at schools with high suspension rates tend to score worse on standardized tests because 

of missed instructional timc U School-based arrests contribute to similar results. 

C, STPP Perpetuates Disproportionate Jllinorily COli fact wi/It Justice Sl'stem 

Exdusionary policies exacerbate the dispropoliionatc incarceration of people of coloI', 

According to the Sentencing Project. more than 60% of the people in prison are racial and ethnic 

minorities,'4 This mirrors juvenile incarcerations, where Blacks make up two-tlfths and Latinos 

one-fifth of confined. IS School-based arrests increase the likelihood of adult arrests and 

incarceration. In fact. 

incarcerated by ninth grade. 

suspension is top predictor of those students who will be 
458 

n. Recommendations for Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

In order to L'omballhe inequities of STPP and ensure equal educational opportunities for 

all children. the Lawyers' Committee advocates that federal education refonn do the following: 

(1) permit the use of ESEA Title I funds to implement school-wide positive behavior supports: 

(2) prohibit ESEA funding for exclusionary discipline measures; and (3) improve accountability 

by mandating inclusion of school discipline data in ESEA state Report Cards. 

A. Use ESEA Title I Funds to Implement Schoo/-Wide Positive Behavior Supporls 

We endorse proposed House Bill 2597 of the 111 th Congress, and consistent with that 

bill. we rccommend that the ESEA be amended to allow State educational agencies, local 

educational agencies. and scbools to increase implcmentation of school-wide positive behavior 

supports. 18 This should be done by pcrmitting states to allocate school improvement funds under 

Title I ofthc ESEA for coordinated, early intervention services for all students and improve the 

school learning environment as dcscribcd in the bilL'9 Positive behavior supports utilizc 

evidence-based practices that yield success in reducing studcnt misbehavior. They include 

programs such as restorative justice (RJ) and Positive Bchavior Interventions and Supports 

(PBIS). 

RJ is guided by principles of accountability, community safety, and social competency 

development.'o Under this framcwork. disciplinary incidents are used as an opportunity lbr 

students (0 recognize the impact of their behavior. take responsibility for their actions. and take 

steps towards making things right. This method not only prioritizes personal accountability, but 

also instills responsibility toward victims and tbe community." Schools with RJ have 

expcrienced reductions in exclusionary discipline. For example, Denver Public Schools use of 

restorative justice practices resulted in a 40% reduction in out-of-school sllspensions22 In West 

Philadelphia High. IU contributed to a 5()<Y., dccrease in suspcnsions. along with a 52% reduction 

in violent and serious aclS during the 20()7-2008 school year.'] 

PHIS is a framework to assist school personnel in adopting and organizing cvidcncc-
459 

based behavioral interventions into a tiered system of addressing behavior. A team-based 

process is used fbr data review. data-based problem solving and intervention. ongoing planning. 

and monitoring of interventions. This offers a range of interventions systematically applied to 

students based on a demonstrated level of need. PBIS is guided by f'Jur integrated elements: (1) 

data for decision making. (2) measurable outcomes supported and evaluated by data. (3) 

practices with evidence that these outcomes are achievable, and (4) systems that efficiently and 

elTectively support implementation of these practices. Ct' After applying school-wide PBIS. 

Jonesboro Middle School in Clayton County. Georgia decreased referrals from 1.252 office 

discipline referrals to 674 referrals.'? Additionally. more than 6.000 schools that implemented 

PHIS nationwide reported reductions in behavior problems, improved perceptions of school 

safety, and improved academic outcomes28 

Coordinated and sustained school-wide implementation of positive behavior supports 

requires targeted funding, Embedding these practices necessitates full-time employees to 

coordinate programs and shift school culture, ongoing training and technical assistance for staft: 

to conduct programming. and consistent monitoring and data collection to track 

Without such funding. it is diHicult to provide adequate support to students and 

Given that the schools most afflicted by STPP are more likely to be among the nation's 

under-resourced and under-pertclrming "dropout factories:' Title I funds are an appropriate 

means of supplying support for implementation of school-wide positive behavior supports:" 

The purpose of Title I funds is: 

to ensure that all children have a fair. equal, and significant 

opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach. at a 

minimum. proficieney on challenging Stale academic achievement 

standards and state academic assessments. This purpose can be 

accomplished by. . . meeting the educational needs of low-
460 

achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty schools, limited 

English proticient children, migratory children, children with 

disabilities. Indian children, neglected or delinquent children. and 

~yollng children in need of reading assistance: ... providing children 

an enriched and accelerated educational program, including the use 

of school-" ide programs or additional services that increase the 

amount and quality of instructional time; ... [and] significantly 

elevating the quality of instruction by providing staff in 

paliicipating schools with substantial opportunities few professional 

development. ... 32 

To increase classroom time and academic performance, recipients of ESEA Title I hmds 

should be permitted to allocate those school improvement funds for coordinated implementation 

of school-wide positive behavior suppons and to improve the school learning environment 

through required additional services. 

B. Prohibit Use o(ESEA Funding (itr Exc/usiol1arr Discipline ,HeaslIres 

ESEA funds are in place to assist and improve public schools with a high percentage of 

students from low-income families. We recommend that states be precluded from using the 

federal dollars associated with the ESEA to fund exclusionary discipline policies. The ESE A 

and the funds attached to it are in place to improve academic achievement for our nation's most 

disadvantaged students and schools. not to facilitate the marginalization of our nation's most 

vulnerable youth. In Hne with this recommendation. we specifically suggest that no [SEA funds 

be used to pay for: (I) school resource officer or other security personnel salaries, metal 

detectors, security cameras. or other securily-related salaries, equipment. or expenses; (2) drug 

testing programs: or (3) the development. establishment. implementation, or enforcement of 

zero-tolerance discipline policies. other than those required to prohibit possession of objectively 

dangerous weapons and illegal drugs. It is unconscionable that states be permitted to use these 

federal funds to employ discipline methods that arc ineffective, discriminatory, and curtail the 

promise of equal educational opportunities for all students. 

C Include Disaggregaled Discipline Data ill ESEA State Report Cards 

A state that receives assistance under ESEA must prepare and disseminate an annual 

ESEA state repol1 card (Report Card) publicizing student achievement data and the progress of 

its schools in pr~paring students for college and career rcadiness.'"' We recommend that 

discipline data disaggregated by race be a required component of the RepOli Card. This public 

repOiting will ensure that schools are held accountable for the systematic pract!ce of excluding 

students from the learning environment and driving them into the justice system."'" 

RlghlS Data Colledi0tl in [hal Reporl Curds are universal in the o.chools co\'ered and annual In rdease 
461 

Increased reliance on exclusionary discipline is linked to the high stakes testing attached 

to ESEA. To avoid the consequences associated with identification as a failing school, 

institutions in jeopardy of receiving that designation are incentivized disruptive 

students from the classroom rather than discern the best way to teach them. A consequence is 

that schools frequently push struggling students out of the classroom to increase test scores 36 

When drafting the most recent amendment to ESEA. Congress attempted to avoid such perverse 

incentives by requiring high schools to meet state-sct 6Tradu,ation goals in order to attain gains 

sunicient to demonstrate adequate yearly progress (A YPJ:" Unfortunately, the measure for 

graduation rates has been neither consistent nor rigorous. and many pushed out students fall off 

the map38 

A school should not be classified as making A YP if it drives difficult students out of the 

academic environment. As it stands currently. suspensions and expulsions reported at the 

state's discretion, and there is no mention of reporting exclusion by arrest. To hold states 

accountable for those students pushed out of school. disaggregated discipline data should be a 

mandatory component of the RepOlt Card. 

In closing, we urge the Committee to recognize the need for j()rceful action to end these 

policies and practices associated with STPP. The Lawyers' Committee welcomes the 

opportunity to consult with you further On reforms to make our school environments safe and 

conducive to j(l]' all. Please contact Tanya Clay House, Director of Public Policy, at 

(202) 662-8330 or or myself. Brenda Shum, Director of the 

Educational Opportunities 

questions. 

Respectflilly, 

Tanya Clay House, Director 

Public Policy 

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 

Brenda L. Shum, Director 

Educational Opportunities Project 

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 
462 

December 10, 2012 

The H_onorable Richard Durbin, Chairman 

The Honorable Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

\Vashington, DC 20510 

Rc: Hearing on Ending the School-to~PrisOl1 Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking :Member Graham, and Subcommittee "Members: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the 

thl! School~ to- Prison Pipeline, The Disabilities Association 

national state and local members including with learning disabilities, their families, and the 

work with them, Organized in 1963, LOA has over 100 state and local uff1liates, in 43 States and Puerto 

Children with self-esteem, depression and poor 

peer relationships, children \vith !earning do well in school ami may experience 

academic failure, They may their fJUstrations through inanDrooriale behavior. \vhich in turn increases their risk of 

heing expelled Children with learning arc arresrcd and enter the juvenile justice system 

at higher rates than 

the school pipeline to prison would include: early 

conditions in the schoo! system, appropriate education and 

speciaUzed mSTmc[t(mal support services, and strong family and community support systems. 

When jearning disahilities are identified and the school provides appropriate servic~s, 

address behavior issues, children have the opportunity to access and benefit from 

esteem and a del.'Teased likelihood of suhstance abuse and 

diS<lbilities \,,'iIl be fully 

cOn0l1llJl1ilies. The risk that some children may end 

services benefits these children and society overall 

appropriate interventions to 

This leads 10 increased self 

Executive Directm, 

to comment. If we can provide furth{?f information. please contact Mary Clare Reynolds, 

, Ext. 206. llli:':':.l:lJS.'},h'1Uill'u!.I!£\c:.!1!H:g. 

SincereJy, 

Patricia Latham, President 

www.LDAAmerica.org 
463 

IlililrEqual justice starts here. 

December 19, 2012 

Senator Dick Durbin 

United States Senate 

711 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Durbin: 

Thank you for inviting the Legal Assistance Foundation (LAF) to submit written testimony to 

be included in the record of the "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline Hearing" held on 

December 12, 2012 in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Human Rights. We appreciate the opportunity to provide commentary on this 

important topic. 

As a Legal Services Corporation grant recipient, LAF provides free, civil legal services to low 

income residents of Cook County. LAF attorneys practice in a wide range of civil law, 

including domestic violence, wrongful evictions and consumer fraud. Among our many 

projects is an Education Law Team, which began in 1996, and whose primary goal is to 

assist students that cannot access the special education services to which they are entitled. 

LAF's Education Law Team also assists students who are being expelled from school or who 

suffer from bullying. Last year, our Education Law Team provided services to approximately 

200 stUdents. Many of these cases provide vivid examples of the trend known as the 

school-to-prison pipeline. 

We have observed several disturbing practices among local public schools that have resulted 

in students being wrongly pushed out of school via expulsions, suspensions, and arrests. 

These practices include: 1) the failure of public schools to identify or evaluate students with 

disabilities; 2) even worse, the failure of public schools to provide special education services 

even after students have been evaluated and found to be disabled; 3) out-of-school 

suspensions and police notifications for minor disciplinf! infractions; and 4) the failure to 

provide alternative education to students who are e)(pelled. 

1) Failure to Identify Students with Disabilities 

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a school may be obligated to 

evaluate a child for special education services upon the parent's request and consent.! 

Moreover, when there is reason to suspect that a child has a disability that is interfering 

with his education then IDEA requires the school to initiate the evaluation process even 

without a parent request! Accordingly, IDEA requires that each State have in effect pOlicies 

and procedures to ensure that school districts identify, locate and evaluate all children with 

, 34 eFR 300.301(b) 

lId. 

1 

120 S. LaSali. Street. St •. 900 'Chicago, IL 60603 

www.lafchicago.org , 
464 

disabilities residing in the State. 3 Despite this federal mandate, many schools implement 

policies and practices that result in delaying or denying the evaluation of students. 

For example, Response to Intervention (RTI) is a program designed to identify students atrisk for poor learning outcomes and to provide those students with intense interventions 

designed to bring the students academically up to speed. The use of RTI does not diminish 

the district's obligation under IDEA to evaluate a child. Too often, however, local public 

schools rely upon RTI systems as a basis for delaying or denying an evaluation under IDEA" 

We see many cases where the student's poor academic performance or ongoing behavior 

issues indicate a learning or emotional disability, yet the school simply fails to initiate the 

evaluation process. Some of our clients, for example, have had to repeat a grade twice and 

still the district did not evaluate the child for a learning or emotional disability. Common 

sense dictates that a child who fails twice is not making academiC progress and probably 

suffers from a learning disability, cognitive disability or emotional disability that impairs his 

ability to learn. Under IDEA, the school should identify that child as needing an evaluation 

to at least determine whether special education services are needed. 

Failing to identify a disability creates a host of problems for the child, his classmates and 

the school. More specifically, failing to identify a child's disability and put appropriate 

special educations services in place can directly contribute to disciplinary problems. 

Students with emotional disabilities are especially vulnerable in this situation, as their 

diagnoses - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, bipolar disorder, 

schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, etc. - often manifest themselves in inappropriate 

behavior. We have seen, over and over again, students with one or more of these 

diagnoses, repeatedly act out in school and labeled as "problem kidsH or "difficult." If the 

district were to evaluate such students for special education eligibifity and then provide 

them with supportive services and an appropriate school environment, as IDEA requires 

them to do, they would discover that many of the behaviors that land "problem kids" with 

suspensions and expulsions could be avoided. 

For some students the entire incident could have been avoided if they were in a proper 

school environment to begin with- such as a highly-structured therapeutic school - or in a 

school with a proper Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) and social work services. Nationally, 

placements in therapeutic SChools have gone up. But for CPS, the largest school district in 

Cook County, the therapeutic placement numbers have decreased and are typically much 

lower than that of other large urban school districts. 5 One CEO of a private therapeutic 

school wonders "where are these children? .•• I think they are dropping out, on the street, 

in juvenile detention centers. I think they are being lost:'" The need for therapeutic 

educational placements has not decreased, but CPS's willingness to provide it has 

decreased. The result of this trend is an increase in special education students being 

3 34 CFR 300.111(a)(1) • 

• Memorandum to: State Directors of Special Education Office of Special Education Programs, 111 LRP 4677 

(January 21, 2011). 

S Karp, Sarah, No Place In Line, Catalyst In Depth, Spring 2012, pages 6-7, found at: www.catalyst-chicago.oro. 

'Id. 

2 
465 

disciplined - suspended, expelled, arrested - for misconduct that could have been managed 

better or avoided entirely. 

2) Failure to Provide Appropriate Special Education Plans 

Once a child is evaluated and found eligible for special education services, IDEA requires the 

school to develop an Individualized Education Program, often referred to as the "IEP.,,7 The 

IEP sets forth all the special education and related services to be provided to the student, as 

well as educational goals for the student each year.s Once the IEP Is In place, under Illinois 

law the school district must implement the plan within 10 days.9 Similarly, when a student 

transfers from one school district to another, the new district must either honor the existing 

IEP or re-evaluate the child in order to create a new plan.!Q Routinely, we find that the 

receiving district fails to implement an IEP developed at the sending district. This illegal 

practice often leads to students facing serious diScipline consequences, like expulsion and 

arrests, for behaviors that could have been avoided or at least minimized at a therapeutic 

school with staff trained and a program set up to handle students with high needs. 

Nationally, students identified as special education eligible under IDEA are more than twice 

as likely to be suspended one or more times: 6% of non-IDEA students are suspended one 

or more times, versus 13% of IDEA students.!! In Chicago, IDEA students are about 52 

times more likely to be suspended repeatedly (more than one time) than non-IDEA 

students: 0.6% of non-IDEA students were suspended repeatedly, versus 31.6% of IDEA 

students.'2 If school districts were dealing with students' disabilities appropriately, there 

should be no difference between these percentages. 

Repeated suspensions and expulsion referrals send a message to the student that they are 

not wanted at school. Truancy increases. Grades decrease. The student gets behind in 

progress towards graduation reqUirements. Fewer than half of all students in special 

education, and fewer than 20% of those with emotional disabilities, graduate. 13 

Undoubtedly, many of those students are pushed-out via improper suspensions, expulsions, 

and arrests. Students who are arrested are SO percent more likely to drop out. 14 

7 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1412(a)(4), 1414(a),(d) 

834 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) 

, 23 ILAC 226.220 

,. 23 ILAC 226.50 

11 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, National Data Summary, 

updated March 2012, found online at: http://ocrdata.ed.govIDownloadsICMOCRTheTransformedCRDCFINAL3-15-

12Accessible-1.odf) 

12 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, City of Chicago District 229, 

2009 Survey, found online at: http://ocrdata.ed.govIPage?t=d&eld-32906&syk-5&pid-119) 

13 Karp, Sarah, No Place in Line, Catalyst In Depth, Spring 2012, page 8, found at: www.catalyst-chlcago.oro. 

14 Voices of Youth In Chicago Education, Failed Policies, Broken Futures: The True Cost of Zero Tolerance in 

Chicago, July 2011, page 15, found at: 

http://www.yoyceproject.orglsltesldefaultifilesNQYCE%20report%202011.pdf. 

3 
466 

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights' Civil Rights Data Collection 

("CRDC") collects data that is self-reported by school districts. In CPS's 2009 survey (the 

most recent available online), it reported zero school-related arrests. Zero for IDEA students 

and zero for non-IDEA students.'s This number is, of course, inaccurate. Records obtained 

in response to a Freedom of Information Act request sent to the Chicago Police Department 

showed that there were in fact 5,651 arrests of juveniles 17 and under at public school 

locations in 2009.'6 Because CPS failed to report its data on arrests in the CRDC, it is 

impossible to know whether special education students are disproportionately represented 

in that number, the way they are in the numbers for suspensions. 

3) Out-of- school suspensions and police notifications 

More and more, student codes of conduct allow schools to discipline students with out-ofschool suspensions for minor infractions. According to the Chicago Public Schools Student 

Code of Conduct, for example, students may receive out-of-school suspensions for 

possession of cellular telephones, failing to have proper ID, possession of tobacco, and 

vandalism under $500 (which could include such minor offenses as writing on desks or 

bathroom stalls).'7 While these infractions may certainly warrant intervention or discipline, 

denying a child an education for several days is extreme and counter-productive. In the 

same vein, the CPS Student Code of Conduct sets out when schools may call the police and 

when schools must call the police. What used to be an isolated fight among a group of 

students can now turn into a police and criminal matter. Often, we see cases where 

students caught up in a fight are suddenly arrested for "mob action." In CPS's Student 

Code of Conduct, "mob action" has the definition of "a large or disorderly group of students 

using force to cause injury to a person or property, or persisting in severe disruption after 

being directed to cease by school personnel or Police.,,'8 Instead of sorting out who was 

primarily involved and responsible in a fight, the school may accuse all of the students of 

engaging in mob action. We have even seen students who did not participate directly in the 

fight, but rather were nearby or tangentially involved when it began, being referred for 

expulsion for "mob action." Under CPS's Student Code of Conduct, this is a mandatory 

police notification offense. These terms can be grossly misleading and can result in the 

most innocent of students being arrested or expelled. 

A more appropriate reaction for students involved in these interactions would be a 

restorative justice strategy. Many schools, like CPS, incorporate into their code of conduct 

restorative justice strategies as alternatives to punitive measures, like expulsion and out-ofschool suspension. These strategies may include community service, peace Circles, 

mediation, accountability conferencing and peer juries. Unfortunately, these measures often 

lay dormant and, in our experience, are seldom utilized. While we are aware that some 

districts, including CPS, have used restorative justice strategies, we have yet to see a single 

client whose punishment for a school infraction resulted in community service, or other 

" U.s. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, City of Chicago District 229, 

2009 Survey, found online at: http:Uocrdata.ed.gov/Page?t-d&eld-329Q6&syk=5&pld-S06. 

16 Kaba, Marlame & Edwards, Frank, Policing Chicago Public Schools: A Gateway to the School-to-Prlson Pipeline, A 

Report by Project NIA, January 2012, page 19, found at: http://pollcelncos.com. 

17 Chicago Public Schools, Student Code of Conduct, Effective August 13, 2012, Group 2 Behaviors, pages 24-25, 

found at: http:Uwww.cps.edu/Documents/Resources/StudentCodeOfConducttEnglish StudentCodeofConduct.pdf. 

,. Id. at page 32. 
467 

restorative justice strategies. Yet physical altercations, especially those that arise 

spontaneously, are not premeditated, and do not result in any serious harm, are exactly the 

type of infractions that lend themselves to resolution through accountability conferencing. 

Accountability conferencing might result in positive outcomes, like students listening to each 

other's account of the altercation, listening to how their behavior affects others, admitting 

accountability for their actions, and making efforts to mend a hostile relationship. And even 

if only a few of those goals are achieved at a conferencing seSSion, none of them is achieved 

by expulsion. 

4) Failure to provide alternative education 

Some districts offer alternative education schools that are available to expelled students. 

This opportunity varies from district to district and is not mandated by state law. Despite 

the Illinois Constitution, which states that "the educational development of all persons to 

the limits of their capacity" is a "fundamental goal,"!9 many Illinois districts take the 

position that expelled students are exempted from these constitutional guarantees. As a 

result, children expelled from school are often denied access to any public education within 

the state. While this is a harsh outcome for most minor children, it is particularly harsh for 

elementary school children. Low income parents or guardians cannot always stay home 

with expelled children, leaving them unsupervised and unoccupied. Add to this mix a 

student who is already mentally ill or otherwise disabled and you have a recipe for trouble. 

5) Solutions 

Overall, some measures that would serve to reverse the school-to-prison pipeline include 

simple things, such as: 1) identifying disabled children under IDEA and evaluating them; 2) 

complying with the terms of IEP's for children already identified as disabled; 3) utilizing 

restorative justice strategies in lieu of expulsions, out-of-school suspensions and arrests; 

and 4) providing alternative education schools to children who are expelled. It must be 

noted that the focus on punitive measures, as opposed to restorative justice measures, 

comes at a cost. In 2011, for example, "CPS allocated just $3.5 million towards schoolbased college and career coaches, and $51.4 million towards school-based security 

guards."zo Moreover, the "district has 310 special education positions that remain 

vacant."'! These statistics cannot begin to measure the costs of over-utilizing law 

enforcement and the legal system through overly punitive diSCipline, let alone the long-term 

costs of denying education to so many children nationwide. 

19 ILCS Const. Art. x, § 1. 

20 Voices of Youth in Chicago Education, Failed Policies, Broken Futures: The True Cost of Zero Tolerance in 

Chicago, July 2011, page 19, found at: 

http://www . voyceDroJect. org/sites/defauIUfiles/VOYCE%20report%202011.pdf 

21 www.examiner.com/articie/chicago-public-schools-budget-crltlcized-by-access-liying-disabilitv-group. 

5 
468 

Again, we thank you for allowing us to provide commentary to the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. Ending the "school-toprison pipeline" is no pipe dream, but a worthy and achievable goal. 

Ac~u. Ashley Fretthold 

Staff Attorney 

Sincerely, 

~J:~~ Je~,f· ~ 

Supervisory Attorney 

6 

Rich Cozzola 

Children and Family Law 

Practice Group Director 
469 

RooseVELT UNIVERSITY 

Who we are: 

The Mansfield Institute for Social Justice and Transformation (MISJTJ at Roosevelt 

University provides innovative Social Justice Programming that raises consciousness 

while engaging in social justice and human rights work. 

Our specific focus is working with our community partners to disrupt the cradle to prison 

pipeline and engage our students and faculty in scholar activism that promotes 

education and hope over incarceration. We bring together the strengths of the 

university and community in order to understand and address gaps in the system that 

perpetuate the prison pipeline. We engage in specific, long term, collaborative projects 

with our community partners we are both disrupting the pipeline and giving youth 

reason to hope while preparing them for productive adulthood. Through coursework, 

scholarships, fellowships and mentoring, we incorporate Roosevelt University students 

into the projects so that they gain experience, skills and insights needed to be leaders 

and agents of social change 

What we know: 

Funds are not being appropriated in ways that will help youth achieve success. The 

School to Prison pipeline crisis is most pervasive in the punitive zero tolerance policies 

that are prevalent in urban public schools that are highly populated with youth of color 

and youth below the poverty line. Through our experience and research in Chicago 

Public Schools, we've witnessed how minor issues are responded to with harsh discipline 

that leads to the de-education, marginalization and criminalization of the youth. 

Learning outcomes are disregarded, in favor of harsh and highly punitive measures. 

Black, Latino, poor and disabled youth are being pushed away from school and toward 

the criminal justice system in vastly disproportionate numbers. Before our eyes, we have 

watched these young people lose their youthful spirit and all hope for their future. 

We know there are few places for these kids and their families to turn to for help and 

support. Not enough funding is provided in schools to create real, viable and lasting 

alternatives to zero tolerance policies and the criminal justice system. Communities lack 

the resources youth need. 

We know that in order to succeed, funding needs to shift from supporting punitive 

institutional practices that have proven to fail, towards community based programs 

that are restorative and based in principals of humanity. 

Background: 

The Civil Rights Project recently released a report that shows suspensions and expulsions 

across the States. A couple of statistics are of particular importance to Chicago. 
470 

One out of every six enrolled Black students was suspended, compared with 

about one in twenty White students. 

One in four Black youth with disabilities faced suspension or expulsion in the 2009-

1010 school year. 

• Illinois ranked the highest in racial disparities in suspensions and expulsions. 

Black youth with disabilities are 3x more likely than white youth with disabilities to 

be pushed out. 

The link between school push out (suspension and expulsion) and involvement in the 

juvenile justice system has been strongly established and we feel strongly that 

Restorative Justice practices is a solution to reduce suspensions, expulsions and the 

ensuing repercussions on our youth. 

Our efforts for reform: what we are doing as an organization, to combat the school to 

prison pipeline: 

We continue to be appalled over the structures in our society and existing neoliberal 

order that perpetuate the systems that criminalize American youth. This has driven us to 

find ways to create change. 

Roosevelt University's Mansfield Institute for Social Justice and Transformation is 

committed implementing Restorative Justice (RJ) Practices in as many elementary 

schools as we have the capacity to serve. We collaborate with community 

organizations in the vicinity of the school to ensure a holistic, school to community 

approach. 

Our model: 

• MISJT defines Restorative Justice (RJ) as a philosophy that is focused on the belief 

that those affected by harm can work together to repair it and that a collective 

effort leads to true accountability. Restorative Justice Practices are structured 

differently from systems we are used to in that they allow for a safe space for 

people to express their vulnerabilities, strengths, challenges and 

accomplishments. As a result, the process humanizes all those involved and 

promotes deeper bonds, a sense of responsibility and healing. 

We establish a peace room at the school that is used as the space to conduct 

conflict circles but is also a place that fosters a sense of belonging. This is a safe 

space for students to share in ways that leads to increased social emotional 

capacity, communication skills and a space where students can come and 

discuss challenges and accomplishments in their lives. 

Model uses a "whole school" approach to insure RJ practices are happening in 

the peace room but also in the hallways, on the playground, in the classroom, 

and in the school community. The school becomes the hub that demonstrates 

anti-violence, respect for others and restorative justice. 

• MISJT's resources allow us to tap into Roosevelt University's Transformational 

Learning courses/students to work in the elementary schools and their 

surrounding community to implement restorative justice practices. RU students 

are trained in RJ practices as part of their coursework. 
471 

A Holistic Restorative Justice Model: the duel hub model approach 

This approach is one that incorporates the Restorative Justice (RJ) philosophy at school 

and in the community. RJ practices will be woven into the life of the child in a 

pervasive way. We will ensure that all individuals who touch children's lives, including 

administration, teachers, counselors, parents and grandparents in the home, social 

service providers, mentors and faith based leaders in the community, police officers 

and judges and those at other institutions youth come in contact are trained in RJ 

practices. 

In order to achieve this, we see school and the community as the two hubs (effective 

centers of activity from which RJ practices will reach out in a variety of directions) that 

are interconnected. We are attaching the community hub model and explain the 

school hub model below. Since the child spends equal amount of time in school and in 

the community, it is important that those they come into contact with in either, are 

"speaking the same Restorative Justice language." This will allow continuity and 

consistency in the lives of the youth and overall, will foster a more supportive, 

empathetic and safe environment. These hubs are geographically located. 

The School Hub: 

This model uses an early intervention philosophy and begins in elementary schools. 

Instead of surveillance cameras, security guards and punitive policy, the school will 

invest in the necessary elements to implement holistic Restorative Justice Model. The 

investment includes school-wide RJ training and the establishing of a full time, staffed, 

peace room. RJ practices will be used to address aggressive behavior. bullying and 

overall, to control the level of violence while increasing safety and learning outcomes in 

the school. To this end, an RJ approach will be incorporated into in the classroom, on 

the playground, in the lunchroom, hallways, and in the peace room with the goal of 

building a sense of belonging, increasing communication skills, providing a safe space 

to discuss life challenges and community barriers, all working towards cultivating strong 

social emotional capacity among youth at the school. Using RJ to manage disciplinary 

incidents AND to build social-emotional capacity will lead to the ultimate end goal of 

increased academic achievement and decreased violence. 

A Collaborative Effort: 

These goals of the school model will be met in a collaborative way using the best 

practices and resources of a collective of community organizations that surround the 

school. For example: Roosevelt University has numerous students who are trained in RJ 

practices who will provide intems to work in the peace room and/or provide youth 

mentoring and academic tutoring at the school. This allows our students to use scholar 

activism and apply theory to practice in their work in the community focused on 

dismantling this pipeline; there are RJ training specialists like the Community Justice for 

Youth Institute who will be involved in initial and ongoing RJ training at the school; 

organizations like Power Pack and SWOP that will be involved in parent training and 

empowerment programming; anti-violence life coaches will help with special 
472 

programming and mentoring at the schaollik.e the myrtad of faith based leaden 

organizations Il ~e BUILD, Bloc~s Together and others depending on fhe geographic 

localion of the sChool. Adler school of will provide workshops on trauma education for 

all RJ practitioners at the school. All will use RJ methods they leamed in the geater RJ 

community from organizations li~e eJYI. Precious Blood Minislry. 

IncorporaHon of the School Hub and the Community Hub: 

Using on RJ practice leads to a deeper understanding of Ihe root causes of low self 

esteem. fear and trauma thaI a chid mol' be dealing with. These are successfully 

addressed in the varied RJ communications going on at the school. This is nol enouah. 

The challenge is ensuring that children's needs are met in a consistent way when they 

leave school. This is where the community hub [attach existing explanation of 

community hub vision) is integrated wilh the School hub. Tne same community 

O(ganizations that contribute to the school model will be worldng with the youth in the 

community wil be using RJ practices; be it aflerschool programs, lailh based 

organizations, menlorship and counseling programs, community centers that are 

alternatives to juvenile incarceration, parent support and education programs--ony 

place that exists to serve the needs of young people in the community, even police, 

judges and other officials will use tne RJ philosophy os a foundation for their wor~ with 

youth. Tne same "language of restorative Justice" that is used in the school wiN be used 

in the community. Strong communication and integration of services and 

programmng will transpire between tne RJ representatives at the school and the hub 

representatives in tne community. The school will inform the community hub 

representatives of youth and famiUes identified at ris~ Ihal requ1re additional support 

and in reverse, tne community will communicate with the RJ representotive at the 

school. 

Tne inexorable gool of the connection between these twa hubs is this: Anyone who 

touches the lives of youth. in the scnoo! and in the community. will be spea~ing Ihe 

same Restorative Justice language. Using a philosophy of Restorative Justice. both the 

school and the community will be empowered to address crime and connict and both 

will use RJ in other ways to create a positive. supportive neighborhood environment 

leading to less violence. healing and neighborhood Ironsformation and a positive 

trajectory for youth. 
473 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution. Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12. 2012 2:00 p.m. 

Maryland Disability Law Center (MDLC) would like to thank Chairman Durbin, Ranking 

Member Graham, and the Constitution Subcommittee for holding this hearing and 

raising awareness of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. As more and more of our nation's 

youth end up in the juvenile justice system, the time for federal leadership on this 

problem is now, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Who Are MDLe and the Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As)? 

The federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems were established by 

the United States Congress through eight separate statutes to protect the rights of 

people with disabilities and their families through legal support, advocacy, referral, and 

education. P&As are in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories 

(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin 

Islands), and there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium, which 

includes the Hopi, Navaho and Piute Nations in the Four Corners region of the 

Southwest. MDLC is a nonprofit legal services organization aimed at creating a more 

integrated and just society by advancing the legal rights of people with disabilities and 

ensuring equal opportunities to participate in community life. 

Each P&A provides a full array of serVices for people with disabilities, and work with 

youth to provide assistance with education and services in a variety of settings, 

including juvenile justice facilities, public and non-pUblic schools, and detention and 

correctional facilities. Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of legally 

based advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States. 

The Nature of the Problem 

Children with disabilities should not be punished for their disabilities. Instead, children 

should be provided the education to which they are legally entitled to and the supports 

necessary to obtain that education. Unfortunately, many of our public school students 

do not receive these basic rights. 

Statistics show that a disparate number of youth with disabilities, and especially youth of 

color with disabilities, are involved with the juvenile justice system. As many as 80% of 

youth in the juvenile justice system have some form of disability. i. Children of color are 

also disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system." However, a data 

analysis released in August of 2012 shows there is far more to the story. "Applying [ ... J 

three lenses together - race, gender and disability-yields a more disturbing image than 

anyone of the categories alone ... The group that consistently had the highest rate of 

suspension is African American male students with disabilities. In some of the largest 
474 

districts in the U.S .... suspension rates for this group reached more than 70% of their 

enrollment.',jjj 

This analysis shows that a specific sub group of children of color, those who are also 

children with disabilities, receive different treatment than their peers in public school. 

Within this sub group, children who reside in particular public school districts receive the 

worst treatment of all. Many of these youth face suspension or expulsion from school -

a key entry point into the "School to Prison Pipeline." In order to successfully protect 

these children from a future in prison, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the problem 

and tear it out by its roots. 

MDLe's Work on the School To Prison Pipeline (STPP) 

MOLe has been working on preventing improper discipline of students with disabilities 

for many years, before the link between these cases and the likelihood of future 

incarceration was widely recognized. Preventing suspension and expulsion of students 

for the behavioral manifestations of their disabilities is and always has been an 

important part of the advocacy work that we do. MOLe is engaged in both individual 

and systemic projects to address the school-to-prison pipeline for people with 

disabilities. 

For example, MOLe is representing a young man who was arrested in school nine 

times for minor offenses such as disturbing school activities and fighting, and the school 

system failed to provide the instruction and services necessary to give him an 

appropriate education under state and federal special education law. On a systemic 

level, MOLe has worked with school systems and stakeholders statewide to revise 

school discipline procedures and end zero tolerance practices that disproportionately 

affect youth of color and youth with disabilities. 

FEDERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Effective enforcement of current federal protections is the most effective 

way to stem the STPP for children with disabilities. MOLe is very pleased 

with a recent complaint filed by the U. S. Department of Justice (OOJ) regarding 

racial injustice in Meridian Mississippi. There are similar problems currently with 

regard to students with disabilities that are also worthy of OOJ's attention. We 

encourage DOJ to continue to work with the P&A agencies to identify appropriate 

cases for enforcement action. 

• Congress should create and appropriate funds for a specific P&A program 

focused on children with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. Funding 

the P&A network to do this work is an extremely cost-effective way to use the 

existing infrastructure of the P&A System. The P&A network is the largest crossdisability network of advocates in the United States, and P&As have extensive 

expertise successfully advocating on behalf of youth with disabilities in child-
475 

serving systems and advancing systems reforms. All P&As have an interest in 

and commitment to doing this work, but cite lack of funding and resources as the 

primary barrier to being more fully engaged while not diminishing the ability to do 

the other important work the P&As perform. 

• We recommend leadership by all relevant federal agencies, and especially 

OJJDP, in the area of prevention of school removal. There is a need to 

promote and create incentives for the revision of local school codes, so as to 

eliminate the use of out of school expulsion and promote the development of 

clear and specific Memoranda of Understanding regarding the use of School 

Resource Officers, in order to limit their role to matters of real school safety. 

Providing direct federal support for training schools and teachers in the best 

practices to prevent school removal. 

• The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) should 

continue recent efforts to publish Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) data. 

This type of federal effort is desperately needed in order to help state and local 

governments uncover and resolve STPP problems. 

• MDLC encourages OCR to consider specifiC enforcement actions (e.g. 

"compliance reviews") for STPP violations that impact students with 

disabilities. One example would be to address the worst offending districts in 

terms of racial/disability discipline statistics. 

• MDLC recommends effective monitoring and enforcement of the IDEA and 

ESEA by Department of Education of suspension and expulsion rates and 

racial dis proportionality at the state and local level. 

• MDLC encourages the better tracking of school discipline rates as an 

indicator of school needs and improvement in persistently low-achieving 

schools. This data is a promising example of how publicly available data could 

be used to improve school climate. 

• Congress should fund grant programs to support community-based 

solutions. The solutions to the causes of the STPP at the local level will often 

require the efforts and input of all stakeholders. Funds should go toward the 

development and implementation of multi-year, comprehensive local or regional 

plans to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline and the number of youth 

entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

• 

Conclusion: Thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic and 

allowing written testimony to be submitted. MDLC is committed to continuing to 

be part of the solution to this serious social issue. 
476 

; (Shufelt, L. J., & Cocozza, J. J. (2006). Youth with Mental Health disorders in the Juvenile Justice 

system: Results from a multi-state prevalence study. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Mental Health 

and Juvenile Justice. ). 

" "As states have undertaken efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement for youth, they have 

found evidence that disproportionality occurs at every contact point within the juvenile justice system, 

from arrest to cases transferred to criminal court and not just at detention and correction.' DMC Technical 

Assistance Manual, 4th Edition, https:/lwww.ncjrs.gov/htmllojjdp/dmc ta manualldmcintro.pdf (page 

Intro-1). 

;;; Opportunities Suspended, August 2012, Civil Rights ProjectiProyeclo Derechos Civiles, at 36. Retrieved 

from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prisonfolder/federal-reports/upcoming-ccrr-research/) 
477 

Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, 

Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

student of color was pC1111ancntly from school becanse, 

penciL he rok~d u studenfs shoulder to ~ause him to diSCOJ1l1nue 

him ,,,hile raking quiz. The high school principal. noting that the code of 

conduct rt,~qllir;,:'d zero tolerance for the usc of a weapnn. impDsed the 

tn C(jSI.~ described above, the student was fortunate that his parent able to 

secure legal representation. As a result, the school superintendent agrl.?cd to make 

~xceptlon to the zero tokranc1.,~ pt)lh~y. ending the student's month-long lack of 

access to puhlic education. Ho\'./e'ver, the superintendent was unwH1ing to change 

the zero tolerance policy forth in the code of c(lnduct. 

coalition of sdwol aDvocates, alter years of failure, year persuaded 

\1assachusctts Legislature and GOH~mor to refz)fJn the state school discipline 1a\VS 

to pwvidc uttcmati-vc education services to students 

Thomas \!cla 

and to reqnire sd1C101 districts to 

appeals to student., facing exclusion from schooL 

Senior Protects Director 

MassachLl~ett5 Adn_lcatcs fix Children 

25 Kingston Street 

Boston, MA 021 I 1 

617-357-84:; 1 22~ 
478 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution. Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 2:00 p.m. 

Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS) would like to thank Chairman 

Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and the Constitution Subcommittee for holding this 

hearing and raising awareness of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. As more and more of 

our nation's youth end up in the juvenile justice system, the time for federal leadership 

on this problem is now, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Who Are Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS) and the 

Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As)? 

The federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems were established by 

the United States Congress through eight separate statutes to protect the rights of 

people with disabilities and their families through legal support, advocacy, referral, and 

education. P&As are in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories 

(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin 

Islands), and there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium, which 

includes the Hopi, Navaho and Piute Nations in the Four Corners region of the 

Southwest. Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS) is the 

independent, private, nonprofit organization deSignated by the governor of Michigan to 

advocate for and protect the rights of people with disabilities in Michigan. 

Each P&A provides a full array of services for people with disabilities, and work with 

youth to provide assistance with education and services in a variety of settings, 

including juvenile justice facilities, public and non-public schools, and detention and 

correctional facilities. Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of legally 

based advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States. 

The Nature of the Problem 

Children with disabilities should not be punished for their disabilities. Instead, children 

should be provided the education to which they are legally entitled to and the supports 

necessary to obtain that education. Unfortunately, many of our public school students 

do not receive these basic rights. 

Statistics show that a disparate number of youth with disabilities, and especially youth of 

color with disabilities, are involved with the juvenile justice system. As many as 80% of 

youth in the juvenile justice system have some form of disability. i .. Children of color are 

also disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system." However, a data 

analysiS released in August of2012 shows there is far more to the story. "Applying I ... ] 

three lenses together - race, gender and disability-yields a more disturbing image than 

anyone of the categories alone ... The group that consistently had the highest rate of 
479 

suspension is African American male students with disabilities. In some of the largest 

districts in the U.S .... suspension rates for this group reached more than 70% of their 

enrollment. .iii 

This analysis shows that a specific sub group of children of color, those who are also 

children with disabilities, receive different treatment than their peers in public school. 

Within this sub group, children who reside in particular public school districts receive the 

worst treatment of all. Many of these youth face suspension or expulsion from school -

a key entry point into the "School to Prison Pipeline." In order to successfully protect 

these children from a future in prison, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the problem 

and tear it out by its roots. 

MPAS' Work on the School To Prison Pipeline (STPP) 

MPAS has been working on preventing improper discipline of students with disabilities 

for many years, before the link between these cases and the likelihood of future 

incarceration was widely recognized. Preventing suspension and expulsion of students 

for the behavioral manifestations of their disabilities is and always has been an 

important part of the advocacy work that we do. 

MPAS continued its systemic initiative to improve outcomes for children with disabilities 

who are excluded from school because of disability-related behavior. The questionnaire 

project has produced over 1,700 survey results to date and has helped MPAS identify 

systemic issues in three counties. MPAS is now collaborating with other community 

advocacy organizations to address the systemic issues. Meanwhile, the U.S. 

Department of Education cited to MPAS' input in its corrective action findings ordering 

the Michigan Department of Education to reform its complaint process and procedures 

to address substantive special education issues. 

MPAS closed 128 individual cases involving students whose disability-related behavior 

led to discipline and entry into the school to prison pipeline. For example: 

• An 8-year-old boy with autism was being disciplined on aregular basis by a 

charter school. MPAS investigated and filed a state complaint. The complaint 

was originally denied but then substantiated after MPAS appealed. The boy 

moved, but the charter school was required to provide assurances that it would 

evaluate him as required by law should he decide to re-enroll. 

• A 15-year-old boy with ADHD was expelled from school without post-expulsion 

services. MPAS investigated and filed a state complaint. The district agreed to 

revoke the expulsion and allowed the boy to return to school. 

• An 11-year-old boy with ADH D was "dismissed" from special education and then 

expelled the next day. MPAS investigated and filed a state complaint. The district 

agreed to return the boy to school with compensatory services. 
480 

• A 17-year-old young man with ADHD was sent home from school and told never 

to return because he was "disrespectful: MPAS investigated and filed a state 

complaint. The state found the district out of compliance and ordered 

reinstatement to school and compensatory education. 

• A 14-year-old boy with a learning disability was suspended and denied 

appropriate services; school staff referred him to MPAS. MPAS investigated and 

filed a state complaint. The district agreed to participate in wraparound services, 

conduct new evaluations, and rewrite the boy's Individualized Education Program 

(IEP) to provide more appropriate services. 

• MPAS' Marquette office filed a complaint on behalf of a 16-year-old woman with 

mental health and learning disabilities who had been expelled from school for a 

full year. The state substantiated all allegations in the complaint and ordered 

reviews of programs for all other students in the district, with ongoing corrective 

action until the district achieves 100% compliance with the law. 

FEDERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Effective enforcement of current federal protections is the most effective 

way to stem the STPP for children with disabilities. MPAS is very pleased 

with a recent complaint filed by the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding 

racial injustice in Meridian Mississippi. There are similar problems currently with 

regard to students with disabilities that are also worthy of DOJ's attention. We 

encourage DOJ to continue to work with the P&A agencies to identify appropriate 

cases for enforcement action. 

• Congress should create and appropriate funds for a specific P&A program 

focused on children with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. Funding 

the P&A network to do this work is an extremely cost-effective way to use the 

existing infrastructure of the P&A System. The P&A network is the largest crossdisability network of advocates in the United States, and P&As have extensive 

expertise successfully advocating on behalf of youth with disabilities in childserving systems and advancing systems reforms. All P&As have an interest in 

and commitment to doing this work, but cite lack of funding and resources as the 

primary barrier to being more fully engaged while not diminishing the ability to do 

the other important work the P&As perform. 

• We recommend leadership by all relevant federal agencies, and especially 

OJJDP, in the area of prevention of school removal. There is a need to 

promote and create incentives for the revision of local school codes, so as to 

eliminate the use of out of school expulsion and promote the development of 

clear and specific Memoranda of Understanding regarding the use of School 

Resource Officers, in order to limit their role to matters of real school safety. 

Providing direct federal support for training schools and teachers in the best 

practices to prevent school removal. 
481 

• The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) should 

continue recent efforts to publish Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) data. 

This type of federal effort is desperately needed in order to help state and local 

governments uncover and resolve STPP problems. 

• MPAS encourages OCR to consider specific enforcement actions (e.g. 

"compliance reviews") for STPP violations that impact students with 

disabilities. One example would be to address the worst offending districts in 

terms of racial/disability discipline statistics. 

• MPAS recommends effective monitoring and enforcement of the IDEA and 

ESEA by Department of Education of suspension and expulsion rates and 

racial disproportionality at the state and local level. The recent "verification 

visit" by OSEP to Michigan helped the state improve its monitoring and complaint 

investigation strategies to focus on outcomes for children with disabilities, 

especially children who are pushed out for disability-related behavior. 

• NDRN encourages the better tracking of school discipline rates as an 

indicator of school needs and improvement in persistently low-achieving 

schools. This data is a promising example of how publicly available data could 

be used to improve school climate. 

• Congress should fund grant programs to support community-based 

solutions. The solutions to the causes of the STPP at the local level will often 

require the efforts and input of all stakeholders. Funds should go toward the 

development and implementation of multi-year, comprehensive local or regional 

plans to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline and the number of youth 

entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

Thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic and allowing written testimony 

to be submitted. MPAS is committed to continuing to be part of the solution to this 

serious social issue. For more information, please contact Chris Rodriguez or Mark 

McWilliams, (517) 487-1755, www.mpas.org. 

; (Shufelt, L. J., & Cocozza, J. J. (2006). Youth with Mental Health disorders in the Juvenile Justice 

system: Results from a mUlti-state prevalence study. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Mental Health 

and Juvenile Justice. ). 

;; "As states have undertaken efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement for youth, they have 

found evidence that disproportionality occurs at every contact point within the juvenile justice system, 

from arrest to cases transferred to criminal court and not just at detention and correction." DMC Technical 

Assistance Manual, 4th Edition, https:llwww.ncjrs.gov/htmlloiidp/dmc ta manualldmcintro.pdf (page 

Intro-1). 

;;; Opportunities Suspended, August 2012, Civil Rights ProjectiProyecto Derechos Civiles, at 36. Retrieved 

from http://civilrightsproject. ucla. edu/resources/projects/center -for -civil-rights-remed ies/school-to-prisonfolder/federal-reports/upcoming-ccrr-research/l 
482 

Statement of the 

Honorable R.T. Rybak 

Mayor, City of Minneapolis 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very important hearing and for the opportunity 

to submit my statement for the record. 

Six years ago, my city faced a serious rise in crime that was fueled mainly by violent 

crime involving young people. The City Council and I convened a steering committee which 

included community leaders and public safety experts to look at the problem and recommend a 

strategy for moving forward. They developed the Blueprintfor Action to Prevent Youth 

Violence. The significance of this multi-year plan was that it chose to address the problem by 

considering youth violence as a public health issue best treated by prevention rather than by 

treating the disease after the fact. The Blueprint outlined a multi-faceted strategy which aimed at 

achieving four goals: 

I. Connect youth to trusted adults-at the core of any prevention effort is the role of 

caring, trusted adults in the life of every young person. The goal is to create 

positive and nurturing relationships with adults. 

2. Intervene at the first sign that youth are at risk for violence-intervene early when 

a young person or family first exhibits signs that they are at risk or involved in 

violence. 

3. Restore youth who have gone down the wrong path-hold young people 

accountable while providing opportunities for healthy young development. 
483 

4. Unlearn the culture of violence in our community-well-designed public 

education campaigns can make a positive impact on public opinion and be a costeffective way of providing critical information to a large number of people. 

The Blueprint concluded that: 

"Government alone cannot eliminate violence from our community. In order to 

turn around the epidemic of youth violence in Minneapolis, we need to surround 

our youth and their families with supports and opportunities, while also holding 

them accountable for their actions. We need schools and youth serving 

organizations to better coordinate services. We need public and private funders 

to support proven programs and interventions. " 

The steering committee further recognized that" there is a strong correlation between failing 

schools and neighborhoods with high rates of violence." This has led to a strong partnership 

between the city and Minneapolis Public Schools to improve educational success. 

In Minneapolis, the concept of considering youth violence as a public health issue has 

meant that it is a problem that can be prevented and that to go forward, multiple strategies are 

required. No single strategy prevents youth violence. Considering youth violence as simply a 

criminal justice issue fails to address the underlying causes. From the public health perspective, 

arrests and incarceration are "band aids" which treat the problem after the fact. What we have 

sought to do is to create a multi-faceted approach to address the multiple factors which lead to 

youth violence and to use strategies and interventions which have proven successful to "prevent" 

and "treat" these factors. 

One of the programs we created in Minneapolis, with the help of federal funding, is the 

North 4 Project. North 4 refers to the four North Minneapolis neighborhoods which in 2006 had 

2 
484 

more than half of the city's 57 homicides. The program was designed to "create pathways of 

success for 30 former gang involved youth who lived in the four North Minneapolis 

neighborhoods." It was based on the most common response from gang members to the question 

"what would it take to leave the gang?" The answer was: "to be able to have a steady job." The 

North 4 program then focused on helping the participants become job ready and subsidized work 

experiences with the goal of having them evolve into unsubsidized, long term jobs. One of the 

shocking statistics from the group selected to participant in North 4 was that there was an 

average of 5.1 friends and family members lost to homicide per youth. 

I'd like to share excerpts of a letter from one of the North 4 participants who asked that 

his name remain anonymous: 

"If there is any program that deserves funding in Minneapolis, it's the North 4 

Program through Emerge ... Emerge gave me the chance to grow ... Emerge gives 

me motivation and hope; motivation to better myself by getting my G.E.D ... 

Most of us in the North 4 program have grown up in poverty. I can't speakfor all 

of us, but I can and will provide a better life than what I've hadfor my children. I 

remember growing up having to share clothes, a bedroom and waitingfor the 13th 

of every month so we could eat well. I grew up in afamily of seven. There was 

never enough. 

I can write a book about my life. I don't know how many copies it would sell. I 

don't even know if they would publish it ... I have seen it all. I can say I grew up 

too fast. " 

His letter talks specifically about bettering himself by getting his G.E.D. The value of 

education and schools which are successful is well proven as a key to employment and family 

stability. Clearly, violent behavior is unacceptable and we must hold those you commit violent 

3 
485 

acts accountable. But as the young man in the letter describes, providing hope through education 

and jobs using the range of prevention strategies identified in our Blueprint and through 

programs like North 4, can change the trajectory. 

The cost of youth violence is steep. It is the cost of young lives lost. It is the 

extraordinary cost of investigation, prosecution and incarceration in prisons or juvenile 

correctional facilities. It is the cost of emergency room visits and serious injuries from gun 

violence. Just as it is with other public health issues, prevention is far more cost effective than 

treatment. The cost ofmentoring programs, employment training and education are far less than 

the costs to the community of treating the victims and instigators of youth violence. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you and the subcommittee for your focus on this serious 

problem. I look forward to working with you and offer our experiences in Minneapolis as a 

resource to you and the other members of the subcommittee as you continue to look at the 

problem and identify strategies and potential resources for prevention. 

4 
486 

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee 

Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs 

445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2300, St Paul, Minnesota 55101 

Voice: 651-201-7348 - Fax: 651-296-5787 

Richard Gardel/, Chair 

Dear Senator Franken, 

The Minnesota Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (JJAC) would like to take this opportunity 

to review the role of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) in 

Minnesota beginning with its inception in 1979, Over the past thirty three years, the JJDP Act 

has been the foundation for protecting Minnesota's youth from entering into the juvenile justice 

system by putting into common usage the core protections for status offenders and other low 

level juvenile offenders established by the JJDP Act 

Minnesota's JJAC accepts the responsibilities set out in the JJDP Act very seriously because it 

is well known that once a youth enters into the juvenile justice system the opportunity for 

repeat involvement rises dramatically, Over the years the American justice system has 

focused more on punitive rather than rehabilitative measures. This may serve the overall 

community in dealing with incorrigible and hardened criminals, However, when a youth 

engages in status offenses and petty misdemeanor infractions, the presenting fact of their 

youthful lack of adequate or mature judgment should entitle them to certain protections 

designed to give them an opportunity to learn and benefit from their indiscretions, 

The four core protections of removal of juveniles from adult jails and lock-ups; sight and sound 

separation of juveniles from adult offenders; de-institutionalization of status offenders; and 

disproportionate minority contact (DMC) gives the individual youth multiple protective shields 

from career criminals. It also gives them the opportunity for a personal alert that their behavior 

while unique to themselves is well known in law enforcement policy and will not be tolerated as 

they move forward toward maturity, This creates a balance of protecting our youth while 

making sure they understand and are held accountable to themselves, their families and their 

community, It also becomes a most effective lesson in life-long learning. Making sure that the 

core protections are written into each and every jail, lock-up and secure facility in Minnesota 

has been the responsibility of JJAC over the past thirty plus years, Not only are compliance 

checks carried out annually to these facilities, another endeavor has been to foster education 

to the individual law enforcement entity. Minnesota is in complete compliance with the JJDP 

Act's protection requirements. But, keeping those practices that accomplish compliance in 

place requires ongoing inspection, monitoring, and education of practitioners, 

Stimulating and creating important community based services for youth is extremely important 

These evidence based programs have demonstrated excellent outcomes in helping youth 

choose a law abiding and successful path in life. JJAC has always been able to support 

innovative youth programming through the administration of grants made possible by funding 

from Title II, Title V of JJDPA and the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, One example is 

our work with violence prevention projects on the North side of Minneapolis. A core 

component of this project is to develop ongoing police/youth dialogue in order for each side to 
487 

come to an understanding. Another project funds an initiative for law enforcement to hand out 

small business size cards pointing out the collateral consequences of a juvenile record. The 

"Think First" card has had great success in capturing an evasive audience and educating them 

to the seriousness of the juvenile justice system. Attached is a list of our sub grantees and the 

innovative and effective work they are doing in specific areas. Please remember that each 

grantee not only represents important work with our youth, they represent many state and local 

dollars that are leveraged by the Federal dollars that flow to the state through JJDPA 

There is another side to this thirty year endeavor. It is the ongoing effectiveness of the JJDP 

Act itself. Even with all the players for juvenile justice on the same stage in Minnesota, 

effective and vigorous performance of these protections and initiatives cannot happen without 

a commitment by the federal government to not only continue the JJDP Act but to return it to 

the funding levels from the 2002 Congressional allocation. Attached is the compilation of 

federal allocations to Minnesota since 2002 It shows a diminution of 87%. A federal JJDP Act 

allocation is necessary to establish national policy on juvenile justice throughout the United 

States and to show the commitment of the federal government in protecting our children and 

guaranteeing to them the opportunity to enter into the adult world with their capacity intact. 

Minnesota, like many other states, has an ever expanding immigrant community. The world 

has changed for many communities as these families new to Minnesota become acclimated to 

our state. Addressing the issue of Disproportionate Minority Contact in a proactive and 

effective way is critical to the credibility of our justice systems. This work can only be 

implemented at the State and Local level. But, national leadership and incentives are 

necessary to expedite these reforms. Our world has become an ever changing world and it is 

different from the world of 1979 when the JJDP Act was first promulgated. However, the need 

for the vibrancy of the four core protections remains intact. 

The inherent wisdom contained in the JJDP Act is that the federal government should lead by 

setting national policy and then fund incentives for state and local governments to implement 

the reforllls necessary to accomplish the policy. That process has worked well to implement 

across this country core protections like the deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders. Now, as 

states address the issue of DMC in their justice systems, this leadership from the federal 

government built on the wisdom of the JJDP Act, is more important than ever before. In order 

to protect our youth Minnesota and all states need a vigorous JJDP Act that translates into 

adequate funding and a commitment by the federal government to make sure the four core 

protections continue. 

Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Richard GardeU, Chair 

Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee 
488 

Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitutional, Civil 

Rights and Human Rights 

Submitted by: Derrick Johnson, President, State Conference NAACP, Jackson, 

Mississippi 

The safety and success of school-aged young people in Mississippi is at risk as a 

result of school to prison pipeline practices. Thousands of students are arrested, 

pepper-sprayed, tased and beaten on a daily basis for very minute actions that 

should result in no more than a one or two day suspension. Furthermore, the 

students who are not arrested and physically abused, are suspended excessively and 

referred to alternative schools, losing valuable time in their academic experience. 

Instead of receiving the extra educational assistance and mental health assistance 

that would help them to avoid future disciplinary problems, they fall further behind 

academically and social/mental health issues are rarely addressed. 

In the Jones County school district, addressing mental health issues means a 

mandatory in patient evaluation at Pinebelt Behavioral Services, a private facility 

funded largely through Medicaid dollars. Parents tell us that they are told that the 

treatment is mandatory for their child to re enter the school and that when their 

children return home, they exhibit "zombie-like" behavior. Additionally, many of 

the students are still held under the supervision of the local youth court until 

Pinebelt staff signs off on their mental health evaluation. Students in Jones County 

are sometimes held in the detention center for 60 to 90 days for school fights or 

insubordination to a teacher. The school to prison pipeline practices in Jones 

County are very similar to the incidents documented in the Department of Justice 

findings from the investigation in Meridian (Lauderdale County), Mississippi. These 

two communities are not unique, unfortunately. 

These failing zero tolerance policies lead to high drop out rates, lower academic 

achievement, students not getting the help they need, and too many kids pushed 

onto a pathway to prison. These poliCies also destroy the confidence and self 

esteem of young people by introducing them to the criminal justice system too early. 

Two years ago, we provided assistance to an eight year old, J.A. in Amite County, MS, 

who had been arrested for hitting the teacher at school. In reality, J.A. struggled 

against the teacher who was attempting to restrain him. At the time, J.A. was on 

medication for ADHD and his IEP (Individualized Education Plan) called for a 

'cooling off period when J.A. was aggravated. The teacher, nor the school district, 

honored his IEP and J.A. was routinely arrested and suspended from school. J.A. has 

become a target within the school district now. He has been labeled a "bad kid" and 

unless he transfers to a different school, his academic career will not improve. 
489 

This is a destiny that is all too familiar to many young people in Mississippi. Our 

prisons are full of adults who never received the help that they needed as youth. 

Across the country, we find that the rules are different for black and brown 

students. We are urging Congress to help us to end the disparities that exist in our 

public education system by ending the school to prison pipeline. Regulations must 

be placed on states that reduce excessive suspensions and expulsions. Corporal 

punishment must be banned and police officers must be trained to deal properly 

with students before they are placed inside of our schools. 
490 

WASHINGTON BUREAU· NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 

1156 15TH STREET. NW SUITE 915· WASHINGTON. DC 20005· P (202) 463·2940· F (202) 463-2953 

E-MAIL: WASHINGTONBUREAU@NAACPNET.DRG . WEB ADDRESS WWW.NAACP.ORG 

TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY 

HILARY O. SHELTON 

DIRECTOR, NAACP WASHINGTON BUREAU & 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR ADVOCACY AND POLICY 

to the 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

on 

"THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE" 

December 19,2012 
491 

Good morning Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and esteemed Members of 

the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil and Human Rights. Thank 

you for holding this extremely crucial hearing to explain the School-to-Prison Pipeline, 

the procedure by which students are forced out of our educational system and into the 

criminal justice system by excessively harsh school disciplinary policies. I am 

submitting this testimony on behalf of the National Association for the Advancement of 

Colored People, the NAACP. 

As the Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau, the federal policy and national 

legislative arm of the NAACP, and the Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy, it 

has been my pleasure to work with the NAACP for almost 17 years, and I can honestly 

say that obliterating the "School to Prison Pipeline" is of our core priorities. 

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is our nation's oldest, largest and most widely recognized 

grassroots-based civil rights organization. We currently have more than 600,000 

member/activists nationwide. 

The NAACP has advocated for more than 105 years for equality in the areas of 

education, criminal justice and civil rights; the "School to Prison Pipeline" negatively 

affects all of them. The School to Prison pipeline refers to the national trend 

of criminalizing, rather than educating, our nation's children. The pipeline encompasses 

the growing use of zero-tolerance discipline, school-based arrests, disciplinary 

alternative schools, and secured detention that marginalizes and denies our most at-risk 

youth to a high quality education. These policies have been shown to disparately affect 

African- Americans, other racial and ethnic minorities, as well as stUdents with 

disabilities and as such have had a devastating effect on these young people's 

opportunity to succeed. 

A 2011 longitudinal study covering more than one million public school students in the 

State of Texas titled, Breaking Schools' Rules, and the Department of Education's 2012 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) both concluded from their research these disturbing 

trends: first, an overreliance on suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law 

enforcement as means of managing stUdent behavior; second, the disproportionate 

impact of such practices on students of color, students with disabilities, and other 

subgroups; and, finally, the increased risk of juvenile justice involvement for students 

who are suspended or expelled. These findings are extremely worrisome to say the 

least. 

At the NAACP we have always advocated for safe, high-quality schools that care for our 

youth. However, across the country, students are being suspended, expelled, or even 

arrested for minor misbehavior like being late or violating a dress code. Unlike in times 

past, instead of students being sent to the guidance counselor or the principal, now they 

are taken to the police station. 
492 

The study, Breaking Schools' Rules surmises that African-American students were 31 

percent more likely to receive discretionary discipline actions as compared to White and 

Hispanic students for discretionary (non-mandatory) conduct. The Department of 

Education's Study concluded that African-American students are more than 3 Yo times 

as likely to be suspended or expelled as their White peers and that students with 

disabilities are more than twice as likely to receive out-of-school suspensions relative to 

their non-disabled peers. These statistics seem to demonstrate that African Americans 

students along with students with disabilities are not being provided equitable access to 

education and their civil rights may be potentially violated. Also extremely disturbing are 

the findings that suspension or expulsion of a student for a discretionary violation nearly 

tripled the likelihood of juvenile justice contact within the subsequent academic year. 

The arrests, detention and juvenile court appearances have deep negative short and 

long-term consequences for children. Mental and physical health, educational success, 

and future employment opportunities are often severely damaged when youth are 

brought into the juvenile justice system. Data reveals that even one court appearance 

during high school increases a child's likelihood of dropping out and that court 

appearances are especially detrimental to children with no or minimal prior history. 

Students dropping out of school often translate, to higher unemployment, poorer health, 

substance abuse, shorter lifespan, lower earnings, and increased future contacts with 

the criminal justice system. 

Children as young as five years of age have been handcuffed for "acting out" and other 

similar "wrongdoings". These children do not deserve to be put in handcuffs or be 

arrested. In many circumstances, the children dealt with in this manner have learning 

disabilities or histories of poverty, abuse or neglect, and would benefit from additional 

educational and counseling services. Instead, they are isolated, punished and pushed 

out. We are in the midst of a crisis, where instead of educating students of color we are 

either kicking them out of school or causing them to drop out. 

The NAACP, recommends that more research is done in the area of school discipline 

while agreeing with the Department of Education that to create positive learning 

environment for all our youth, schools must emphasize the essential relationships 

interconnecting social, emotional, and behavioral skills and student achievement; play 

an active role in addressing the underlying causes of student misbehavior, like 

substance abuse, mental illness, and social and emotional disorders; provide students 

with behavioral supports that directly address or prevent misconduct; and build the 

capacity of teachers and leaders to implement prevention-based strategies while 

adhering to appropriate discipline policies. Legislatively, we would like to build a 

consensus for action among federal, state and local education and justice stakeholders. 

Collaborate on research and data collection that may be needed to inform this work, 

such as evaluations of alternative disciplinary policies and interventions. Develop 

guidance to ensure that school discipline policies and practices comply with the nation's 

civil rights laws and to promote positive disciplinary options to both keep kids in school 

and improve the climate for learning; and promote awareness and knowledge about 
493 

evidence-based and promising policies and practices among educators and justice 

stakeholders. 

Our education system currently has an overreliance on exclusionary discipline and the 

fact that this is disproportionally affecting African Americans, other students of color and 

students with disabilities can no longer be tolerated. 

Thank you again, Chairman Durbin and Ranking member Graham and other members 

of the committee for holding this important hearing and for soliciting the thoughts of the 

NAACP and for your continued leadership in this area. 
494 

IDF 

DEFEND EDUCATE EMPOWER 

Testimony ofthe NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

Damon T. Hewitt, Director, Education Practice Group 

Eric Rafael Gonzalez, Education Policy Advocate, Education Practice Group 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

I. Introduction 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

December 10, 2012 

On behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. ("LDF"), we are pleased to 

submit this testimony in connection with the Subcommittee's hcaring on "Ending the School-toPrison Pipeline." We want to thank Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham and Members 

of the Subcommittee for holding the hearing. This seminal event marks the first time that 

Congress has devoted a hearing solely to the alarming connection between schools, discipline 

policies, and the juvenile justice system. And it could not come at a better moment. 

School discipline today bears little resemblance to the approaches of a generation ago. Today, 

far too many schools reflexively resort to harsh exclusionary discipline such as suspension, 

expulsion, assignment to alternative educational settings and even citations and arrest by law 

enforcement officers. Disciplinary rates are now more than double what they were in the I970s. 

In fact, U.S. schools now suspend more students than at any time in our history. In the 2009-

20 I 0 school year, the most recent year for which data are available, over 3,000,000 students 

were suspended. J And some schools call police instead of parents to handle simple disciplinary 

matters, with students receiving summonses and tickets for non-criminal acts such as using 

profanity, missing class and running in school hallways. 

The overwhelming weight of data and research demonstrates that such practices are counterproductive. They do not make schools safer; instead, they block students' pathways to success. 

And they often funnel students into the juvenile and criminal justice systems, thereby fueling the 

J DANIEL 1. LOSEN & JONATHAN GILLESPIE. OPPORTUNITIES SUSPENDED: THE DISPARATE IMPACT OF 

DISCIPLlNARY EXCLUSION FROM SCHOOL 6 (The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at The Civil Rights Project, 

2012). 
495 

School-to-Prison Pipeline. This is particularly true for African-American students, who are too 

often disproportionately impacted by these approaches. 

With approximately a quarter of all high school students not graduating, and persistent 

achievement and opportunity gaps in our nation's schools, we must reckon with the impact of the 

School-to-Prison Pipeline. As the organization that litigated Brown v. Board of Education, we 

fully understand the stakes for African-American students and all students. For this reason, we 

urge this Subcommittee, as well as the full Judiciary Committee, to examine in depth the 

multiple causes of, and solutions to, the School-to-Prison Pipeline. We believe this hearingand subsequent Congressional action - can help to dismantle the School-to-Prison Pipeline. We 

offer the following testimony in that spirit. 

II. Excessive Discipline Yields Racial Disparities 

According to the U.S. Department of Education, "across all districts, African-American students 

are over 3Yz times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers.,,2 And a 

widely-publicized study by the Council of State Governments showed that African-American 

students in Texas were 31 percent more likely to be disciplined for discretionary offenses in 

schools compared to their white or Latino counterparts, and over 80 percent of African-American 

male students had been suspended or expelled at least once during middle or high schoo!.3 Such 

sobering data are not exclusive to the South: in New York City, more than 95 percent of the 

students arrested in the city's schools in 2011 were African-American or Latino.4 

In addition to more frequent punishment, African American students are also more likely to be 

punished more harshly, even when engaging in the same conduct as white students.s In this way, 

race has been shown to be a predictive factor for disciplinary action, as well as for the severity of 

the disciplinary sanctions. 

III. Overreliance on Exclusionary Discipline Undermines Our Nation's Education Goals 

While school safety is critical to ensuring that students are able to learn, excessive exclusionary 

discipline is counterproductive, both in terms of keeping students safe and promoting academic 

achievement. 

2 OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, us. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY 2 

(2012). http://ocrdata.cd.goviDownloads/CMOCRTheTransformcdCRDCFI'''AL3-15-12Accessible-l.pdf. Despite 

being only 18% of students in the Civil Rights Data Collection sample, African-American students were 35% of 

students suspended once, 46% of those suspended more than once, and 39% of students expelled. Furthermore, the 

CRDC indicates that "Over 70% of students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are 

Hispanic or African-American." 

3 TONY FABELO et ai., BREAKING SCHOOLS' RULES: A STATEWIDE STUDY OF How SCHOOL DISClPLlNE RELATES 

TO STUDENTS' SUCCESS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE !NVOL VEMENT, x, 40-46, (2011). 

http://know Icdgecenter.csg.orgl d rupal! system/Ii lesm rea king School Ru Ies.pd f. 

4 NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, SSA REpORTING ON ARRESTS AND SUMMONES, (2012). 

http://www.nyclu.org/liles/releascs/School%20Safetv%20Fact%20Shcet%2020 11-20 12.pdf. 

5 RUSSELL SKlBA et a!., RACE IS NOT NEUTRAL: A NATIONAL INVESTIGATION OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATlNO 

DISPROPORTlONALlTY IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE, School Psychology Review, 2011 at 85. 

http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spri40-1/spr40 1 Skiba. pdf. 

2 
496 

The American Psychological Association has found that there is no evidence suggesting that the 

use of suspension, expulsion, or zero-tolerance policies results in improvements in student 

behavior or increases in school safety. 6 Indeed, such practices have negative effects on student 

academic performance: students who are suspended and/or expelled, especially those who are 

repeatedly disciplined, are far more likely to be held back a grade, drop out of school, or become 

involved in the juvenile or criminal justice system than are students who do not face 

exclusionary discipline. 7 Students who are arrested are twice as likely to drop out as their 

peers.8 

The harms of excessive use of exclusionary discipline are not limited to individual students. 

Research indicates that entire schools suffer when suspension, expulsion, or referral to law 

enforcement become the interventions of choice. Schools with high suspension rates score lower 

on state accountability tests than other schools, even when adjusting for demographic 

differences. 9 In this way, over-reliance on exclusionary discipline threatens our educational 

goals. Put simply, when a student is not in school, she cannot learn, and we are pushing far too 

many children out of school. 

There are also economic consequences to the ways in which exclusionary discipline and referrals 

to law enforcement inhibit graduation rates. For example, in 20 II, approximately 1.2 million 

students did not graduate from high school; the estimated lost lifetime earnings for that class of 

dropouts is $154 billion. lo Furthermore, school-based arrests have placed such a drain on state 

funds that fiscally conservative organizations, such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation, have 

begun calling for reforms to rethink school-to-court referral practices. 11 Clearly, pushing 

students out negatively affects America's bottom line. 

IV. Recommendations to address the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Thankfully, there are proven solutions to securing school safety that do not rely on exclusionary 

discipline. Evidence-based frameworks such as School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions 

and Supports (SWPBS) and Restorative Justice Practices are being implemented in over 10,000 

U.S. schools. Research indicates that effective implementation of SWPBS has reduced 

disciplinary rates and improved student attendance, academic achievement, and perceptions of 

6 HOWARD L. TARAS et aI., COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL HEALTH, AMERlCAN ACADEMY OF PEDlATRlCS - POLlCY 

STATEMENT: ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE AND DEFINE THE CIuw HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND/OR 

IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF ALL CHILDREN, http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeprevention/download/pdfil206.pdf. 

7 FABELO et aI., BREAKING SCHOOLS' RULES: A STATEWIDE STUOY OF How SCHOOL DISCIPLINE RELATES TO 

STUOENTS' SUCCESS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT, xi-xii, (2011). 

http://knowledgecenteLcsg.org/drupal/system/fileslBreaking School Rules.pdf. 

8 Gary Sweeten, Who Will Graduate? Disruplion ~r High School Educalion by Arrest and Court Involvement 23 

JUST. Q. 462 (2006). 

9 SKIBA & PETERSON, THE DARK SIDE OF ZERO TOLERANCE: CAN PUNISHMENT LEAD TO SAFE SCHOOLS?, Phi 

Delta Kappan Jan. 1999, at 372-376. 

http://www .jstoLorg/discover/ I 0 .2307 120~39450?uid~3 7395 84&uid~2129&u id-2&uid=70&u id=4&uid=3 739256& 

sid-21100974521363. 

10 ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENT EDUCATION, THE HIGH COST OF HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: WHAT TIlE NATION PAYS 

FOR INADEQUARE HIGH SCHOOLS, (2011). 

11 RIGHT ON CRIME, PRlORITY ISSUES: JUVENILE JuSTICE (2010) at http://www.rightoncrime.comlpriorityissues/juvenile-justice/. 

3 
497 

school safety. 12 Implementation of Restorative Justice Practices, another best practice in school 

discipline, resulted in a 40% drop in suspensions and a 60% drop in arrests in Denver Public 

Schools. I3 Bi-partisan support from lawmakers, families, and educators for efforts to improve 

school discipline have resulted in significant chan~es in the school policies and practices of 

Baltimore, I Los Angeles, 15 Colorado,I6 Florida, I Louisiana,I8 and Maryland,I9 among others. 

Below are several recommendations for federal legislation and administrative action that can 

address the alanning rates at which students are being pushed out of school through exclusionary 

discipline and referral to law enforcement. 

Recommendations for federal legislation: 

1) Require annual reporting of disciplinary indicators collected in the 2012 Civil Rights 

Data Collection (conducted by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil 

Rights). These school-level disciplinary and school climate data should be disaggregated 

by race, gender, disability, and English proficiency, and be collected from all schools and 

districts, including all charter schools and alternative schools. Such data should be 

publically reported in accessible formats. 

2) Require that unusually high and/or racially disparate rates of exclusionary discipline 

trigger mandatory technical assistance and support. Schools and districts with significant 

excesses and racial disparities should be required to address the problem. But that can 

best be accomplished through support and assistance rather than punitive sanctions. 2o 

Schools and districts should be supported in adopting demonstrably effective, positive 

approaches to improving school climate and limiting the use of exclusionary discipline. 

3) Provide additional federal funds to develop and implement inclusive approaches to 

school discipline. Congress can help school districts to replace exclusionary discipline 

methods with: (a) evidence-based and demonstrably effective school-based discipline 

frameworks that will be implemented in a culturally relevant manner, such as SchoolWide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) and Restorative Justice Practices; and (b) 

increased reliance on school-based service providers such as mental health practitioners, 

school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors, and school nurses. 

12 ROBERT H. HORNER, et aI., A RANDOMIZED WAIT~LIsT CONTROLLED EFFECTIVENESS TRIAL ASSESSING 

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, 11 1. POSlTlVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS 

133 (2009). 

13 ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, TEST, PUNISH, AND PUSHOUT: How "ZERO-ToLERANCE" AND HIGH-STAKES TESTING 

FUNNEL YOUTH INTO THE "SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE" 36 (2010). 

14 Liz Bowie, Baltimore County School Board Eases Discipline Policy. BALT. SUN (Jun. 12, 2012). 

15 SCHOOL MASTER PLAN FOR DISCIPLINE, available at: http://lapositivebehavior.com/plan detail.cfm?id=1 

16 Colo. H.B. 1345 (2012). -

17 Fla. S.B. 1540 (2009). 

18 La. Act 136 (2010). 

19 MD. REos. CODE tit. 13A. (2012). 

20 A model for this approach is evident in the process required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 

which is designed to eliminate such disparities. 20 U.S.c. § 1412(a)(22). 

4 
498 

4) Deemphasize standardized test scores. States can help to mitigate the perverse incentives 

that stem from test-based accountability by developing and implementing school, teacher, 

and student assessment mechanisms that rely on multiple sources of diverse evidence of 

learning. As demonstrated by our current national accountability framework, a focus on 

test scores as the primary measure of student, school, and district performance creates a 

direct and powerful incentive to remove students whose performance on the test may 

negatively affect a school's or district's statistics. By reducing the emphasis on test 

scores and incorporating additional measures of student learning and teacher practice, the 

incentives to push out students whose performance on tests is perceived to threaten 

school and staff evaluations will be drastically reduced. 

Recommendation for administrative action: 

1) Require recipients of competitive federal grants or waivers from compliance with the No 

Child Left Behind Act administered through the U.S. Department of Education to address 

high and/or disparate rates of discipline. We support the requirement included in the 

Race to the Top District-level competition (RTT-D), which calls for grant recipients to 

address disciplinary disparities. We urge that the Department of Education use the same 

approach to all grant and waiver programs, including waivers from federal education law 

provided through the Department's "flexibility package." 

V. Conclusion 

Our nation is based on the ideal of equal opportunity. Sadly, for many students, especially 

African-Americans, this ideal is absent from their educational experience. Millions of these 

students are pushed out of school each year through exclusionary discipline policies that not only 

fail to improve school safety, but also injure the academic performance of the school as a whole. 

These alarmingly high and racially disparate rates of suspension, expulsion, and referral to law 

enforcement must be addressed. And while we need to create safe and healthy learning 

environments, we must ensure that our schools implement evidence-based practices that support 

academic growth and improve school climate. The Subcommittee's hearing today is a critical 

first step in what will hopefully be a strong federal legislative effort to address our nation's 

harmful reliance on these counterproductive exclusionary disciple policies. 

5 
499 

NA.TIONA.l ASSCXIA.TlON Of ScHOOl PsYCHOlOGISTS 

4340 last We51 HighwolY, Suite 402 

Bethesda. MD 20814 

Phone' 301·657·0270 

fax 301·657·0275 TTY: 301-657-4155 

Web: www.nilSponline.org 

December 10, 2012 

Honorable Dick Durbin 

Enhancing the mental health and 

educational comperence of all children. 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable Lindsey Graham 

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 205 10 

Re: Hearing on the School to Prison Pipeline 

Dear Senators Durbin and Graham: 

On behalf of the members of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), thank you for the 

opportunity to submit written testimony regarding cnding the school-to-prison pipeline. NASP represents over 

25,000 school psychologists who work with students, families, educators, and administrators to support the 

academic achicvemcnt, positive bchavior, and mental wellness of all students. NASP believes that all studcnts 

learn best in inclusive environments that combinc high quality, evidence bascd instruction and effective 

school-wide discipline practices. 

Expansion of Zero Tolerance Policies 

In 1994, The Gun Free Schools Act was signed into law, and was re-authorized as part of the No Child left 

Behind Act in 2001. This act mandated zero tolerance policies and mandatory suspension/expulsion for 

students bringing weapons to school. However, many state and local jurisdictions have applied zero tolerance 

policies to a wide range of behavioral infractions ranging from fighting, disruptions in the classrooms, to the 

minor and often subjective infraction of disrespect or general disruptive behavior. Further, some schools and 

districts often apply suspensions and expulsions to minor behavior infractions that occur both in and out of 

school (Skiba, 2002). 

These policies have increased the number of students removed from school for discipline infractions and may 

have increased student contact with law enforcement (Skiba, 2012). Additionally, these school discipline 

practices are often employed with no support provided to the student before punitive measures are utilized nor 

upon their return to school. Schools and school districts have strayed away from the original intent of the law, 

resulting in the unintended consequence of students being pushed out of school without considering the unique 

needs of every student in the learning environment. Requiring schools to enact zero tolerance policies 

according to the original intent of the law as opposed to is expanded use, is the first step in addressing the 

school to prison pipeline. 
500 

Negative Consequences of Zero Tolerance 

Ineffective schoolwide discipline policies and practices like zero tolerance do not address school safety or 

improve student behavior, and are based on the false belief that removing particular students from school will 

benefit other students and the overall school climate. However, zero tolerance policies have a negative effect 

on school climate, do not make students and teachers feel safer in school, and are associated with increased 

student drop out and involvement in the criminal justice system. Specifically, school suspension is a moderate 

to strong predictor of school dropout (Balfanz, 2003) and increases the likelihood of the student being 

involved in the juvenile justice system (Fabelo, T.; Thompson, D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, 

M., and Booth, E, 2011). There has been great effort to increase the rate of students who graduate from high 

school and enter the workforce or go to college. Greater attention is being given to promoting positive student 

behavior through interpersonal skill instruction, clearer and more consistently applied behavioral expectations, 

and early intervention efforts for students at risk for school failure as a result of social, emotional or behavioral 

problems. We urge you to work with state and federal education departments to ensure that discipline policies 

are designed to keep students in school. not push them out. 

Disproportional Application of Punitive Discipline 

The disproportionate rate that suspension and expulsion are used with racial minority students and students 

with disabilities is alanning. A wide body of research documents the disproportionate application of 

disciplinary measures such as suspension and expulsion among certain ethic groups, particularly African 

American students (Los en & Skiba, 2010; Children's Defense Fund, 2004). Further, students with disabilities, 

particularly those with emotional and behavioral disorders, are suspended at rates disproportional to their 

representation in the population (APA. 2008; Leone, Mayer, Malmgren. & Meisel, 2000). Given that students 

with behavioral and/or emotional disabilities often demonstrate behaviors that require sustained access to 

intervention, the continuation of zero tolerance policies in schools is detrimental to this population (Krezmien, 

Leone & Achilles, 2006). Students with disabilities who are expelled under zero tolerance laws essentially 

receive no, or a lesser education, as the law allows for schools to deny their reinstatement (McWilliams & 

Fancher, 2010). 

The American Bar Association took the position that zero-tolerance policies should be discontinued in schools 

due to the fact that administrators were using these polices to keep difficult students out of school, and 

therefore, denying them an education (Henault, 200 I). Educators have a responsibility to provide every child 

with a free and appropriate public education. We should not tolerate the continued exclusion of minority and 

disabled students from our public school system. 

Unnecessarily Burdening the Juvenile Justice System 

Schools have a responsibility to keep students safe, yet far too often students are removed from the classroom 

and placed into the juvenile justice system for behaviors that could and should be addressed in the school 

environment. Across the country, judges cite being overwhelmed by cases of basic student misconduct that 

should have been handled by the school. Skiba (2012) notes Pennsylvania reported that the number of referrals 

to the juvenile justice system had tripled over the past seven years. Additionally, judges have noted that 

frequently, these court cases have involved minor infractions or involved students whose behavior was likely 

related to their disability. 

An analysis of several case studies reveals the case of , Tony", a student with emotional and behavioral 

disabilities who was arrested 18 times over the course of two schools years for minor behaviors that included 

speaking out of turn and moving around in class (Browne, 2003). "Tony" deserves proper behavioral support 

at school, not an arrest record for these behaviors. In Florida, a 14 year old student with disabilities was 

arrested for stealing $2 dollars and was held in an adult jail for six weeks, even though this was his tirst 

offense. In Chicago, numerous students (aged II-IS) were arrested and held overnight for a food fight (Skiba, 

2012). Our students deserve better than this. Schools can do a better job of keeping students in school and our 
501 

Page 3 of5 

of the juvenile justice system by implementing effective school wide discipline policies and practices that 

focus on prevention and intervention. 

Positive Discipline 

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is one example of effective schoolwide discipline. 

Regardless of what it is called, effective discipline practices involve communicating and teaching behavioral 

expectations and discipline policies universally to staff members and students coupled with consistent 

application of the policies and availability of supports to those students who need it. Students with mental or 

behavioral health concerns, who have difficulties in the home, or have severe academic needs require more 

intensive individualized supports. These students are the most at risk for failing, dropping out, or engaging in 

criminal activity (e.g., Allensworth & Easton, 2005; Balfanz & Herzog, 2005). 

Effective schoolwide discipline involves primary prevention, secondary support, and tertiary supports. 

Primary prevention includes clearly communicating and teaching behavioral expectations, recognizing and 

reinforcing positive behaviors, and school wide prevention efforts. Primary prevention also includes character 

education programs, mentoring programs, school clubs or other opportunities for pro-social involvement, and 

access to specialized instructional support personnel (e.g., school psychologists, counselors, and social 

workers. Effective primary prevention results in less time spent on student discipline, and more time spent on 

teaching and learning. 

Students who have patterns of behavior that impede their learning, or the learning of others require more 

intense and individualized supports to ensure they reach their academic potential, remain in school, and out of 

the juvenile justice system. The goal of secondary supports is to prevent at-risk behaviors (e.g., frequent 

classroom disruption, excessive tardiness) from becoming chronic. Tertiary supports, however, provide 

intensive individualized support for a specific set of behaviors. These students may have many challenges, and 

effective coordination of services between the school and community is key to ensuring these students remain 

in school and out ofthe juvenile justice system. 

NASP Recommendations 

School safety is a key component of a successful school, and school violence must be addressed. However, the 

strict, continued use of zero tolerance policies will not address the problem of the school to prison pipeline; it 

will exacerbate it. One of the most important investments we can make in stopping the school to prison 

pipeline is providing resources that allow schools to implement schoolwide effective discipline policies and 

practices. NASP recommends the following to address the school to prison pipeline: 

Ensure safe, supportive, conditions for learning. Students need to feel physically and emotionally safe at 

school. This starts with safe learning environments that promote student well-being, prevent negative 

behaviors, and engage students in the classroom and broader school community. All students should a) come 

to school knowing they are safe, welcomed, and respected; b) have a trusting relationship with at least one 

adult in the building; c) understand clear academic and behavioral expectations; and d) see their role as 

positive members ofthe school community. 

Shijlto More Effective Positive Discipline. Effective schoolwide discipline practices include implementing a 

multi-tiered problem solving approach that I) prevents negative behavior, 2) provides supports for students 

with behavioral difficulties, and 3) allows for a consistent set of discipline policies and procedures to be 

implemented when the severity of the behavior warrants punitive action. Moving to this kind of approach 

reduces negative behavior, and ultimately keeps students in the classroom and in school and out of the 

criminal justice system. Importantly, integrating school safety measures with efforts to improve school 

climate and academic achievement results in more sustainable and eomprehensive approaches to improving 

student and school outcomes. both of which help break the school to prison pipeline. 
502 

Page 4 of5 

Provide comprehensive and coordinated learning supports to address student social-emotional wellness, 

positive behavior, and academic achievement. Learning supports should be comprehensive. integrated, and 

directly connected to the school context. Well-coordinated supports are provided in an integrated, multi-tiered 

system of support that connects school-wide prevention and skills building with increasingly intense and 

individualized interventions for higher risk students groups and individuals. 

Effective supports include school-based mental health services, early prevcntion and intervention services, 

initiatives to actively engage students and families as well as community partners. Students must feel 

connected and valued as members of the school community and challenged academically in order to be fully 

engaged in learning. Disengagement from school increascs the risk of failure and school dropout, which in 

turn places them at risk of criminal behavior. Conversely, interventions that promote students' bonding to 

school reduce tobacco, alcohol and drug use; school dropout; and criminal involvement (Catalano et.al., 2004). 

Provide training and support for teachers and other school personnel. Effective positive school discipline is 

a schoolwide endeavor; however many educators lack appropriate training on how to prevent and respond to 

problem behavior. Many teachers report that they do not know how to respond to difficult behaviors, and 30% 

ofteachers who leave the profession due to job dissatisfaction indicate that student discipline problems are the 

reason for their dissatisfaction. 

There are a number of professionals that schools and districts can utilize to provide training and support for 

dealing with difficult behaviors. For example, school psychologists work with teachers to design and 

implement academic and behavioral interventions, and interventions using positive behavior supports have 

been shown to improve academic performance and decrease behavior problems (Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & 

feinberg, 2005; Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2002). Teachers cannot be expected to address all 

student behavior alone, and it is our responsibility to ensure that teachers and students have access to the 

supports necessary to ensure that teachers feel empowered to teach and students are ready to learn. 

Ensure access to specialized instructional support personnel. To accomplish these goals, students need 

access to specialized instructional support personnel that can support their social, emotional, behavioral, and 

academic needs and keep students engaged and in the classroom. These professionals (e.g., school 

psychologists, school counselors, and school social workers), along with teachers and administrators, must 

play an instrumental role in addressing the school to prison pipeline. Specialized instructional support 

personnel are adept at collecting and interpreting school-wide data to help identify problem areas and set 

reasonable goals for improving school climate, school safety, and positive conditions for learning. In addition, 

these professionals provide individual and group services to at-risk youth, vital consultation to teachers, 

parents, and administrators, and coordinate with relevant community agencies to ensure that all students have 

access to the supports they need to remain in school and out ofthe juvenile justice system. 

NASP has a variety of resources related to school safety and effective school discipline. Specifically, we 

suggest the following documents available on our website: 

A Framework for School-Wide Bullying Prevention and Safety 

(http://www .nasponline.orglresourceslbull yingf[l u llying_ Brief~ 12. pdf) 

NASP Position Statement Appropriate Behavioral, Social, and Emotional Supports to Meet the Needs 

of All Students 

(http://www .nasponl ine.org! about_ nasplpositionpapcrsl A ppropriateB chavioral Supports. pdf) 

Enhancing the Blueprint for School Improvement in the ESEA Reauthorization: Moving From a Twoto a Three-Component Approach 

(http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/UCLA _NASP _BriefJINAL.pdf) 
503 

Page 5 of5 

If you would like further infonnalion aboul effective school discipline, positive conditions for learning, or the 

role of the school psychologist in addressing the school to prison pipeline, please contact Kelly Vaillancourt, 

PhD, Director, Government Relations (kvaillancourt@.Ilaspwcb,org), 

Respectfully, 

CX~'- SusanGo~AE Executive Director 
504 

Testimony ofMo Canady, Executive Director, National Association of School 

Resource Officers (NASRO) 

Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

December 10, 2012 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for allowing me to testifY through this statement for the record. I am Mo 

Canady and I serve as the Executive Director of the National Association of School 

Resource Officers (NASRO). NASRO, the world's leader in school-based policing, is a 

not-for- profit organization founded in 1991 with a solid commitment to our 

nation's youth. NASRO is comprised of school-based law enforcement officers, 

school administrators, and school security/safety professionals working as partners 

to protect students, faculty and staff, and their school community. The "school 

resource officer," (SRO) also known as a "school safety liaison," or "school based law 

enforcement officer," refers to commissioned law-enforcement officers selected, 

trained, and assigned to protect and serve the education environment. The first SRO 

program was instituted in 1953 in Flint, Michigan, and later spread, in 1968, to 

Fresno, California. Programs expanded slowly at first, then more quickly during the 

1990s. For some school officials, this expansion was prompted by the 15 deadly, 

highly publicized campus rampages that occurred from 1993-1999. Other educators 

had equally compelling data in hand to influence the decision: their own campus 

incident reports and the perceptions of school personnel, students, and parents. 

Today, school resource officers have become a vital component in school safety 

planning. The SROs are seen as effective resources in reducing campus disruptions 

and in enhancing educators' and students' feelings of safety while at school. 

The work ofNASRO is to provide the highest quality oftraining to school-based law 

enforcement officers in order to promote safer schools and safer kids. The goal of 

NASRO is to provide safe learning environments in our nation's schools, provide 

valuable resources to school staff, foster a positive relationship with our nation's 

youth, and develop strategies to resolve problems affecting our youth with the 

objective of protecting every child so they can reach their fullest potential. 

Introduction 

My statement for the hearing record focuses on the criticism by advocates of the 

"school-to-prison pipeline" of policies by public school officials to fashion campus 

safety plans around interagency partnerships which involve the use oflaw 

enforcement personnel known as school resource officers (SRO). This aspect of 

education law, now commonly known as "school safety law," has been the subject of 

considerable and thoughtful development over the last thirty years. Over the past 

two decades, America's public schools have become safer and safer. All indicators of 

school crime continue on the downward trend first reported when data collection 

1 
505 

began around 1992. In 2011, incidences of school-associated deaths, violence, 

nonfatal victimizations, and theft all continued their downward trend. This trend 

mirrors that of juvenile arrests in general, which fell nearly 50% between 1994 and 

2009--17% between 2000 and 2009 alone. This period oftime coincides with the 

expansion of School Resource Officer programs as part of a comprehensive, 

community-oriented strategy to address the range of real and perceived challenges 

to campus safety. 

However, recent criticism by advocates of the "school-to-prison pipeline" has called 

into question the fairness and effectiveness of this type of interagency collaboration 

in the school context. The SRO has been impugned for being ill suited to the 

education environment, a source of confusion and intimidation on campus and 

responsible for an increase in the number of referrals from schools to the juvenile 

justice system. Advocates of the "school-to-prison pipeline" dispute any correlation 

between the presence of an SRO on campus and crime reduction and go so far as to 

associate the presence ofthe SRO with an increase in crime on campus. 

Below, please find a narrative summary of the problems, errors, and misuse of data 

offered in support of the claims of a "school to prison pipeline". Policymakers have 

not been alerted to these issues. The appearance of validity for the "pipeline" claims 

continues to influence state and national reform in school safety law. As set forth 

below, the absence of a balanced, objective examination of the data describing 

normative behavioral trends in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems is 

robbing policymakers of a voice that needs to be heard. 

The foreseeable and unintended consequences ofthe misrepresentations of the data 

include (1) violation of the civil rights of student victims guaranteed under current 

state and federal victims' rights laws, (2) obstruction of justice by school officials 

who may disregard mandatory reporting laws requiring collaboration with child 

welfare and juvenile justice systems, (3) a rise in discrimination claims brought 

under federal and state laws against school officials for inconsistent disciplinary 

poliCies, and (4) an increase in the loss of goodwill and confidence in public 

education by parents who increasingly have school choices in-hand. 

Problems with the Claims of the Existence ofa "School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

The school-to-prison pipeline advocates present a fictitious account of what is 

happening in public schools, which they present to us as political reality. The claims 

deal wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites, with no grey area. Their 

kind of simplicity gives attraction to their story and helps politicize it. And since all 

communities dislike the same things that the school-to-prison pipeline advocates 

dislike, quite as much as they do, policymakers may accept these claims as true 

based on common hopes and fears - again turning fiction into fact. Policymakers 

are being coerced into supporting reform based on claims of a "school-to-prison 

pipeline," to avoid being called out as an enemy of children or a bigot for a newly 

discovered form of discrimination in education. It is as if they are saying: 

2 
506 

"This is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only 

your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, we have come to 

rescue you from." 

(1) The "Pipeline" Proponents Ignore Data That Tells a Different Story 

The trouble with the school-to-prison pipeline is that its fiction will not stand the 

light of factual inquiry. If one goes back three decades to survey the data on school 

safety and follows it to the present year, what clearly emerges is that in all schools 

there has been a rise in campus violence. Even when one takes into account the 

current downward trend in national statistics, the recent reporting by The National 

Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Dept. of Justice Report: Juvenile 

Offenders and Victims: National Report Series, Juvenile Arrests (2011) tell us there 

is still much work to do to step up to the duty to provide a safe learning 

environment for students in public schools: 

• There were 33 school-associated violent deaths during the 2009-10 school 

year. 

• In 2010, among students there were about 828,000 nonfatal victimizations, 

470,000 victims oftheft and 359,000 victims of violence. 

• 5.6% of children carried a weapon on to school property at least one day . 

• 7.7% were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. 

• 11.1 % were in a physical fight on school property. 

• 19.9% were bullied on school property. 

• 4.5% drank alcohol 

• 4.6% used marijuana on school property 

·22.7% were offered, sold, or were given illegal drugs on school property . 

• 50% increase in the percentage of youth who were victims of online 

harassment. 

However, within these statistics are three compelling features that often go 

overlooked by advocates of the "school-to-prison pipeline." First, only a few big city 

schools supply the preponderance of school violence data. A recent National Center 

for Education Statistics study found that 18 percent ofthe nation's schools 

accounted for 75 percent ofthe reported incidents of violence, and 6.6 percent of 

the nation's schools accounted for 50 percent. As for serious campus violence -

murder and rapes - 1. 9 percent of schools accounted for 50 percent of the incidents. 

Demographically, the preponderance of school violence occurs in big-city schools 

with sizeable populations of students of color. However, there is no causal link 

between these data and school policies nor do the data support the claim of a 

national epidemic of a school-to-prison pipeline. 

The second feature that goes overlooked by the advocates of the "school-to-prison 

pipeline" is that the disproportionate racial statistics cited to wrongfully attack 

educators are not unique to public schools. The school campus disparity simply 

3 
507 

mirrors the national data on violence in the community and the response to this 

violence by child welfare and juvenile justice agencies. And this data is easy to come 

by. For example, a National Center for Education Statistics study reported that the 

homicide rate among males between the ages of 14 and 17 is nearly ten times higher 

for blacks than for whites and Hispanics combined. The disproportionate violence 

in communities simply manifests itself in classrooms in public schools. And the data 

supports this conclusion. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 

nationally during 2007-2008, more than 145,000 teachers were physically attacked. 

Six percent of big-city schools report verbal abuse of teachers, and 18 percent report 

non-verbal disrespect for teachers. And nothing in these statistics establish intent 

on the part of any educator or school district to violate the law by targeting students 

of color for harsher disciplinary treatment while giving white students a free pass. 

And rather than attack educators one would rationally conclude that the factors that 

produce this disproportionate criminal violence in communities is inherited in 

classrooms and on public school campuses as well. 

Third, the "school-to-jail pipeline" rhetoric is misled by reason of giving insufficient 

weight to the fact that as the gravity of a campus incident increases, the ability of all 

partner agencies to exercise discretion decreases as a matter of law. Therefore, 

competent discussions of school safety policy reform must proceed along two 

separate branches of inquiry. The first branch looks at the degree to which the 

campus team applies interventions, remedies, and consequences required by law for 

serious misconduct on campus. This is a ministerial duty ofthe highest order. 

Should this branch fail to hold its weight, then the campus safety enterprise 

collapses for lack of sincerity, commitment, and goodwill. The second branch is the 

broader inquiry that the science of child-welfare reform law dictates: how well the 

team collaborates to produce outcomes that balance the duty to preserve the 

campus from disruptive forces while nurturing and protecting youth who are 

compelled to attend school. 

(2) The "Pipeline" Proponents Misuse Data to Support Claims 

The use ofthe data by the advocates ofthe "school-to-prison pipeline" suffers from 

an inherently superficial and flawed methodology. The proposition that a dozen 

randomly selected cities can render conclusive evidence on decades of policymaking 

by thousands of school districts in 50 States strains credulity. Not only does this 

methodology raise questions of statistical significance, it also reveals a latent 

assumption by critics that the safety needs oflocal school districts are baSically 

fungible. The claims by the advocates of the "school-to-prison pipeline" ignore 

studies and reports that attempt to objectively measure impact of School Resource 

Officers. They attack educators and SRO programs without any data that show that 

SROs discriminate against minorities and special needs students. As SRO programs 

came to prominence in the early 2000s, juvenile arrests declined 17% across-theboard between 2000-2009 (the most recent year for which data was available). The 

violent-crime index fell 13% and the property-crime index fell 19% during this 

period. And other assaults, vandalism, weapons, drug, DUI, and curfew and loitering 

4 
508 

offenses all fell as well. In 2011, incidences of school-associated deaths, violence, 

nonfatal victimizations, and theft all continued their downward trend that began in 

1992. 

A detailed examination of the critics' most-often-cited reports, studies, and statistics 

show that they do not establish a causal link between increases in local arrest rates 

or demographic disparities with school safety collaboration and SRO programs. The 

2009 paper by Matthew T. Theriot, is frequently cited for its finding that disorderly 

conduct a'rrests rose with the initiation of SRO programs in one Southeastern school 

district. He found also, however, that SROs' presence decreased arrests for assault 

and weapons charges and, overall, after controlling for economic disadvantage 

"having an SRO ceases to be a significant predictor of arrests." Further, the data "did 

not support that SROs discriminate against lower socioeconomic status students .... 

[A]rrest rates declined as poverty increased at schools with an SRO." Theriot 

concluded that the findings that SROs did not cause an increase in total arrests "are 

contrary to the criminalization hypothesis." 

A 2010 paper "Juvenile Court Referrals and the Public Schools: Nature and Extent of 

the Practice in Five States," by Michael P. Krezmien and others, found small 

increases in juvenile- justice referrals originating in schools between 1995 and 

2004. Four of the states surveyed saw referrals increase, by 6% at most over the 

nine-year period, and the fifth state found a decrease in referrals. The data did not 

account for SROs at all--it makes no conclusions regarding the effect of SRO 

programs on referrals. "[I]t is possible that the reliance on zero-tolerance policies 

for school misbehavior and the increased use of SROs to manage school misbehavior 

may also be related to the increases in [school-based referrals] to juvenile courts. 

However, these interpretations should be accepted with considerable caution. The 

variability in the states may suggest that state education and juvenile justice policies 

and practices may have important implication for understanding the referral rates." 

Two widely cited articles published by advocacy groups opposed to zero-tolerance 

legislation fail to make any statistical connection between the initiation and/or 

ongoing activities of SRO programs and increases in arrests. In 2003, Judith A. 

Browne, in "Derailed! The School- house to Jailhouse Track," chronicled the rise of 

zero-tolerance legislation and accompanying district-level policies. Her report 

acknowledges that states and local school districts followed federal mandates to 

enact the school-safety laws the article argues against. Nowhere does she attempt to 

show that SROs were somehow responsible for the policy decisions that increased 

the severity of punishment for certain school-based offenses that she opposes. Relying on data from 1995, Browne offers statistics on the increase in juvenile arrests 

in two Florida counties, Baltimore City Public Schools, and Houston Independent 

School District. 

Over 10 years old, the Florida statistics do not state whether the arrests were all 

made by SROs at school or officers arresting juveniles in general, nor does the article 

explain whether the changes in data paralleled the initiation of new school-safety 

laws, school district policies, and/or an SRO program. And, as presented above and 

5 
509 

repeated below, Florida is currently experiencing a significant decrease in schoolbased and juvenile arrests. 

Browne's statistics from Baltimore City Public Schools and the Houston 

Independent School District are also over ten years old and fail to specifY the origins 

of the arrests as school-based, linked to changes in SRO policies, or otherwise. Even 

so, these statistics show marked decreases in arrests during the three years of data 

assessed in both counties--Iending no support to SRO critics. Current data also 

shows declining arrests rates in Baltimore. Juvenile justice referrals for Baltimore 

City were down a total of 15.7% between 2008 and 2010, which was characteristic 

of Maryland as a whole, whose total decreased 15.9% in those years. Juvenile justice 

referrals also declined in Texas in 2010, where the state saw an 8% decrease from 

2009 in referrals for delinquent offenses. Finally, Browne admits that the disparate 

impact on racial minorities of school-based arrests follows that of the overall 

juvenile arrest rate. She presents no evidence of any increase in disparate racial 

impact at the hands of SRO programs. 

A more recent anti-zero-tolerance article often cited by SRO critics is "Zero 

Tolerance in Philadelphia" by Youth United for Change and the Advancement 

Project. This policy paper takes aim at the implementation and ramifications of 

zero-tolerance and other disciplinary measures in Philadelphia schools by 

legislators and school personnel and the high number ofSROs assigned to 

Philadelphia schools. The paper makes no empirical connection between the higher 

arrest rates in Philadelphia schools, relative to other Pennsylvania schools, and the 

implementation of SRO programs or the number of SROs assigned to schools. The 

arrest data used does not specifY whether SROs are making the arrests or whether 

the changes in arrest rates coincide with implementation or expansion of SRO 

programs. Indeed, all of the report's SRO-related conclusions are couched in 

speculative terms of what "may be due in significant part," "may be the case," and 

that "[i]t appears that both of these dynamics may be at work in Philadelphia." 

Finally, the paper's assertion that SROs create a hostile environment and a negative 

impression oflaw enforcement in the schools is based on one unpublished survey of 

one unnamed school and focus- group interviews in the district conducted by the 

Youth United for Change advocacy group. The weakness in the critical commentary 

by advocates ofthe "school-to-prison pipeline" is not in their point of view. Rather, 

its flaw is in refusing to let the data speak for itself. 

(3) The "Pipeline" Proponents Make Students More Vulnerable 

Parents, victims, educators, and their interagency partners are being unfairly 

targeted as the "school-to-prison pipeline" is politicized as a national phenomenon. 

The foreseeable and unintended consequences of this misrepresentation include (1) 

violation of the civil rights of student victims guaranteed under current state and 

federal victims' rights laws, (2) a rise in discrimination claims brought under 

federal and state laws against school officials for inconsistent disciplinary policies, 

6 
510 

(3) obstruction of justice by school officials who may disregard mandatory 

reporting laws requiring collaboration with child welfare and juvenile justice 

systems, and (4) an increase in the loss of goodwill and confidence in public 

education by parents who increasingly have school choices in-hand. 

Victims' Rights 

For students on public school campuses, victims' rights laws formalize what is 

already established--a human right to be free from abuse on campus. 33 states 

have enacted constitutional amendments codifying the right. Although each states' 

victims' rights amendments (VRAs) differ in scope, substance, and length, the 

constitutional changes made by these states evidence the importance of the right. 

There is no federal VRA, but Congress has passed a number oflegislative acts aimed 

at protecting victims' rights, including: the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, the Victim's 

Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, the Victims' Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and 

the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. 

This right extends to students because they are compelled by state law to attend 

public schools. State constitutions specifically protect student victims of harassment 

and violence through both VRAs and other legislation. For example, in Alabama, 

victims of harassment, intimidation, violence or threats of violence on school 

property may file a complaint on an authorized form and submit the form to the 

official of the designated local board. Arkansas and California have expanded these 

rights to protect victims from cyber bullying, in response to technological changes 

and the growth of social networking. Although these states are careful not to 

impede students' constitutional rights to free speech, policy makers recognize the 

importance of protecting the rights of student victims. In addition to state VRAs, 

state law firmly establishes that educators are liable when students are not 

protected from routine and foreseeable risks of harm. Today, lawsuits brought by 

student-victims are successful upon a showing of deliberate indifference under rules 

similar to that which applies to claims brought against educators for intentional and 

maliciously inflicted injuries. Federal and state legislatures are now clarifying these 

rules to encourage student-victim claims. The theme for this emerging liability law 

for failure to protect victims is called "selective enforcement." 

Selective Enforcement 

Selective enforcement liability focuses squarely on the failure of educators to 

implement campus safety rules fairly. Victimized students may challenge either a 

discriminatory policy or the flawed manner in which an evenhanded policy is 

implemented. In other words, in the selective enforcement lawsuit, the student 

accuses the school ofindifference or of playing favorites among the student body 

such that the disciplinary process creates a bias in favor of some students and 

against others. 

7 
511 

There is nothing but trouble for educators who implement policies that expose 

students to greater risks of victimization. Juveniles who commit crimes on campus 

in self-defense or who inflict harm on themselves, often speak ofthe selective 

enforcement as a factor in their desperateness to have school rules enforced fairly 

for the benefit of all students. The expansion of the selective enforcement lawsuit to 

include claims beyond historical race and gender is designed to protect all students 

from discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court says about such cases that, "'the 

purpose .. .is to [protect] every person within the State's jurisdiction against 

intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a 

statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents." See Village of 

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). A variety of federal statutes (and an 

equal number of state laws) may be brought to bear against school officials and 

SROs, including lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.c. § 1981, selective enforcement 

claims under 42 U.S.c. §1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.c.A. § 2000d), 

Title IX claims, and the newly emerging "class of one" lawsuit. In the "Class of One" 

Lawsuit the student does not claim that he is a member of a "suspect" class or that 

he was denied any fundamental right. Instead, the student must only show that (1) 

educators intentionally treated him differently from others similarly situated; and 

(2) this different treatment was not rationally related to a legitimate educational 

objective. 

Obstruction of}ustice by School Officials 

Selective enforcement of the school code of conduct may also lead to criminal 

liability for obstruction of justice. The "school-to-prison pipeline" advocates 

encourage schools to selectively enforce disciplinary poliCies in a good-faith attempt 

to convert some violations of law and school rules into teachable moments and 

educational opportunities. Under such a policy, no student is Similarly situated to 

another. Unwittingly, the seeds of selective enforcement are planted. Without 

proper training and frequent assessments, this type of disciplinary policy will create 

the appearance of deliberate indifference to student victims. Educators will find 

themselves at-risk of a lawsuit. 

For example, as the gravity of student misconduct increases, affirmative duties to 

report the incident to various agencies for investigation and intervention are 

triggered. Therefore, even though school officials maintain independent authority to 

address even these offenses through their disciplinary process, the failure to comply 

with their statutory duties not only violate the rights of victims, but is itself a 

violation ofthe law. 

Loss of Goodwill and Confidence in Public Education 

The attacks upon educators by "school-to-prison pipeline" advocates portray 

educators in the worse possible light at a time when goodwill is hard to come by and 

sorely needed. 

8 
512 

As explained previously in these remarks, two parallel trends have continued during 

the last decade of school-safety reform--falling rates of juvenile arrests and 

proliferation of SRO programs across the country. If the entry of SROs onto 

America's campuses built a track to juvenile arrests, where are all the arrests? How 

can all indicators of school-based crime continue to fall and juvenile arrest rates fall 

17% since 2000 if the presence of SROs on campus has opened up a pipeline to the 

juvenile-justice system? 

Further, national statistics show that far fewer incidents of school-based crime are 

reported to the police than occur. In school year 2009-10, only 15 of every 40 

school-based crimes per 1,000 students, for example, were reported to the police. If 

SROs are criminalizing student behavior that educators once dealt with on their 

own, how can school-based crime remain so significantly underreported? Even 

"lesser" crimes that critics allege should be handled by educators without law 

enforcement involvement fail to support the track allegations as all crimes are on 

the decline. For example, a crime - disorderly conduct - that pipeline advocates 

decry is being improperly criminalized--fe1l17% between 2005-2009. In California, 

juvenile arrest rates fell 22% between 2007-2010. In Georgia, juvenile arrest rates 

fell 19% between 2008-2010. 

Public educators are too purposeful and committed to child welfare to confuse 

juvenile justice with the education mission. Educators are responsible for fulfilling 

parents' custodial and tutelary interests when children are entrusted to their care. 

Therefore, campus safety policies are dependent on and interactive with the 

education mission. The collaborative approach to campus safety is a proven means 

to fulfill the statutory and constitutional duty to maintain a safe and effective 

learning environment. 

Conclusion 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for allowing NASRO to submit this statement for the record. I look 

forward to answering questions you might have about our work, and NASRO looks 

forward to working with members of the Subcommittee and others to ensure that 

our schools are safe, secure, and peaceful learning environments. 

In sum, the current data do not support the critics' assertion that SRO programs 

have created a track to the juvenile-justice system or a unique impact on minority 

students. The academic studies find no Widespread association between SROs and 

increased arrests and caution against concluding otherwise. The policy papers 

simply fail to present statistical evidence of any causal relationship between SRO 

programs and increased arrests or any demographic arrest patterns unique to the 

school setting. 

9 
513 

Those who decry SROs' presence on campus would prefer that educators deal with 

dangerous and disruptive students on their own, calling in law enforcement only for 

what critics would deem serious offenses. These arguments forget, however, 

educators' legal duty to report evidence of abuse and neglect and other crimes that 

they witness as part of their daily interaction with students. Removing SROs from 

campus would not relieve educators oftheir duty to report crime, and so would not 

somehow prevent students from being arrested for illegal behavior on campus. 

State law requires all members of the child-welfare team to report incidents of 

suspected abuse and neglect. Many states go beyond this traditional duty to require 

reporting of campus crime to district and law-enforcement officials. For example, 

Arkansas requires educators to report any crime or threat of crime they observe 

directly to law enforcement. California requires reporting of drug-related crimes 

and all crimes and probation violations by serious habitual offenders to law 

enforcement. And Illinois requires reporting of all batteries against school officials. 

While it may be easy to blame school-based arrests, suspensions, and expulsions on 

SROs because oftheir highly visible role in campus protection and the investigation 

of misconduct, they are but one component in a community-wide response to 

juvenile crime and misbehavior. SROs do not draft and ratify juvenile-justice laws. 

They do not decide whether a juvenile should be charged as delinquent. They do not 

force educators to allow them onto campus, and they do not decide whether a 

student should be suspended or expelled from school. 

I am not a lawyer, but I take comfort from the fact that the school resource officer, 

specially trained to serve and protect the educational environment, is an essential 

component of whatever kind of disciplinary approach a particular district or school 

determines is best for its students. For example, critics of zero-tolerance legislation 

and SRO programs often propose restorative-discipline models to deal with student 

misconduct. These kinds of programs have been found to be compatible with SRO 

programs that incorporate the triad approach to campus safety. Because 

restorative-justice techniques involve members of the child-welfare team in a 

collaborative approach to redirect offending students and make victims whole, 

SROs' relationships of trust with students, experience with the juvenile justice 

system, and understanding of conflict-resolution techniques make them valuable 

members of the team. 

That does not mean that we do everything perfectly. We are constantly refining the 

way that we protect our school communities. NASRO has been blessed with a 

great deal of success. But given the rapid pace of reform in the child welfare and 

juvenile justice systems, we take nothing for granted. The men and women of 

NASRO continue to lead by example and promote a positive image oflaw 

enforcement to our nation's youth. 

10 
514 

FairTest 

National Center for Fair & Open Testing 

P.O. Box 300204 

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 

December 10,2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the invitation to submit testimony for the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Human Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on ending the schoolto-prison pipeline. 

My name is Monty Neill, and I am Executive Director of the National Center for Fair & Open 

Testing (FairTest). FairTest advances quality education and equal opportunity by promoting fair, 

open, valid and educationally beneficial evaluations of students, teachers and schools. FairTest also 

works to end misused and flawed testing practices that impede those goals. We place special 

emphasis on eliminating the racial, class, gender, and cultural barriers to equal opportunity posed by 

standardized tests. 

As part of its mission, FairTest has addressed how the high-stakes uses of standardized tests, 

particularly as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), have led to increased disciplinary 

sanctions against students. This has disproportionately affected students of color, students with 

disabilities, and those from low-income families and communities. High-stakes tests are those that 

play the sole or primary role in educational decisions, such as determining high-school graduation 

or school sanctions under NCLB (FairTest, 2004, 2012). 

Zero tolerance discipline and high-stakes testing policies have similar philosophical underpinnings 

and similarly destructive results. Both stem from a 1980s movement to impose more punitive 

policies in criminal justice and public education. Together, they have helped turn schools into 

hostile environments for many students. The result is a "school-to-prison pipeline," in which large 

numbers of students are pushed out of school and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Too 

many young people end up in prison, at a cost many times greater than that of a good education. It 

is a senseless waste of resources and human potential, damaging to both individuals and society. 
515 

How does high-stakes testing contribute to the pipeline? 

High-stakes testing turns many classrooms and schools into test prep centers rather than offering 

rich, engaging, well-rounded instruction. Narrow, rote instruction bores and alienates students. 

Many tune out, feeling they are little more than their scores (FairTest, 2004), and leave school. In 

addition, exit exams result in many thousands of students leaving high school without diplomas 

(FairTest, 2008). These tests have been found to lower graduation rates without improving the 

quality of education (Hout & Elliot, 20 II). Some students see no realistic option other than 

dropping out. Others fail the tests or are deliberately pushed out to manipulate school performance 

statistics. Regardless of which specific cause, young people who leave or are pushed out are much 

more likely to end up in trouble or in prison. 

Tests and zero tolerance work hand in glove. 

NCLB has raised the stakes attached to test results, especially in urban, low-income districts, which 

face severe sanctions for failure to boost test scores. Zero tolerance imposes harsh penalties for 

nonviolent infractions. some as harmless as drawing on desks with erasable markers (Herbert, 

2010). It provides a pretext for removing low-scoring students and improving a school's test score 

bottom line. The superintendent of the El Paso public schools was convicted and imprisoned for 

initiating district policies to remove low-scoring students from school (Fernandez, 2012). In Florida, 

researchers found schools gave low-scoring students longer suspensions than high-scoring students 

who committed similar infractions (Figlio, 2003). Zero tolerance and high-stakes testing reinforce 

each other, creating a downward spiral. 

Punitive culture promotes strategies to weed out 'troubiemakers'llow scorers. 

The damage to school climate and decreased engagement with school foster problem behaviors, 

which schools and districts too often counter with zero tolerance discipline. Since NCLB, the use of 

strategies such as withdrawing students from school rolls or sending them to alternative schools or 

GED programs has increased. Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions are also on the rise 

nationally, with startling increases in many states (Advancement Project, 2010). 

Students of color and the disabled increasingly bear the brunt. 

Racial disparities in student suspensions and expulsions are large and increasing. Black students are 

more than three times as likely to be suspended (Losen and Gillespie, 2012). Between 2002-03 and 

2006-07, expulsions decreased by 2% for white students, but increased 33% for blacks and 6% for 

Latinos. Similar disparities exist for students with disabilities (SWD). In Ohio, for example, SWDs 

were twice as likely to be suspended out-of-school as their peers in 2007 -08. And in Texas, in 2005-

06, students enrolled in special education accounted for 11% of the student population but 26% of 

all out-of-school suspensions (Advancement Project, 2010). Vastly disproportionate numbers of 

low-income, racial minority, SWDs and English language learners fail state exit tests and do not 

obtain diplomas (FairTest, 2009). 

Prison popUlations reflect disparate impact of zero tolerance, testing. 

The student groups affected by these policies are more likely to drop out and become caught up in 

the juvenile justice system. making them more likely to land in prison. People of color and those 

with disabilities are overrepresented in U.S. prisons. Approximately 8.8% of public school children 

have been identified as having disabilities that impact their ability to learn, but students with 

disabilities are represented in jail at a rate nearly four times that (Quinn, 2005). One in nine black 

males between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, compared to one in 30 for men in that age 

group in general (Pew, 2008). 

2 
516 

To undo the damage: reform assessment, reverse zero tolerance. 

Zero tolerance is not working. However, alternative prevention and intervention strategies being 

implemented around the country have been proven successful. For example, a community push for 

new discipline policies in Denver Public Schools led to a 63% reduction in referrals to law 

enforcement and a 43% reduction in out-of-school suspensions (Advancement Project, 2010). tThe 

New York Performance Standards Consortium (2012), a network of New York high schools that 

have state permission to use performance tasks instead of standardized tests, reports its 5% 

suspension rate is less than half the city's 11%. This success, they conclude, is rooted in using 

alternatives to standardized tests. 

The work of the Judiciary Committee, therefore, could positively influence not only juvenile justice 

legislation but have a positive impact on the Senate's reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act. We recommend that this Committee, perhaps together with the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, investigate the ways in which high-stakes 

testing interacts with overly harsh disciplinary policies to harm young people, undermine school 

climate and damage educational outcomes. To end the Pipeline, it will be necessary to also end the 

overuse and misuse of standardized tests. 

I would be pleased to discuss these issues with you further. I can be reached at 617-477-9792 or by 

email at montv({i)fairtesLorg. 

Thank you. 

Monty Neill, Ed.D. 

Executive Director 

FairTest 

References 

Advancement Project (2010). Test, Punish. and Push Out: How "Zero Tolerance" and 

High-Stakes Testing Funnel Youth Into the School-to-Prison Pipeline. 

http://www.advancementproject.org/resources/entry/test-punish-and-push-out-how-zero-toleranceand-high-stakes-testing-funnel 

Advancement Project, Education Law Center - PA, FairTest, The Forum for Education and 

Democracy, Juvenile Law Center, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (2010). 

Federal Policy, ESF.A Reauthorization, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline. 

http://www.fairtest.orglposition-paper-nclb-and-school-prison-pipeline. 

FairTest (2004). Failing Our Children: How "No Child Left Behind" Undermines Quality 

and Equity in Education; An Accountability Model that Supports School Improvement. 

http://www.fairtest.org/nodell778 

FairTest (2008). Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School 

Diplomas. http://www.fairtest.org/gradtestfactmay08 

FairTest (2009). What's Wrong with Graduation and Promotion Tests. 

http://www.faittest.orglwhats-wrong-graduation-and-promotion-tests 

FairTest (2012). NCLB's Lost Decade for Educational Progress: What Can We Learn from 

this Policy Failure? http://faiI1est.org/NCLB-lost-decade-report-home 

Fernandez, M. (October 13,2012). "EI Paso Schools Confront Scandal of Students Who 

'Disappeared' at Test Time," The New York Times. 

3 
517 

hltp://www.nytimes.coll1i20 121 I 01 14/cducation/el-paso-rattled-by-scandal-of~d isappearedstudents.html?pagewanted=all& 1'=0 

Figlio, D. (2003, November). "Testing, crimc and punishment." Gainesville: University of 

Florida. http://bcar.cba.ufl.edulfiglio/. 

Losen, D., and Gillespie, J (20 (2). Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of 

Disciplinary Exciusionfrom School. The Civil Rights Project. 

http://www.otlcall1paign.org/sites/default/files/resourccslopportunitv-suspended-centcr-civil-rightsremedies-aug-20 12.pdL 

Neill, M. (June 18,2010) "A Better Way to Assess Students and Evaluate Schools." 

Education Week. Available at http://www.failiest.org/sitcs/defauIUfiles/better-wav-to-assessEdWeek6-18-10.pdf. 

Herbert, B. (March 5, 20 I 0). "Cops vs. Kids," The New York Times. 

http://www .nvti ll1es.coll1/20 I 0103/06/0pinion/06herbert.htll11 

Hout, M. & Elliott, S., Editors (2011). Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in 

Education. Committee on Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Public Education; 

National Research Council. Available onlinc at http://www.nap.cdu/catalog.php?record id=12521 

The Pew Center on the States (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008,5. 

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadcdFilcs/80 15PCTS Prison08 FINAL 2-1-

I FORWEB.pdf 

Quinn, M., et ai. (2005). Youth with Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections: A National Survey, 

Council for Exceptional Children. Vol 71, No.3, pp. 339-345. 

http://www.helpinggangvouth.com/disabilitv-best corrections survev.pdf 

4 
518 

'0 National Center.far learning Disabilities ~ ® Th~ power w h{Jl'e, to Jearn, and to 5uccf!ed 

December 6, 2012 

The Honorable Dick Durbin, Chairman 

Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

226 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Durbin, 

The National Center for learning Disabilities (NCLD) commends the subcommittee's leadership in 

holding the "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" hearing on Wednesday, December 12, 2012. This 

hearing is on a critical topic impacting students with learning disabilities (LD) and other at-risk students. 

According to the report by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights Project an estimated 

13% of all students with disabilities were suspended nationally during the 2009-2010 school year. This is 

approximately twice the rate of their non-disabled peers. For all students with disabilities, regardless of 

race, it was found that over 400 districts suspended 25% or more of these students. Black students with 

disabilities were most at risk for out-of-school suspension with an alarming 25% national average for all 

districts in the sample. As you know, the frequent use of out-of-school suspension results in increased 

dropout rates and heightened risk of youth winding up in the juvenile justice system. 

Students with LD comprise over forty percent of students identified with disabilities in our nation's 

public schools. They are disproportionately poor and continue to drop out at a higher rate than the 

general population (20% vs. 8% respectively). Students with lD do not have cognitive or intellectual 

challenges and should be taught to the same standards and held to the same high expectations as their 

peers. Clearly, students with lD need stronger Federal policies to support staying in school and 

graduating high school with a regular diploma. Without stronger policies, many students with 

disabilities are left without the same educational opportunities as other students, or worse, face barriers 

to achieving the same educational gains as their peers. Federal poliCies that promote and support best 

practice can help schools improve teaching and learning environments without forcing students to lose 

valuable days of instruction. 

NCLD strongly supports your efforts to address keeping youth in school and out of the juvenile justice 

system. This hearing is necessary to ensure a full discussion about the need for poliCies that lower dropout rates and ensure more students with disabilities graduate from high school with a regular high 

school diploma. Thank you again for your leadership and attention to strengthening educational 

opportunities for students with disabilities. 

Sincerely, 

James H. Wendorf 

Executive Director 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES, INC. 

PUBLIC POLICY OFFICE 

1101 Vermont Avenue #400 0 Washington, D.C. 200020 TEL 703.476.4894 0 www,LD,org 

NClD HEADQUARTERS 

381 Park Avenue South 0 Suite 1401 0 New York. NY 10016 0 TEL 212.545.7510 0 FAX 212.545.9665 
519 

NATIONAL, /~~'" / " " / 

OISABIUTY RIGHTS ',: / 

NETWORK 

Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Disabilities / 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 2:00 p,m. 

The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) would like to thank Chairman Durbin, 

Ranking Member Graham, and the Constitution Subcommittee for holding this hearing 

and raising awareness of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. As more and more of our 

nation's youth end up in the juvenile justice system, the time for federal leadership on 

this problem is now. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Who Are NDRN and the Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As)? 

NDRN is the nonprofit membership organization for the federally mandated Protection 

and Advocacy (P&A) systems for individuals with disabilities, The P&As were 

established by the United States Congress through eight separate statutes to protect 

the rights of people with disabilities and their families through legal support, advocacy, 

referral, and education. 

Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of legally based advocacy services 

to people with disabilities in the United States. 

P&As are in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories (American 

Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands), and 

there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium, which includes the Hopi, 

Navaho and Piute Nations in the Four Corners region of the Southwest Each P&A 

provides a full array of services for people with disabilities, and work with youth to 

provide assistance with education and services in a variety of settings, including juvenile 

justice facilities, public and non-public schools, and detention and correctional facilities. 

The Nature of the Problem 

Children with disabilities should not be punished for their disabilities. Instead, children 

should be provided the education to which they are legally entitled to and the supports 

necessary to obtain that education. Unfortunately, many of our public school students 

do not receive these basic rights. 

Statistics show that a disparate number of youth with disabilities, and especially youth of 

color with disabilities, are involved with the juvenile justice system. As many as 80% of 
520 

youth in the juvenile justice system have some form of disability.i Children of color are 

also disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system.ii However, a data 

analysis released in August of 2012 shows there is far more to the story. "Applying [ ... ] 

three lenses together - race, gender and disability-yields a more disturbing image than 

anyone of the categories alone ... The group that consistently had the highest rate of 

suspension is African American male students with disabilities. In some of the largest 

districts in the U.S .... suspension rates for this group reached more than 70% of their 

enrollment."iii 

This analysis shows that a specific sub group of children of color, those who are also 

children with disabilities, receive different treatment than their peers in public school. 

Within this sub group, children who reside in particular public school districts receive the 

worst treatment of all. Many of these youth face suspension or expulsion from school -

a key entry point into the "School to Prison Pipeline." In order to successfully protect 

these children from a future in prison, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the problem 

and tear it out by its roots. 

P&A Network Work on the School To Prison Pipeline (STPP) 

P&As have been working on preventing improper discipline of students with disabilities 

for many years, before the link between these cases and the likelihood of future 

incarceration was widely recognized. Preventing suspension and expulsion of students 

for the behavioral manifestations of their disabilities is and always has been an 

important part of the advocacy work that the P&As do. Now, many if not all of the P&As 

are engaged in both individual and systemic projects to address the school-to-prison 

pipeline for people with disabilities. 

In Illinois, a ten-year-old student with ADHD, depression, and oppositional defiant 

disorder contacted Equip for Equality after being expelled from a charter school. School 

officials had called the police on the student multiple times, and the student's parent had 

asked the charter school to evaluate him for special education services, but the charter 

school refused. As a result of the expUlsion by the charter school, Chicago Public 

Schools also expelled the student and assigned him to an alternative school, where all 

of the other students were high school-age. The P&A successfully appealed the 

expulsion, which allowed the student to enroll at his neighborhood school, and then 

helped ensure an appropriate special education program in that school. The student 

has made great progress at school and his teachers noticed remarkable growth after he 

returned. The student and parent are very happy that the stUdent no longer has an 

expUlsion on his record, and is now receiving the appropriate special education 

services. 

In Texas, Disability Rights Texas (DRTx) represented a high school student diagnosed 

with ADHD who, despite his parent's requests for assistance, was not receiving special 

education or 504 services. He was charged with a misdemeanor for failure to attend 

class after he repeatedly walked out of the alternative disciplinary placement the school 

had placed him in instead of providing special education services. His parent was given 
521 

a similar citation for contributing to the student's failure to attend. The P&A filed an 

administrative complaint with the Texas Education Agency (TEA) alleging violations of 

federal special education law. TEA found that the school district was out of compliance 

and ordered it to take corrective action. The district evaluated the student and is now 

providing him special education services. Additionally, DRTx successfully advocated for 

the student's misdemeanor charges to be dismissed. 

P&As also work proactively to solve systemic problems before they start. For example, 

in South Carolina Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. 

represented several students at an altemative school which serves children with 

disabilities after the students were subjected to excessive restraint and seclusion and 

juvenile justice referrals. Once students were placed at this alternative school, it was 

very difficult for them to return to a regular education setting and they were unable to 

obtain a high school diploma from the alternative school. The P&A submitted a letter 

expressing its concern over this situation to the state Department of Education, Office 

for Exceptional Children (OEC). OEC investigated and met with school district 

personnel. The district acknowledged that there had been a lack of oversight at the 

school. As a result, the school made significant changes, including hiring a new school 

administrator, training staff, including both professional and paraprofessional staff, on 

appropriate de-escalation tactics and trauma assessment, improving transition planning 

for its students, reinstating social workers into the school, and adopting positive 

behavioral interventions and supports. The school developed a transition team to 

facilitate the students' reintegration into regular school settings and contracted with a 

behavioral specialist to assess behavior management at the school. Three hundred 

students were impacted by these changes. 

In Illinois, Equip for Equality wrote letters to ten different charter networks statewide 

(covering approximately 30-35 of the charter schools out of the 125 in Illinois) whose 

Codes of Conduct violated the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) in a 

way that would increase expUlsions. Each of these charter networks agreed to amend 

its Code of Conduct as a result. This will prevent the networks from referring so many 

students for expUlsion and to the police. The P&A also spoke at a training for new 

charter networks to ensure that they understand the rights of students with disabilities 

and craft their Student Codes of Conduct in a way that adheres to IDEA regarding 

discipline of students with disabilities. 

FEDERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Effective enforcement of current federal protections is the most effective 

way to stem the STPP for children with disabilities. NDRN is very pleased 

with a recent complaint filed by the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding 

racial injustice in Meridian Mississippi. There are similar problems currently with 

regard to students with disabilities that are also worthy of DOJ's attention. We 

encourage DOJ to continue to work with the P&A agencies to identify appropriate 

cases for enforcement action. 
522 

• Congress should create and appropriate funds for a specific P&A program 

focused on children with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. Funding 

the P&A network to do this work is an extremely cost-effective way to use the 

existing infrastructure of the P&A System. The P&A network is the largest crossdisability network of advocates in the United States, and P&As have extensive 

expertise successfully advocating on behalf of youth with disabilities in childserving systems and advancing systems reforms. All P&As have an interest in 

and commitment to doing this work, but cite lack of funding and resources as the 

primary barrier to being more fully engaged while not diminishing the ability to do 

the other important work the P&As perform. 

• We recommend leadership by all relevant federal agencies, and especially 

OJJDP, in the area of prevention of school removal. There is a need to 

promote and create incentives for the revision of local school codes, so as to 

eliminate the use of out of school expulsion and promote the development of 

clear and specific Memoranda of Understanding regarding the use of School 

Resource Officers, in order to limit their role to matters of real school safety. 

Providing direct federal support for training schools and teachers in the best 

practices to prevent school removal. 

• The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) should 

continue recent efforts to publish Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) data. 

This type of federal effort is desperately needed in order to help state and local 

governments uncover and resolve STPP problems. 

• NDRN encourages OCR to consider specific enforcement actions (e.g. 

"compliance reviews") for STPP violations that impact students with 

disabilities. One example would be to address the worst offending districts in 

terms of racial/disability discipline statistics. 

• NDRN recommends effective monitoring and enforcement of the IDEA and 

ESEA by Department of Education of suspension and expulsion rates and 

racial dis proportionality at the state and local level. 

• NDRN encourages the better tracking of school discipline rates as an 

indicator of school needs and improvement in persistently low-achieving 

schools. This data is a promising example of how publicly available data could 

be used to improve school climate. 

• Congress should fund grant programs to support community-based 

solutions. The solutions to the causes of the STPP at the local level will often 

require the efforts and input of all stakeholders. Funds should go toward the 

development and implementation of multi-year, comprehensive local or regional 

plans to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline and the number of youth 

entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 
523 

Conclusion: Thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic and 

allowing written testimony to be submitted. The P&As are committed to 

continuing to be part of the solution to this serious social issue. 

'(Shufelt, L J., & Cocozza, J. J. (2006). Youth with Mental Health disorders in the Juvenile Justice 

system: Results from a multi-state prevalence study. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Mental Health 

and Juvenile Justice. ). 

;; "As states have undertaken efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement for youth, they have 

found evidence that disproportionality occurs at every contact point within the juvenile justice system, 

from arrest to cases transferred to criminal court and not just at detention and correction." DMC Technical 

Assistance Manual, 4th Edition, https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/oiidp/dmc ta manual/dmcintro.pdf (page 

Intro-1). 

,;; Opportunities Suspended, August 2012, Civil Rights Projecl/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, at 36. Retrieved 

from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prisonfolderlfederal-reportslupcoming-ccrr-researchl) 
524 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: 

A Multi-tiered Framework that Works for Every Student 

The most effective tool teachers have to handle problem behavior is to prevent it from occurring in the 

first place. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) programs help teachers recognize the 

significance of classroom management and preventive school discipline to maximize student success. PBIS 

strategies are critical to providing all young people with the best learning environment. 

PBIS is a prevention framework that 

works for all students 

P

ositive Behavioral Intervention Support {PBIS) is 

a general term that refers to positive behavioral 

interventions and systems used to achieve 

important behavior changes. PBIS 

was developed as an a!ternative 

to aversive interventions used 

with students with significant 

disabilities who engaged in 

extreme forms of self injury and 

aggression.1 PBIS is not a new theory of behavior, but a 

behaviorally based systems approach to enhancing the 

schools' ability to design effective environments that are 

conducive to quality teaching and learning. 

NEA views PBIS as a general education initiative even 

though its impetus is derived from the special education 

law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

PBIS improves the socia! culture and the behavioral 

climate of classrooms and schools which ultimately 

leads to enhanced academic performance. "Viewed as 

outcomes, achievement and behavior are related; viewed 

as causes of each other, achievement and behavior are 

unrelated. In this context, teaching behavior as relentlessly as we teach reading or other academic content 

is the ultimate act of prevention, promise, and power 

underlying PBS and other preventive interventions in 

America's schools.") 

-NEA President Dennis Van Roekel 

PBIS implementation 

Successful PBIS programs are dependent upon the entire 

school community. The principles and tenets of PBIS are 

the same as those represented in Universal Design for 

Learning (UDL) and Response to Intervention (RTI) as 

they include universal 

screening, continuous 

progress monitoring, 

data-based decision 

making, implementation 

fidelity and evidencebased interventions. 

PBIS is not a manualized, 

scripted strategy or 

curriculum. It requires 

adopting and organizing 

evidence~based behav~ 

loral interventions into 

an integrated continuum 

that enhances academic 

and social behavior 

outcomes for all 

students. 

Every school has a 

unique climate,so a one 

size fits all approach is 

not as effective as interventions based on the 

needs of the learning 

community. School~wide 

PBIS includes proactive 

strategies for designing, 

Legislation calls for 

Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and 

Supports 

Positive Behavioral 

Supports has held a 

unique place in special 

education law since 

Congress amended 

the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA) in 1997. Referred 

to as Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and 

Supports in IDEA, PSIS 

is the only approach to 

addressing behavior that 

is specifically mentioned 

in the law. This emphasis 

on using functional 

assessment and positive 

approaches to encourage 

good behavior remains in 

the current version of the 

len-v \'IS amended in 2004. 

NEA Education Policy and Practice Department! Center for Great Public Schools I 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C 20036 
525 

h'~"N%M.i 

!n 1972, the court in rVlills v. Board of Education of the 

District of Columbia (348 F.Supp. 866 (DD.C. 1972)) 

found that students with disabilities \vere being 

excluded from educational opportunities for issues 

related to behavior. Congress intended to address 

this exclusion in the Individuals v"ith Disabilities 

Education Act, as the Suprerne Court in HOllig v. Doe 

(484 U.S. 305 (1988)) clarified, saying: 

Congress very much meant to strip schools of the 

unilateral authority they had traditionally employed 

to exclude disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from schoo! (p. 323). 

teaching and supporting appropriate student behaviors. 

A continuum ofPBIS for all students within a school is 

implemented in all areas of the environment (classrooms, 

hallways, restrooms and busses). 

PBIS is a multi-tiered system designed to be inclusive of 

all environments and link research-validated practices. 

Attention is focused on creating and sustaining primary 

(school wide), secondary (classroom), and tertiary (individual) systems of support that improve results for desired 

behaviors. The primary prevention is school-wide for all 

students, staff and settings. The secondary prevention 

is for a specialized group of students who exhibit at-risk 

behaviors and the tertiary prevention would be for those 

students who need specialized, individualized supports 

for at-risk behaviors. 

Implementing evidence-based intervention practices are 

the key to a successful PB!S program. Components would 

include but are not limited to: 

School-Wide 

• Leadership team 

• Behavior purpose statement 

• Set of positive expectations & behaviors 

• Procedures forteaching school & classroom expected 

behaviors 

-

• Continuum of procedures for encouraging/discouraging 

desired behavior 

• Individual Student 

• Behavioral competence at school & district levels 

• Function based behavior support planning 

• Team- and data-based decision making 

• Targeted social skills and self management 

• Individualized instructional and curricular 

accommodations 

Classroom 

• School wide 

• Maximum structure and predictability in routines 

• Positively stated expectations taught, posted, reviewed 

& supervised 

• Maximum engagement through high rates of 

opportunities to respond 

• Continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate 

behaviors and responding to inappropriate behavior 

Congress recognized the need for schools to use 

evidence-based approaches to proactively address 

the behavioral needs of students with dlsabHities. 

Thus, in arr'lending the Individuals VI,Iith Disabilities 

Education Act both in 1997 and in 2004, Congress 

explicitly recognized the potential ofPBlS to prevent 

exclusion and in1prove educational results in 20 

U.s.c. § 1401(c)(5)(Fi: 

(5) A!most 30 years of research and experience has 

demonstrated that the education of children with 

disabilities can be made more effective by-

(F) providing incentives for whole-school 

approaches, Scientifically based early reading 

programs, positive behavior(ll interventions and 

supports, and early intervening services to reduce 

the need to labe! children as disabled in order 

to address the learning and behavioral needs of 

children. 

NEA Education Policy and Practice Department! Center for Great Public Schools 11201 16th St" NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 
526 

Non classroom 

• Active supervision by all staff 

• Positive expectations and routines taught and 

encouraged 

• Precorrections and reminders 

• Positive reinforcement 

PBIS works for all of U5 

NEA recognizes that professional development is 

critical to proper implementation of PBIS and the 

improved behavioral outcomes that PBIS can foster. 

For an Individualized Education Program (lEP) team to 

"consider" the use of PBIS, IDEA requires the team to have 

knowledge of PBIS, discussion of its use, and the capacity 

to implement PBIS to improve outcomes and address 

behavior. If the program is to be successfully imp!e~ 

mented school wide, PBIS needs the attention of time, 

training and buy~in from the entire school community. 

IDEA's Requirements to Use Functional 

Behavioral Assessments and Consider PSIS 

IDEA requires: 

• The lEP team to consider the use of Positive 

Behavioral Interventions and Supports for any 

student whose behavior impedes his or her iearning 

orthe learning of others (20 USc. §1414(d)(3)(B)(i)). 

• A functional behavioral assessment when a child 

\\'ho does not have a behavior intervention plan 

is removed from their current p!acement for more 

than 10 schoo! days (e.g. suspension) for behavior 

that turns out to be a manifestation of the child's 

disability (20 U.s.c. §1415(k)I1)(F)(i)). 

• A functional behavioral assessment when 

appropriate, to address any behavior that results in a 

10ng-terl11 removal (20 U.s.c. §1415(k)(1)(D)). 

• wwvJ.pbis.org 

NEA views PBIS as a multi-tiered system of support 

that works for all students, and adding language in the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to 

"consider" the use of PBIS would be beneficial. Utilizing 

PSIS ensures a consistent and proactive approach for all 

students. Results from the past few years indicate that 

this type of intervention (tier 1 through tier 3) can reduce 

problematic student behavior, reduce referral rates to 

special education, and enhance students' social behavior.3 

PSIS supports the success of all students and establishes 

an environment in which appropriate behavior is the 

norm. 

References 

. Durrand & Carr, 19B5 

. Algozzine, Wang, & Violette (2011) George Sugai, OSEP 

Center on PBIS 

'www.pbis,org 

.1 Cheney, Lynass, Waugh, Iwaszuk, Mielenz & Hawken 

(2010) Preventing School Failure, 54(3),152-158 

Resources 

NEA IDEA Special Education Resource Cadre 

Washington, DC 20036 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Special Education Programs 

www2.ed.gov/aboutJofficesflist/osers/osepfindex. 

hlml 

NEA Education Policy and Practice Department! Center for Great Public Schoolsj 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 

2012 (PB41) 
527 

umtll PldIlk Srhoob 

for Etlt"fY SnuJl"rlt 

1201 16th St ~.\:V. I \Vashmgtol1. DC 20036 I Phone' (202) 833-4000 

December 10,2012 

Senate judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution. Civil Rights. and Human Rights 

Washington. DC 20510 

Dear Senator: 

Dennis Van Roekel 

President 

Lily Eskelsen 

nce President 

Rebecca S, Pringle 

Sec,.('tary~T,.easurer 

John Stocks 

executire Director 

On behalf of the more than three million members of the National Education Association. we 

would like to enter the following statement into the record of the Deccmber 12 hearing. "Ending 

the School-to-Prison Pipeline." 

The school-to-prison pipeline is both an education and a social justice issue. Overly harsh zerotolerance discipline policies, misguided high-stakes testing, insufficient services and support, and 

rising class sizes are pushing more and more students out of the public schools and into the 

juvenile and criminal justice systems. The overwhelming majority are students of color. To 

address this troubling trend, the educational system and the judicial system must collaborate, 

cooperate, and replace punitive zero-tolerance policies with positive strategies that emphasize 

keeping kids in school not suspending or expelling them for misbehavior or failure to thrive 

academically. Such strategies must address the needs ofthe whole child. 

At the same time, it is important to remember that suspensions and expulsions may be sometimes 

necessary to ensure the safety of the entire school community, including students, teachers, and 

education support professionals. One of our members put it this way: 

I have been teaching in an urban high schoolfor 32 years. Students are expelled for 

violent acts -fights and assaults - andfor possessing and/or being under the influence 

of drugs or alcohol. If the offending students aren't expelled and remain in the building, 

where are they supposed 10 be housed? What staff member wants to be responsible for a 

violent student or a student high on drugs? What about the safety of the other students 

and staff? bn 't itfair to have a safe environment for everyone? I have devoted my life's 

work to inner-city kids and it is truly heartbreaking to watch so many ~f them make 

incredibly bad choices over and over. 

Overly harsh zero-tolerance discipline policies 

In response to highly publicized incidents of violence like the massacre in Columbine High 

School in Colorado, schools across the nation have implemented zero-tolerance policies that 

mandate specific punishments for misbehavior, culminating in suspension or expulsion from 
528 

school. According to news reports, the punishments are often wildly disproportionate to the 

infractions - for example, students have been suspended for talking back to teachers and 

violating dress codes. 

The intent of zero-tolerance policies is laudable - to ensure safe schools, the best learning 

environment for all students. But implementation has been deeply flawed in many schools, 

districts, and states. Moreover, evidence is mounting that overly harsh punishments have 

widened achievement gaps and raised dropout rates among students of color and students with 

disabilities, many of whom are already at risk due to histories of poverty, abuse or neglect. 

Nationwide, 17 percent (I in 6) K-12 black students are suspended at least once - more than 

double the rate of other subgroups. The risk of suspension is 8 percent (1 in 12) for Native 

Americans, 7 percent (I in 14) for Latinos, 5 percent (1 in 20) for whites, and 2 percent (1 in 50) 

for Asian Americans. Overall, students with disabilities are suspended twice as often as their 

non-disabled peers. The suspension rate is highest for black students with disabilities: 25 percent 

(I in 4) were suspended at least once during the 2009-10 school year. (Source: "Opportunities 

Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion from School," Civil Rights Project 

at the University of California Los Angeles, August 2012) 

Alarming as they are, these statistics do not capture the full story. Overly harsh punishments can 

even cause previously successful students to disengage or drop out. The following story, 

submitted by an NEA member who now lives and teaches in the state of New York, illustrates 

how this can happen: 

My son attended a school in Florida in 9th grade. He was regularly teased by one 

particular boy in the classroom until one day, he poured some paper scraps over the 

boy's head after being called "gay" prior to the beginning of a class. The boy kicked my 

son in the stomach in response (he was aiming lower but missed), sending him falling 

backwards over his desk. The noise brought the teacher back into the classroom just as 

my son got back up and punched the guy in the stomach in response. Both boys were 

immediately suspendedfrom school (zero tolerance policy). 

As an educator and responsible parent, I was mortified that my son was involved in a 

physical altercation and went to the school immediately. Ifound out that my son was 

expelled for 10 days, and that he had lost the right to learn even though he has a 

processing disorder and is protected from discrimination by Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Returning to school 10 days behind left my son permanently 

behind and he had the worst educational year of his life. It was hard work getting him to 

find relevance in continuing to finish out his year. He felt that it was hopeless and he was 

wasting his time. 

My son is not a violent person. He is a ballet dancer. And he is white. The zero tolerance 

policy made it almost impossible for him to succeed the rest of the school year. And he 

has successfol, professional, and supportive parents. I can only imagine the diffiCUlty that 

students with less home support must encounter in similar situations. 

2 
529 

Misguided high-stakes testing 

Increased emphasis on accountability is the hallmark of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), thc most 

recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Second Education Act (ESEA), first passed in 1965 

as part ofthe War on Poverty. Both sides ofthe political aisle acknowledge that NCLB's 

approach to accountability needs to change. The undue emphasis on federally mandated, narrow 

student assessments as the primary accountability yardstick has led to mislabeling and 

sanctioning schools based on test scores, as well as insufficient funding and support for 

struggling students and schools. It has also narrowed the curriculum and created perverse 

incentives to push out low-scoring students, making it virtually impossible for them to acquire 

the skills necessary to become productive members of society. 

For the sake oftoday's children, the future leaders of America, It is imperative to begin 

addressing these issues as soon as possible. The next reauthorization of ESEA is long overdue. A 

recent report from the RAND Corporation stresses the need for multiple measures of 

performance that capture the full spectrum of skills learned in school: 

"[PJublic schools are expected to promote a variety of outcomes, of which academic 

achievement as measured by standardized tests is only one. Additional goals of schooling 

include the preparation of students for life after school, which includes not only readiness 

for college or the workplace but also social and behavioral outcomes, such as displaying 

self-regulating behavior, taking personal responsibility, and demonstrating an ability to 

work in teams ... [AJn expanded set of measures could increase the validity of inferences 

about schools' effectiveness and offer relevant information to principals and teachers 

about how to improve their schools' performance." (Source: Heather L. Schwartz, Laura 

S. Hamilton, Brian M. Stecher, and Jennifer L. Steele: Expanded Measures of School 

Performance, RAND Corporation, 2011) 

Insufficient services and support 

Research confirms what common sense tells us: at-risk students need additional services and 

support to succeed - everything from small class sizes to counseling. Just the opposite is 

happening in our schools today. Tens of thousands of teachers, counselors, psychologists, social 

workers, and classroom aides have been laid off, depriving hundreds of thousands of students 

with little or none of the services and support they need. In the words of our members, this is the 

situation: 

Asfunding is slashedfor public schools, already stressed teachers are being asked to fix 

seriously at-risk students who often need intense psychological interventions. [ am not a 

trained mental health professional, a probation o.fficer or a detention center guard. [ 

teach French. Please let me do that. 

We needfonding to be able to provide counseling and teach more appropriate behaviors 

and parents should be involved in the re-teaching process. Sometimes kids are behaving 

in ways that are socially acceptable at home and sometimes parents need tools to help 

them deal with their children appropriately. Teachers need to be able to teach and 

students need to feel safe and be able to concentrate on learning. Provide support' 

3 
530 

As a teacher of students with behavioral and emotional disorders, I believe that some 

suspensions are warrantedfor SAFETY reasons as long as the student is in a learning 

environment with trained school personnel. I also believe that while behaviors are/should 

be taught/learned in the home, parents and educators must function as a team in teaching 

positive behaviors and setting expectations and goals. What bothers me most is 

"punishment without teaching and re-teaching. " How can we suspend students, and then 

bring them back into the fold with NO attempt at remediation??? They will only learn if 

we REQUIRE them to reflect and set new behavior goals, then hold them accountable for 

meeting those goals! 

The lingering economic downturn, the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s, has 

crippled already underfunded programs for students with special needs. The federal government 

covers just 16 percent of special education costs when the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) provides that it will pay 40 percent. Last year alone, the shortfall shifted 

nearly $17 billion to states and local school districts - forcing them to choose between raising 

taxes and dipping into general education budgets, thereby cutting other critical services. 

Class sizes are rising when they should be falling research shows that small K-3 classes 

confer lifelong benefits. In the early 1980s, the Tennessee Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio 

(STAR) study, the gold standard in research on class size and student achievement, established 

that kids in small K-3 classes do better in later grades. Three decades later, a team of researchers 

led by Harvard economist Raj Chetty tracked down the now middle-aged students from the 

original STAR study. Those in small K-3 classes were more likely to attend college, own their 

homes, and earn higher salaries - $16,000 more per person or $320,000 more for a class of20. 

(Source: Raj Chetty et aI, How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings? 

Evidence from Project Star, 2011) 

Recommendations 

Schools need to revisit and replace overly harsh zero-tolerance policies with approaches that 

actually work - for example, school-wide positive behavioral support programs and behavior 

intervention plans for students who need them. Such programs should aim to teach students the 

proper way to behave instead of assuming they know how, and require communication with 

parents about expectations and acceptable behaviors at school so they can be reinforced at home. 

NEA's policy brief, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: A Multi-tiered Framework 

that Works for Every Student, provides a comprehensive review and analysis ofthe issues 

involved. 

To ensure that at-risk students have sufficient services and support, Congress must reauthorize 

and fully fund ESEA and IDEA. The reauthorization process is also an opportunity to address 

misguided high-stakes testing and other counterproductive practices that contribute to the schoolto-prison pipeline. 

Educators need professional development in culturally responsive classroom instruction, 

behavior management, and techniques for preventing and de-escalating student misbehavior. 

4 
531 

Schools must have the resources to keep class sizes small, especially in kindergarten through 

third grade, to allow educators to work with students individually. 

Parent, family, and community involvement is a proven way to raise student achievement, and 

can be encouraged in a variety of ways - for example, home visits, mentoring, outreach 

programs, and more. A recent report from NEA's Priority Schools Campaign, Family-SchoolCommunity Pmincrships 2.0, shows the way with case histories of 16 successful efforts from 

coast to coast. 

Ultimately, however, the only way to end the school-to-prison pipeline is to address the needs of 

the whole child. Kids who come to school hungry or sick are not ready to learn. Kids who don't 

have good role models at home nonetheless need to learn what it means to be a responsible 

citizen, why it is important to be on time, how to behave in different settings. 

For some kids, especially poor kids, the only hope of getting such help is schools with 

wraparound services such as after-school programs that provide enriching experiences, 

counseling and parent-education programs, and school-based medical and dental care. The 

acclaimed Harlem Children's Zone takes this approach. So can traditional public schools with 

sufficient funding and commitment to the goal: transforming not just a struggling school, but an 

entire community. 

America's public schools educate nine out ten of our nation's students. On behalf of them, thcir 

teachers, and education support professionals all across the nation, NEA thanks you for the 

opportunity to address end the school-to-prison pipeline. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Kusler 

Director, Government Relations 

Attachments 

NEA Policy Brief: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: A Multi-tiered Framework 

that Worksfor Every Student 

NEA Priority Schools Campaign Report: Family-School-Community Partnerships 2.0 

5 
532 

NAT o N A L 

JUVENILE I 

NETWORK 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

226 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

December 12, 2012 

Statement for the Record of Sarah Bryer 

Executive Director 

National Juvenile Justice Network 

Washington, D.C. 

The National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN) is pleased to submit a Statement for the Record 

for today's hearing on "Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline." NJJN leads a movement of statebased organizations that seek systemic change in the way youth in trouble with the law are held 

accountable. Our national reach includes forty-one members in thirty-three states that work to 

secure state, local, and federal laws, policies, and practices that are fair and developmentally 

appropriate for all children, youth, and families involved in---or at risk of becoming involved 

in-the justice system. 

Some School Discipline Policies are Discouraging High Educational Attainment and 

Instead Pushing Youth Out of Schools 

NJJN members have witnessed first-hand in their states the devastation to many youth that has 

resulted from the overuse of the justice system to respond to minor school infractions as well as 

zero tolerance policies that have prevented school officials to from treating minor infractions in a 

fair and balanced manner. KnOv¥l1 as the "school to prison pipeline," certain school discipline 

policies and practices cause schools to respond to student behavior through direct referrals to law 

enforcement and the courts, in effect funneling youth from the schools into the justice system. 

Compounding the problem is the use by many schools of zero tolerance policies; these are 

policies through which students receive pre-determined punishments for infractions of the rules, 

regardless of mistakes, ignorance or other mitigating circumstances. These are often excessive 

punishments such as suspensions and expulsions and some mandate the immediate referrals of 

1319 F St. NW, Suite 402' Washington, DC 20004' 202·467·0864' info@njjn.org·www.njjn.org 
533 

students to law enforcement for a wide range of typical adolescent behaviors. I These current 

practices too often push students out oftheir schools and into the juvenile andlor criminal justice 

systems for behaviors and incidents that would not have led to court involvement in the past.2 

An example from one of our member organizations, TeamChild in Seattle, Washington, 

demonstrates how school discipline policies can funnel children into the justice system. In this 

case TeamChild's client, referred to here as "Rafi," was having significant academic problems in 

school by the time he was in 6th grade. He began acting out and progressed from disrupting class 

and fighting to knocking a bathroom door off of its hinges. Rather than providing any services to 

Rafi, the school expelled Rafi at the age of 12 years old - indefinitely - no return date 

provided. With nothing to do, Rafi began running around with other youth during the day who 

were committing crimes, began using drugs regularly, and was arrested multiple times. 

Fortunately for Rafi, his attorney at TeamChiId was able to get Rafi back in school after several 

months of effort. However, after being out of school for so long, Rafi has had a difficult time 

readjusting to the school environment and has continued to have many setbacks. As Rafi's 

attorney David Huneryager states in his statement below, "[aJ recent study by a different school 

district in the state found that missing just two consecutive days of school is a significant factor 

in whether a student will graduate or drop out." See Statement of David Huneryager, TeamChild 

Staff Attorney, below. 

Years ofthese types of school policies have alienated many children from finishing school, made 

it difficult for students to succeed because of missing school due to suspensions, and led others 

to be pushed out through expulsions never to return. This is especially troubling because 

education is one of our most potent crime prevention tools. Studies have shown that as 

educational attainment increases, the likelihood of eriminal justice involvement decreases.3 As 

Rafi's story above exemplifies, students who are pushed out of schools suffer disruptions in their 

education that can escalate poor behavior, drive them to get involved in gangs or engage in 

dangerous behavior, and dramatically decrease their chances of successfully pursuing 

educational attainment and leading productive lives. 

t Russell Skiba, et a!., -Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and 

Recommendations, II American Psychological Association (August 2006): 9, available at 

http:// www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Docs/Documents/ 1 %20 BIN D ER %2 OTab% 2 0 7 %2 0 Zero%2 OT olerance.pdf. 

2 See, e.g., Russell Skiba, -Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School Disciplinary Policies,11 Indiana 

Education Policy Center Issue SRS2 (August 2000): 5-6, available at 

http://www.indiana.edu/-safeschljztze.pdf. 

3 Sarah Lyons and Nastassia Walsh, -Money Well Spent: How Positive Social Investments Will Reduce 

Incarceration Rates, Improve Public Safety, and Promote the Well-Being of Com munities, II Justice Policy 

Institute (September 2010): 30, available at 

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/10·09Jep.moneywellspent.ps-dc-ac-jj.pdf 

and -Effective Investments in Public Safety: Education,1I Justice Policy Institute (2007), available at 

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/pre/07-02.FAC.Education.AC-PS.pdf. 

1319 F Sl. NW. Suite 402' Washington, DC 20004' 202-467-0864' info@njjn.org • www.njjn.org 
534 

Recommendations 

Effective school discipline policies and practices have been developed that can keep children in 

school and keep schools safe. NJJN makes the following recommendations to help schools 

derail the school-to-prison pipeline and keep youth on the road to educational success.4 

Law Enforcement and Discipline Policies 

• Schools must reject the one-size-fits-all prealTanged sct of sanctions laid out in zero tolerance 

policies and instead promote discipline policies that provide individualized assessments and 

interventions that are appropriate to ensure a safe learning environment. 

• Schools must not use law enforcement as a response to non-criminal adolescent misbehavior. 

If students engage in criminal behavior on school grounds. schools must have graduated 

responses in place. reserving law enforcement for only the most serious offenses. 

Schools mllst establish clear guidelines for school personnel and on-campus law enforcement 

officials regarding the role of each in responding to youth behaviors and exactly which 

infractions may lead to cOUl1 referrals. Referrals to cOUl1 should be reserved for only the most 

serious infractions. 

To eliminate or cUitail the lise of mechanical restraints. chemical restraints. corporal 

punishment. and isolation. law enforcement and school officials must be trained on the 

traumatic effects of these practices. as well as child and adolescent development. appropriate 

methods for de-escalation. and safe and effective responses to youth behaviors. 

• Schools must focus on prevention and effective intervention as responses to disciplinalY 

issues. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.' peer juries, restorative justice 

processes." diversion. mentoring. mental health counseling. and restitution can be particularly 

effective in improving school safety and promoting positive youth development. 

Suspensions and Expulsions 

• Schools must reduce their reliance on expulsion. 

• Schools must develop quality in-school alternatives to out-of-school suspension and 

expulsion that keep students and stafl sate, while also ensuring youth remain engaged in their 

educational program and are appropriately supervised. 

• Schools that utilize suspensions should ensure suspensions are for the shortest possible 

duration.'" Suspended students should be given schoolwork and the opportunity to remain 

current with their educational program. 

• Schools must not suspend or expel youth for truancy or tardiness. 

4 These recommendations are taken our Policy Platform: Safe and Effective School Disciplinary Policies and 

Practices, http:((www.njjn.org(our-workliuvenile-justice-reform-safe-and-effectiye-school-disciplinarypolicies-and-practices, and many stem from the work of Jim Freeman, Staff Attorney with the Advancement 

Project (www.advancementprojectorg). 

1319 F St. NW, Suite 402' Washington, DC 20004' 202-467-0864' info@njjn.org·www.njjnorg 
535 

• Youth must not be expelled to the streets. Expelled youth and youth with long-tern1 

suspensions must be provided with quality alternative educational opportunities. 

• Altcmative educational programs must comply with federal, state and local educational 

standards. keep youth CUlTent with their primary educational program. provide adequate 

supervision. and be age-appropriate. 

Schools should not suspend or expel students lor off-campus behavior. unless the student is 

an imminent danger to other students or staff. or unless the behavior occurs during school 

sponsored or school supervised activities. 

Student Rights and Family Engagement 

Schools must provide youth and parents with the 0pp0I1unity to be heard and proactively 

engage them in the disciplinary process. Youth and parents must be kept infonned of the 

status orthe disciplinary process and given a meaningful and timely opportunity to appeal. 

• All information and notifications or disciplinary action and hearings must be translated into 

the appropriate language to ensure that youth and parents fully understand the process and 

outcomes. 

• Youth facing expulsion or long-term suspension should bc cntitled to representation by 

counselor an advocate. Schools should be required to make written findings as to why the 

expulsion or suspension was neccssary. 

• Youth who are expelled should have the right to have a periodic and meaningful review of 

the expulsion decision. 

Students with Disabilities 

In general. suspensions. expulsions. or other changes in placement should not be imposed on 

special education students for misconduct that is related to a student's disability. A change in 

placement for special education students can be made only after a manifestation 

detennination review and proper compliance with federal laws and regulations requiring a 

Functional Behavioral Assessment. Positive Behavioral SuppOl1s. and a Behavioral 

Intervention Plan." 

• School discipline guidelines must include infom1ation about discipline for special education 

students and specific parameters for disciplinary action for special education students in 

accordance with state and federal law. 

Data and Racial and Ethnic Disparities (Disproportionate Minority Contact) 

Schools and school districts must collect. evaluate and make public non-identirying statistical 

data (including numbers of referrals to juvenile couli, suspension rates. and expulsion rates). 

• Schools must work to identii)' any raciaL ethnic. or other disparities eLUTently present in 

disciplinary action and to prevent any disparate racial or ethnic impact. 

1319 F St. NW. Suite 402· Washington. DC 20004·202-467-0864· info@njjn.org.www.njjn.org 
536 

Conclusion 

It's time to end the school-to-prison pipeline and return school discipline to the purview ofthe 

school administrators and teachers to be handled in age appropriate ways that further children's 

education. By moving away from the heavy handed use of law enforcement and the courts to 

deal with school disciplinary infractions, we can keep our youth in school and on the road to 

becoming successful, productive citizens. 

I For more information on positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBS/PBIS) visit www,pbis,org. the 

federal Office of Special Education'S technical assislance center for PBIS, 

n For more information on restorative justice, sec Melissa Jones, "Remedies, Not Punishment: Restorative 

Practices in Schools," California Center for Rural Policy (November 2010), available at 

http://www.humboldt.edu/ccrp/sites/ccrp/files/briefs/Restorative%20Justice.pdf. 

III The vast majority of suspensions arc for disruptive, rather than violent behavior. for example, 51 ~:o of 

suspensions in California in 2008 were for disruptive behavior, \\I"hile only 6%, were for violent behavior. 

Nanette Asimov. "Suspensions Point to Trouble in Schools," The San Francisco Chronicle (May 19,2008), 

available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgiOf~/c/ai2008/05/ 19/MN5C 10MB TP.DTL. 

1\ For more information about the rights and responsibilities of schools and students under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), visit www.idea.ed.gov. 

1319 F St. NW, Suite 402· Washington, DC 20004' 202-467-0864' info@njjn.org·www.njjn.org 
537 

Advocacy for Youth 

Statement of David Huneryager, TeamChiid Staff Attorney 

I am an attorney at TeamChild, a non-profit law firm for youth in Washington 

State. TeamChild sees close to a thousand youth a year, most of whom are 

experiencing significant problems in school. My clients are youth ages 12-18 who 

are involved in the juvenile justice system and who need help accessing 

community resources like school services or mental health care. Most of our 

clients are referred to us by people working at juvenile court, such as probation 

counselors and public defenders. When I meet my clients at court, in detention, 

or in the community, the first thing I ask them about is school. Nearly every youth 

I speak to has either been suspended or expelled, or has had significant 

struggles at school. We often do not have to talk for very long before it is clear 

that their school problems are precursors to their juvenile justice involvement. 

Problems like being suspended for months at a time or not being provided 

appropriate special education services have also heightened their risks of further 

involvement. My client Rafi is a good example.' 

By the time he was in 6th grade it was clear that Rafi was struggling in school. 

Rafi's language and math state testing scores, as well as his grades, had started 

slipping far behind his peers though they had been Bs and Cs a few years 

before. Raft was getting in trouble for things like disrupting class and fighting with 

other students. In December of his 6th grade year he was accused of knocking a 

bathroom door off its hinges. Rafi's school expelled him indefinitely for damaging 

school property and the accumulation of other problems. 

The school did not offer or provide any services to Rafi, the school did not try to 

help Rafi keep current with his school work. There was no date upon which Rafi 

could return to class. And because Rafi's parents worked full-time there was no 

one else to take care of him. What Rafi had to occupy his time was the streets 

and the other youth who had been kicked out of school. These were not 

beneficial influences for this twelve year old. In the six months that followed, Rafi 

fell in with youth who were occupied primarily with committing crimes during the 

day. He got arrested more than once, spent time in juvenile detention, and began 

regularly using drugs. 

By the time I met Rafi he had some understanding that if things continued the 

way they were going he did not have a real future. We were able to work 

together, along with Rafi's family and other supports, to get Rafi back into school, 

although that took several months. Because he had been out so long, readjusting 

1 To protect my client's identity I will refer to him as Rafi. 

OfIices in King + Pierce. Snohomish + Spokane + Yakima Counties 

1225 Soulh Weller Slree!, Suile 420. Seottle. WA 98144. Phone (2061 322-2444 • Fax (2061 381-1742 • www.feamchild.org 
538 

Page 2 12/7/2012 

to the school environment and routine was hard for Rafi. He had and continues to 

have many setbacks, but Rafi keeps trying. Hopefully he will stick with it and find 

success, but the odds are against him. 

A recent study by a different school district in the state found that missing just 

two consecutive days of school is a significant factor in whether a student will 

graduate or drop out. Rafi's experience illustrates this study's finding all too well. 

His experience also shows how being pushed out of school without services can 

push a student into the hands of the juvenile justice system. 
539 

December 7,2012 

',1\ f ~ .; 1 Y 

KENTUCKY' 

~ll)fSp..w~n 

and Rdlabiu ........ C....-ling 

229 Tayiu< fldu<.rion Building 

~. lI.'Y 4CI'S06-,OOOI 

Senalor Richard). Durbin, Chair 8S9l57-47B 

foxS59251-U2~ 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Dear Senator Durbin: 

On behalf of the National Technical Assistance Center for Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports (PBIS Center). it is a privilege to provide testimonv 

I elJlcd Lo Ule hearing on "Endmg the School-to-Prison Pipeline; schedule',II," 

December 12, 2012. The PBIS Center is in its 14111 year of operation, and is modestly 

funded by the US Department of Education to support the delivery of an approach 10 

school discipline that is based on a multi-tiered framework of positive supports. The 

primary focus of this framework is the prevention of initial occurrences ofprobl"m 

behavior through Leaching behavioral expectations to all students and providing 

recognition and reward for successful compliance. A secondary focus is on 

preventing reoccurrences of problem behavior among students who are at risk of 

reoffending through evidence-based interventions that can be delivered quickly and 

dfectively. For students who demonstrate chronic patterns of misbehavior, tertiary 

prevenLion efforts focus on reducing the impact of behavioral issues on these 

students themselves, as well as on the environment Currently, PBIS is implemented 

in over 18,000 public schools and alternative educational settings throughout the 

f(lUntry with 46 states supporting school efforts at the state level, as well as in 15 

c(luntries around the world. Research has shown that the effective implementation 

ofPBIS results in reductions in disciplinary events (office disciplinary referrals), 

impruved school climate and perceived school safety, and is associated with 

increases in student academic performance. Perhaps the most important Impact 

related to ending the school-la-prison pipeline is that teachers and school 

.Idlllinistrators dre able tu spend substantially less tillle dCdling with lli~tlfJ;I"," \' 

Issues (many of whidl involve remOVing students from the classroom), and sludt:1I1:. 

are spending more time in the classroom, where of course instruction is offered. 

Please visit www.pbjs ore for more information on the national PBIS Center. 

The implementation of PBIS in schools represents a dramatk departure from thl! 

trend toward using reactive and exclusionary disciplinary poliCies (e.g. zero 

tolerance, criminalization of student behavior, suspension, and expulsion) that 

passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. Subsequent legislation 

.J~~'mli!.f!Q ~}Id Left Behind Act of 2002) led to increaSing pressure on educators 

test scores, which provided tacit encouragement for schools to 

p[,~t~nt academic and behavioral challenges. These events, 
540 

though well intentioned. have marginalized a sizable group of students who are 

difficult to teach and to manage behaviorally. As you well know, the school-topIlson Illpeluw IS J Illcwphor for lh" path Ulal mdny of tileS" ~tudelllS lolluw "0111 

academic and behavioral failure to disciplinary exclusion, dropping out, patterns 01 

delinquent behavior, arrest, and incarceration, As you also know, the characteristics 

and needs of incarcer~ted youth include high rates of illiteracy, educational 

disability. ~nd mental health disorders. Moreover, ethnic minority groups, especiallv 

African American males, arc significantly overrepresented in the population of 

incarcerated juveniles. 

;'llJthoul douht, the best place to end the school-to-prison pipeline is to prevent 

!'ntr), hy keepillg youth actively and successfully engaged in school. According to the 

C .. ntl'r on Crin .... Community and Culture. quality educatinnal interventions may 

nmslitute the most effective and economical protective factors against delinquency.; 

While merely heing in school is nOI a guarantee of successful learning. it is an 

import,lOt prereqUisite. Schools that are implementing PHIS effectively are able to 

"l<omph~h this. In my home state of Kcnturky, high schools that arc implementmg 

PillS h~Vl' dt'lllonstrated a 13% reduclion in drop·out rate between 2009-10 and 

2010-11. cnmpared with a 10% increase in drop-out rate for the ~ame period in 

high schools where rBIS is not implemented (see below). 
541 

A number of advocacy groups have rKognized the potential impact of PSIS on 

preventing entry of youth into the pipeline, including the American Civil Liberties 

Ul1lon, the NCAAP Legal Defense Fund, the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for 

Race and Justice at Harvard Law School, the Juvenile Law Center, and the Southern 

Poverty Law Center. The latter has specifically recommended PBIS as a framework 

to reduce student and teacher drop-out rates and to improve school climate and 

academic performance in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi: "It recommends that 

schools adopt Positive Behavior Supports, a framework that can fundamentally 

transform school environments by emphasizing positive behavior and eliminating 

harsh, zero-tolerance policies that push many vulnerable students out of school and 

into detention for minor misbehavior" (http://www,splcenter.ore/eetInformed/publications). 

Considerably less attention has been given to another facet of the school-to-prison 

pipeline: youth leaving secure confinement only to be re-arrested and likely to be 

returned to either juvenile or adult penal institutions. Recidivism rates for all 

incarcerated juveniles are above 50% nationally," and for youth with disabilities, 

reported rates are even higher. On any given day, nearly 93,000 youth are held in 

~ecure juvenile residential care, almost 7,000 are held in adult jails, and 2,000 are in 

adult prisons.1II The average annual cost of incarceration for juveniles nationally is 

conservatively estimated to be $43,000 per bed." Sy comparison. the average 

JlllIUJI cost of public school education across the country is approximately $10,0(1(1 

per studenty These bills of course are paid with taxpayer monies. A reasonable 

question to ask is what do taxpayers get for these invesnnents? According to the 

National Center for Education Statistics, 63.8% of 2008-09 high school graduates 

were enrolled In college the following fall.y1lf, as noted by the Center on Culture, 

Crime and Communities above, education may be the most effective protective 

factor against delinquency, and if the national recidivism rate for incarcerated youth 

hovers around 55% as reported by Snyder and Sickmund, taxpayer invesunent in 

juvenile incarceration is far from cost effe<:tive. The goal of the juvenile justice 

system is to rehabilitate youth In Its care, meaning to return them to a previously 

intact level offunctloning. The fact that over half of incarcerated youth are reoffending or returning to secure care clearly indicates that this goal is not being 

accomplished. Efforts to reform juvenile justice are ongoing. yet many secure 

juvenile facilities operate under a model dominated by coercion and control,ln 

which staff are encouraged to watch for and respond to misbehavior with aversive 

sanctions. These practices continue despite overwhelming evidence that 

punishment is an ineffe<:tive methodology for changing behavior.Y'; 

The successful transformation of punitive public school environments (through 

PRISl iotn po~ltive and supportive cultures that encourage learning and succr.~sf1l1 

compliance with behavioral e)[jlectations has persuaded a growing number of 

juvenile justice jurisdictions to adopt this framework in secure care facilities. A 

number of juvenile care facilities in several states (e.g., California, Illinois, and 

Oregon) are implementing PSIS, and Georgia and Texas are beginning 

implementation in all secure juvenile correctional facilities. 
542 

Preliminary reports indicate that youth behavior, academic performance, and staff 

morale all Improve when PBIS is effectively implemented.VIII While It remains to be 

seen whether these gaIns translate Into lower rates of recidivism, It Is reasonable to 

assume that improved socialleamlnll and academic accomplishment will lead to 

more successful outcomes as youth transition back to their communities. 

In consideration of the above, I respectfully suggest that PBIS be considered as a 

viable approach to be used in ending the school-to-prlson pipeline. 

Sincerely. 

ePf#~ C. Michael Nelson, EdO 

Emeritus Professor 
543 

I Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture (1997). Education as crime prevention: 

Providing education to prisoners. Research Brlef(Occaslonal Paper Series, No. 2}. 

New York: Author. 

U Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national 

report. Washington. DC: U. S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Oelinquenq Prevention. 

WNationailuvenile Justice Network (August, 2009). National Juvenile Justice Network 

policy plat/orm: Cond/tionso/confinement Retrieved April 12, 2012 

htW f1www,njjn.ora. 

Iv Lawyershop.com. Retrieved April 12. 2012 

http://WWWJawyershop.com/practice-areas/criminal·Jaw/juvenile-law /faqs. 

• National Center for Education Statistics. Fort/acts. Retrieved April 12. 2012 

http;lInm ed.aov/fastfactsldisplay asp?jd::66 

vI National Center for Education Statistics. Digest o/educo tion stJJtistics. Retrieved 

December 4. 2012 http·tlnces.e!l.aoy/RNarams/diaestldll/tables/dt11 212.asp . 

.u Kerr. M. M., & Nelson. C. M. (20l0). Strategies for addressing problem behavior in 

tile classroom {6111 ed}. Upper Saddle River, N}: Merrill/Prentice Hall. 

viii Sidana. A. (2006). P81S in juvenile justice settings. Retrieved May 9, 2012 

http://www.neelecteddelinQuentofj. 
544 

National 

Urban League I 

Empowering Communities. 

Changing Lives. 

STATEMENT fOR THE HEARING RECORD OF 

MARC H. MORIAl 

PRESIDENT AND CEO 

NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE, INC. 

Before the 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

On 

"ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE" 

December 12, 2012 

Mr. Chairman, as President and CEO of the National Urban League (NUL), and on behalf 

of our 97 affiliates in 36 states and the District of Columbia, we appreciate the opportunity to 

offer our insights, years of experience and recommendations for "ending the School-to-Prison 

Pipeline." The National Urban League is a 102-year-old institution that works to provide economic 

empowerment, educational opportunities and the guarantee of civil rights for the underserved 

in America. Last year alone we served over 2.6 million Americans in 300 communities throughout 

the country. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for focusing this hearing on actually "ending" the schoolto-prison pipeline. The National Urban League and other Civil Rights organizations have long 

held the belief that the mass incarceration of youth has erupted into a civil rights crisis. We are 

committed to challenging the school-to-prison pipeline, wherein children are funneled out of 

public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice system. We are pleased that the U.S. 

Department of Justice is looking into civil rights violations of African American and disabled 

students in the State of Mississippi. 

For many African American and Latino communities the school-to-prison pipeline is 

turning too many of their schools into pathways to incarceration rather than opportunity. It 

means dreams, talents and productive lives stifled forever. For our nation it means the costs 

associated with the loss of productivity and the loss of contributing citizens to our society. 

Policy makers must not fail to take advantage of educational and criminal justice reform policies 

and programs that can permanently dismantle this pernicious life path for our youth and young 

adults. 
545 

2 

The pipeline to the criminal justice system too often begins with school discipline policies. 

For African American and Hispanic youth, this issue is of crisis proportions given the highly 

disproportionate impact that these policies have on placing them into the first stage of the 

school-to-prison pipeline. Data from the U.S. Department of Education; show that: 

African-American students are over 3 V, times more likely to be suspended or 

expelled than their white peers. 

In districts that reported expulsions under zero-tolerance policies, Hispanic and 

African-American students represent 45 percent of the student body, but 56 

percent of the students expelled under such policies. 

Over 70 percent of students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law 

enforcement are Hispanic or African-American. 

Research suggests that experiencing overly punitive discipline in school can increase the 

likelihood of a student dropping out of school- a phenomenon known as the "school pushout." 

It is approximated that 75 percent of State prison inmates and 59 percent of Federal prison 

inmates have not completed high school. In their report;; on the school-to-prison pipeline, the 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund provides important insights on the use of harsh 

discipline policies stating that: 

Rather than address the systemic problems that lead to poor educational 

performance, harsh disciplinary policies provide schools with a convenient 

method to remove certain students and thereby mask educational deficiencies. 

The overuse of suspensions, expulsions and arrests is a reflection of this lack of 

resources, [and that while] many well-intentioned educators want to help 

troubled students [they are hampered by the fact that] due to a lack of 

guidance counselors and useful intervention programs, they feel that they have 

no alternatives at their disposal. 

Another key contributing factor to the school-to-prison pipeline is the over reliance on 

youth incarceration which has proven a failed and costly strategy that only serves to move our 

youth further along into the criminal justice system. A recent report on juvenile incarceration'" 

found that: 

In 2007, roughly 60,500 U.S. youths were confined in correctional facilities or other 

residential programs each night on the order of a juvenile delinquency courf. The 

largest share of committed youth - about 40 percent of the total. 

disproportionately youth of color - are held in locked long-terrn correctional 

facilities operated by state governments or private contractors hired by states. 

" Within three years of release, around 75 percent of youth are rearrested and 45 to 

72 percent are convicted of a new offense. 

Nationally. just 12 petcent of the nearly 150,000 youth placed in residential 

programs by delinquency courts in 2007 had committed any of the four most 

serious violent crirnes ... yet, incarceration has been found to be especially 

ineffective for less-serious youth offenders. 

The cost of the average 9 to 12 month stay of one youth is $66,000 to $88,000. 

This ... makes little sense given the powerful evidence showing that non-residential 

programming options deliver equal or better results for a fraction of the cost. 
546 

3 

National and Community-Based Strategies lor Ending Ihe School-Io-Prison Pipeline 

Drawing on its years of direct service experience in urban communities across the 

countlY, the National Urban league has worked to end those school discipline policies that feed 

the prison pipeline by replacing them wilh evidence-based alternative policies, practices and 

programs that aim to keep our youth safely in school and/or re-engage them after they've been 

pushed to drop out. The National Urban league has developed key policy and programmatic 

approaches aimed at our educational and workforce systems that will go a long way toward 

stemming the school-to-prison pipeline, 

The National Urban League's B Point Plan to Educate, Employ & Empoweriv has identified 8 key 

policy areas that must be implemented to curb the explosion of mass incarceration and to help 

those youth who have been victims of such punitive policies, These policies include key 

education-related components that have implications for stemming the school-Io-prison 

pipeline for especially minority youth who are disproportionately impacted, such as: 

Fair and Equitable School Fundinq for AII- Nearly 60 years after the Brown vs, Board 

of Education decision, our nation's schools are inequitably funded and available 

funds are distributed unevenlyv, Funding must be equitable so that educational 

outcomes do not depend on geography, race, national origin, language or school 

location, 

Robust Early Childhood Education for Each Child - The availability of early learning 

opportunities for children is a significant predictor of the level of achievement 

students will achieve throughout their academic career. A recent study from the 

University of Minnesota found that, years later, partiCipants in high-quality pre-school 

programs had lower rates of incarceration than did their peers wh0 were not 

enrolled, demonstrating the need to fully fund the Head Start program,v; 

Strengthen High Schools and Re-engqge Students to Prevent Dropouts - We must 

raise the high school graduation and college-completion rates of stUdents of color to 

the level of white students by 2020, Dropping out of high school alone results in billions 

of dollars in lost income to the nation's economy in one year alone,v' High schools 

must seek to engage community-based organizations such as Urban League 

affiliates in new and innovative ways, including in the development of high school 

improvement, wrap-around services and turnaround strategies, 

Adopt Robust STEM Focused Curriculum and Programs -It is well known that STEM 

(science, technology, engineering, mathematics) related careers are clear paths to 

incomes that lead to economic self-sufficiency, Students must be fully prepared for 

these fastest growing job sectors in America, therefore all classrooms must adopt a 

robust STEM curriculum aligned with college and career-ready standards and 

workplace expectations,vm 

Provide Qualified, Effective and Diverse Teachers - Low-income, low-performing 

students and students of color are far more likely than other students to have 

inexperienced, uncertified, peorly educated, and underperforming teachers,;' The 

National Urban League Policy Institute's comprehensive report on teachers' raises a 

key point in the relationship between the presence of diverse teachers and the use 

of harsh school discipline policies, According to the report, research has found that 

having a high concentration of minority teachers in a large urban district (among 

other key positive impacts) decreases special education placement rates, decreases 

school suspension and expUlsion rates and increases gifted admission rates, 
547 

4 

Based on its signature programs in education and employment that place roadblocks on 

the school-to-prison pipeline and provide concrete proven alternatives for youth, the National 

Urban League recommends that Congress immediately pass two key legislative oroposals: 

Project Ready STEM Act (H.R. 4366) Introduced by Representative Marcia Fudge (OH), the 

legislation exposes minority youth to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) 

curricula by authorizing a comprehensive program that provides academic support, projectbased learning opportunities and awareness of STEM college majors and careers. The Project 

Ready STEM Act replicates high quality in-school, afterschool and summer programs operated 

by community·based organizations such as Urban League affiliates with demonstrated 

experience in achieving positive outcomes for urban minority youth. 

Project Ready STEM was developed by the National Urban League to support 

students' successful completion of STEM-related course work and to expose them to 

STEM·related career options. The League currently operates Project Ready in 30 

states, and an enhanced Project Ready STEM program would be scaled up to 

additional service areas under H .R. 4366. 

Project Ready Success Story 

The story of Tahji Jones demonstrates the success of the Project Ready program. TahjL a senior at 

Brighton High School in Rochester, New York credits much of his academic and personal success 

to his participation in the Urban League of Rochester's Project Ready program. The Urban 

League of Rochester targets African American males who participate in service learning 

projects. 

Participation in the program also allowed Tahji to participate in the "Voices In Action: 

National youth Summit," hosted by the U.S. Department of Education where he and 

other Project Ready students met with the U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. 

After meeting Secretary Duncan, Tahji is planning to major in education in college to 

help fulfill his goals for the future - ensuring there are more African American male 

teachers in the classroom. 

As a part of Project Ready, Tahjl attended the National Urban League's Annual youth 

Leadership Summit where he and other Project Ready students participated in a 

future problem solving competition. The 2011 competition focused on youth 

unemployment and after winning first place, Tahji stated, "I had the honor of being a 

part of a panel which made me feel as if I had a significant level of importance in our 

nation's community." 

The Urban Jobs Act (S.922/H.R.683) - The Urban Jobs Act (UJA) was introduced in the Senate by 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and in the House by Representative Edolphus "Ed" Towns (NY). The 

bill provides a comprehensive approach to increasing employment opportunities for at-risk 

youth in America's urban communities. The UJA would provide federal funding to nonprofit 

organizations with demonstrated expertise and effectiveness in reaching such youth, allowing 

them to carry out an Urban Jobs Program. The UJA would fill a major gap in the service needs of 

youth aged 18-24 who have dropped out of high school or have been subject to any stage of 

the criminal justice process. 

The Urban Jobs Program is based on a successful National Urban League model (the 

Urban youth Empowerment Program or UYEPJ for training and employing young 

adults ages 18-24 who face Significant barriers to education and employment. 

By using a case management approach to providing a comprehensive set of 

services that inciudes educational offerings, employment and job readiness activities 
548 

and support services, the Urban Jobs Program would prepare out-of-school and 

adjudicated youth for entry into employment. or education leading to employment. 

Urban Youth Emoowerment Program Success StaN 

The story ofTaneka D. demonstrates the success of the Urban Youth Empowerment Program, 

Taneka D. was arrested at 15 for assaulting a bully who had terrorized her for years, She enrolled 

in the Urban League of Pittsburgh's Urban Youth Empowerment Program to put a tumultuous 

past behind her and plot her path to success: 

Ms, D. was initially put in the Allegheny County Jail amongst hardened adult 

criminals, and later placed on probation until she graduated high school. 

5 

She spent much of her childhood split between her mother, father and sometimes 

uncle, Her drug-addict parents were in and out of prison, lending a great deal of 

insecurity to her home situation. It rendered Ms, D. unable to cope with problems and 

the situation she faced, 

When she enrolled in UYEP, Ms, D. took full advantage of the opportunities available 

to her, attending a wide range of workshops, mentoring programs, job skills training 

and career fairs, UYEP helped her develop the confidence to take steps toward 

turning her life around, She decided she wanted to pursue a degree in criminal 

justice at Point Park University, where she eventually enrolled in the fall of 2007. 

Although Ms. D, understood that her past still posed obstacles to her quest for a 

better life, she wanted to find a job to help finance her pursuit of higher education. 

She took steps to get her record expunged and landed a job at a local Radio Shack 

as a part-time sales clerk. 

With UYEP staff encouragement, Ms. D. became motivated and determined. She was 

then offered an internship with the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and 

recently acquired a new part-time job at the University of Pittsburgh's Medical 

Center, where she ended up facing the biggest challenge of her young life --

working with the bully she had assaulted years before in a fit of fear. 

Ms, D. now enjoys success today. Her attitude is positive, and she understands that 

life on life's terms is not easy, She has become self-sufficient and realizes that hard 

work and sacrifice determine success. She believes all her hard work will payoff 

sooner than later, 

In closing, Mr, Chairman, there are clearly proven national and local policy and 

programmatic alternatives to maintaining a school-to-prison pipeline. We can and must bring it 

to an immediate end, first and foremost for the sake of those young lives that are so damaged 

by this gruesome practice and for the very economic and social well-being of our entire nation, 

The National Urban League will continue to play its crucial role in our urban communities across 

the country and we stand ready to work with our policymakers to enact positive and permanent 

policy and programmatic solutions, 

Thank for the opportunity to offer our views, 

'The Transfonned Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), U.S, Department of Education, Office For Civil Rights, 

released on March 6, 2012, The CRDC, from school year 2009-10, is a representative sample covering 

approximately 85% of the nation's students. 

"dismantling Ihe school-la-prison pipeline, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc, (LDF),2005, 

"'Issue Brief, NO PLACE FOR KIDS, The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, The Annie E. Casey 

Foundation (2011). 
549 

"The National Urban League 8 Point Plan, Educate, Employ & Empower, National Urban League, January 2012, 

http;//www.iamempowered.com/sites/defaultlfilesinul 8 point plan - educate employ ampower.pdf 

vAs reported in the National Urban League 2012 Equality Index, average per student funding in high poverty 

schools is $5,937 compared to $7,244 in low poverty schools. 

6 

"School Based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science. 

2011 JulI5;333(6040):360-4. Epub 2011 Jun 9. 

mThe Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that if the 1.3 million high school dropouts from the Class of2010 

had earned their diplomas instead of dropping out, the U.S. economy would have seen an additional $337 billion in 

wages over these students' lifetimes. And that's only for one year - the country can expect to lose well over $300 

billion in potential earnings [in the] next year as well, due to dropouts from the Class of 20 II. If this annual pattern 

is allowed to continue, 13 million students will drop out of school during the next decade at a cost to the nation of 

more than $3 trillion. 

""The National Urban League 2012 Equality Index reports thatlhe average scale score in science for black 8'h 

graders is 124, compared to 129 for Latinos and 160 for whites. For 12th graders the average science scores are 120 

for blacks, 128 for Latinos and 156 for whites. 

"According to the National Urban League 2012 Equality Index, 21.9% of high school teachers in high poverty 

schools do not have an undergraduate degree in the subject they teach compared to only 10.9% in low poverty high 

schools. 

'Teachers Matter. Ensuring Qualified. Effective & Diverse Teachers in Every Classroom, A Policy Brief of the 

National Urban League Policy Institute. by Jacqueline Ayers and Shree Chauhan, National Urban League Policy 

Institute, Washington, DC, October 2012. 
550 

NATIONAL 

WOMEN'S 

LAW CENTER EXPANDING THE POSSIBILITIES 

December 10,2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: December 12,2012 Hearing on the School to Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Subcommittee Members, 

On behalf of the National Women's Law Center, an organization that for 40 years 

has worked to expand the possibilities for women and girls in the areas of education and 

employment, family economic security, and health, we write in support of the upcoming 

Subcommittee hearing on the School-lo-Prison Pipeline. 

It is critical that Congress take serious steps to ensure that school environments 

are healthy, safe, and conducive to learning for all students. Unfortunately, "zero 

tolerance" policies and over-reliance on exclusionary discipline practices like suspension 

and expulsion do not improve school climate and instead disproportionately push boys 

and girls of color out of school and, in many cases, on a path to incarceration. 

Evidence regarding the harms of exclusionary discipline practices is 

overwhelming. The American Academy of Pediatrics found that suspension and 

expulsion jeopardize children's health and safety and may exacerbate academic failure. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that out-of-school youth are more 

likely to be retained a grade, drop out of school, become teen parents, and engage in 

delinquent behavior. And a 2003 study by Dr. Robert Balfanz, co-director of the 

Everyone Graduates Center and senior research scientist at Johns Hopkins University, 

concluded that school suspension is a top predictor for being incarcerated by ninth grade. 1 

Moreover, exclusionary discipline practices are not improving school climate or 

academic achievement, even for those who remain in schoo!. To the contrary, the 

American Psychological Association has found that zero tolerance policies fail to make 

schools safer and schools with high suspension rates score worse on standardized tests. 

Unfortunately, school disciplinary rates are currently the highest they have been 

in our nation's history. And exclusionary discipline practices are used dispropoltionately 

I See Robert Balfanz et a1. 2003. "High Poverty Secondary Schools and the Juvenile Justice System," in 

Johanna Wald & Daniel Losen, cds., Deconstructing The School to Prison Pipeline. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 

77-78. 

With the law on your side, great fh;ngs are possible, 

I j Dupont Circk a Suite 800 a Washmgton. DC 10036.202 5R8 5180.202 588 S j 85 Fa, a \\w\v.l1wkorg 
551 

against students of color and students with disabilities. African American students, 

including African American girls, are over 3.5 times as likely as their white peers to be 

suspended or expe\led.2 According to the most recently released Civil Rights Data 

Collection (CRDC) from the U.S. Department of Education, African American students 

represent 18% of students in the CRDC sample, but 35% of students suspended once, 

46% of those suspended more than once, and 39% of students expelled. Over 70% of 

students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or 

African American. African American boys and girls have higher suspension rates than 

any of their peers. One in five African American boys and more than one in ten African 

American girls received an out-of-school suspension. Additionally, students covered 

under the IDEA are more than twice as likely to receive one or more out of school 

suspensions.3 

Another study revealed interesting details about exclusionary discipline practices 

at urban middle schools, where average suspension rates for all students are twice the 

national average. This study, looking at middle schools in 18 of the country's largest 

school districts in 2006-2007, found that Black males were the group most likely to be 

suspended from school, and suspension rates for Black females were the second highest. 4 

Suspension rates were consistently higher for Black females than for Hispanic or White 

males.s Over 50% of Black female students were suspended in Milwaukee.6 And Black 

females in middle schools had the highest percentage point growth in rates of suspension 

from 2002 to 2006, higher than for Black males and several percentage points higher than 

for Hispanic and White females. 7 

There are also racial disparities with respect to the types of discipline used against 

students and the behaviors for which they are disciplined. A review of discipline data 

from 400 elementary and middle schools across the country found that African American 

and Latino students are more harshly disciplined than their white peers for similar 

offenses.8 And research shows that Black girls are more likely than White girls to be 

subject to disciplinary action that removes them from the classroom. 9 Related research 

has revealed that students of color are disproportionately disciplined for subjective 

offenses, such as "disrespect," and white students are disproportionately disciplined for 

objective offenses, such as smoking. 1O A 20 I 0 study found that the types of behavioral 

2 http://www2.ed.gov/aboutlofficesllistlocr/docs/crdc-20 12-data-summary.pdf 

'Id 

4 Daniel J. Losen and Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, at 5-7 

(Southern Poverty Law Center, September 20 I 0), available at http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/researchlk12-educationlschool-discipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis! 

5 Id at6. 6 Id 

7 Id at 7-8. 

8 Russell J. Skiba et al. 2011. "Race is Not Neutral: A Nationa! Investigation of African American and 

Latino Disproportion.lily in School Discipline." School Psychology Review, Vol. 40, No. 1,85-107. 

9 Jamilia J. Blake et al. 2011. "Unmasking the Inequitable Discipline Experiences of Urban Black Girls: 

Implications for Urban Educational Stakeholders." Urban Review, 43,90-106. 

JO Russell J. Skiba et al. 2002. "The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionalily 

in School Punishment." Urban Review, 34, 317-342. 

2 
552 

infractions for which Black girls are disciplined differ from their White and Hispanic 

peers, namely "Black girls were most often cited for defiance followed by inappropriate 

dress, using profane language toward a student, and physical aggression."ll Girls of 

color are particularly affected by disproportionate punishments for minor infractions at 

school. For example, in Alabama, a high school student was suspended for wearing a 

dress to prom that was deemed too short by school officials; her other choice was to be 

paddled, but she opted for suspension instead. In New York, a middle school student was 

arrested for writing "okay" on her desk. 

The Center urges the Subcommittee to explore ways to dismantle the school to 

prison pipeline so that more of our nation's youth stay in school and succeed. For 

example, to enable parents and schools to track and address disparate discipline practices, 

Congress should provide for the collection and annual reporting to the public of the 

numbers of in-and out-of-school suspensions, the number of students receiving multiple 

suspensions, expulsions, instances of corporal punishment, school-based arrests and 

referrals to law enforcement agencies, the number of referrals to disciplinary alternative 

schools, and any progress in reducing disparities in discipline. The data collected should 

be disaggregated by race, gender, special educational status, socioeconomic status, and 

ELL status, and further disaggregated by gender in each category to allow for more 

insightful review and decision-making. Additionally, Congress should provide for the 

collection of better information on disciplinary alternative schools. Many disciplinary 

alternative schools are dead-end programs leading to dropout, and given the disparate 

discipline rates among different subgroups of students, the push-out that results from 

referral to these inferior alternative schools will disproportionately affect boys and girls 

of color and those with disabilities, further perpetuating achievement gaps and high rates 

of incarceration. 

To improve the ability of schools to maintain a healthy learning environment for 

all students, measures of school discipline rates and school climate factors must be 

included in any revised accountability and school improvement system. State 

performance standards and targets must include progress eliminating corporal 

punishment and reducing the excessive use of exclusionary or overly-punitive 

disciplinary practices. Measurement systems should evaluate non-academic indicators, 

including disciplinary action as well as school climate more broadly. Schools with high 

rates of exclusionary or overly punitive disciplinary practices, referrals to law 

enforcement, or corporal punishment should be required to undergo a needs assessment 

and adopt responsive interventions. A determination that a particular school is not 

meeting appropriate school climate standards should trigger technical assistance and 

resources from SEAs and LEAs so that school can implement successful, proven and 

promising practices for improving the school environment. And lowering rates of 

suspension, expulsion, or assignment to disciplinary alternative schools should be bases 

for rewards. 

Finally, federal legislation - such as the bipartisan Achievement Through 

Prevention Act, S. 3733, introduced in the III th Congress should encourage schools to 

II ld 

3 
553 

adopt evidence-based practices, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 

that have been shown to reduce the number of disciplinary referrals; improve academic 

achievement, graduation rates, and teacher morale; and decrease instances of bullying 

and harassment. 

The Center applauds the Subcommittee's decision to hold a hearing on the schoolto-prison pipeline and explore alternatives to exclusionary discipline that can help to end 

it. We look forward to working with members of the Subcommittee to ensure that all of 

our nation's children have equal opportunities to learn in a positive school climate. If 

you have any questions, please feel free to call Lara S. Kaufmann at (202) 588-5180. 

Sincerely, 

Fatima Goss Graves 

Vice President for Education & Employment 

4 

Lara S. Kaufmann 

Senior Counsel and Director of 

Education Policy for At-Risk Students 
554 

Transformative Life Skills (TLS): 

A Necessary Condition for Dismantling the School-To-Prison Pipeline 

Statement by Bidyut K. Bose, PhD, Founder and Executive Director, Niroga Institute 

"I believe that a yoga-based prevention model could help dismantle the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Niroga 

Institute recently came to Delaware and trained a group of teachers, school administrators, youth detention staff, 

and leaders in the juvenile justice conununity on the Transformative Life Skills (TLS) curriculum. The program 

was embraced by all. It is programming such as TLS that I would like to see in schools across the country."---

Chand/ee Johnson Kuhn, Chief Judge, Fami/y Court of the State of De/aware, and Member of Council of State 

Governments Schoo/ DiSCipline Consensus Project, which is focusing on the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Introduction 

"Wow! If everyone did yoga, there would not be so much violence in the world." These words were uttered by 

an incarcerated youth after attending a few Transformative Life Skills (TLS) sessions at Alameda County 

Juvenile Hall. TLS consists of mindful yoga, breathing techniques and meditation. Another detained youth said, 

"I learned a lot from it - whenever I get mad and angry, ljust start breathing. And I actually like yoga." 

Speaking ofthe participants in the program, Janice Thomas, PhD, Senior Clinical Psychologist at the Guidance 

Clinic in Alameda County Juvenile Hall said, "They are really starting to internalize the practices and beginning 

to understand how they can use it to increase self-control. It's really true. When someone is having difficulty in 

group I've heard girls spontaneously say to the troubled person, 'now breathe ... ' It's so cool!" 

Youth are going from school to prison because of a host of individual and environmental conditions, involving 

numerous participants including youth and parents, educators and health care officials, police and probation 

officers, judges and attorneys. As explained below, the TLS model cost-effectively addresses many of these 

internal conditions, and has been validated by scientific research as well as the experiences of its participants. 

The Prohlem: High Levels of Stress and Trauma Impact Youth 

Many of our most vulnerable children and youth are coming to school not ready to learn. They are dealing with 

the chronic stress and trauma from abuse and neglect at home, as well as crime and violence, guns and gangs, 

drugs and death in their conununities. And yet we are often mshing to teach them before healing them. When 

children are unable to focus and engage in school because of dysfunction at home or in the community, when 

they are disciplined repeatedly, and in due course suspended and expelled, why is it a surprise if they drop out 

and end up in a juvenile hall or jail? When a child drops out of school, there is high probability that substance 

abuse, homelessness and juvenile delinquency will follow. 

The school-to-prison pipeline is populated with a disproportionately high number of youth of color. And 

in communities with disproportionate minority contact, there is disproportionately higher stress and 

trauma. Providing skills for managing chronic stress and healing from trauma especially among lowincome communities of color, has to be an integral part of systems change aimed at correcting racial and 

ethnic disparity, catalyzing racial healing and enahling commnnity health and well-being. 

The Solution: A Prevention and Intervention Model for Resolving Stress and Trauma 

Probation, health care and education departments of Alameda County, California have been supporting Niroga 

Institute's cost-effective, evidence-based and trauma-informed TLS program for the past 7 years. School 

districts throughout the Bay Area are funding TLS programs in schools, both inside and outside of academic 

time. While yoga is often viewed as socially elite and culturally incongment, it is a time-tested, secular, 

universal practice that has been validated by the latest research in neuroscience, epigenetics and somatic 

psychology. Niroga brings TLS to over two thousand children and youth in schools and alternative schools, 
555 

juvenile halls and jails, all over the California Bay Area every week. Our primary focus has been at-risk youth, 

mostly of color, at high risk of school failure and juvenile delinquency. 

In addition to direct service, Niroga Institute conducts TLS trainings for hundreds of educators, mental health 

professionals, social workers, criminal justice and violence prevention officials, as well as parents, adult allies 

and community partners serving vulnerable youth. TLS trainings provides a dual advantage: 

Personal sustainability (stress management, self-care and bealing from vicarious/secondary 

trauma) for tbe adults caring for vulnerable youth 

Professional application of TLS programs for cbildren and youtb, in scbools and alternative 

scbools, juvenile balls and jails, rehabilitation centers, bomeless sbelters and foster bomes 

Participants Support tbe Effectiveness of TLS 

We recently conducted a TLS training in Delaware, upon the request of the family court chief judge, for about 

60 staff and leadership of the Brandywine School District and Youth Rehabilitative Services (YRS). This is 

what they had to say after the training, involving participants from both ends of the school-to-prison pipeline: 

You should know that lives were changed yesterday! After the training, I debriefed with our staff from 

Claymont Elementary and the energy that they shared was amazing. They got so much out the 

experience and they are committed to implementing this in their schooL As I continue to process and 

formulate ideas in my mind, I get excited about the possibilities and opportunities to 

incorporate mindfulness teaching practices in the Brandywine School District, especially as it relates to 

disciplining our children. This is a journey and as we continue to build this coalition, good things will 

happen for Brandywine School District, Niroga, and YRS, but more importantly for the students, staff 

and communities we serve. (Dorrell Green, Assistant Superintendent. Brandywine School District) 

From my perspective, the training was an overwhelming success! I definitely had a few staff who were 

skepticaL .. and everyone walked away with a very positive outlook and a new enthusiasm for the work 

that they do. Who could ask for more! Thank you for spending time with our group. It is amazing to 

see the transfonnation. (Alison McGonigal, Acting Deputy Direclor, Division of Youth Rehabilitative 

Services, Delaware Children's Department) 

Scientific Research Provides A Growing Evidence Base for TLS 

A recent independent research report summarizing three studies including a randomized control trial ofin-class 

TLS in a challenging urban school, showed compelling findings and implications, spanning three 

interconnected domains of social function: education. health care and violence prevention. Jennifer Frank, PhD, 

Research Scientist at the Prevention Research Center at Pennsylvania State University, said: "Students showed 

lower levels of perceived stress and greater levels of self-control, school engagement, emotional awareness, 

distress tolerance and altered attitude towards violence." (Dr. Frank's summary report is appended below.) 

Social psychologists such as June Tangney at George Mason University, have shown that "high self-control 

predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades and interpersonal success," and that "low self-control is 

a significant risk factor for a broad range of personal and interpersonal problems" (Tangney, 2004). And Prof. 

Seligman at the University of Pennsylvania shows that self-control is a better predictor of academic 

achievement than IQ, and concludes, "A major reason for students falling short of their intellectual potential is 

their failure to exercise self-discipline" (Seligman, 2005). The latest research in neuroscience (Davidson, 2012) 

shows that chronic stress disrupts our ability for attention control, emotion regulation, adaptive coping strategies 

and empathy. The research also shows that integrative mindfulness practices such as yoga and meditation (van 

der Kolk, 2009), mitigate all these effects, and helps develop self-awareness that leads to self-mastery. 

2 
556 

The Policy Implications of TLS 

I believe these findings have direct multidimensional impact on the school-to-prison pipeline, education equity 

and the academic achievement gap. In a paper accepted for presentation at the atfiual meeting of the Academy 

of Criminal Justice Science (ACJS) in the Rehabilitation and Treatment track in March, 2013 in Dallas, Texas, 

first author Dr. Lynette Lee, Professor of Criminal Justice at California State University, Sacramento, writes, 

"Current rehabilitation and treatment models sueh as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) have transitioned 

from an exclusive focus on cognition, to include aftect and relational influences on behavior. Connections have 

already been established between antisocial behavior and traumatic stress, and the latest research in 

neuroscience suggests that mindful movement is an optimal treatment response to traumatic stress. This paper 

presents an Integrative Behaviora! Therapy (IBT) model that incorporates kinesthetics (a historically overlooked 

component) into existing cognitive, emotional and relational treatment models. We will also discuss the 

implications ofIBT for individual, institutional and conm1Unity transformation; [lET and TLS are used 

synonymously.] 

TLS is a Cost Effective Approach 

It is not only good policy and a moral imperative, but also an economic imperative. About a million youth drop 

out of school each year, and about a million youth are detained in Juvenile Halls across the country. The 

dropout rate is over 50% in our inner-city schools, and the recidivism rate for juveniles with criminal justice 

system involvement is approximately 75%, and these high percentages are major signs of system failure. Prof 

Cecilia Rouse, a labor economist at Princeton University, has estimated the lifetime cost of a high-school 

dropout to be $260,000, and the annual cost of school failure at $260 billion (Rouse, 2005). It costs $1,000 per 

year to saturate a youth's life with TLS ($10 per TLS session x 2 hour-long sessions per week x 50 weeks). 

With $260,000, we could comprehensively provide TLS to 260 youth for a year. If even one more youth stayed 

in school and out of trouble, the program would break even. And if 10% or 26 more youth changed the course 

of their lives in a posiiive direction, the Return-On-Investment (ROI) would be 26-fold - we would get our 

money back 26 times over, with a rate ofretnrn of2600%! 

Conclusion 

Martin Luther King reminds us from decades ago that "we have guided missiles and misguided men." In an 

attempt to change systems, we put so much emphasis on our external envirorunents, often neglecting the efforts 

needed on our internal envirorunents. If even a fraction of the resources that we spend on incarceration could be 

spent on transforming our internal environments (stress management and healing from trauma), the social return 

would be substantial. Can we afford not to do it? How many generations of children are we going to waste? Let 

us dream of a world where most of us are acting with self-mastery, for the greater good, most of the time. 

References: 

Links: 

Frank (2012). "Results ofTLS Evaluation," Research Report, October 2012 

Tangney (2004). Journal oj Personality, 72:2, April 2004. 

Seligman (2005). Psychological Science, Volume 16, Number 12,2005. 

Davidson (2012). Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 2, 2012. 

van der Kolk (2009). "Yoga and PTSD." Integral Yoga Magazine, 2009. 

Rouse (2005). Quoted in Issue Brief by Alliance for Excellent Education, June 2008. 

Niroga Institute: h!1J;j/W\V\\CJ).ir.'lli'<!,C[ffi 

Short compelling videos ofNiroga TLS programs: "l'Y_w.ni[QgfhQrg!media/vidco 

Prevention Policy Implications ofTLS: l!t!J1;liyoutu.be/k2-KEJ6ROcg 

3 
557 

Results of Transformative Life Skills (TLS) Evaluation 

Jennifer L. Frank, PhD 

Pennsylvania State University 

Prevention Research Center 

Educators have increasingly begun to recognize the importance of emotional regnlation skills to effective 

learning and academic success (Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg and Walberg, 2007; Lopes and Salovey, 2004; 

Greenberg et aI., 2003). Research conducted over tbe past two decades has confirmed that students' emotional 

state affects attention, which in turn influences learning, memory, and behavior (Ohman, Flykt and Esteves, 

2001). 

Overview of Transformative Life Skills Program 

The Transformative Life Skills (TLS) progranl is 18-week school-based intervention designed to reduce stress 

and increase adolescents' adaptive coping skills. The TLS currieulum is delivered in 15-minute lessons (3x 

\essons per week) in a whole group instructional format. Lessons provide students with direct instruction and 

practice in the use of meditation, yoga, and progressive relaxation techniques. Below we present the results of 

two randomized trials ofTLS in school settings. Effect sizes (TJ2) can be interpreted as .01 = small effect, .06= 

medium effect, and .14 = large effect. 

Study 1 

TLS was implemented in 18 classrooms (n 512) in a highly-diverse inner-city high school in California. 

Classrooms were randomly assigned to treatment or business-as-usual conditions. We examined whether 

participating in TLS resulted in significant changes in student perceived stress and self-control and the degree of 

social validity and treatment acceptability among students and teacher participants. 

Finding 1: ITT analyses using a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach revealed a significant overall benefit 

for students receiving TLS. Obtained effect sizes were comparable to other high-costlhigh intensity prevention 

programs. 

4 
558 

Finding 2: Females participating in TLS experienced 

significantly 19Jy~r levels qf ~etceived Str_~~~ 

F (3,136) ~4.93, p<0.05, partial'l2 ~ .035. 

l 

i 

Implication: Perceived stress is an important modifiable 

risk factor during adolescence. High Icvels of stress predict 

the onset of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, 

delinquency (Compas et aI., 1993; 2001; Macleod et aI., 

2004; Siddique & D'Arcy, 1984; Van Praag, De Kloet, & 

Van Os, 2005; Windle, 1992) and the development of 

unhealthy dietary practices and disordered eating (Jenkins 

et aI., 2005). TLS significantly reduced perceived stress 

Model Fit Statistics 

chi~ 1.256, dF I, p~0.262 

CFI~0.999, Rc\1SEA~0.021, TLI=0.992 

Finding 3. Both males and females participating in TLS 

experienced ~ignificant impJovements jf} Self-Co~trol 

F (3,134) 8.61, p<0.05, partial'l2 ~ ,061. 

Implication: Self-control, which includes the ability to 

inhibit behavior, follow rules, and control impUlsive 

reactions, is a modifiable mediator of growth in 

academie and social-emotional competence. Duckworth 

& Seligman (2005) found scores on Tangney's SelfControl Scale (employed in this study) was a better 

predictor of student grades, standardized test scores, and 

attendance than IQ, TLS significantly improved 
559 

among females and elosed the well-know 'gender gap' in 

the experience of environmental strcssors. 

Study 2 

adolescent self-control among both males and femalcs 

participating in the intervention. 

TLS was implemented with 159 students in grades 6 (n=88) and 9 (n=71) in a diverse charter school in 

California. Classrooms were randomly assigned to treatment or wait-list control conditions .. Wc examined 

whether participating in TLS resulted in significant changes in variables relevant for education, violence 

prevention, and mcntal health promotion. 

Finding 1: Students participating in TLS reported 

significantly greatcr lev_~~ . .Qf.§_~hoQI engagemcnt F 

(1,100) =5.95, p<0.05, partial '12 = .056. There were no 

significant differences on the basis of grade, race, or 

gender. 

","",.,~M·,,~~~,:·.""'''"~''L~'"''''"'''''''"' .. 

Implication: School engagement is a modifiable 

protective factor predicting future academic success and 

preventing school drop out (Kindermann, 2007). In a 

relatively short period of time (I scmcster) students 

participating in TLS were significantly more engage in 

school regardless of their actual academic skills or 

achievement. 

Finding 3: After controlling for prior exposure to violence 

and overall negative affect, students in the control group 

had more limited emotional awareness as compared to 

students participating in TLS. This effect was substantial 

though borderline statistically significant 

F (1,71) =3.67, p=0.059, partial '12 = .049. 

6 

Finding 2. After adjusting for prior exposure to 

violence, students participating in TLS reported 

significantly lower attitudes towards violencc F 

(1,71) 

=5.90, p<0.05, partial '12 .077. 

Implication: Exposure to familial and community 

violence can undermine the development of key emotion 

regulation skills and desensitize youth attitudes 

regarding the acceptability acts of aggression and 

violence behavior (Osofsky, 1995; Eisenberg, 2000). 

Participating in TLS significantly altered youth's 

attitude towards violence who viewed it as a less 

acceptable way to respond to frustration. 

Finding 4. After controlling for overall negative affect, 

students in the control group had more limited !Qleran~ 

for distress as compared to students participating in 

TLS. This effect was substantial though borderline 

statistically significant F (1,102) 3.54, p<0.06, partial 

'12 .034. 
560 

Implication: Emotional awarencss is a key prerequisite 

for the application of emotion regulation; which is a core 

skill underlying the development of social competence and 

prevention of psychopathology in youth and adolescence 

(see Zeman et aI., 2006 for a review). Youth who 

participated in TLS developed greater levels of emotional 

awareness as compared to studcnts in the control group. 

Study 3 

Implication: The inability to tolerate distress has been 

linked to a variety of serious risk factors including 

alcohol, drug, and tobacco usc, self-injury, suicidal 

attempts, eating disorders (Zvolcnsky et aI., 20 I 0; 

Corsophine et aI., 2007), and social problcm solving 

deficits (Nock & Mendes, 2008). Students participating 

in TLS had greater levels of distress tolerance as 

compared to students in the control group. 

TLS was implemented with 103 students in grades 9-11 in a diverse alternative school in California. Students 

were exposed to 18 weeks ofTLS during the fall semester. The effects ofTLS were examined pre-post using 

bootstrapped paired t-tcsts. 

Finding 1: Students had significantly lower levels of 

gegative aff£f1 ( p=0.31) after participating in TLS. 

Although students made gains in positive affcct, this effect 

was not significant. 

7 

Finding 2: Students who participated in the TLS 

training had significantly lower levels of deprcssion 

(p=.OOl) after participating in the TLS training. 

Reductions in somatization and anxiety were observed, 

although these effccts werc not statistically significant. 

~-.- ... -.--.. ----.~~~.--~---~--' --
561 

Implication: A number of studies have identified the 

important role of general affect in protecting against the 

future development of psychiatric disorders and building 

resiliency among youth (Hankin et aI., 2011). Negative 

affect have been linked to future risk for depression and 

difficulty with emotion regulation (Feng et aI., 2009; 

Sheeber et aI., 2009). Youth who participated in TLS had 

significantly lower levels of negative affect upon 

completion of the TLS intervention. 

Finding 3: Students had significantly lower Icvels of 

revenge motivation in response to perceived transgressions 

({FO.OOI) after participating in TLS. A general reduction 

in overall hostility was noted, but this reduction was not 

significant. 

--

Implication: The capacity to maintain supportive 

relationships is important for maintaining both mental and 

physical health (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; House et aI., 

1988). Prospective studies have found that increases in the 

capacity to forgive transgressions is related to greater 

satisfaction with life, more positive mood, fewer negative 

physical symptoms (Bono, McCollough & Root, 2008). 

Youth who participated in TLS had significant decreases in 

their propensity towards revenge motivation upon 

completion of the intervention. 

Implication: The transition to adulthood is particularly 

difficult for youth who cxpcrience mental health 

problems such as anxiety or depression. Youth with 

depressive-anxious symptoms engage in significantly 

morc risk behaviors, are less likely to obtain a college 

degree, and over 27% have been charged with an adult 

crime by thc agc of24 (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2009). Youth participating in TLS 

reported significantly lower levels of depressive 

symptoms upon completion of the TLS intervention. 

Finding 4: Students who participated in the TLS 

training had significantly lower levels of rumination 

({F.OOI), il!trusive t!lOughts (p-.001), physical arousal 

(p=.045), emo!iQ.!!al arousill (p=.001), and involuntary 

engagement in negative thinking (p=.011) after 

participating in the TLS Training. 

Implication: The ways in which youth respond to 

environmental strcssors is an important factor in the 

development of future psychopathology and illness. 

Maladaptive coping responses such as rumination, 

emotional and physical arousal, have been linked to the 

development of a variety of internalizing-externalizing 

behavior disorders (Compas et aI., 2001; Silk, 

Steinberg, & Morris, 2003). Youth who participated in 

TLS reported cngaging in significantly lower levels of 

maladaptive coping strategies after completing the 

intervention. 

Social Validity & Acceptability: Participant Feedback 

In addition to surveys, we also asked teachers and students to tcll us about their experiences participating in 

TLS. Across all studies, both students and teachers reported that TLS was a beneficial and socially valid 

practice. Below is a representative listing of feedback we have received to date. 

8 
562 

,1-S~t~u~d~e~n~t~F~e~ed~b~a~c~k~ ________________________ rl~T~e~a~cherF~e~e~d~b~a~c~k~ ______________________ ~ 

"] really like the TLS program. It helps a lot to calm 

me down and helps me refocus for class. It clears my 

mind of distractions and helps me focus on the 

importance of simple things." 

"Since the TLS program, I have used the breathing 

methods I have learned when] am upset. It really 

helps to calm me down." 

"] really like the meditation that we do. ] think that it 

calms me down, focuses me, and really makes my 

whole day a lot better." 

"] like how they teach you skills and stretches that you 

can use whenever you want." 

"This class is very cool and helps a lot. I wish the 

class were longer though." 

"Make it last longer (maybe even have a real class) 

more days doing it." - Student, ECHS 

"I think it has made me think of how] can control 

myself better in bad situations and think of ways to 

relax better." - Student, ECHS 

"] like the fact that we can stop whatever is going on at 

the time and just come to a peaceful mind state 

afterwards. " 

"I like how it takes away stress, or rather, how it helps 

me take away the stress. This program is helping me 

deal with nervousness." 

"] think it's very good for me cause it's really help me 

clear out my mind and forget all the bad things and 

start over. And it really help me calm down when] am 

I sad or stress out. ] love every part of it because] been 

I going through a lot in my life and this program make 

"] am seeing the beneficial effects of TLS on my 

students; ] feel inspired to apply this in my life." 

I "The quiet meditation seems to work especially well." 

"] think it's a great program overall, and wonderful to 

expose lhe kids to it." 

" I appreciate stepping back for a moment to take on a 

role as a co-learner rather than teacher." 

"Something] can use for myself and for my students 

on Thursday." 

"Helped mel Made me more aware of my own 

feelings and thoughts. Calmed me way down!" 

"] loved the positive, calm and flexible approach to 

today's training. I've come away from it with some 

new ideas of how ] might use this in the classroom, 

and enough training to feel reasonably confident 

leading it on my own. ] also appreciated the everneeded reminder to take care of myself." 

"] appreciated the whole presentation. ] learned, and I 

had refreshing physical activity. The idea of 

implementing this regime district-wide is great -] 

hope it comes to fruition. ] also appreciated the 

intellectual connection BK made between the physical 

and emotional condition - very humane!" 

"Really showed me how it is realistic in the classroom. I 

Calm, peaceful way to unwind after class." I 

"Very simple practices that] can do. 1 

I

I "Felt nurtured. Taking care of myself frrstl Want to 

apply to myself and my class." 

, "I really liked how it was ill1ll1ediately useful. It can be I 

9 
563 

i me feel good when I close my eyes and take a deep 

I"""'"" "Relevant, useful, practical; created HOPE!" 

References 

Compas, B, E., & Boyer, M. C. (2001). Coping and attention: Implications for child health and pediatric 

conditions. Journal oj Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 22,323-333. 

Compas, B.E., Connor-Smoth, J.K, Saltzman, B., Thomsen, A.B., & Wadsworth, M.E .. (2001). Taxonomy, 

assessment, and diagnosis of depression during adolescence. Psychological Bul/etin, 127,87-127. doi: 

10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87 

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance 

of adolescents. Psychological science, 16, 939-44. doi: 1 0.111 I/j.1467 -9280.2005.0 1641.x 

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review oj Psychology, 51,665-97. 

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. 

(2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, 

emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58,466-474. doi:lO.l037/0003-066X,58.6-

7,466 

Jenkins, S. K, Rew, L., & Stemglanz, R. W. (2005). Eating behaviors among school-age children associated 

with perceptions of stress. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 28, 175-91. 

doi: I 0.1 08010 1460860500227580 

Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a 

cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78, 1186-203. doi: I 0.llll/j.1467-8624.2007.01 060.x 

Nock, M. K., & Mendes, W. B, (2008). Physiological arousal, distress tolerance, and social problem-solving 

deficits among adolescent self-injurers. Journal oJ Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76,28-38. 

doi: I 0.1 037/0022-006X. 76.1.28 

Ohman, A., Flykt, A, & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion Drives Attention: Detecting the Snake in the Grass, 

Journal o(Experimental P,ychology, 130,466-478. doi:lO.1037/AXJ96-3445.130.3,466 

Osofsky, J, D. (1995). The effect of exposure to violence on young children. American Psychologist, 50, 782-

788. 

Siddique, C. M., & D' Arcy, C. (1984). Adolescence, stress, and psychological well-being. Journal oJYouth and 

Adolescence, 13(6),459-473. 

Windle, M. (1992). A longitudinal study of stress buffering for adolescent problem behaviors. Developmental 

Psychology, 28(3), 522-530. doi: I 0.1037//0012-1649.28.3.522 

Zeman, J., Cassano, M., Perry-Parrish, C., & Stegall, S. (2006). Emotion Regulation in Children and 

Adolescents. Journal oJDevelopmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27,155·168 .. 

Zins,1. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base linking socia! and 

emotionalleaming to school success. Journal 0.( Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 19/-

210. doi:10.1080/10474410701413145 

van Praag, H. M., de Kloet, E. R., & van Os, 1. (2004). Stress, the brain and depression. Cambridge University 

Press Cambridge, UK: 

10 
564 

December 10, 2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

555 BunJes Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614/221-7201 

800/589-5888 

614/221·7625, Fax 

http://www.ohiopovertylawcenter.org 

http://www,ohlolegalservlces.org 

Dear Chainnan Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on ending the school to 

prison pipeline before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. As an attorney and child advocate in Ohio, I have 

witnessed first-hand how the school to prison pipeline harms children and young people in Ohio. 

The Ohio Poverty Law Center (OPLC) works with low-income families and legal aid 

organizations across Ohio to help ensure that all young people have access to high quality 

educations and are treated with dignity and fairness in schools. Sadly, the data on school 

discipline that we have gathered from the Ohio Department of Education shows instead that most 

Ohio school districts push children out of school by overusing harsh exclusionary discipline 

practices. In a recent issue brief on school discipline I co-authored with the Children's Defense 

Fund-Ohio, we explain how school discipline data in Ohio shows that Ohio public schools issued 

more than 200,000 suspensions during the 2010-2011 school year, and that 54 percent of those 

out of school suspensions were for "disobedient or disruptive behavior" - relatively minor, nonviolent, non-criminal behavior. Moreover, the use of out of school suspension, which is one of 

the most prominent indicators of whether a child will drop out of school, disproportionately 

impacts African American children, children with disabilities, and low-income children (issue 

brief available at http://www.cdfohio.orglassets/pdf-fileslissue-brief-zero-tolerance.pdf). 

This data manifests itself in cases my legal aid colleagues and I see every day while 

representing children and families in special education and school discipline ca~es. We've seen, 

for example, a case in which a six year old girl in Cincinnati was proposed for expulsion from 

school for bringing her mother's nail clippers to school, or arlother case in which a third grade 

ExecuUve Director 

Thomas W. Weeks 

Director 

Eugene R. King 

.. 

r}!l" 11,,\' 

\,,,-r'i-Y'.-d" 

~ 

Senior Stall Attorneys 

Michael R. Smalz 

Linda Cook 

Staff Attorneys 

JoSeph Maskovyak 

Sarah E. Biehl 
565 

December 10, 2012 

Page 2 

boy in Columbus was suspended from school for saying "yeah" instead of "yes, Ma'am" to his 

teacher. And in many districts, the use of school resource officers to arrest students for minor 

misbehavior is a huge problem, too. Last year, I worked with legal aid attorneys in Toledo, Ohio 

on a case in which an eleven year old girl in 5"' grade was arrested at school for refusing to put 

her books on the floor when instructed to do so, Additionally, teachers are struggling in underresourced schools and without the tools, training, and support they need to adequately address 

behavior issues in more developmentally appropriate ways. The combined effect of all of these 

factors is that many students are out of school so often that keeping up academically and learning 

appropriate, positive behavior is impossible. 

There are evidence-based ways to address these issues and keep more children in school, 

and our issue brief highlights several of them (many of which are based on projects and systems 

implemented by the esteemed witnesses from whom you will be hearing on December 12). I 

hope that the members of the committee will endeavor to find ways to encourage and support 

communities and schools in implementing positive, preventive approaches to school discipline 

that de-emphasize suspension and expulsion and promote teaching and modeling positive, 

respectful behavior for all children. I further urge the federal government to support 

communities in their fight to end the school to prison pipeline, and I strongly encourage the 

government to work to reduce racial and disability disparities in discipline, promote alternatives 

to harsh punishment, and ensure that all young people have the opportunity to succeed. 

If I can be of any help in assisting the committee or providing further information about 

our experiences and efforts in Ohio, please contact me at sbiehl@ohiopovertylaw.org or 614-

824-2504. 

Best Regards, 

Sarah Biehl 

Staff Attorney 
566 

Written Testimony of 

Christopher L. Scott 

Policy Analyst 

Open Society Policy Center 

before the 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and 

Human Rights 

for the hearing record on 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12,2012 
567 

INTRODUCTION: THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PlPEUNE 

The Open Society Policy Center (OS PC) I thanks Chairman Durbin, Ranking member Graham, 

and the full Committee for holding this important hearing on, Ending the School to Prison 

Pipeline. 

More than three million students are suspended and over 100,000 students are expelled from 

school each year. In addition to denying children that time to learn in school, suspensions and 

expulsions are a leading indicator of whether a child will drop out of school, and out-of-school 

suspensions increase the risk of future incarceration.2 

The nation's growing discipline rates in both traditional public schools and charter schools 

continue to widen the disparities for disenfranchised youth and systemically push studentsespecially those who are non-white, and of different language abilities, religions or perceived 

sexual orientation-{)ut of school. 

Research shows that the spike in suspensions, expulsions and arrests produces sedous and 

adverse long term consequences and those schools, by relying on pushing students out of school, 

inadvertently have created a new pathway to prison. This is the school-lo-prison pipeline 

(STPP). 

Schools send students into the pipeline in several ways. First, schools routinely misapply "zero 

tolerance" policies, which lead to police involvement in minor incidents. Police involvement 

frequently can lead to arrests, juvenile detention referrals and even incarceration. Second, 

schools overuse suspensions and expUlsions for minor infractions. These extended absences 

from school discourage students from continuing their education and increase the likelihood they 

will turn to criminal behavior. 

Putting an end to the STPP is critical, not only because the spike in suspensions, expulsions, and 

arrests is occumng in the face of significant research on the educational and social harms of 

these practices, but because exclusionary discipline and school policing practices have resulted 

in entire cohorts of students moving through the STPP and into the juvenile and criminal justice 

systems. 

AN EDUCATION ISSUE AND A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE 

On the surface "zero tolerance" policies and suspensions and expUlsions apply equally to all 

regardless of race, class and gender. But a growing body of research suggests these policies and 

practices are applied unevenly. Zero tolerance and policies to "suspend and expel" rule breakers 

have hit Blacks and Latinos the hardest. 

IOSPC is a non-partisan and non-profit 50 I (c )(4) organization that engages in advocacy on domestic and 

international issue including civil rights and liberties, criminal justice reform, immigration, multilateralism, 

development assistance, health policy and promotion of human rights, transparency and accountability. 

2 Losen, D., and Gillespie. J. (2012) Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact oj Disciplinary ExciusionJonn 

School, The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights ProjectIProyecto Derechos Civiles. See 

http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edulresources/projects!center-for-civil-rights-remedieslschool-to-prison-folder/federalreports/upcoming-ccIT -research!1osen-gillespie-opp0rIunity-suspended-ccIT-20 12.pdf 

2 
568 

Greater percentages of Black students are suspended and expelled from school than their peers 

across all races. In 2006, about 15 percent of Black students were suspended, compared with 8 

percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, 7 percent of Hispanic students,S percent of 

White students, and 3 percent of AsianlPacific Islander students? Studies also have shown that 

students with disabilities are suspended at higher rates than their non-disabled counterparts. And 

many of these students tend to be black males, who are disproportionately overrepresented in 

special education and identified as "mentally retarded" or students with significant cognitive 

disabilities.4 

The most recent national suspension rates have remained relatively stable. National suspension 

rates show that 17 percent, or lout of every 6 Black schoolchildren enrolled in K-12, was 

suspended at least once. That still is higher than the 1 in 13 (8 percent) for Native Americans; 1 

in 14 (7 percent) for Latinos; 1 in 20 (5 percent) for Whites; or the I in 50 (2 percent) for Asian 

Americans. 5 Moreover, while African American students make up 17% of all school age youth, 

they account for 37% of suspensions and 35% of all expUlsions and receive harsher discipline 

than their peers for similar offenses. 

These disparities cannot be explained by the simple notion Blacks and Latinos students are 

inherently bad or violate rules at a greater rate than White students. The disparities can be better 

explained by the tendency of teachers, principals and administrators, who have biases and 

negative perceptions of minority students, to respond to disruptive White students with 

alternative interventions rather than punitive disciplinary consequences. 

Black males are also disproportionately and unfairly subjected to policing policies, which 

includes school based arrests, misdemeanor tickets, referral to law enforcement and juvenile 

courts and or placement in juvenile detention facilities. Too often, for minor offenses such as 

truancy, classroom disruption, disobedience, and simple horseplay, which is much too frequently 

characterized as assault or "terroristic threatening.,,6 

MORE POLlCE IN SCHOOLS DOES NOT INCREASE SAFETY 

Federal funding compounds the school-to-prison pipeline problem because schools have greater 

access to federal funding, and districts are willing to move school discipline into the courts and 

under law enforcement's jurisdiction. The incentive for more federal funding has exacerbated 

schools' reliance on school resource officers (SRO) and policing in schools. While policing in 

schools is not a new trend, their increasing roles, responsibilities, and daily functions have led to 

greater incidences of minority student contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, and 

J U.S. Department of Education IES National Center for Education Statistics repon, "The Condition of Educalion ., 

4 See Harvard Studies Find lnappropriate Special Education Placements Continue to Segregate and Limit 

Educational Opportunities for Minority Students Nationwide 

'Ibid, Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impaci of Disciplinary Exclusionfrom School 

6 See Delaware Unsafe School Choice Option schools law as an example of "terroristic threating" language; 

http;llattorneygeneral.delaware.gov/schoolsllawsllldeIc62 J .htm; 

www.doe.kI2.de.us/ .. .IfilesieSchDisciplineEntryManual.doc 

http://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga 141lchp255.shtml 

http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/titleI4/600/608.shtml 

3 
569 

the integration of criminal justice polices in schools. Crime statistics show that mf\jority of 

arrests for pre-teens occurred in schooL This data could suggest that one of the long-term effects 

of expanding the role of SROs is an increase in the numbers of younger children arrested while 

in school for fist fights, shoving matches, and other behaviors that rarely warranted police 

intervention in the past. This is a serious calise for concern. Currently, many, if not all, school 

discipline approaches are predicated on models of practice that rely on the deployment of police 

officers as strict enforcers of "student code of conduct" policies and disciplinarians of student 

misbehavior? 

Statistics show that more police are in more schools than ever before. For example, the number 

of SROs increased by 37 percent between 1997 and 2007.8 Some estimates have found that there 

are more than 17,000 officers who are permanently placed on school campuses.9 And some 

school districts boast a police presence that rivals that of small town forces. 10 

In a larger city like Chicago, police have made 2,546 school-based arrests between September 

2011 and February 2012. Seventy six percent of those arrested were Black students. On average, 

25 students were arrested every day in publicly-funded neighborhood and charter schools, and 19 

Black students have been arrested every day this school year. I I Beyond arrests, policing in 

schools is on the rise in Chicago. CPS recently spent $6.8 million in taxpayer dollars to install 

high-definition police cameras at 14 high schools. 12 

Schools and districts have justified the deliberate focus on increased policing as a means of 

creating safer school environments and improving school climate. But, so far, evidence shows 

that these policies have been counterproductive in changing student behavior and improving 

school safety. 13 There is nothing to show a correlation between policing in schools and the 

prevention of violence and student misbehavior. Moreover, policing policies and zero tolerance 

policies have no measureable impact on deterring misconduct or improving school safety, but are 

associated with a number of negative effect, including racial disproportionality, expansion of the 

7 "]n the last decade, the punitive and overzealous tools and approaches of the modem criminal justice system have 

seeped into our schools. serving to remove children from mainstream educational environments and funnel them 

onto a one-way path toward prison ... " For further reading see: Nancy Heitzeg, "Education or Incarceration: Zero 

tolerance Policies alld the Schoo/·to-Prison Pipeline. " 

8 Justice Policy Institute, Education Under Arrest: The Case Against Police in Schools I (2011) [hereinafter 

Education Under Arrest]. 

• Johanna Wald and Lisa Thurau. Charles Hamilton Houston Institute First Do No Harm: How Educators and Police 

Can Work Together More Effectively To Keep Schools Safe and Protect Vulnerable Students 1 (2010). See, 

http://charieshamiltonhouston.org/assets/documents/newsIFINAL%20Do%20No%20Harm.pdf 

10 Texas Appleseed. Texas' School-to-Prison Pipeline: Ticketing, Arrest & Use of Force in Schools 47 (2010); 

Education Under Arrest, supra note I. 

II 201 J -2012 arrest data for Chicago acquired through VOYCE/Advancement Project FOIA request to the Chicago 

Police Department. 

12 Information about 2012 CPS police camera installation available at 

pttp:lfwww.cps.edulNewslPress releases/Pages/04 05 2012 PR l.aspx. 

IJ See "Final Report, Bi Partisan Working Group on Youlh Violence, " 106th Congress, February 2000 and see also, 

"Racial Profiline and Punishment in U.S. Public Schools," p. 14. 

4 
570 

achievement gap, increased dropout rates, bullying, violence, criminalization of student 

behavior, and multiple legal issues related to due process. 14•

15 

THE LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF HARSH SCHOOL DISCIPliNE ARE 

DEVASTATING 

The shift in how schools have decided to handle school conduct offenses with exclusionary 

discipline policies is setting a dangerous precedent and is widening the scope of collateral 

consequences, especially for Black and Latino males. Research has shown contact with the 

juvenile and criminal justice systems or removal from school for a significant period of time is 

directly correlated to criminal involvement or incarceration. Contact with the justice system as a 

result of policing in schools, suspensions and expulsion or zero tolerance policies, can lead to 

incarceration, denial of admission into institutions of higher education, and/or enhanced 

sentencing for offenses committed later in life during adulthood. 16, 17 

Limited data on school based arrests and the lack of enforcement of its collection and reporting 

compounds the problem even further. While there are some data from the Department of 

Education's Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), national level data on school based arrests are 

based on small sample sizes. Few school districts collect arrest data and even fewer uses the data 

to improve schools, reduce disparities and identify practices that keep schools safe and students 

engaged without relying on suspensions, expulsions, and arrests. On top of that, it has been 

unclear who has the responsibility-schools or law enforcement-to collect and report data on 

how many students are arrested each year and whether arrests are rising or falling. Yet, from the 

limited data that are available, the Department of Education estimates that 70 percent of students 

arrested or referred to law enforcement, for the 2009-2010 school years, were Black or Latino. IS 

Insufficient data prevents useful analysis of why this is the case or whether these atTests are 

14 Ibid, First, Do No Harm 

"Ibid, Education Under Arrest 

16 "Relevant Conduct": Under certain portions of .the "relevant conduct" guideline and its commentary, judges are 

required to calculate the guideHne range based not only on the crime of conviction, but on separate crimes, 

comprised of their own elements. of which the defendant was acquitted. with which the defendant was never 

charged, or which were dismissed. The Commission advises judges to find these separate crimes by a preponderance 

of the "information." without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence, if there is sufficient indicium of 

reliability to support its "probable accuracy." The guideline range is then increased by the same number of months 

or years as if the defendant had been charged by indictment and convicted by a jury on proof beyond a reasonable 

doubt, limited only by the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction. See, "An Introduction to Federal 

Sentencing, " p. 7. 

17 Juvenile conduct can be considered and accessed by a sentencing judge if the records are not sealed or if a 

juvenile is tried as an adult. "Since 1992.45 states have passed laws making it easier to try juveniles as adults and 

thirty-one have stiffened sanctions against youths for a variety of offenses. Despite a drop in juvenile crime. the 

number of formally processed caSes involving juveniles-most of them non-violent cases-increased. along with the 

number of youths held in SeCure facilities for nonviolent offenses." See, Johanna Wald and Daniel 1. Losen. 

"Definine and Redirectine a School·to·Prison Pipeline, " New Directions for Youth Development 99 (Fall 2003): p. 

9-15. 

1. See Department of Education CRDC analysis: http:Uwww2.ed.gov/about/offic~s/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012-data· 

summary.pdf 

5 
571 

warranted. This suggests not only a hidden clisis for historically disadvantaged subgroups, but 

also a widespread need for greater reporting and collection of data on school based arrests. 

The process of institutionalizing negative consequences and perceptions for Blacks and Latinos, 

as well as students with disabilities, will perpetuate the use of harmful school discipline practices 

and policing in schools. Further marginalization of minority youth will continue to create 

inequitable opportunities and further stratification of society as the achievement gap widens and 

more youth make contact with the criminal justice system. This will make us, as a society, no 

closer to seeing the value in teaching and promoting achievement for these vulnerable 

populations. And will only lead to significantly large cohorts of dropouts among minOlities, 

increased crime rates, intensified gang involvement, greater percentages of illiterate youth, 

deplorable school systems, high teenage unemployment rates, and a stagnated workforce. All of 

these factors threaten to set the United States back further globally; both educationally and 

economically. 

RECCOMENDATIONS 

The talents and skills of teachers, administrators, students, resource officers and juvenile court 

workers must be used effectively. The focus of discipline should be on the creation offair and 

corrective action plans that provide resources for positive alternatives in addressing disciplinary 

issues, rather than punishment for the sake of playing politics or being tough. Reform moving 

forward should emphasize training and remediation along with corrective interventions that are 

holistic. 

There has never been a more important time for federal action on the school to prison pipeline. 

Therefore, OSPC urges Congress to: 

• Reduce school based an'ests by placing meaningful requirements on the use of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants that staff school resource officers 

(SRO) and other law enforcement officials. These requirements should: 

a Define the role of the SROs and law enforcement in schools and provide 

assurances their role will not have a harmful or negative impact on school climate 

or student learning; 

a Provide a 1: 1 match of mental health professionals for every SRO or law 

enforcement official in schools; 

a Train law enforcement officials to be staffed in the school on age appropriate 

responses to school based conflicts, mediation and conflict resolution; 

o Provide greater oversight of SROs and policing in schools 

o Mandate schools collect and report school based arrest data to the Department of 

Justice 

6 
572 

• Require the Department of Education to annually collect and report school discipline and 

climate data for all schools 

• Instruct the Justice Department's Office of Civil Rights to enforce requirements on 

schools for collection and reporting of data on school based arrests disaggregated by race, 

gender, special education status, socioeconomic status and English proficiency and cross 

tabulated by law enforcement officials and schools. 

• Eliminate arrests for truancy and chronic absenteeism. 

• Evaluate the hidden costs of exclusionary discipline practices and policing and their 

effectiveness over less punitive alternatives. 

• Pass the proposed Youth PROMISE Act to: 

o Provide resources for the development and implementation of mUlti-year, local 

plans to reduce punitive discipline policies; 

o Allow schools and communities to utilize youth-oriented police officers and 

evidence based training; and 

o Fund community based solutions that can reduce the number of youth entering the 

juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

7 
573 

Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Human Rights 

12/12112 (sent vie e-mail) 

Testimony from Julie Woestehoff 

Executive director, Parents United for Responsible Education, Chicago IL 

www.pureparents.org, pure@pureparents.org 

Parents United for Responsible Education, or PURE, is a 25-year-old public school parent 

advocacy group based in Chicago. Over the 25 years we have been working in Chicago, PURE 

has won many awards including a 2004 ford Foundation leadership award. We are very proud of 

our long track record in education reform and as strong advocates for parents in Chicago and 

across the nation. Thank you for this opportunity to bring our viewpoint into this important 

discussion. 

PURE believes that our students need more resources, more stability, more support services, a 

richer curriculum, and, especially our older students, a voice in their own education. They also 

need schools and districts to work more closely and effectively with their parents. 

We also believe that students need less high-stakes testing, less experimentation with mediocre 

charter and turnaround schools coupled with disruptive and too often ineffective school closings, 

and an end to punitive and damaging discipline practices. 

Our members have experienced all ofthe above problems. We will focus on two major issues in 

this testimony: the damage from high-stakes testing and the inappropriate student discipline code 

at one charter school network. 

The experiences PURE has helping parents and their children, working with Local School 

Councils, looking at school practices, and analyzing systemwide policies clearly show that the 

dropout crisis for African-American and Hispanic youth in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) 

is not surprising given the way Lhe schools treat students. 

In fact, it is surprising that more students do not drop out because so much of our work is 

helping parents keep their children in school, students who want to be in school but the 

schools are trying to push them out using a variety of methods. Some of these methods are 

supposedly not allowed under CPS rules. Some of them are supported by CPS. 

High-stakes testing and retention 

One major problem is the CPS student retention policy, which, since 1998, has held students 

back in 3,d, 6'" and 8th grade based on their state test scores. This happens even though the 
574 

test makers recommend that promotion decisions should not be made based on test scores 

alone. 

We have filed two discrimination complaints with the U. S. Department of Education, one in 

1999 and one in 2010, charging that the policy was unfair and improper, with the most 

negative impact falling on Latino and African-American students. 

In 1999, one of the people filing the complaint with us was a Latina eighth grader. She was an 

excellent student. She had won awards and scholarships for her writing. Her math score was 

fine, but her reading score was just a tenth of a point too low. We stated in our complaint that 

people who learn English as a second language have a special disadvantage taking a 40-minute 

test in English. For those who have not reached total fluency, each question must be mentally 

translated into Spanish and then answered, and the answer translated back into English. They 

lose a lot of time, but that does not mean that they can't read. However, CPS had no interest 

in that reality. 

We won our complaint, but unfortunately the damage had already been done to this young 

woman. Understandably, she did not want to re-enroll in CPS. She went to a private school 

but was unable to keep up the tuition. She eventually dropped out. 

Hundreds more students dropped rather than go to the CPS Academic Preparatory Centers, 

which have since been shut down. APCs were segregated schools where eighth grade students 

who could not meet the cut off scores on the Iowa test had to go for day-long test 

preparation. They were not allowed to leave and enroll in high school until they had met that 

cut off score. In 2000, the Consortium on Chicago School Research reported that 29 percent 

of the students who were retained or sent to APCs in 1997 had dropped out. 

In 2010, we filed a new complaint seeking relief from the U. S. Department of Education's 

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on behalf of students who have been flunked under the CPS 

elementary student promotion policy based on an arbitrary cut off score on state standardized 

tests. We stated in our press release, "CPS has known for years that the policy doesn't work 

and actually harms children. CPS knows that it disproportionately affects African-American 

and Latino children. CPS knows that it costs at least $100 million per year, but instead of 

cutting this wasteful program, they choose to cut teaching staff and other critical educational 

resources that actually help children." 

One of the complaining parents was the mother of a CPS sixth grader who was retained that 

fall. His case demonstrates how arbitrary the policy is: CPS required that he go to summer 

school because his math test score was below the policy cut-off point. Although his reading 

score was well above the cut-off, he had to take both reading and math in summer school. He 

passed the math portion, but "flunked" the reading portion because the teacher took away 
575 

several test papers and gave him zeros. So, despite the fact that his reading was above 

average and he passed summer school math, he was retained. In her complaint, the parent 

wrote, "For every day that my son sits in a six grade classroom, he continues to be 

discriminated against. This entire process has taken an emotional toll on my entire family, 

especially my son. (who) no longer wants to attend school. He's not as open with me as he 

once was prior to his being retained." 

These are specific examples of how system wide policies too easily label children and then 

throw them away. Through hard-fought battles with the prior administration, PURE was able 

to force changes in these lJolicies, but the system continues to retain an average of 5,000 

students every year, and hundreds are retained for the second or third time. Decades of 

research show that flunking students once makes it likely that the student will drop out. 

Flunking an African-American of Latino student twice makes it almost 100% sure that he or 

she will drop out. 

Why does CPS continue to have a policy that research shows will cause many students to 

drop out and costs hundreds of millions of dollars, when CPS has such severe budget 

problems that it is threatening to close as many as 100 schools, further disrupting students' 

lives and leading to more students dropping out? 

Inappropriate charter school discipline policies 

In 2010, PURE supported a parent who complained about the excessive, unreasonable 

discipline policies at one of the most highly-touted charter school networks, the Noble Street 

Charter Schools. Noble charter schools fine students for even the most trivial rule violations, 

such as slouching in a seat, chewing gum, or having a shirt button undone. Not only did this 

small network of around 6,500 students collected nearly $400,000 in fines from the mostly 

low-income families for whom it is supposed to be providing a free public education, it has 

been widely celebrated by the Mayor and other city leaders. In fact, the Mayor has referred to 

Noble as having the "secret sauce" to urban education, and has pushed for an expansion of 

the Noble Network. 

In other words, while cities and school districts all across the country are recognizing the 

urgent need to move away from destructive zero-tolerance discipline, Chicago schools are 

actively promoting an unprecedented escalation of these overly-harsh practices. Noble CEO 

Michael MiIkie has even been vigorously defending his policy by claiming that the alternative 

is chaotic, unsafe schools. This is a false choice that should fool no one. There are literally 

thousands of schools all across the country that are able to maintain orderly, productive 

school environments, and none of them gouge parents with "discipline taxes." 

Noble argues that the fines collected from students are needed to cover the schools' costs for 

operating its disciplinary system. Yet every other public school in the country is able to 
576 

administer school discipline without resorting to the fining of students. If Noble is unable to 

manage one of its core functions - addressing behavior and discipline through the tens of 

millions oftaxpayer dollars they receive annually, then it would seem that an investigation 

would be in order, not an expansion. 

Noble and its supporters claim these fines are a small price to pay for the results that Noble 

achieves. However, if you take a close look at these numbers, you soon learn that they 

amount to little more than an educational shell game. Noble's reported graduation rate 

excludes the many hundreds of students who transfer out every year because of these radical 

practices or other reasons. In fact, the school CEO, MichaellVli1kie, has admitted that up to 

40% of 9th grade students leave for other schools before their senior year. [n other words, 

Noble is being allowed to use these discipline taxes to weed out the students that would 

otherwise drag down their numbers. 

The student whose mother came to PURE for help has been systematically pushed out of the 

Noble school by the near-daily discipline punishments and fees, by being forced to repeat his 

freshman year because of the excessive discipline actions, and by general harassment. 

The students that attend Noble schools deserve better, as do the students at all other 

Chicago schools that continue to misuse destructive disciplinary practices. These schools 

have much to learn from places like Baltimore and Denver, where the schools are reaping the 

benefits from a common-sense approach to school discipline and school safety. In both places, 

there has been a conscious effort to reduce harsh disciplinary consequences and instead focus 

on meeting student needs through early interventions, teaching appropriate behavior, and 

building healthy relationships between students and their teachers and administrators. As a 

result, attendance and academic achievement levels are on the rise, and their graduation rates 

are skyrocketing. 

These districts, and the many others like them, are demonstrating that there are no shortcuts 

to educational success. The real "secret sauce" is to value and respect the educational 

opportunities of youth, not to push t.hem out into the streets through nonsensical disciplinary 

practices. 

Other problems 

PURE has a thousand stories about the frustrations parents and students experience. A 

parent called PURE because her daughter, a high school junior, had a job starting at 3 pm on 

weekdays. The parent is a single mom and the family needed the income. They had asked the 

school to adjust the student's schedule so that she could get to her job on time. The student 

had room on her schedule and was even signed up for classes she didn't need to graduate. 

The school refused to make any changes. They told her that she either needed to leave 

school or quit her job. That was a terrible choice for a low-income family to face. So, a PURE 
577 

advocate took them to the school to try to get the school to cooperate. They refused, so we 

had to take it higher in CPS, to the high school department. Suddenly the school decided that 

maybe they can change the students' schedule. Here was a student who wanted a future and 

the school just couldn't be bothered to care until a CPS administrator stepped in. 

There are also many problems that happen on a case-by-case basis. PURE receives calls day 

after day from parents of students who want to stay in school but the door is being slammed 

shut in their faces. [t seems that, instead of trying to HOLD the students in school, they try 

to let them go or push them out. 

Over the past year we have received many calls to go to expulsion hearings or to help 

students when the school won't let them enroll, saying that they do not live in the attendance 

area or that they are overcrowded. We have students sitting at home because no school will 

enroll them or help them find another schooL 

One of the main factors that we see is that there is not nearly enough counselor support for 

students. I would say that more than 50% of the students do not know who their counselor is, 

who to go to for help or information. At the same time, I'd say that 80% of the parents do not 

know who their child's counselor is because the counselor has not made any contact with the 

parents except in cases where they are telling them that their children are being expelled, 

cutting classes, misbehaving, other things that could be fixed if there was better 

communication before the problems got out of hand and parents and the school could work 

together to improve the situation. This is especially frustrating for students who feel that they 

get no support from the school, only blame and punishment. 

The whole zero tolerance attitude makes it almost impossible to fix problems like gang 

problems. Language barriers are not even considered. Instead, if you mess up, you are gone. 

Another throwaway kid. 

We understand that the parents have a big role here. But if the school does not have any 

communication with the parents as far as meetings, workshops, programs, many parents never 

understand that not only do they have to be involved in elementary school but also in high 

school. Parents also don't know their rights, so if the school tells them that their child can't 

come back to the school, the parent may not know what to do. More communication and 

support for parents would help solve many problems and keep more students in school. 

We see that high schools have not made the same effort as the elementary schools to involve 

parents. We see very few high school bilingual committees, NCLB committees. How many 

high schools invite parents to form parent patrols, or have workshops or parent volunteers 

programs? High school students need to see their parents in the school maybe even more 
578 

than the younger children. And it's true that many parents need extra help to raise high 

schoolers. 

One more cause of dropouts is the lack of hope so many students feeL Some of that happens 

because the high school does not help them plan for college, or even give them the idea that 

they can go on and do more. This is also a problem of poor counseling services and lack of 

communication with parents. When students see no real future, why would they care about 

completing high school? 

Some solutions 

fWlat is the best way to handle issues of school discipline and schooisafiJty? How do we 

create safe and healthy schools that promote academic achievement? 

One approach, employed by schools all across the country, relies on common-sense 

disciplinary practices that treat students fairly and appropriately and produces positive 

outcomes for students, families, and communities. The other approach, employed by many 

schools in Chicago, continues to use ineffective zero-tolerance strategies that result in the 

unnecessary suspension, expulsion, or arrest of tens ofthousands of Chicago youth every 

year. As the research of Advancement Project and others has demonstrated, not only have 

these practices failed to improve school safety, they lead to high dropout rates, lower 

academic achievement, and too many youth being pushed onto a pathway to prison. 

fWlat is the best way to assure that students 8l'e prep8l'ed when they move ti'om one grade to 

another? Any student who is not making enough progress must be given an individualized 

plan, in consultation with the parents, which addresses the students' real needs. Then that 

plan must be carried out with everyone taking responsibility for making sure the student 

succeeds. 

Specifically PURE recommends that schools: 

• End wholesale retention of students. Retention has been shown by decades of research to 

increase the drop out rate. Retention should be used only when parents and the school agree 

that it is in the best interest of that individual child. Other options include developing 

individualized education plans for at-risk students and creating student portfolios to get a 

better understanding of the student's strengths and weaknesses . 

• Hold an extensive, public review of enroilment, discipline, and other policies to minimize 

the potential for schools to push students out and maximize the opportunities for student 

support and cooperative problem solving. 
579 

• Increase both the number and the effectiveness of high school counselors through adding 

positions, training, and clear communication to students and parents about what to expect 

from the counselors. Make sure that all students and their families receive extensive, ongoing 

information about college and other further educational opportunities . 

• Require every high school, with the Local School Council, to create a plan for increased 

parent outreach and participation. This should include offering parents workshops on their 

rights and on proper high school policies, opportunities to volunteer and observe in their 

children's classrooms, and clear information about the school curriculum and programs. 
580 

POWER-PAC 

Parents Organized to Win, Educate, and Renew - Policy Action Council 

We are offering our testimony as parents and grandparents of students in the Chicago 

Public Schools (CPS), who have seen firsthand the ugly reality of the school-to-prison pipeline. 

We are also writing as members of POWER-PAC (Parents Organized to Win, Educate and 

Renew-Policy Action Council), a Chicago-wide organization of African-American and Latino 

parents and grandparents working to make our schools and communities more family-friendly. 

We are supported by the non-profit organization COFI (Community Organizing and Family 

Issues; cofionline.org.) We are also a member organization of the national Dignity in Schools 

Campaign, which challenges the systemic problem of pushout in our nation's schools 

(dignityinschools.org). 

Our campaign to end the school-to-prison pipeline began in 2004. It was the first issue 

that we decided to tackle after we came together across race and community to fOlm POWERPAC in 2003. We shared our stories and realized that many of our children had been 

criminalized and pushed out of school for non-dangerous or even typical youth behavior. One of 

us, an African-American mother from the West Side of Chicago, saw her two foster children 

suspended again and again without the school ever trying to address the root problems. Another 

one of us, a Puerto Rican mother from northwest Chicago, saw her son punished as he struggled 

to overcome bullying and the frustration of a learning disability. He eventually dropped out of 

high school--or, as we believe, pushed out by a school system that would rather get rid of 

"problem" students than educate them. 

We then took our concerns out into the community and discovered that they were shared 

by most other parents and grandparents. We talked to families from 43 Chicago public schools 

and found that: 37% percent had had a child suspended; more than 4 out of 5 felt thought the 

suspension was not appropriate and not handled well; and in more than 2 out of 3 suspensions, 

the parents were not notified appropriately. As parents, we knew intuitively that this exclusion is 

no solution. It labels our children as criminals and then sends them out into the street, where they 

are more at risk and more likely to get caught up in the type of behavior that can get them into 

real trouble, like gang violence or involvement in the juvenile justice system. 

That is why we have been campaigning since 2004 to redirect this school-to-prison 

pipeline in Chicago. We have had many victories: Working with advocates and the district, we 

helped win a major re-write of CPS' discipline policies in 2007. The CPS Student of Conduct no 

longer includes the "zero-tolerance" language that had increased the criminalization of youthful 

behavior. Schools can no longer suspend pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students-and yes, 

schools were suspending three, four and five-years old before the change. Finally, CPS policy 
581 

now officially endorses and encourages the use of proactive, positive discipline to keep students 

in school, where they can learn from their mistakes and stay on track with their education. 

We have also taken matters into our own hands by creating and running parent-run, 

school-based "peace centers" to show that we can address students' misbehavior and struggles 

without pushing them out of school and onto the pipeline to prison. We use the philosophy and 

practices of "restorative justice," one of the discipline approaches advocated in the CPS Code of 

Conduct and now spreading across the country. Restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm 

caused by conflict, rather than just punishing the offender. It has also been used successfully in 

the juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

One of our greatest "peace center" successes has been at Wells Community Academy 

High School, a Chicago neighborhood high school that receives students from three different 

neighborhoods, often from competing gangs. Five years ago, the school had a terrible reputation 

for violence and poor academics. But one of our POWER-PAC members, a Mexican immigrant 

mother, decided that needed to change when her son, a recent graduate of the school, was killed 

in a random drive-by in the community around her house and the school. Working with a new 

principal, POWER-PAC helped her to start a peace center at the school and to bring in other 

community-based resources. Wells has now achieved a dramatic turnaround, lowering 

suspensions and arrests, reducing student misconduct, and improving academic performance. 

(After over a decade on academic probation, Wells is now off.) Our parent "peacemakers" 

continue to work with dozens of students each month, helping them to resolve conflicts and 

encouraging them to stay in school when they are struggling. 

This is the kind of grassroots, community-led solution that we know can help our 

children get on the pipeline to college and productive citizenship. But we cannot do it alone. 

Despite the improvements in CPS policies, our school system still has an alarming rate of 

suspensions and school-based arrests. The most recent federal data, available for the 2009-2010 

school year from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, shows that 73,375 of 

CPS students were suspended out-of-school at least once that school year. That includes more 

than 30 percent of African-American students, which sadly means that our district has one of the 

nation's worst racial disparities. 

So we know that there is still a lot to do. We have endorsed the national call for a 

moratorium on out-of-school suspensions, led by the Dignity in Schools and Opportunity to 

Learn campaigns (stopsuspensions.org). Out-of-school suspensions are so counterproductive that 

we know our children will be better off if schools are forced to invest their time and resources 

into positive, proven alternatives like restorative justice. These alternatives, and discipline 

policies that support them, are detailed in the Dignity in Schools "Model Code on Education and 

Dignity," which POWER-PAC helped to inform (dignityinschools.orglour-worklmodel-schoolcode). The federal government could help support these alternatives by making funding available 
582 

to districts and schools for implementation. We hope that the "Supportive School Discipline 

Initiative," ajoint initiative currently underway from the Department of Education and 

Department of Justice, will also help pave the way for systemic reforms. We as parents and 

grandparents look forward to that day when schools know that reducing student pushout, 

eliminating racial discipline disparities, and improving school climate is as high of a priority as 

academics and test scores. That's the only way we can end the school-to-prison pipeline, and put 

our children on the pipeline to success. 

We are grateful to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights 

and Human Rights for addressing this important issue, and for giving the parents and 

grandparents of POWER-PAC the opportunity to submit this testimony. 

POWER-PAC-Parents Organized to Win. Educate and Renew - Policy Action Council-is a project ofCOFI, 

Community Organizing and Family Issues. POWER-PAC can be contacted c/o COFI, 1436 West Randolph, 4th 

Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Ph: 312.226.5141. F: 312.226.5144. 
583 

.. T~ITYOF \g!J lJEIAWARE 

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 

December 7,2012 

Senator Dick Durbin 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY 

AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

Chair, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

711 Hart Senate Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: December 12,2012 hearing on the school-to-prison pipeline 

Dear Senator Durbin: 

322 [dW,Hd L;)uren(e Smith Hall 

University of Delaware 

N('wark,Del!lwilft 19716-2580 

Ph: 302/831-2581 

r,n: 30Z/S31-26{)7 

Thank you for holding information hearings on school discipline, and for the opportunity to be 

heard on this important issue. 

I am a professor of sociology and criminal justice at the University of Delaware; my central 

research focus is on discipline and security at public schools. I have published a book and several 

peer-reviewed research articles on this subject; I have given expert testimony about it; I have 

advised my state's former Secretary of Education, a state Legislative Task Force, and the Chief 

Family Court Judge of Delaware on the topic; I am often asked to speak about and write on the 

topic; my work on school discipline and security has been funded by the National Science 

Foundation; and I hold prominent leadership positions within the American Society of 

Criminology and the American Sociological Association. 

Given my knowledge of the research on this area as well as my first-hand research, much of it 

conducted through observations of school disciplinary actions, I believe 1 am an expert on the 

topic before the Subcommittee. 

Over the past twenty years, states across the U.S. have shifted their school punishment practices. 

It is now common for students to be SUSPended for minor offenses and arrested at schoo!. These 

trends cause large unnecessary fiscal burdens on cash-strapped public schools while being 

ineffective, and often very harmful, for the following reasons: 

1. School crime across the country has been declining for the past 20 years, according to 

several credible national, federally-funded sources. Increasingly harsh punishments are 

not necessary at public schools. 

2. Suspension, expulsion and arrest mean that struggling students receive less instructional 

time, are removed from school, and are at increased risk of dropping out. These 
584 

difficulties, along with the arrest records that follow, are major hurdles to their long-term 

financial and social success, 

3. Harsh school discipline exacerbates racial inequality. Research repeatedly finds that 

youth of color, particularly Black youth, are at increased risk of being punished at school, 

regardless of their actual behaviors. Black youth are viewed more critically than others 

due to subtle stereotypes and biases; they are perceived to be more hostile, threatening, 

and disorderly than other students. This leads to greater likelihood of unnecessary 

punishment and risk of arrest and incarceration. 

4. There is no credible evidence that harsh discipline and security help maintain school 

safety. Research on the topic has failed to establish such a causal link. Moreover, a 

growing body of research suggests that these strategies make schools less safe. Safe 

schools are marked by inclusive social climates, where teachers show students that they 

care, youth feel included in and valued by the school, and people trust one another. 

Contemporary school discipline and security seeks to impose rigid policing and harsh 

punishment, which erodes these protective elements by turning students against the 

school and alienating rather than welcoming them into the school. 

5. Current strategies of over-policing,zero tolerance, and harsh punishment teach students 

lessons that hurt American democratic institutions. Students learn to passively consent to 

authorities, and are alienated from self-governance, as they are punished for critical 

thought and voice. In my current research, for example, I find that school punishment 

predicts reduced odds of voting in the future as a young adult. 

The essential problem is that schools rely on policing and harsh punislunent in a way that makes 

the problem worse and deepens inequality, rather than addressing student problems themselves. 

For example, in my research I found that teachers routinely tell me the same thing: students tend 

to act up in class because they do not understand the course material. But what do contemporary 

schools do in response? We remove these students from class, providing no alternative teaching, 

thus ensuting that they fall further behind and the problem grows. I have also found few teachers 

and administrators who take the time to find out why students misbehave; instead they punish, 

and do so rather severely, thus missing opportunities to h~lp youth. 

It is unfortunate that schools across the U.S. have invested heavily in a set of strategies that is so 

costly, both financially and to the lives of young people. Financially struggling schools, school 

districts, and states pay great sums of money for security technology and personnel that only 

make school discipline problems worse, not better. Though decisions on how to punish students 

are made by school districts and school administrators, not the U.S. Senate, the federal 

government has contributed to the problem through bad policies such as mandated zero tolerance 

policies and targeted funding for schools to enhance their partnerships with policing agencies 

(through the "Secure Our Schools Act"). But there are many evidence-based practices that, 

according to the existing research, promise much better results. Undoing federally mandated 

zero tolerance policies, discouraging high suspension rates, investing in teacher training for 

classroom management skills, and replacing police officers in schools with mentors trained in 

child/adolescent development would be a good start. But perhaps more importantly, recognition 

of the problem and commitment to address it would send a message to school districts across the 

country about their misplaced efforts. 
585 

Again. thank you. I am hopeful that your leadership in addressing this important problem will 

help improve educational experiences for our youth, and in the process reduce school crime and 

racial inequality while better equipping the next generation for successful futures. 

Sincerely 

Aaron 

~~ Kupchik 

Associate Professor 

akupchik@udel.edu 

302 831-3267 

A!" E Q (' >\ L () r f1 0 R 1 V ;.,.: ! r v ~," 1 \" f- R S l r y 
586 

ITYoFTHE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

DAVID A CLARKE SCHOOL OF LAW --

Joseph B. Tulman 

Professor of Law and Institute Director 

Took Crowell Institute for At-Risk Youth 

4200 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.· Washington, D.C. 20008 

Phone: (202) 274-7317' Fax: (202) 274-5583 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH B. TULMAN 

to the 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights 

Date: December 12, 2012 

Time: 2;00 p.m. 

Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226 
587 

The United States leads the world in incarceration. We incarcerate more people than any 

other country, both in total numbers one quarter of the world's incarcerated people are in 

America - and per capita. Other advanced democracies incarcerate, from the adult population, 

between fifty and 150 per 100,000. America is over 700 per 100,000. I America incarcerates 

nearly five times as many children per capita as the next highest country. 2 No evidence 

establishes that American adults and American children are inherently more deviant, delinquent, 

or criminal than people in other countries. America's outlier status and experience in regard to 

incarceration do not suggest that mass incarceration is an effective strategy for controlling or 

reducing crime. 

America only recently began to use mass incarceration. In the last forty years, we have 

increased by seven-fold the number of incarcerated people in America. On first blush, this 

unprecedented rise appears to violate the general rule that systems tend toward equilibrium. A 

closer examination, however, explains the apparent anomaly. Michelle Alexander has aptly and 

accurately described how America has maintained equilibrium in subjugating mostly low-income 

people of color. 3 Slavery ended, but theJim Crow era arose. Jim Crow ended, finally, in the 

1950s and 1960s, but mass incarceration - focused overwhelmingly on poor people of colorarose, starting with campaigning for "law and order" in 1968. 4 In the District of Columbia, 

literally 100 percent ofthe incarcerated children are children of color from low~income families. 5 

My practice of law started with delinquency defense and child welfare representation 

over thirty years ago. In the fall of 1984, I started teaching at the Antioch School of Law, in the 

Juvenile Law Clinic, supervising law students and representing clients in delinquency cases. 

Subsequently, I became a professor oflaw at the University ofthe District of Columbia David A. 

Clarke School ofLaw. 6 I direct the law school's Juvenile and Special Education Law Clinic, and 

I direct the Took Crowell Institute for At-Risk Youth. Over several years, beginning in the early 

1980s, I began to recognize a clear pattern: almost all ofthe children whom I was representing 

in the delinquency system had unmet special education needs. The same was true for many of 

J See, DAVID M. KENNEDY, DoN'T SHOOT: ONE MAN, A STREET FELLOWSHIP, AND THE END OF VIOLENCE [N INNER· 

CITY AMERICA 146·47 (2011) (calculating the increase as an 1100 percent rise); cf, e.g., Stephen B. Brigh~ Legal 

Representation/or the Poor: Can Society Afford this Much Injustice?, 75 Mo. L. REv. 683 (2010) (calculating rise 

from approximately 200,000 to 2.3 million incarcerated persons as an 800 percent increase). 

2 "No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration." p.2 (2011), available at 

http://www.aecf.org/-/medialPubslTopics/Juvenile%20JusticelDetention%20ReformINoPlaceForKidslJJ_NoPlaceF 

orKids]ulI.pdf. 

) See generally, Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow, 9 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. J, 11·15 (2011) and Michelle 

Alexander, THE NEW JIM CROW: MASS INCARCERATION IN THE AGE OF COLORBLlNDNESS (2010). 

41d. 

5 Cf e.g. Arthur L. Burnett, Sr., Race and National Origin as Influential Facial'S in Juvenile Detention, 3 D.C. L. 

REv. 355, 370 tbl.l (1995) (showing that the percentage of the popUlation ofincarcerated children in D.C. that are 

minority is 100 percent). 

6 The Antioch School of Law closed in the late 1980s, and the District of Columbia created the public law school -

the D.C. School of Law and, subsequently the U.D.C. David A. Clarke School of Law (UDC·DCSL). The public 

law school inherited, and has sustained, the unique mission of training law students who themselves come from 

underrepresented backgrounds; using clinical, hands·on education to the maximum extent feasible; and serving 

D.C.'s low·income residents. UDC·DCSL is one of the most diverse law schools in the e<:>untry; the law school has 

more clinical education per student than any other law school; and UDC·DCSL faculty and law students provide 

thousands of hours of legal services to low·income D.C. residents each year. 

2 
588 

the children and parents I had represented in the child welfare system. Virtually none of my 

clients had succeeded in school. 

Having recognized that the lack of educational success was a principal and perhaps 

defining factor that led to delinquency involvement for children in D.C. (and elsewhere), I 

incorporated special education representation into the clinic. Since the early 1990s, my 

colleagues and I, along with the law students whom we supervise, have been providing special 

education representation for low-income D.C. residents, with a focus on children who are at-risk 

of delinquency involvement. 

As part of conducting investigations for our clients, my colleagues and I, along with the 

law students, excavate and examine the school histories of the young people who are the focus of 

our representation. What we find invariably is a stunning lack of academic success in 

elementary school. These kids tread water for years; then they start to drown. They fail 

academically, and they fail socially and emotionally. Often, the problems manifest in serious 

emotional and behavioral problems,at some point in late elementary school or in early middle 

school. Sometimes, we see that school administrators have held the child back for one, two, or 

more grades in elementary school. Repeating a grade, however, is not a factor in every case. 

The substantial lack of academic progress, though, is uniformly a factor. 

Another uniform problem that we see in the school histories of these young, at-risk youth 

is that disproportionately they have been the subject of disciplinary exclusion. Public school and 

public charter school administrators in D.C. - and, indeed, around the country - are relying on 

school exclusion. This reliance is demonstrably counter-productive and indefensible. The 

Council of State Governments and Texas A&M recently concluded and published a massive, 

longitudinal study on suspensions and expulsions. This study is conclusive. Controlling for 

every variable imaginable, the researchers established that excluding children increases the 

likelihood that a child will repeat a grade, increases the likelihood that a child will not complete 

high school, and increases the likelihood that a child will enter the delinquency system. In 

addition, the researchers found, not surprisingl?, that the use of school exclusion is 

discriminatory in regard to race and disability. Moreover, other definitive studies show that 

alternatives to school exclusion -like PBIS and restorative justice - are effective. School 

administrators should be using positive behavioral interventions and supports, as well as 

restorative justice approaches. For individual children who present extraordinary behavioral 

challenges, school administrators should be employing the evaluations and delivering the 

services mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Another factor that I recognize as common to at-risk students in late elementary and in 

middle school years is that they typically have unmet special education needs. We often find in 

our representation of parents and children that school administrators and other school personnel 

have assiduously avoided the obvious fact that a child has an education-related disability. 

Further, we consistently find that school personnel have failed to provide appropriate, detailed 

and useful, special education evaluations. Frankly, in addition, I have never seen, from a D.C. 

public school or public charter school, a correctly-designed and properly-implemented functional 

1 The study, Breaking Schools' Rules, is available at http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/contentlbreakingschools-rules-statewide-study, 

3 
589 

behavioral assessment (FBA). School administrators ordinarily countenance, as a substitute for 

an appropriate FBA, having a teacher or administrator fill out a form (designated as an FBA) in 

which that person lists behaviors that the child has exhibited. Compounding the FBA problem, 

school administrators generate behavioral contracts instead of legitimate behavior intervention 

plans. 

Public school and charter school administrators ignore various other Congressional 

dictates that are part of the IDEA. These include a failure to provide appropriate related services, 

particularly behavioral supports, parent training, school-based social work services, recreation 

and therapeutic recreation. Moreover, special education officials avoid having representatives 

of other agencies (e.g., in D.C., the Department of Mental Health or the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration within the Department of Disability Services) come to individualized education 

program (IEP) meetings. Special education officials, as well as special education coordinators at 

individual public and public charter schools, avoid engaging personnel from other agencies in the 

IEP process based upon an expectation that the personnel from those other agencies will not 

provide services listed in the IEP and that, therefore, the public school or public charter school 

personnel will have to provide the service. Thus, inter-agency collaboration is rare. A real 

integrated system of care for children does not exist in D.C. Even coordinating Medicaid 

reimbursement is a struggle. I have observed these problems in jurisdictions across the country. 

In passing the original special education law, Congress intended to stop the 

discriminatory exclusion of children with disabilities from public schools. "Congress very much 

meant to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude 

disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from school.,,9 The problem has 

gotten much worse, however, since Congress acted in 1975. Children with disabilities are much 

more likely to be excluded from school and referred to delinquency court than are their nondisabled peers. 

In the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Congress 

attempted to ensure that court personnel have the information necessary to push back to the 

schools cases in which school administrators were doing an "end run" of their obligation to 

identify and to serve children with disabilities. IO When public school and public charter school 

personnel refer children - children whom they know or should know have education-related 

disabilities - to law enforcement and to delinquency court, those school personnel uniformly and 

without exception fail to comply with the requirement, in 20 U.S.c. § 1415(k)(6)(b), to send 

"copies of the special education and disciplinary records of the child ... " Similarly, the juvenile 

court's intake personnel (usually intake probation officers) do not sufficiently investigate the 

circumstances surrounding the delinquency allegations and almost never question whether school 

B See 34 C.F.R. §300.34. 

9 Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 323 (1988). 

10 See, e.g., In re Trent M., 569 N.W.2d 719,724 (Wis. ct. App. 1997). Whether school administrators are 

attempting an end run of special education responsibilities should be considered at the "investigative and referral 

levels" of the juvenile court process at which decisions are made regarding "whether the case belongs in the 

juvenile system in the first instance ... " 

4 
590 

personnel have provided the child with appropriate special education services to address the 

child's needs. This inquiry, though, is a central function of the court's intake personnel. 11 Thus, 

the child gets "the worst of both worlds" - a lack of legally-required services in school, and a 

failure by the court system to catch the problem. The court inherits the school's problem, and 

the community collectively criminalizes another child. In short, we have a rapidly-flowing and 

jam-packed school-to-prison pipeline. 

An effective school should avoid referring children to the police and to the delinquency 

court for behavior that does not rise to the level of serious and violent conduct. By radically 

increasing the number of delinquency cases, jurisdictions around the country have inundated 

their juvenile courts with children who have allegedly engaged in conduct that would never have 

resulted in a court referral in previous generations. Under current standards - as applied 

primarily to low-income children of color - almost all of us who are now adults would have been 

processed as delinquents. Less than three percent of the school exclusions documented in the 

Texas study were for "zero tolerance" conduct like bringing a firearm to school; over ninetyseven percent of the school exclusions in the Texas study were for discretionary charges. 

Congress should not support nor condone the infusion by state and local governments of 

police presence into public schools. Further, no school system should have mass exclusions. 12 

The only children who should be out of school should be those for whom a court has determined 

-- either pursuant to the delinquency preventive detention standard or pursuant to the mental 

health civil standard -- that the child is too dangerous to self or to others to be maintained in the 

community. As the definitive Texas study (see n. 7, supra) has established, school exclusion is 

counter-productive and racially discriminatory. In addition, school administrators 

disproportionately exclude children with disabilities. 

The District of Columbia has about 16,000 suspensions and expulsions per year. Many 

schools in low-income neighborhoods have allowed administrators to transform schools into 

hostile, prison-like environments. Uniformed personnel roam the halls, confronting children. 

This kind of atmosphere is poisonous. It triggers the kind of oppositional attitude that many 

people consider developmental normative - albeit, usually manageable -- for teenagers. 13 

As I have outlined above, teenagers who are at-risk of delinquency involvement and 

incarceration have underlying educational issues (including social and emotional issues) that 

develop before high school. Indeed, my experience is that the problems develop before and 

II "Powers of the probation officer" include "mak[ing] investigations, reports, and recommendations to the juvenile 

court; receiv[ing] and examin[ing] complaints and charges of delinquency, unruly conduct or deprivation of a child 

for the purpose of considering the commencement of proceedings .... [and] mak[ing] appropriate referrals to other 

private or public agencies of the community if their assistance appears to be needed or desirable ... " Model Juv. Ct. 

Act § 6 (1968) 

12 The establishment of "alternative" schools for excluded children exacerbates the problem of the school-to-prison 

pipeline. Texas, for example, has a two-tiered, pervasive system of alternative schools. Yet, the "Breaking Schools' 

Rules" study demonstrates that school exclusion is counter-productive and discriminatory. 

13 This dynamic brings to mind the following quote (misidentified as a quote from Mark Twain): "When I was a 

boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 

twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years." 

5 
591 

during elementary school, but the problems begin to manifest in seriously disruptive behaviors 

often in middle school. Children who are in elementary school are not generally capable of 

absenting themselves from school routinely. Elementary-age children are generally not 

chronically using and abusing illegal drugs and alcohol. Similarly, most young children who are 

seriously at-risk do not begin to steal or commit other delinquent acts at a frequent rate until 

some point during middle school. I must add also that all of us are more likely to identify 

children who "act out" in school or elsewhere than we are to identify children who "act in." That 

is, some children who are depressed or who are traumatized quietly and, in a sense, 

unobtrusively harm themselves. They withdraw; they engage in self-injurious behavior or 

contemplate suicide. They get pregnant. 

For most of the children with whom I have worked, especially those who are identified as 

delinquent, the problems began to manifest in seriously-disruptive and self-destructive behaviors 

in late elementary and in middle school. Obvious indicia include poor school attendance and 

frequent tardiness, failing classes in school, and repeating grades. School exclusion (suspension 

or expulsion) is another primary concern. Children who have changed schools often are clearly 

more likely to be at risk, as well. 

As Congress found in passing the federal special education law (and in passing other 

disability rights laws), this country has a history of excluding and segregating children with 

disabilities. America also has a history of discriminating by institutionalizing people (including 

children) with disabilities. On the other hand, one should not have to say that a child is "at-risk" 

because the child has an education-related disability (i.e., specific learning disability, emotional 

disturbance, intellectual disability, and the other disabilities covered by the IDEA). On the 

contrary, if people complied with the IDEA and other laws, children with disabilities would not 

be at greater risk. 14 In reality, however, children with education-related disabilities continue to 

be at greater risk than their non-disabled peers. For these reasons, I must also include - in the 

list offactors that put a child "at-risk" of entering the school-to-prison pipeline - that the child 

has an education-related disability. 

Another huge component of the school-to-prison pipeline is the almost complete lack of 

meaningful access to defense counsel for children from low-income families who are facing 

delinquency charges. Having traveled to most of the states to explore with attorneys and others 

the state of the delinquency system, I can report that children in some jurisdictions still do not get 

court-appointed attorneys. In virtually every jurisdiction, court-appointed attorneys have 

unmanageable caseloads and do not provide effective assistance, as required by the Sixth 

Amendment. Indeed, in a number of jurisdictions, attorneys counsel child clients to plead guilty 

at the initial hearing. This practice, in my view, constitutes per se ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Prior to investigation and discovery, no attorney can advise a client to plead guilty. 

\4 "Of course, it would be a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 if a school were 

discriminating against children with disabilities in how they were acting under this authority (e.g., if they were 

only reporting crimes committed by children with disabilities and not [those] committed by nondisabled 

students)." 64 Fed. Reg. 12631 (March \2, 1999). 

6 
592 

The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have helped to widen the school-to-prison 

pipeline and to increase its flow. In Schall v. Martin,15 the Court fundamentally undermined the 

due process advances of the late 1960s cases of Kent, 16 Gault, 17 and Winshi/ 8 by revising and 

redefining the liberty interest of a child. In the breakthrough cases, the Court recognized that 

children had a fundamental liberty interest and that due process was consistent with treating 

children differently than adu Its. In Schall v. Martin, the Court explained that a child's liberty 

interest was not as great as an adult's liberty interest because a child is either in the custody of 

the state or the parent. By falsely equating one form of "custody" with the other, the Court 

defied common sense and experience. The impact of incarceration on a child is likely more 

disruptive and even devastating than the impact of incarceration on an adult. In addition, by 

removing a child from the custody of parents, a court not only overrides the child's liberty 

interest but also the liberty interest of the parent in maintaining custody over the child. The latter 

interest is not one that the Schall v. Martin opinion considered. 

The Supreme Court has also made the litigation of special education matters more 

difficult for parents, particularly for low-income parents. Specifically, the Court, in Buckhannon 

Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 19 ended the 

"catalyst theory" for attorney-fee shifting in civil rights cases, and, in Arlington Central School 

District v. Murphy,2o interpreted the IDEA's fee-shifting provision as not including 

reimbursement for expert witnesses. Parents, particularly low-income parents, are seriously 

prejudiced by these decisions. A third Supreme Court case interpreting the IDEA, Schaffer v. 

Weast,21 also creates barriers for parents of children with disabilities by ruling that the burden in 

a special education case is on the moving party (typically the parent). To her credit, Justice 

O'Connor is careful, though, in writing for the majority, to explain that only the burden of 

persuasion is on the parent. The Court does not explicitly rule on the burden of production. 

Unfortunately, administrators in public school systems and hearing officers in administrative 

special education hearings uniformly mush the two together. Schools do not provide adequate 

information; parents are in the dark; parents lose hearings; and children do not get appropriate 

services. 

Congress should legislatively correct Schall v. Martin and the trio of cases (Buckhannon, 

Murphy, and Schaffer) that prejudice children and that accelerate the flow of the school-to-prison 

pipeline. 

Another factor that is adding to the size and speed of the school-to-prison pipeline is the 

lack of access to economic opportunity for children from low-income families, and particularly 

children of color who also have education-related disabilities. Our housing patterns remain 

segregated by race. In past decades, however, racially-segregated African-American 

neighborhoods were heterogeneous in regard to income levels. These neighborhoods had small 

businesses, banks, and professionals, alongside working-class people. In recent decades, African 

is 467 U.S. 253 (1984). 

16 Kentv. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). 

17 In re Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). 

18 In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). 19 532 U.S. 598 (2001). 20 548 U.S. 291 (2006). 

21 546 U.S. 49 (2005). 

7 
593 

Americans who are economically successful tend to live in neighborhoods that are segregated by 

class. Thus, the children whom I represent do not grow up in neighborhoods that provide 

sufficient organic access to legitimate economic opportunity. 

Furthermore, workers in today's economy generally cannot make a decent living and 

support a family without a solid high school education. Ordinarily, to successfully integrate into 

the economy, a student must attain a post-secondary education. Even a factory job or a hands-on 

job like auto repair is likely to require computer skills. Many inner-city and rural schools are 

simply failing to educate effectively. As 10hn Taylor Gotto and other commentators have noted, 

schools are operating still on the industrial revolution model -- training people to be factory 

workers rather than information-age workers. 

The IDEA requires that every student with a disability who is sixteen or older (and 

younger, if appropriate) receive individualized transition services. This requirement is meant to 

ensure that children with disabilities integrate effectively into the world of work. It is not 

happening. No one is complying with the law. Children with disabilities are not receiving 

appropriate vocational evaluations, and they are not receiving appropriate training and 

preparation. A common-sense solution is to use the so-called "Burlington Remedy,,22 to 

incentivize school systems to pay culturally-competent adults in low-income neighborhoods to 

train children with disabilities. This use of the special education law would help children to gain 

real-world work skills and to integrate into paying jobs. Further, this arrangement would recycle public funds into the neediest neighborhoods, rather than shifting resources to high-priced 

professionals from other geographic areas. Moreover, as I had observed for three decades, many 

children from low-income families who fail in school consistently, eventually find informal 

mentors who lead those children too often into illegitimate economic activity. 

Another part of America's school-to-prison pipeline is the pervasive push to treat lowincome children of color as adults for purposes of criminal prosecution. Virtually every state 

changed laws in the 1990s to treat more children as adults. More recently, the Centers for 

Disease Control conducted a meta-study and established that this trend is also counterproductive. We have solid information about what works. One can review the 2001 Surgeon 

General's Report on Youth Violence. Chapter Five of that report lists effective interventions, 

most notably certain evidence-based forms of wraparound services (e.g., multi-systemic therapy 

and functional family therapy) and therapeutic foster care. The multi-year experiment in 

Missouri is also instructive. That state is striving to incarcerate only children who are s~rious 

and violent offenders. In addition, Missouri is demonstrating that incarceration in a small and 

humane environment, emphasizing treatment and education, can dramatically lower recidivism. 

The Annie E. Casey Foundation, through the luvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, has 

effectively helped over 100 jurisdictions lower rates of pre-trial and pre-sentence detention, 

without compromising community safety. 

America also must engage in a conversation about our outlandish sentencing policies and 

guidelines. Criminality is a phenomenon that mostly concentrates in males in mid-to-Iate 

adolescence and the early twenties. By sentencing individuals to, by international standards, 

22 Burlington v. Dept. ofEduc.,471 U.S. 359 (1985). 

8 
594 

uniquely long terms of incarceration, we waste both public financial resources and individual 

potential. The members of the Subcommittee are doing a good thing by beginning a 

conversation that should have started over forty years ago. 

9 
595 

Testimony for the School-to-Prison Pipeline Hearing on December 12, 2012 

Submitted by Mariame Kaba, Project NIA (projectnia@hotmail.com) 

My name is Mariame Kaba and I am the founder and director of Project NIA (www.project-nia.org). 

Launched in July 2009, Project NIA is a Chicago-based advocacy, organizing, popular education, research, 

and capacity-building center with the long-term goal of ending youth incarceration. Project NIA's 

mission is to dramatically reduce the reliance on arrest, detention, and incarceration for addressing 

youth crime and to instead promote the use of restorative and transformative practices, a concept that 

relies on community-based alternatives. Through community education, participatory action research, 

advocacy and organizing, Project NIA facilitates the creation of community-focused responses to 

violence and crime. Our goals are: 

1. To empower diverse community members to take leadership in addressing issues faced by 

youth impacted by the juvenile justice system. 

2. To develop effective community-based (rather than criminal legal) means of accountability for 

violence and crime - using a restorative and transformational justice approach. 

Project NIA supports youth in trouble with the law as well as those victimized by violence and crime, 

through community-based alternatives to the criminal legal process, and we partner with numerous 

stakeholders to create such alternatives. We advocate for redirecting resources from youth 

incarceration to youth opportunities. 

We are profoundly grateful to our Senator, Richard Durbin, for organizing this hearing about the School 

to Prison Pipeline and are proud to submit our testimony today. 

The School-to-Prison Pipeline in Chicago 

In the last 20 years, advocates, students, educators, and researchers have pOinted out the existence of a 

school-to-prison pipeline (STPP).' The STPP (http:Uwww.suspensionstories.com!school-to-prison-

~) describes how harsh school discipline policies and law enforcement poliCies intersect to feed 

young people into the prison system. There has been an explosion of academic research, conferences, 

and media reports about this phenomenon. 

The history of the current intolerance and punitive attitude existing both on the streets and in the 

schools can be traced back to Columbine. In the schools, the post-Columbine era saw the introduction of 

federal and state ordinances leading to zero tolerance policies. In the streets, the war on drugs led to 

more punitive criminal legal responses as a whole (three strikes, mandatory sentencing, zero tolerance). 

Racial disparities mark the rate of incarceration and school suspensions. 

Numerous studies document disproportionate disciplinary practices towards African American male 

students in particular. This is part of a national trend to criminalize rather than educate students. 

1 The "School to Prison Pipeline" describes the reality that many young people are being pushed out of school and into the 

juvenile and adult lega! systems because of harsh discipline policies, high stakes testing, and social oppression. 
596 

Police officers playa critical role in this pipeline and many of them seem to recognize this fact. A school 

police officers' union in California created an uproar last year by designing and selling t-shirts depicting a 

young boy behind prison bars with the words: "u Raise Em, We Cage Em.,,2 The local community was 

rightly incensed by this; yet it should not have come as a surprise that cops see their role in schools as 

arresting and incarcerating young people. 

We can be fooled into believing that schools with metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and police 

officers feel safe to students, teachers, and staff. However, data from the Consortium on Chicago 

School Research (CCSR) suggests something different: 

"it is the quality of relotionships between staff and students and between staff and parents that most 

strongly defines safe schools. Indeed, disadvantaged schools with high-quality relationships actually feel 

sofer than advantaged schools with low-quality relationships. ," 

In addition, the presence of police officers in our schools often has negative ramifications for students. A 

new national study by the Justice Policy Institute titled "Education Under Arrest" makes a convincing 

case that: 

" .. _when schools have law enforcement on site, students are more likely to get arrested by police instead 

of having discipline handled by school officials. This leads to more kids being funneled into the juvenile 

justice system, which is both expensive and associated with a host of negative impacts on youth."" 

In January 2012, we released a report titled "Policing Chicago Public Schools: A Gateway to the Schoolto-Prison Pipeline." The report relies on data from the Chicago Police Department (CPO) to show (for the 

first time in seven years) the type of offenses and the demographics (gender, age and race) of the 

juveniles arrested on CPS properties in calendar year 2010. We were limited in our findings because 

CPO reports data by police district rather than by individual school. 

The key data points in the report are that: 

1. Too many young people are still being arrested on CPS properties. Over 5,500 arrests of young 

people under 18 years old took place on CPS properties in 2010. If we include those between 

18 and 20 years old, the number increases to over 6,100 arrests. 

2. Black youth are disproportionately targeted by these arrests. While they represent 45% of CPS 

students, black youth account for 74% percent of juvenile school-based arrests. This mirrors 

the general trend of disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile legal system. For 

example, while they comprise only 34% of youth ages 5 to 17 in the city of Chicago, African 

American youth accounted for 76% of citywide juvenile arrests (youth 17 and under) in 2010. 

3. Young men are much more likely to be arrested on CPS properties than are their female 

counterparts [73% vs. 27%]. 

2 Sacramento Bee {11/15/11}. Twin Rivers Police Association stops sales of controversial T~shirts. 

http://www.sacbee.com!2011!11!Ol!402065S!twin-rivers-police-association.html#ixZllceD290XC 

3 Steinberg, M., Allensworth, E. and David W. lohnson (May, 2011). Student and Teacher Safety in Chicago Public Schools: The 

Roles of Community Context and School Social Organization. http://ccsr.uchicago,edu/publications/SAFETY%201N%20CPS.pdf 

4 Petteruti, Amanda (Nov 2011). Education Under Arrest: The Case Against Police in Schools. 

http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/3177 
597 

4. Male youth under 21 years old are most often arrested on CPS property for simple battery 

followed by drug abuse violations and disorderly conduct. Females under 21 are most often 

arrested for simple battery, disorderly conduct and miscellaneous non-index offenses. Nearly a 

third (27%) of school-based arrest offenses on CPS property is simple battery. This suggests 

that a significant number of CPS students are probably being arrested for fighting. 

5. Certain police districts are more likely to arrest youth in schools than others. In particular, the 

highest aggregateS numbers of juvenile school-based arrests are in the 4'", 6'h, 8th, 220d, and 5th 

police districts. Together these five districts account for 39% of total juvenile school-based 

arrests on CPS properties. 

In discussions about the school-to-prison pipeline, we need concrete examples of how the process 

works. As such, it is important to understand the role that police and security staff play in our schools. 

Yet reports about police involvement in CPS have unfortunately not been readily available to the public. 

There is no easily accessible citywide or statewide data that illustrate how many students are arrested in 

schools each year. The last report that was written about the role of police in Chicago Public Schools 

was published in 2005 by the Advancement Project. That report, "Education on Lockdown," found that 

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) referred over 8,000 students to law enforcement in 2003. Forty percent of 

these referrals were for simple assault or battery with no serious injuries. Most of these cases were 

dismissed'. 

In light of the issues raised in this report, we recommend a few solutions intended to help reduce the 

reliance on law enforcement in Chicago Public Schools (CPS). 

1. CPS needs to move beyond the rhetoric of restorative justice and fully fund credible restorative 

programs in the schools. 

2. We need timely and reliable data tracking the numbers of school-based arrests in CPS. Based on 

the advocacy of students and organizers, the New York City Council passed the "Student Safety 

Act" in early 2011. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, "the Student Safety Act 

creates accountability and transparency over police behavior in our schools. Specifically, the 

Student Safety Act: 

Requires the Department of Education to report to the City Council on the numbers of 

suspensions, expulsions, arrests and student-police altercations in schools. The City Council 

can then track and monitor whether discipline is being enforced equally for all students. 

Provides lawmakers and the public vital access to raw data on school disciplinary actions. 

Increases transparency at the NYPD School Safety Division and the Department of 

Education." Chicago needs its own "Student Safety Act." http://chistudentsafetyact.com/ 

3. We call on CPS to re-direct resources away from policing to enrichment programs that will 

support the healthy development of students. 

5 We wish that we could compare arrest rates per district but we cannot access total numbers of youth in each district in order 

to do those calculations. Arrest rates would tell us more about whether certain districts are disproportionately targeting youth 

for 5chool~ba5ed arrests. 

6 Education on lockdown (2OOS) ~ http://www.advancementproject.org/digitaHibrarv!publications/education-on-Iockdownthe-schoolhouse-to-jailhouse-track 
598 

4. Finally, we call on policymakers, law enforcement, and school administrators to ensure the 

privacy of student records. We strongly oppose the efforts to violate student privacy by 

increasing "information-sharing" between law enforcement and educational institutions. 

To access the full report, visit the Policing Chicago Public Schools blog at http:Upoliceincps.com 

Closing "Failing" Schools: Another Aspect ofthe Pipeline 

Last year, the nation was greeted by stunning news 

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110221/SCHOOLS/I02210355/1409/Michigan-orders-DPS-tomake-huge-cuts. In an attempt to close a budget deficit of over $327 million, the city of Detroit has 

decided to close half of its public schools. The schools will be shuttered over the next four years. This 

move will likely cause high school class sizes to swell to 60 students. If you think that this is a joke, you 

would be mistaken. 74,000 students remain in Detroit Public Schools; down from nearly 160,000 just 

ten years ago. Visualize for a few seconds what this plan means ... Detroit will reduce the number of 

schools in the district from 142 to 72. In other words, the city will close 70 schools leaving 72 open to 

educate the remaining students. 

Sometimes, discussions about the school to prison pipeline can either be overly analytical or 

overemphasize individual stories. Analysis is good and so are individual stories. However what is also 

needed is a case study that illustrates the systemic nature of the school to prison pipeline. We have 

found that in Detroit. 

The Detroit school system which has been admittedly mismanaged 

(http://www.upi.com/Top News/US/2011/02/22/Detroit-to-eliminate-half-of-public-schools/UPI84761298354738/) has been hemorrhaging students for years. A recent study suggests that "[a]t more 

than half of Michigan's high schools, fewer than 10% of students graduating this spring are college ready 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110222/NEWS05/102220374/Many-Mich-high-school-grads-notready-college-data-show?odyssey=tab !topnews !text! FRONTPAGE. Unsurprisingly most of these 

students are concentrated in the Detroit public school system. With such dismal results, some will argue 

that in Detroit, the school to prison pipeline is already in full effect. I do not disagree with this 

assessment. 

However, the active dismantling of a city's entire public education system cannot be the solution to 

addressing the system's current failings. The truth is that families who have resources and the means 

have already pulled their children out of Detroit public schools over a period of years. Those young 

people who are left behind are unsurprisingly the poorest and least mobile ones. Closing 70 schools will 

not improve their lot and will in fact make their educational experiences even worse, causing even more 

ofthem to drop out of school. Detroit in making the decision to close half of its schools has decided to, 

in effect, consign its remaining 74,000 students to the prison system. Low-income parents in Detroit 

must be suffering even more sleepless nights. This plan is short-sighted and also cruel. 

Michigan already spends $2 billion a year - more than it spends on higher education on one ofthe 

nation's largest prison systems. Residents of the state should now expect that number to increase over 
599 

the next few years. Most of Michigan's 44,000 prisoners don't have high school diplomas and the 

state's current school closing plan will ensure that future prisoners suffer the same fate. 

We are watching something truly astonishing taking place in Detroit - the wholesale abdication of public 

responsibility for our children. We here in Chicago worry that the same thing is happening with respect 

to the school closure policy that is currently being implemented by the Chicago Public Schools. 

Conclusion 

The School to Prison Pipeline is a civil rights and racial justice issue. It is not just a juvenile justice issue 

but also a general criminal justice one. At bottom, the pipeline is a critical education issue. In 1970 there 

were 1.7 million students suspended per year in American schools. That figure doubled to 3.8 million 

annual suspensions in 2009. We at Project NIA believe that it is not student behavior that has changed 

but rather our responses to that behavior. This means that we can intervene and that this pipeline can 

be dismantled. 

The subjective nature of school discipline and punishment lends itself to inequity. When looking at 

suspension reports, words like disruptive and disobedient are often examples of behavior that lead to 

suspension. However, disobedience is truly in the eye of the beholder and the existence of racism 

means that young black boys in particular find themselves most often punished for this type of behavior. 

We must target and eliminate such inequities within our educational system but also in society at large. 
600 

The School to Prison Pipeline in Chicago: A Fact Sheet 

Suspensions and Expulsions in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) 

Research suggests that students who have been suspended are three times more likely to drop out by 

the 10th grade than their peers who have never been suspended. 7 Data obtained from the Illinois State 

Board rijEducation (lSBE) through a Freedom ofInformation Act (FOrA) request suggests that CPS 

administered 17,020 in-school suspensions, 40,662 out-of-school suspensions and 217 expulsions in the 

201(}-2011 academic year. Specific demographic information (race, gender) about these suspensions and 

expulsions was not available at the time of the request. However, based on past data, black male 

students are likely to be disproportionately targeted by CPS suspensions and expulsions. 

Total Numbers o[Chicago Public School Students Suspended [5 Expelled (51010-5101 1) 

In-School Out-of-School Expulsions TOTAL 

Suspensions Suspensions 

Elementary School 4,950 18,878 59 23,887 

(pre-k-8,h grade) 

High School 12,070 21,784 158 34,012 

TOTAL 17,020 40,662 217 57,899 

Dropouts/Pushouts 

Based on data from the 2009 and 2010 American Community Survey, among 19- to 24-year-olds in the 

City of Chicagos: 

-Nearly 42,000 or IS percent do not have a regular high school diploma.' The share of youth in the city 

of Chicago without a regular high school diploma (15%) was higher than that of the remainder of the 

Chicago Metro area (9.7°;!,), state of Illinois (11.5%), and the entire U.S. (13.7%). 

-19 percent of males did not have a regular high school diploma while 10 percent offemales didn't have 

a high school diploma. Male youth in the city were nearly two times more likely to be dropouts than 

their female peers. 

-30 percent of Hispanic males did not have a regular high school diploma 

-27 percent of African American males did not have a regular high school diploma 

-Only 4 percent of White, non-Hispanic males did not have a regular high school diploma. 

7 Goertz, M.E., Pollack, J.M. & Rock, D.A. (1996). Who drops out of high school and why?: Findings from a national 

study. Teachers College Record, 87, 357·73, available at www.tcrecord.org(Content.asp?Contentld=688. 

8 Sum, Andrew et. al. (November 2011). "High School Dropouts in Chicago and Illinois: The Growing Labor Market, 

Income, Civic, Social and Fiscal Costs of Dropping Out of High School. Center for Labor Market Studies, 

Northeastern University. 

9 These are conservative estimates of the number of high school dropouts. The American Community Survey tends 

to have below average coverage rates for low income households and respondents are known to sometimes 

exaggerate their educational credentials. 
601 

Juvenile Arrests in Chicago 

In 2010, there were 27,563 total juvenile arrests (youth 17 and under) in Chicago. to While African 

American youth represent 33.7% of young people between 5 and 17 years old in Chicago, they represent 

76% of juvenile arrests (20,930) in the city in 2010. This is compared to Latino youth who account for 

32.8% of youth in Chicago and represent 19.6% (5,418) of all juvenile arrests. White comprised 11.7% of 

youth ages 5 to 17 in Chicago and accounted for 3.3% (936) of juvenile arrests.' I 

In 2010, there were 5, 574 juvenile arrest of youth 17 and under on Chicago Public School (CPS) 

property. Ifwe include those between 18 and 20 years old, the number increases to over 6,100 arrests. 

Black youth are disproportionately targeted by these school-based arrests. While they represent 45% of 

CPS students, black youth account for 74% percent of juvenile school-based arrests. This mirrors 

the general trend of disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile legal system. For example, 

while they comprise only 34% of youth ages 5 to 17 in the city of Chicago, African American youth 

accounted for 76% of citywide juvenile arrests (youth 17 and under) in 2010.'2 

Incarceration Rates and Dropouts" 

In Illinois, dropouts accounted for 51 % of the incarcerated population between the ages of 18 and 34 in 

2010. In that year, 10% of native-born high school dropouts (IS-34) in Illinois were in jail or prison, an 

incarceration rate that was 2 percentage points above the U.s. average (8.0%). 

A native born male high school dropout (IS-34 years old) was 5 times more likely to be incarcerated 

than a native-born male with a high school diploma and nearly 30 times more likely to be in jail or 

prison as a native-born male with an Associate's degree. 

Among IS to 34-year-old males in Illinois, 14.7 percent of high school dropouts were incarcerated in 

2010, while only 3 percent of male high school graduates (with no completed years of postsecondary 

schooling) spent time behind bars (in jailor prison). 

The incarceration rates of young adult dropouts varied widely across gender and race-ethnic groups. 

Male dropouts in Illinois and the U.S. are much more likely to be incarcerated than their female peers. 

The incarceration rate of native-born 18 to 34 year old male dropouts in Illinois was 15%, compared to E 

rate of under 2% for native born female dropouts in this age group. 

Black male dropouts in Illinois had by far the highest incarceration rate among the three major raceethnic groups. Nearly 29% of IS to 34 year old, Black male dropouts in Illinois were incarcerated in 

2010. Incarceration rates of Black males fell sharply with their educational attainment, declining to 

under 8% for high school graduates and only 2% for Associate degree holders. Native-born Hispanic 

male dropouts (6.6%) in Illinois had a similar incarceration rate as native-born \Vhite male dropouts 

(6.5%). 

10 Patterson, Caitlin and Kaba, Mariame (2011). Arresting Justice: A Report about Juvenile Arrests in Chicago, 2009 

& 2010. http://arrestjustice.wordpress.com/ 

"Ibid. 

12 Kaba, Mariame and Edwards, Frank (2012) .Policing Chicago Public Schools. http://policeincps.com 

13 Sum et al. (November 2011) 
602 

December 12,2012 

Chairman Dick Durbin 

Senator Lindsey Graham 

Senator Patrick 1. Leahy 

Senator Jon Kyl 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 

Senator John Cornyn 

Senator Al Franken 

Senator Michael S. Lee 

Senator Christopher A. Coons 

Senator Tom Coburn 

Senator Richard Blumenthal 

u.s. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

LAW 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

C E N T E R 

RE: Senate .Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing Record Statement 

Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Subcommittee Senators and Chairman Durbin: 

Public Coullsel and CADRE, close partners in defending a student's human right to dignity in 

their educatiOIl and a parent's right to participation in their child's education as part of the larger 

Dignity in Schools Campaign to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline, submit a record 

statement for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on ending the school-tll-prison pipeline 

(STTP). 

Public Counsel is the public interest law office of the Los Angeles County and Beverly Hills Bar 

Associations and the Southcm Califomia affiliate of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 

Under Law. Established in 1970. Public Counsel is dedicated to advancing equal justice under 

law by delivering free legal and social services to indigent and underrepresented children. adults 

and families throughout Los Angeles County. Each year, Public Counsel's Children's Rights 

Project provides representation and advocacy to more than 6,000 of the most vulnerable children 

in Los Angeles County. 
603 

Community Asset Development Redefining Education (CADRE) is a grassroots, non-profit 

organization made up of and led by African American and Latino parents/caregivers whose 

children attend local schools in Los Angeles. Through the lens of human rights, CADRE parents 

organize other parents to help dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline by holding the local school 

district accountable to provide a quality education to students no matter what neighborhood they 

live in. Since its 2001 inception, CADRE has sustained an emerging base of several hundred 

members while training low-income parents of color to be advocates for their child's education. 

Being solution oriented, CADRE supported the adoption of school wide positive behavior and 

intervention supports (SWPBIS) in LAUSD to at least address discipline practices that lead to the 

criminalization of teenage behaviors and putting students on the school-to-prison track. 

Public Counsel, CADRE and allies throughout the state and country are working to deter the 

criminalization of school related conduct because it is an exclusionary form of discipline that 

alienates students and families. From our extenSive work with at-risk.youth, we have seen that 

students who face heavy handed school discipline are not only at a higher risk of entering the 

juvenile justice system, but also tend to face obstacles to academic achievement related to their 

special education needs and their social, emotional and physical health. 

Given the complexity of this problem and the variance in circumstances for individual students 

and families, dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline requires a multi-disciplinary approach that 

is supported by schools, parents and community groups. The same schools, parents and 

community groups are instrumental to understanding the root of the problem; each entity offers a 

unique experience and understanding of school discipline criminalization. 

FINDINGS 

School-Based Arrests and Citations 

Public Counsel, CADRE, and partners in the Los Angeles Chapter of the Dignity in Schools 

Campaign are working to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline (STTP) both through 

implementation of positive alternatives to punitive discipline and through creating meaningful 

diversion for inappropriate school-based arrests and citations. From 2009 through 2011, Los 

Angeles School Police Department (LASPD) issued 33,845 citations to people 19 years old and 

younger. l During that time, students as young as seven years old received citations and 

approximately 24% of all citations were given to middle school students. Of citations given, 23% 

of them were for "Disturbing the Peace." Although African American students make up just 

fewer than 10% ofthe student population in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), they 

received approximately 18% of all citations issued. Our organizations are concerned about the 

high number of citations issued in LAUSD and the criminalization of student disciplinary issues. 

Equally troubling are the number of arrests that LASPD Officers make each year. In 20 I 0, there 

were 1,773 arrests and in 2011 there were 1,807 arrests; in each ofthose years respectively battery 

arrests made up 16% and 22% of arrests.2 It is crucial to highlight the significant number of 

arrests for batteries because a wide range of behavior can constitute a battery. A school-yard 

scuffle where no one is seriously injured is now landing 12 and 13 year old students in 

1 All data received from the Los Angeles School Police Department through a Public Records Act Request. 

2 All data received from the Los Angeles School Police Department through a Public Records Act Request. 
604 

delinquency court. Additionally, there is racial disproportionality in the breakdown of offenses: 

batteries made up 61.7% of the arrests of African American young people whereas for White 

students batteries were only 45.7% of their arrests. In LAUSD, there were over 54 schools where 

more than 10 arrests occurred in a given year. 

School discipline cannot be examined separately from school-based arrests and citations. An 

individual school in Los Angeles may have reduced their out of school suspensions to zero, but 

LASPD Officers might have issued a significant number of citations to students at the same 

school. In fact, below you will hear from a CADRE parent whose son attended this very kind of 

schoo!. If we are most concerned about transforming the cultures of our schools so that students 

and families feel welcomed and safe, we must look at the comprehensive indicators of school 

climate, culture and discipline; this must include the tactics that criminalize students and feed 

them into the juvenile justice system. 

School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports Implementation in Los Angeles 

In 2007, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) passed a comprehensive Discipline 

Foundation Policy rooted in School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports 

(SWPBIS). CADRE parents led the charge to pass the policy and have worked diligently, with the 

support of Public Counsel, to monitor its implementation in South LA schools. In November, 

2012, CADRE and Public Counsel worked together to compile and analyze data on overly harsh 

school discipline. The involvement of CADRE parents was essential because they were able to 

give meaning to school discipline data and SWPBIS documents collected through Public Records 

Act Requests. The CADRE parents have spent long hours working and observing in the schools 

of South Los Angeles and their testimony provides an important "on the ground" perspective. 

Notably, this perspective emphasizes the inability of data alone to define the school-to-prison 

pipeline and the necessity of implementation and close monitoring after broad policy decisions. 

CADRE organizes parents in South Los Angeles, and having clear lens on discipline issues in 

these schools is crucial because they are extremely under-resourced and they have some of the 

starkest examples of disproportionality in school discipline practices. Addressing racial 

disproportionality in these schools would significantly impact the entire district. The data 

analyzed represents many different facets of the school discipline system, including: interventions 

and counseling, parent involvement, interpretation for non-English speaking parents, school 

analysis of discipline data, and suspensions. Each of these factors is important in preventing 

students from entering the school-to-prison pipeline, each has a role in SWPBIS implementation. 

CADRE and Public Counsel are committed to implementing SWPBIS in South Los Angeles 

schools because meaningful and positive school discipline practices can divert students away 

from the pipeline by identifying and helping students with behavior issues rather than resorting to 

exclusionary discipline practices such as repeat class removals, suspension, expulsion, and 

ultimately incarceration. SWPBIS can lead schools away from non-school duties, like law 

enforcement, and towards the main purpose of schools, educating students. 

One of the elements of SWPBIS is tiered interventions for misbehaving students. Eventually, 

each school will provide effective intervention by identifying at-risk students, matching student 

needs to the appropriate resources, and using appropriate consequences. Review of school-site 

tiered interventions is crucial to the monitoring of positive behavior support implementation 
605 

because where a school has decreased their number of out of school suspensions, local education 

service center staff should be doing monitoring visits to ensure suspensions have been replaced 

with positive tiered interventions. Of the 67 schools that submitted documentation, 24 schools 

provided clear evidence of interventions at their school site; thus only 35% of schools who 

responded to our request had clear evidence of interventions. 

Collection and analysis of discipline data is another element schools must consider when 

approaching discipline issues. School administrators should establish methods of recording and 

collecting discipline data, with this information school staff can better evaluate and implement 

discipline policies so that students are benefitted. Our organizations graded each school surveyed 

on discipline data collection practices. Schools received A's and 8's where they had a large body 

of documentary evidence showing regular monthly meetings, review of discipline data at those 

meetings, and clear action steps to address patterns of disciplinary incidents. Schools assigned F 

grades do not have any evidence of collection or use of discipline data. 11 % of schools graded 

received A's or 8's in the discipline data category; 52% received F's. Schools cannot 

appropriately target support for behavioral interventions if they do not understand their school 

discipline issues; review of data is a key to that understanding. 

Parent involvement is also a very important part of correcting students' behavior before turning to 

exclusionary discipline, such as expulsion and incarceration. Closely linked to parent 

involvement are interpretation services, as parents who cannot communicate with school staff 

have difficulty understanding how to assist in correcting their child's misbehavior. Schools with 

documentation that parents were consistently included in positive behavior support team meetings 

and that updates on positive behavior support implementation activities were regularly shared 

with the parent community received an A or 8 grade for parent involvement. Schools assigned F 

grades do not have any evidence of any parent involvement on the behavior support team. 18% 

of schools received A's or 8's in the parent involvement category, while 46% received F's. Only 

22% of the schools surveyed provided consistent interpretation services to concerned parents, a 

majority (53%) did not offer any interpretation services. 

Unsurprisingly, many of the schools with poor positive behavior support also had high 

suspensions data and rates. Suspension rates are indicative of a school's use of exclusionary 

discipline and suspension can represent one of a student's first steps away from school towards 

prison. For each of the last four school years, students at schools in South L.A. endured a 

substantially higher suspension rate. In the 2011-2012 school year, South L.A. schools' 

suspension rate was 4.8% while that of LAUSD as a whole was only 2.8%, making the 

suspension rate in South L.A. 71.4% higher than that of the District. This gap was the highest of 

the last four school years despite the decrease in suspensions over time in both regions and 

apparent improvement in suspension numbers as to both. 

The South L.A. region is challenged by racial disparities in suspension in addition to the overall 

disparate suspension rates. For each year data was collected, African-American students across 

LAUSD were suspended at a rate extremely disproportionate to their enrollment. In 2011-2012, 

9.5% of LAUSD students were African-American, but African-Americans made up almost 30% 

of all suspensions. The South Los Angeles region is important because a large portion of 

LAUSD's African-American students attend school in South L.A.; LAUSD's African-American 
606 

enrollment hovers around 10%, in South Los Angeles that number is closer to 20%. If AfricanAmerican students cannot be assured equal treatment in areas of high African-American 

concentration, then they cannot be assured equal treatment in any location. 

Over the last three school years, nine schools in South L.A. consistently had the worst suspension 

data. Review of the collected discipline data shows that suspensions are concentrated in these top 

suspending schools that also have some of the worst African-American disproportionality; intense 

support to these schools would address some of the most serious issues of disproportionality. A 

middle school that had the most suspensions in the region surveyed suspended 2,173 students 

between September, 2009 and June, 2012. That school's staff issued 960 suspensions during the 

2009-2010 school year, their total enrollment for that year was only 1,468 students. If each 

suspension was charged to a different student, then the school would have suspended 65.4% of 

the entire student body in one school year. The overall suspension rate dropped to 46% in 20 I 0-

2011, but climbed back to 60.3% (652 suspensions) in 2011-2012. Of the 652 suspensions issued 

in 2011-2012, 29.6% (193 suspensions), cited "willful defiance" as the reason for the suspension. 

More alarming are the rates of African-American suspension at this middle school. AfricanAmerican students have accounted for 60% to 65% of all suspensions at the school for the last 

three school years. For the 2009-2010 school year, the school had 461 African-American 

students, but suspended African-Americans on 618 occasions for a suspension rate of over 100%. 

The rate fell slightly to 89.6% in 2010, but the suspension rate of African-Americans was again 

over 100% for the 20ll-20l2 school year. 

The data cited above, while helpful, cannot completely summarize the problems facing schools in 

South Los Angeles. School parent and volunteer testimony and experiences are necessary to 

complete our understanding of school discipline, without such information the school-to-prison 

pipeline will be hard to break. 

PARENT TESTIMONY 

While CADRE and Public Counsel have been encouraged by the decreases in suspensions overall 

and in South L.A. during the last four years, more recent anecdotal reports from parents and 

clients have raised concerns that schools are cooking the books. Instead of reforming practices 

and implementing positive behavior support systems, they may be removing students from school 

and class without providing documentation or appropriate due process. 

CADRE, through its organizing work, and Public Counsel, through direct representation of 

students, have collected several stories of illegal suspensions, both in and out of school, along 

with stories of illegal classroom removals. Several core parents of CADRE are regular volunteers 

at their children's school, some of them volunteering an average of three to four days a week. 

These parents have observed students, for periods of over several hours at a time, sitting in the 

office or doing campus clean-up in lieu of being in class. Often, over a week's period, it is the 

same small group of students. Our organizations understand that elementary school teachers can 

suspend students from their classroom for the remainder of the day, but even so, such removals 

must be documented and the parent notified. 
607 

A CADRE parent and Public Counsel client shared her daughter's experiences with illegal 

classroom removals during the 2011-2012 school year. The student struggles in academic areas 

and has faced several different types of inappropriate discipline. The student was made to sit in a 

chair facing the wall during her English class. This punishment was issued to a recurring group 

of students and occurred for every English class period for weeks at a time. Other punishments 

were also illegally employed, such as detention. The detentions were always issued by the same 

teacher, often without reason, the teacher would send the student to detention before the student 

would even enter that teacher's classroom. Here, Public Counsel's client tells of the detentions in 

her own words: 

"In addition to this classroom punishment, my daughter also spent several 

periods at a time in detention in a book storage room. These detentions began 

after students returned from spring break and continued until the end of the 

school year. During these detentions, my daughter received no instruction or 

academic help and was not allowed to complete school workfrom classes she was 

enrolled in. Additionally, she could not collect work from the class periods 

missed when she was in detention. There were teachers and other students in the 

detention room, but no interaction was allowed. I was never informed of these 

class removals by school staff, I discovered them when asking my daughter about 

her lack of homework. She explained to me that she could not get the homework 

because she had been in detention when the work was assigned. " 

Other parents shared similar experiences; a core CADRE parent also had problems getting school 

staff to approach her son's problems compassionately. Many of the problems stemmed from the 

school staffs failure to communicate with the student's mother despite the fact that the parent 

spent four days a week at the school. School administrators would only contact the parent until 

four or five incidents involving the student had taken place. The student faced repeated and 

consecutive classroom removals like the student described above. The CADRE parent's son also 

had problems with over-zealous policing at school. The school issued zero suspensions in the 

2011-2012 school year, but LASPD Officers issued multiple citations to students. The parent 

describes some of the difficulties with discipline issues below: 

"In December 2011, the School Police gave my son a citation claiming that he 

had tried to fight with another student. I asked the school for services, counseling 

or something else that would help my son resolve these issues. When I asked this 

of the school, they just responded, 'We don't have those kinds of services. You 

have to lookfor those services outside of school.' The School Police also gave my 

son a ticket in February, 2012 because some students said he was going to fight 

with another student. The School Police officer asked my son if he was going to 

fight another student. My son did not plan on fighting any other students, but he 

didn't want to talk to the officer, so he told him 'I don't want to speak with you. ' 

The officer gave him a citation for refusing to speak with him, but described the 

alleged violation as fighting. I know that my son used to have problems, but I 

also know that Edison Middle School treated my son like he couldn't change his 

behavior, like these was no solution to these challenges. " 
608 

Another Public Counsel client faced similar challenges in receiving meaningful behavior support 

from her eight year old son's school. The client's son receives special education services and the 

client had hoped for increased behavior support for her son. Unfortunately, the student's parent 

was called almost every other day and was instructed to come pick her son up from school. The 

school used these illegal suspensions instead of using positive interventions that would include 

the student in classroom activities. Below, the parent tells of her son's experiences in being 

removed from class and school: 

"My son did not receive any out of school suspensions, but I was continually 

called to pick him up from school. In total, my son missed over three weeks of 

instruction just in his second grade year because of these removals. They just 

kept calling me to pick him up and kept him from attending school. My son was 

always very sad and frustrated when I picked him up at school, he folt singled out 

and stopped wanting to go to school. I wanted to work with.my son's school, but I 

felt like they had already given up on him. Every time the school had me pick him 

up, I felt like they were telling me my son did not have the same rights as other 

students. " 

These parents repeatedly asked the school for help and the school would answer with sending the 

student home, but without a documented suspension. For many students, there are unexplained 

absences where the student was sitting in the office or a detention room and not receiving 

instruction. These human rights violations cannot be tolerated in our schools. 

You do not have to spend a lot of time in our schools to see the stark disparity in student 

treatment across the district. We believe school discipline practices are at the center of 

dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline because they signal the status of relationships in a 

school: is this a school where students are treated like valuable human beings who have a 

complex set of feelings and circumstances? Or is this a school where punishment is given and no 

questions are asked about how a student is doing or why they acted the way they did? We have 

never thought this transfonnation would be easy, but every day the lives of children are at stake. 

As part of a broader coalition to create state-wide solutions to these issues, Public Counsel and 

CADRE helped to secure the victory of five progressive school discipline bills in California. 

Those bills include: AB 1729 which requires that other means of correction be used prior to "inschool suspension"; AB 1909 which ensures that social workers and attorneys who represent a 

foster youth are infonned of pending school discipline hearings and decisions; AB 2537 which 

gives additional discretion to administrators to not expel in certain circumstances; AB 2616 which 

aligns truancy laws with best practices by giving school districts more discretion in detennining 

whether a pupil is truant; and SB 1088 which facilitates the speedy reenrollment of youth who 

have had contact with the juvenile justice system. 

CADRE and Public Counsel, on behalf of all the parents and students we work with, respectfully 

submit this testimony. We, along with countless others, have laid out many of these facts and 

stories for the past fifteen years in order to bring attention to a decades-old school-to-prison 

pipeline. We do believe that the data and these stories have finally made their way into the 

national consciousness, as evidenced by today's historic Subcommittee hearing. We urge the 
609 

Subcommittee to elevate this issue to a national urgency worthy of strenuous debate and serious 

consideration within national policy. State to state, the school-to-prison pipeline is causing the 

bottoms to fall out of our most vulnerable communities, undermining any chance we might have 

at stability and progress. It will both cost and shape us for decades to come if we do not marshal 

resources and leadership to ensure that. in seeking to be a global leader in education. the United 

States does not simultaneously lead in the false promise of the civil and human rights to dignity 

and a quality education. 

Sincerely. 

Maisie Chin 

Executive Director 

CADRE 

Laura Faer 

Education Rights Director 

Public Counsel 

Associate Director of Organizing 

CADRE 

Ruth Cusick 

Staff Attorney 

Public Counsel 

Roslyn Broadnax 

Core Parent Leader 

CADRE 
610 

Closing the School to Prison Pipeline 

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing on the topic of closing the School to Prison 

Pipeline. Closing this Pipeline is of critical importance to the future of communities and to our nation's 

welfare, so we thank Senator Durbin for the invitation to submit testimony. 

I am Cynthia Robbins I, an independent consultant and co-leader of the Racial Justice Initiative of 

TimeBanks USA2 (TBUSA). We formally launched the Racial Justice Initiative (RJI or the Initiative) in 

2009, with the RJI's first Colloquium in Madison, WI. There, the Initiative, collected input for its seminal 

law review article, An Offer They Can't Refose: Deliberate Indifference Meets Juvenile Justice 

Alternatives that Work, 3 (hereafter as the Article or "An Offer"). The Article sets forth the RJI's evolving 

social action and legal advocacy strategy to challenge policies that disproportionately push young people 

of color out of schools and into the delinquency system. RH's novel strategy is designed to challenge 

structural racism in the school discipline, delinquency and other public systems by creating a platform to 

advocate for the use of proven alternatives to improve these systems. The Racial Justice Initiative offers 

the Public Documentation Forum4 as a critical tool in closing the "School to Prison Pipeline". 

Juveniles of color are more likely than their white counterparts to be harshly disciplined in school, 

suspended or expelled, arrested, referred to juvenile court rather than to diversion programs, charged, 

waived to adult court, detained pre-trial and locked up at disposition. There is ample documentation of 

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in the juvenile delinquency process and disproportionate 

1 Cynthia Robbins is an Independent Consultant with a focus on Organizational Development, Philanthropy, Education and 

Racial Justice. Robbins Co-Founded and Co-Leads RJT~ Fonner Executive Director, See Forever/Maya Angelou School; Fonner 

Staff Attorney and then Board Chair, District of Columbia Public Defender Service, Fonner Senior Program Officer, Eugene and 

Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, Founding Director, Public Counsel's Urban Recovery Lega1 Assistance; Board Member, Phelps 

Stokes Fund, Co-Founder East Palo Alto Community Law Project; Stanford Law School, JD; Harvard Univen;ity, AB 

(Crobdc0'gmail com) 

2 TimeBanks USA ("TBUSA") has been building a movement to refonn economic and social systems, policies and practices so 

that they empower peopJe to create the type of communities they want and need. With affiliates in more than 35 states and over 

30 countries, this nimble ""think and do" tank has served as a catalyst for innovations. One is DC's Time Dollar Youth Court, 

which diverts 60-70% of non-violent youth offenses from the Courts back to the community through a peer-governed jury 

process, young people restore justice. See ""\ow. TimeDanks.org. 

3 See An Offer They Can't Refuse: Racial Disparity in Juvenile Justice and Deliberate Indifference Meet Alternatives that Work, 

Edgar Cabn & Cynthia Robbins, 13 UDCIDCSL L. Rev. 71 (2010). An electronic copy of the article is available at 

http://ww\\l.racialjusticeinitiative.org/Vo,'P-contentiuploads/20 I 0/111 Article-An-Offer-Thev-Cant-Refuse-20 J O.pdt: Also see: 

www.RacialJusticelnitiative.org. 

4 The Public Documentation Forum is also called a Public Notice Hearing and it is a process developed and 

described in the law review article "An Offer" see footnote 3. 

(~()lbUh:'H1L ofR.!!. (20.2)5--10-0T70. CRobDC@gmail.com: 

~l1ld Chair. ~-\, C,-IM LL'3dcr of RJ! Yeswecan@aoLcom, (202, 262-! 176: and 

\',0ci:llC. R.II. (202) 686-52(1(l. e\t.ll)~. Nick@timebanks.org 
611 

exclusionary school discipline in schools across this nation. There is also a substantial body of knowledge 

about ways to reduce and even eliminate DMC, suspension and expulsion. Nonetheless these processes 

that push children out of school persist. 

We launched the RJI to address the virtually insurmountable barrier to judicial relief for challenges 

stemming from the systematic practices and policies of governmental agencies--even despite 

indisputably disproportionate effect. Heretofore, the legal requirement set forth in Washington v. Davis, 

426 U.S. 229 (1976), has required injured parties to prove discriminatory intent when bringing a civil 

rights case under 42 USC § 1983. 

The Article, An Offer, proposes a new way to meet this intent requirement, utilizing the test supplied in 

City of Canton v Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989). City of Canton says that intent can be inferred when 

government policymakers decide among alternatives to follow an injurious course of action, 

demonstrating a "deliberate indifference" to rights protected by the United States Constitution and federal 

laws. An Offor contends that failure to use knowledge about demonstrably effective and cheaper 

alternatives that reduce or eliminate DMC or exclusionary school discipline constitutes "deliberate 

indifference" and, therefore, gives rise to liability under 42 USC § 1983. When official decision-makers 

have had formal notice of racial disparity and alternatives that are less costly and more effective, we 

contend that the failure to use these alternatives represents "intentional disregard" of injury to the 

fundamental constitutional rights of youth of color in the school discipline and juvenile delinquency 

systems. 

This Article summarizes the legal argument and precedent, provides a brief overview about a strategy to 

reduce or eliminate DMC, and to limit the over-reliance on exclusionary school discipline. Instead, RJI 

advocates the use of proven strategies for keeping children out of the School to Prison Pipeline while 

improving school attendance and school climate, through: PBIS (Positive Behaviors, Interventions and 

Supports), social and emotional learning, restorative justice and peer engagement. These alternatives are 

more effective and less expensive in the short and long term than the failing and racially disproportionate 

exclusionary school discipline practices such as suspension and expUlsion. This hearing offers a great 

context to review what we know works and to lift up these alternatives to keep children out of the 

Pipeline. 

For the past two years, the RJI has been focusing on shutting down the School to Prison Pipeline by 

promoting more progressive school discipline policies. We target the over-reliance on punitive, 

exclusionary school discipline such as suspension and expUlsion, and the disproportionate rate at which 

young people of color and those with disabilities are pushed out of school. Extended absences from class 

and school make it virtually impossible for students to re-engage and graduate. 

The RJI engages affected students and their families, along with advocates, experts and public officials in 

Public Documentation Forums (PDF), also called Public Notice Hearings. These forums are designed 

to document evidence about the injury of present practices and the availability of more effective 

alternatives. Sharing this information publicly promotes accountability for doing what we know works. 

Once officials are informed about the existence of more effective, less expensive, less discriminatory 

alternatives to exclusionary school discipline practices, failure to adopt those alternatives may trigger a 

legal mandate to compel the use of knowledge about effective strategies, policies and practices. 

The Public Notice Hearing is designed to confront officials with the explicit choice to use or fail to use 

effective alternatives to delinquency system engagement. Public Notice Hearings engage advocates, 

concerned civic, legislative,judicial and other leaders, along with affected youth and families in 

presenting the extensive body ofknowledge that has emerged over the past twenty to thirty years that 

would save scarce public resources, reduce DMC, and mitigate one of its most injurious manifestations: 

Contact Information: 

( )nthia Robbins. Esq.. (',lINdtant C(,· Leader t,rRII. (:;O:;,lo40-0nO. CRobDC@gmail com: 

Edgar Cahn, Phil . .lD. rand ('hair. Tl3lrS. \. Co· Leader "f R.II Yeswecan@aol.com. (202) 262·1176: and 

"icholas Clark. Es,!" ,\5,,)ciaie. 1<.11. (1(12) 686·5200. e'l.l()~. Nick@timebanksorg 
612 

the pipeline channeling young people of color from schools into the juvenile delinquency system. We 

contend that officials have an obligation to make use of knowledge of alternatives since existing practices 

have a disproportionately injurious impact on youth of color. We see the Public Notice Hearing as a tool 

to compel the adoption of known more effective, less expensive, non-discriminatory practices. 

The Article describes two highly successful alternatives to delinquency system engagement, Time Dollar 

Youth Court and the Youth Advocacy Programs, which are both far more effective at reducing recidivism 

and increasing public safety at a fraction of the cost of system engagement and incarceration. The strategy 

is a tool to advocate use of these and other effective programs that will keep our young people in our 

communities, attending school and out of the delinquency system. 

As part of the preparation for a Public Documentation Forum, the RJI team engages in extensive research 

and analysis of the targeted jurisdiction. We review local statutes, regulations, policies and practices; 

perform statistical analysis of the number of youth within the school systems and jurisdiction; determine 

the percentages referred from key public systems (e.g., law enforcement, schools); and investigate the 

number and quality of alternatives to system engagement programs currently available and easily 

replicable from locally and nationally known models. The RJI is excited to learn about community-based 

alternatives from a host of people including families, educators, advocates, experts and officials. 

Wby is tbe Racial Justice Initiative Focusing on DC? 

We're conducting Public Documentation Forum Process in DC because we live here. Our community is 

also uniquely well positioned to succeed, due to the intensified efforts of DC Public Schools and the DC 

Public Charter School Board to secure the data required to track and address the over-reliance on 

exclusionary school discipline practices in traditional and charter public schools. In addition, there is an 

engaged accountability circle ready to use this strategy to challenge, inform and improve the decisionmaking practices at different stages of the school discipline process. We seek commitments from 

community leaders to participate as witnesses and conveners. We hope to be part of the solution by 

gathering information about local and national successful discipline strategies and the resources that may 

be accessed by schools to improve classroom management, convert student misbehavior into teachable 

moments and to adopt techniques to create a culture of achievement and learning in public schools. When 

we focus on keeping children in school and on task:, the conversation can tum to a different agenda that 

involves all of the stakeholders capable of achieving the goals of getting students to attend school ready to 

learn - every child, every day. We do better where school teachers and administrators join with students 

and families in considering all of the ways to improve students' focus on coming to school, being in 

school and achieving successful educational outcomes. 

Contact Information: 

Cynthia Rohhin>. Esq .. independent C"n<uItan!. Co- Leaderc,fRJI. (2(12)5·10·()770. CRobDC@gmai1.com: 

Ed~ar Cahn, PhD .• ID, ['OLIndeI' and Cheir. TBL'S.\. CO· Le:tder ofRJI Yeswecan@aoLcom.12021262.1 i 76: and 

'Iicholas Clark. Esq ... "",)eime. RJI. (l02) (,86-3200, ,·,1.1(1-1. Nick@timebanks.org 
613 

Realigning State Resources: 

Redeploy Illinois Shifts Limited State Resources to Community 

Alternatives 

Redeploy Illinois Savings Pass $40 Million as Counties Decrease 

Commitments to State Juvenile Correctional Facilities 

Truants and Youth Suspensions/Expulsions Successfully Redirected 

to Appropriate Advocacy and Services in One Redeploy County 

Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

VVednesday, Dec. 12,2012 

We are grateful to Senator Durbin and the fellow members of the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, for this 

opportunity to present written testimony on the impact of ending the school to 

prison pipeline in the United States, with specific information on the impact of one 

community-based "last resort" alternative program in Illinois. 

Redeploy Illinois was launched in 2004 as part of an effort to reduce reliance on 

juvenile incarceration. At the time, Illinois youth facilities held over 1,500 youth, 

and projections estimated an increase to over 2,000. The fiscal incentives favored 

state funded juvenile incarceration, rather than locally funded community based 

alternatives. Redeploy Illinois was an attempt to shift the fiscal incentives to 

community-based alternatives, rather than state funded incarceration. 

Redeploy Illinois allocated funds to counties, or groups of counties, to develop local 

alternatives to reduce their commitment to state juvenile correctional facilities by 

25%, compared to the previous three-year average. The initial state investment in 

Redeploy was $2 million - and today it is just under $3 million. 

The modest Redeploy Illinois investment has paid off. The 28 counties participating 

in Redeploy have achieved an average 51 % reduction in commitments to state 

juvenile correctional facilities. 

Cost Savings Significant: The annual appropriation for Redeploy Illinois is $2.4 

million, and the savings to state taxpayers has been significant. By averting 
614 

commitments of a projected 883 youth in Redeploy counties, there has been a 

potential $40 million in incarceration cost avoidance, according to the latest annual 

report on the outcomes of Redeploy IIIinois.1 

"The cost savings are dramatic but just as important is the success of the young 

people participating in Redeploy Illinois," said Michelle RB. Saddler, Secretary of the 

!DHS. "Not only are real dollars being saved, so are real lives. Community-based 

services for justice-involved youth are considerably less expensive and vastly more 

effective than incarceration, and that saves tax dollars and enhances public safety." 

Redeploy Programs Reduce Repeat Offending: Preliminary results of a costeffectiveness study of the four original Redeploy Illinois sites point to a 14.2 percent 

reincarceration rate for Redeploy Illinois participants, and that compares with a 

57.4 percent reincarceration rate among non-participants. Even youth who began 

but did not successfully complete Redeploy had a lower rate of re-arrest and 

incarcerations than juvenile justice-involved youth not in Redeploy in the same 

counties, according to early analysis of the research. 

"We've had plenty of anecdotal evidence about the positive impact of mental health, 

drug treatment and educational services provided to youth in their home 

communities, and these findings by independent researchers add to the evidence 

about the wisdom of this rehabilitative approach," said George W. Timberlake, who 

is Chair of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission and is a member of the lIIinois 

Models for Change Coordinating Council. 

Redeploy Services Include Educational Services for Youth with Truancy and 

School SuspenSion/Expulsion Issues: 

Counties agreeing to participate in Redeploy Illinois agree to reduce commitments 

to !Dn by 25 percent. In exchange, the state provides funding to develop or expand 

local alternatives designed by local officials to meet the needs of delinquent youth in 

their communities, who are screened and assessed by probation staff prior to 

admission to the program. Services include educational assistance. The Redeploy 

Illinois evaluator reports the educational assistance has been successful: 

From FY2005 through FY2010, 224 youth were offered educational 

assistance (tutoring and GED services) based on risk and needs assessments. 

Of the 224 youth, 157 (70.1 %) were successfully completed the specific 

educational requirement; 8 (3.6%) were considered neutral; 35 (15.6%) 

were considered unsuccessful because parents or youth refusal to participate 

or youth did not complete the requirements; and 24 (10.7%) were 

unsuccessful and committed to !DH. At the end of the Redeploy Illinois 

1 2010-2011 Redeploy Illinois Annual Report 

http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=61715 
615 

Program. only 3 of the 157 youth who were considered successful in the 

educational assistance-related programs were charged with new offenses. 

In addition to tutoring services, 24 youth referred to employment and/or 

vocational skill training and 15 youth were referred to alternate schools. Of 

those youth who were given vocational skill training (n=24), 21 (80.1 %) 

successfully completed the program, while 3 were considered neutral 

discharge and 1 youth was considered unsuccessful. Of the youth sent to 

alternate school (n=15) 12 (80%) were successful, and only 1 youth was 

committed to IDJJ. 

Parents overwhelmingly were pleased with the Redeploy lllinois 

program. All respondents said that they would choose the RI program for 

their child, felt it provided positive results for their family, and wanted to see 

the program continued. Common themes included happier children, 

improved anger management and coping skills, and increased 

communication skills. Parents also talked about the RI program providing 

increased opportunities over regular probation, especially educational 

opportunities, "He doesn't run away anymore. He makes all A's in class. I 

think we are a lot closer now. We can actually talk now instead of argue. We 

can talk with each other instead of talking at each other." Likewise, one 

parent explained: "They even help him with his homework. If he's having 

problems with anything, he's going to help him do it faster for college so they 

help out with anything that you need." 

Parents most commonly praised the educational support and 

mentoring as the most effective part of the RI program: "He's graduating 

early. Graduating a whole year early." 

In addition, parents praised the mentoring portion of the program, 

especially in relation to providing transportation and reminders. "They 

helped out courts date and stuff. Pick us up from work and drop us back off. 

They help out a lot." Likewise, another described, "And she [the mentor] 

actually was one of our biggest supporters. She was the number that I had 

twenty-four hours a day, she was at our home three times a week. She was 

directly involved with the probation officer. She was probably the biggest 

help." 

Evaluation by: 

Dr. Sesha Kethineni, 

Professor B.S., M.A., B.L., M.C.J., Ph.D., LL.M. 

Department of Criminal Justice Sciences 

lllinois State University 

Normal, IL 61790-5250 

ph: (309) 438-5566 

FAX: (309) 438-7289 

skethine@ilstu.edu 
616 

Innovative Educational Advocacy in One Redeploy Site: 

The Redeploy lllinois Program in St. Clair County has been able to refer Redeploy 

youth to the Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation for educational advocacy. 

Land of Lincoln began this program in January 2012. The staff attorney assigned to 

this advocacy program is an AmeriCorps VISTA Program volunteer. The legal 

advocate assists youth in three (3) educational areas. The attorney can advocate 

and assist students attempting to enroll in a school setting. This includes assistance 

in the transfer of transcripts from one school district to a new school district. In 

addition, legal advocacy is available for applying for evaluations for special 

education programs. The legal advocate attends lEP meetings related to the youth 

once an lEP is established. Finally, the legal advocate can assist those students 

expelled from school districts. This assistance includes advocacy at expulsion 

hearings and advocating for alternative placement for the youth in an educational 

setting if expulsion is ordered. The attorney involved in the program estimated that 

between twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) youth have been served since mid January 

2012 with legal services from the Land of Lincoln Program. 

As you can see, youth with educational issues including truancy and 

suspension/expulsion issues, can be successfully treated in the community - even 

when they have moved to the deepest end of the juvenile justice system. 

Finally, one other quick note. The St. Clair Redeploy lllinois site discovered that a 

significant percentage of its population was developmentally disabled. The 

Redeploy lllinois Program's caseload in St. Clair County is comprised of over 60% 

lower functioning youth. Thirty percent (30%) of those youth have an IQ of 69 or 

lower. These youth typically only benefit from DD services when they are 18 years 

old. The Site Visit Team was advised through the Assessment Questionnaire that 

youth under age 18 who are developmentally delayed, convicted of a delinquency 

offense and then re-offend may be sentenced to DJJ due to a lack of appropriate 

resources. The Site Assessment Team was advised that the Metro East Disability 

Services Agency has assisted Redeploy staff in requesting what is identified as a 

Children's Waiver which is an order entered by the Juvenile Court Judge directing 

DHS to provide home-based services and/or transportation for DD youth. This 

allows DD youth to receive in-home services that would otherwise not be available. 

This preliminary evidence of developmental disability issues in the deepest end 

juvenile justice population requires more attention, to ensure a proportionate, 

individualized and appropriate response. But it is a cautionary note to resist 

sweeping youth from schools into the juvenile justice system. 

CONCLUSION: 

Attached is an appendix of some very poignant case examples (first names have 

been changed to maintain confidentiality) from Redeploy Illinois sites. These 

individual case histories clarify that school issues are frequently intertwined with 

issues involving behavioraljmental health, substance abuse, family conflict, and 
617 

poverty. Addressing one issue alone is not necessarily successful. The greatest 

success in helping youth reenter school and/or move on with GED and/or 

vocational training, results when youth are provided individualized and holistic 

services within their community. Earlier evaluations of other Illinois programs, 

particularly the Juvenile Justice Mental Health Initiative, emphasized that the most 

valuable resource was often a small pot of flexible dollars tailored to address 

emergency individual needs ranging from transportation to shoes/clothing tailored 

to school/sports/job interviews. 

Individualized, holistic community based services are most effective. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your examination of the critical issue 

of ending the school to prison pipeline in the United States. Please let us know if 

you need further information. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michelle Saddler 

Secretary 

Illinois Department of Human Services 

Note - Attached is an appendix of a few individual case histories from Redeploy IL 

sites. 
618 

APPENDIX 

St Clair and Madison Counties 

#1) Jimmy is a 16-year-old male who was referred to the Redeploy program due to charges of Knowingly 

Damage to Property OVer $300, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Possession of cannabis, as well as 

supervision and probation violations. Jimmy was facing a sentence to the Illinois Department of Juvenile 

Justice because of his inability to follow through with the conditions of his probation. In addition, Jimmy 

maintained poor academic performance due to multiple truancies stemming from habitual substance 

abuse. It was apparent that substance abuse had taken over Jimmy's life and thus, enabled his poor 

decision-making. Jimmy resorted to drugs and alcohol to ease the stressors within his immediate 

environment. At this point in time, Jimmy was dealing with the inconsistent presence of his father in his 

life, as well as juggling the responsibility of parenting his one-year-old child. 

On December 28, 2009, Jimmy was furloughed to placement in residential substance abuse treatment 

facility for his severe substance abuse. Jimmy has remained an active participant throughout his 

treatment process and has made dramatic progress towards achieving sobriety. Jimmy is scheduled to 

successfully complete residential substance abuse treatment in the coming weeks. Since becoming sober, 

Jimmy has reported feeling rejuvenated and focused for the first time in his life. He stated that he enjoys 

being sober and is determined to achieve many personal goals that he has for himself. He has also begun 

the process of filing for joint-custody of his son. 

Redeploy established the following goals for Jimmy upon his acceptance into the program: enroll and 

attend school or GED classes on a daily basis; seek positive recreational activities and employment; 

comply with the conditions of his probation; partidpate in substance abuse treatment, individual and/or 

family therapy, and mental health treatment, if necessary; attend local NNAA groups in his community; 

and care for his one-year-old son. Jimmy and his family have yet to address all the established goals due 

to his placement in residential SUbstance abuse treatment; however, he had made noteworthy strides 

towards improving his life in all domains. Jimmy has the means, motivation, determination and support to 

improve the quality of his life, not only for him, but also for his son. Redeploy is eager to gUide Jimmy 

throughout the start of his new, sober life. 

#2) Kelly was referred to the Redeploy program in May of 2011. Her charges consisted of two counts of 

Battery and Theft OVer $300. Kelly also presented with severe mental health, school, and family 

relationship issues that led to several Petitions to Revoke Probation prior to being referred to the 

Redeploy Program. 

At the time of referral, Kelly had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment on nine occasions from the 

age of nine to fourteen. Her diagnoses included Bi-Polar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Conduct 

Disorder, Disruptive Behavior Disorder, and Polysubstance Abuse. Kelly had been prescribed several 

psychotropic medications and also had numerous counselors over the past several years. Kelly would 

refuse to take her medication and she and her mother did not follow up or cooperate with recommended 
619 

counseling. Along with her mental health issues, Kelly and her mother had an extremely volatile 

relationship. 

Upon referral, Kelly and her mother were very resistant in participating in the Redeploy program. Kelly 

would often report that she did not need medication or counseling and would refuse to take the 

medication and participate in counseling. Redeploy encouraged Kelly and her mother to cooperate with 

and partidpate in the Redeploy program and with referred counseling to no avail. The one thing the case 

manager did not do was to give up on this case. At the time, everyone in Kelly's life wanted nothing to do 

with her and even her teachers and probation officer wanted to see her locked up. The case manager 

recognized Kelly's behaviors to stem from her mental illness which, neither she nor her mother was 

actively addressing. Kelly would sometimes spend an entire appointment in her living room with her case 

manager with a blanket over her head and would refuse to make eye contact. Other times Kelly would 

curse at her worker and call her names. The case manager understood that Kelly's behavior was in an 

effort to get the case manager to leave. The case manager was professional and would not leave nor did 

she allow herself to get into power control struggles with Kelly. 

While Kelly did not change her behavior overnight, she did start utilizing her case manager by calling her 

when she was upset or when she had been in an argument with her mother. The nature of that 

counseling relationship started to change and Kelly began to contemplate the need for taking care of her 

mental health needs. Kelly did appear back before the Court for an offense of Disorderly Conduct. At this 

time Redeploy asked she be evaluated for fitness due to the severity of her mental health issues. The 

evaluation was completed and Kelly was found unfit to stand trial in the new case. Therefore, Kelly was 

ordered into the custody of DHS for fitness restoration. Kelly was placed at Streamwood BehaVioral 

Health Center. Kelly struggled significantly in the beginning of treatment at Streamwood. However, over 

time she began to take her medication as prescribed and partiCipate in counseling. Kelly was there for 

several months and her case manager could see a complete change in her personality and behavior. Kelly 

appeared happy and comfortable in her own skin. Kelly also talked about future goals such as completing 

high school and going to college. Kelly was found fit to stand trial and ultimately had the Disorderly 

Conduct charge dismissed as well as her successful completion of probation. Kelly hugged the case 

manager she had given so much grief to showing her appreciation for the effort that was put into her 

case. If Kelly would have been sent to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice in the first place, the 

chances are she would not have had the indiVidualized treatment by Redeploy as well as staff at 

Streamwood. In addition, Kelly most likely would have been part of the 50% of youth who are released 

from IDJJ and return. To this date, Kelly continues to take her medication and participate in school. Kelly 

has not committed any crimes since participating with Redeploy. 

#3) David is a 17 year old male who was referred to the Redeploy program in July 2011 after acquiring a 

new charge of Burglary, Possession of Ammunition, Possession of cannabiS, and a Petition to Revoke 

Probation (PTRP). David was placed on probation for 5 years for his charges. In addition to Redeploy, he 

was Court ordened to partiCipate with a variety of community-based services while in residential 

substance abuse treatment. 
620 

David completed residential substance abuse treatment and was allowed to return home with his 

grandparents in October 2011. David had difficulty entering back into his hometown and avoiding his 

negative peer group. He also struggled with structure and discipline that his grandparents were 

providing him with; it was never implemented early on in his life by his biological mother. David left his 

home with his grandparents in November 2011. Probation issued a warrant for his arrest. He was picked 

up and presented before the Court on January 20, 2012. David was allowed to return to residential 

treatment. David initially struggled with acclimating back into the residential fadlity where he had been 

previously. He worked hard to overcome emotional and personal issues with peers at the faCility. David 

also relapsed on synthetic marijuana that another youth brought into the fadlity. After being placed on 

jeopardy status David came to terms with the two choices he had. He could continue to make the wrong 

choices and ultimately end up in Jail or decide to make treatment work for him. David chose the latter. 

During this stay at residential treatment, David took initiative to work on his family relationships. He took 

responsibility for past actions and transgressions against the grandparents that support him the most. 

David has also talked and spent time with his biological mother and his new stepfather in an attempt to 

build a stronger bond. This was difficult for David emotionally because he has never had strong family 

relationships although he has desired to have them. It was also a struggle for him to take responsibility 

for his past actions but David has learned that his past does not define him and he can overcome his 

battles in order to be a successful member of his community. 

David has also worked hard to prepare to take the GED test in April. He feels confident and looks forward 

to moving on to college afterwards. David also realized that he is gifted in playing the guitar. During 

treatment he taught himself how to play and utilized music as an outlet for his emotions. David continues 

to progress in his abilities and loves to play the guitar his grandparents bought for him. He plays daily 

and has already done research into local guitar lessons when he moves next month. 

David completed residential treatment successfully. at the very end of March. He is moving into a recovery 

home where he will continue to work on acclimating himself into the community. David has settled all 

pending legal matters and at this time has no upcoming court hearings. On the day David moved to his 

new home, he was scheduled to have a job interview at his favorite store. David looks forward to the 

opportunity to start a new life for himself. David has developed self confidence, a positive attitude, and 

desire to have a successful future. David's future plans include preparing a portfolio of designs for a shoe 

company, taking the GED test, attending the local community college, working, and guitar lessons. 

#4) Curtis was referred to Redeploy Illinois in January of 2011 after being charged with Robbery. Curtis 

was referred because the Court was considering committing him to the Illinois Department of Juvenile 

Justice. Redeploy met with Curtis in detention and with his mother several times prior to his sentencing 

date. Redeploy had learned that curtis had never been in trouble with the legal system before and had 

been a successful wide receiver for a neighboring community high school football team. Curtis presented 

to be a very personable and intelligent young man. Part of what led Curtis to being in the position he was 

in, was his difficulty in taking ownership over his own actions and blaming others. Curtis was present 

when an adult he was with robbed another individual at a gas station. 
621 

Redeploy helped Curtis and his mother develop goals that not only addressed all of his life domains, but 

also targeted his level of responsibility with not only his crime but his day to day behavior. The Court 

allowed Curtis to remain in the community and work with Redeploy. The Court also placed him on the 

Electronic Leg Monitor (ELM). Curtis initially struggled with abiding by the ELM which placed him back 

before the Juvenile Judge. This was a great learning experience for Curtis as Redeploy and the Juvenile 

Judge were able to further develop his level of accountability and Willingness to take back power in his 

life through positive choices on a daily basis. He was allowed to continue working with Redeploy and was 

ordered to continue on probation and with the Electronic Leg Monitor. 

Since that time, Redeploy helped Curtis be transferred from a behavioral school that he was not being 

successful in to LOGOS school in St. Louis, Missouri. Since this transfer, Curtis has thrived at this school 

and is making good grades. He also has joined their basketball team and has found a lot of success with 

this activity. Curtis also joined a local youth coalition in his community that looks to reduce violence and 

promote positive activities. 

Through all of this, it became apparent that Curtis was not only making behavioral adaptations, he was 

making cognitive changes. Curtis' faulty perceptions about his future and those around him have become 

more pOSitive. Curtis is taking more responsibility for his actions and takes complete responsibility for why 

he is placed on Probation in the first place. 

Curtis' case manager submitted an application to the Models for Change Conference that was to take 

place in Washington D.C. in December of 2011. Out of 300 applications submitted around the nation, 

Curtis was selected to come speak at the conference from the perspective of a youth in the juvenile 

justice system and what has worked and what has not for him. 

Curtis and his mother, accompanied by his case manager went to Washington D.C. and partiCipated in 

the conference. Curtis was able to articulate his perspective and explain the things that have helped him. 

The incredible thing about this conference was that Curtis walked away feeling like he has a few hundred 

supporters other than just his case manager. Curtis and his mother were also able to go to the National 

Mall and see the monuments. curtis and his mother would not normally have the income to see 

something like this, or even be able to take a vacation. Curtis truly Views this as a life changing event for 

him. Curtis has been with Redeploy for one year now and continues to do extremely well. The State 

presently has an over 50% failure rate on all youth that return from juvenile prison. If Curtis would not 

have been afforded the opportunity to work with Redeploy, he most likely would have fell in that 

population's failure rate and maybe never get out of the cycle of going in an out of prison. 

#5) Kobe is a 16 year old male who was referred to the Redeploy program in March of 2011 after 

acquiring charges of Attempted Robbery, Aggravated Battery (two counts) and Mob Action. In addition to 

Redeploy, he was ordered to participate in a variety of community-based services. 

Since being placed on probation Kobe has worked very hard at complying with his conditions of 

probation. Kobe conSistently makes his appointments with Redeploy, Probation, and counseling for anger 

management which he completed successfully in the summer of 2011. Kobe also focused on rebuilding 

his relationship with his mother. Although they lived in the same home, Kobe's maternal grandmother 

was his biggest supporter and the one person he went to in a time of need. Kobe's communication with 

his mother has improved but it will continue to be an area that they will need to work on. 
622 

Kobe has also continued to be a successful athlete at his high school. Kobe participated in both football 

and wrestling last year; ending his school year with a great record. The family moved to another town in 

March of 2012 and Kobe had to quickly adjust to a new school, friends, and environment. Kobe's grades 

increased dramatically and he continues to maintain a B average at the new school. He reports enjoying 

his classes and that slowly he is making new friends. Kobe instantly sought out the football and wrestling 

coaches upon transfer and is already working hard for a starting position on both teams. 

Kobe has overcome many obstacles and refocused his attention from a negative outlook to a bright and 

optimistic future. He looks forwards to continuing with athletics and is searching for summer work. Kobe 

has learned to accept responsibility for his actions and is working on continual changes to improve his life 

and lead to a promiSing future. Due to his continued progress and success, Redeploy closed his case 

successfully in April 2012. 

Peoria County 

Outlined below are 3 brief case studies submitted by Kelly Craig, Redeploy Program Case Manager for 

Peoria County. 

Jeremiah, 16 year old African American male was referred the Redeploy Illinois Program after being 

adjudicated for Armed Robbery. Redeploy staff worked closely with Jeremiah as the Redeploy Illinois 

Program was the last attempt offered by the Court before consideration for commitment to the Illinois 

Department of Juvenile Justice. 

The assigned Redeploy counselor assisted the family with getting Jeremiah enrolled back into District 

150. He had previously stopped attending school on a regular basis. Once enrolled, the Redeploy 

counselor contacted the school on a weekly basis to monitor attendance and conduct. Jeremiah was 

also engaged in pro-social activities in the community such as fishing and sports. Jeremiah also 

performed community service by gardening at Scotts Prairie in Peoria as a way of restorative justice to 

the community. 

Jeremiah also received assistance from his Redeploy counselor on how to fill out a job application and 

apply for jobs in the community. He remains in good standing at Woodruff Career and Technical Center 

where he recently completed the ninth grade. He has not had any reported Probation Violations since 

beginning the Redeploy Illinois Program. 
623 

Ivan, 17 year old African American male was referred to Redeploy Illinois Program after being 

adjudicated for Residential Burglary. Upon being referred to Redeploy Illinois, Ivan was deep into the 

juvenile justice system and had been detained in secure detention on several occasions. Through the 

assistance of Redeploy Illinois and tutorial services, Ivan graduated from high school this past May and 

through the assistance of his Redeploy counselor, obtained employment at OSF Hospital in Peoria where 

he works today. He also successfully completed Probation. 

Jarrell, 15 year old African American male was referred to Redeploy Illinois Program following his 

adjudication for Aggravated Battery. Many of his aggressive acts involved students and school 

personnel. Jarrell played basketball for Peoria High School as a Freshman before quitting the team. 

While participating in the Redeploy Program, Jarrell participated in the Washington Aggression 

Interruption Training (WAIT) and was monitored by his Redeploy counselor in school 3-4 times per week 

as that is where a majority of Jarrell's issues were focused. Jarrell regained his standing at Peoria High 

school and rejoined the basketball team for his Junior year. As a Senior, he was the starting point guard 

for the 3A IHSA State Basketball Champions. 

Jarrell graduated from Peoria High School this past May and is currently playing basketball in junior 

college. 

Macon County 

Macon County Community A.C.C.E.S.S. 

Response to Senator Durbin's request for Redeploy success stories. 

6 December 2012 

1.Macon County's first Juvenile Justice Newsletter was published using Redeploy Illinois funds and 

an AmeriCorps Vista Volunteer. The newsletter introduces the new juvenile judge and provides one 

stop information on the juvenile justice programs in Macon County. www.MaconCoJJC.org 
624 

2.MC's YASI flagged for violence and mental health. He was also high in legal history. When he 

started Community ACCESS on 5 October 2011, he was in transition from Macarthur High School to 

SEAP. His schooling was very shaky because of his history of behavior problems. While attending 

SEAP, his home interventionist from Shockwave initiated several intervention meetings with 

administrators in order to devise a plan for his educational success. MC contributed to this own 

success because he was willing to cooperate with intervention plans set forth on his behalf. As a 

result, he completed SEAP successfully and transferred to Futures Academy. At Futures, he 

completed all coursework with Cs and above and graduated with his high school diploma in May. 

MC has been attending one counseling session per week with Heritage Behavioral Health where he's 

receiving substance abuse treatment. He also sees a psychiatrist for mental health issues. MC 

independently sought and obtained employment at Pastabilities. MC almost lost his employment at 

Pastabilities for missing a day. He informed his home interventionist that he was tired and didn't 

wake up. His probation officer, counselor and home interventionist spoke with him and explained 

that his marijuana usage had increased and was probably affecting his energy and ability to perform 

his duties at work. He thought that there was no way his employer would take him back. MC and his 

home interventionist from Shockwave set a goal to talk to his supervisor, apologize, and reassure 

them that it would not happen again. Pastabilities agreed to take MC back. He was also in the 

Shockwave mowing program. MC enrolled and attended classes at Richland Community College 

during the fall semester. MC successfully completed a CRB. As part of this CRB he made a 

presentation to the Decatur City Council regarding issues important to Decatur youth. 

3. On Monday, July 16, 2012, two Community A.e.e.E.S.S. (CA) youths, M C and OM attended the 

City Council meeting. They attended the City Council meeting in partial fulfillment of their CRB 

contract. MC presented at the Council meeting under "Appearance from Citizens." In his 

presentation, he suggested that the City Council should provide a planetarium for teens as well as a 

variety of fun activities. MC had visited the planetarium in St. Louis and was impressed with it. His 

mother was present at the City Council meeting. OM did not want to stand with MC at the podium. 

He also refused to stand up in the audience while the presentation was being made. He was not 

comfortable with this setting. However, he had done a great job collecting data by distributing 

surveys, which teenagers had completed. MC seldom looked at his notes. He spoke with confidence 

and poise. At the end of the meeting, a reporter interviewed Me. In addition, John Phillips invited 

the youths to be on his radio show on Tuesday (7/17/12) at 5:00 p.m. Crawford agreed to attend. 

4. Preparing the youths for the City Council Meeting: A session was held with the youths to explore 

what is available for youth to do in Decatur. Youths were asked to provide suggestions on regarding 

what they would like to be available for youth in Decatur. They were asked to dream and not to be 

concerned' with the cost of implementation. Both took an active part in the discussions. CRB 

facilitators John Johnson and Linda George were invited to the session. They also attended the City 
625 

Council meeting in support of the youth. Based on the information that was gathered at the session, 

a type written draft was given to MC who manually rewrote it in his own words. 

Lee County 

With us being such a small county and Kelly being here one day a week, I tend to handle all 

correspondence with the Redeploy Program. There is a success story in our Program Plan 

submitted to DHS in June but doesn't really mention much about school. This particular minor 

was pursuing her GED as she was having on going school issues. We have not had another 

graduation of Redeploy minors since that time. Here are some general thoughts though from 

previous minors that went through the program since inception .... Several of the Redeploy 

teens we have had transferred from public schools, to alternative education with great success 

ie. Options Program (Ran by ROE office), Transitions Program (also ran by ROE), Camelot or the 

GED program. In a few of our cases it was not that the public school had no choice but to expel 

them, but that due to their issues (explosive anger, truancy, suspensions for behavioral issues, 

learning disabilities, depression, drugs etc) in their original school, our Redeploy Program's PLL 

therapist and the Probation officer collaborated in exploring alternative school options with the 

public school personnel, as alternative educational programs would support the clients 

educational success. These options were crucial in exploring due to the teens emotional, 

mental, social, academic etc. issues that were being presented during the time enrolled in 

Redeploy. Oftentimes the link between the Redeploy (PLL) therapist, Probation Officer to the 

school is an integral part of the clients educational success. We assist in the transition via 

communication between counselors and schools for the client from one school to another and 

as well as in offering help with something as practical as transportation to school if that is a 

pressing issue. Some of these kids would have become high school drop-outs. There is a direct 

connection between Redeploy services with its intensive holistic approach where we deal with 

every aspect of the teen's life which always includes the educational component. 

Besides that, we have knowledge of prior evaluations on the teens in Redeploy before 

entering into our program, including any evaluations, IEP's. behavior and truancy school 

records, medication records and other vital information if they have signed the consent forms. 

Usually, we have been the ones to recognize from the communication with the school and the 

mental health agency when a minor is on medication and when they are not taking it properly 

or mixing it with other substances because we are seeing behavioral issues happen in school or 

in the home which goes beyond just the proper diagnosing of a problem such as ADHD. 

This is just some thoughts that come to mind that the State may one day want to see as a direct 

correlation between the Redeploy program and success in areas such as education, for 

whatever it's worth. Thanks Kim 

Lasalle County 

My name is Cynthia Robinson and my agency, Youth Service Bureau of Illinois Valley, is the treatment 

provider for the LaSalle County Redeploy Illinois Program. I have two success stories I would like to share 

with you. 
626 

The first involves the "Crown" family. They are a nuclear family with 3 children James 15, Brittany 13, 

and Randy 11. For years, both mom and dad and all three children have been on probation for a 

multitude of crimes including battery and domestic violence. Dad had been involved in gang activity 

since he was a child and has a lengthy criminal history. He has been in and out of the home, and 

unreliable and undependable his children's entire lives. Dad did not complete grade school and has 

never had a job. 

Mom works for a home health-care facility. She works to make ends meet for the family, but also has a 

criminal history. When dad would not come home for days, Mom would track him down, and physically 

assault him and whatever woman she would find him with. She often brought her children with her to 

confront her husband, and her children assisted in throwing bricks through the girlfriends' windows. In 

the last year, James set a physically disabled classmate's hair on fire on the bus and Brittany assaulted a 

police officer as well as several classmates. There appeared to be no hope for this family. 

After the 2 oldest children were enrolled in the Redeploy program and we began working with the entire 

family, the children's school attendance began to improve, as did their grades. The children were in 

group three times per week, received weekly individual and family therapy, the parents also received 

weekly individual therapy and case management services. The children began to open up and trust the 

clinicians. They engaged in, and became invested in, treatment. The children's grades and behavior 

continued to improve. Dad left the home, and filed for divorce. The mother and children all completed 

their probation with no further incidence of criminal behavior. 

The children have recently completed treatment and are doing very well in school. While they have both 

officially "graduated" from group, both children continue to attend group three times per week of their 

own volition. Both have become leaders in the group, facilitating treatment for their peers. Mom is 

working on her GED and may attend classes at the junior college. 

Interestingly, I received a call this week-end from dad. He said he was back in the area and he asked if he 

could talk to me and do some therapy. He said he wants to figure out why he keeps "f..ng up." That 

we'll reserve judgment on. 
627 

The second is a young girl named Julie. Her mother was recently released from a prison in New Mexico 

after serving a lengthy sentence on drug charges. Mom had left dad and her five kids years before this 

last incarceration. When Julie learned her mother had been released from prison she ran away, hitchhiking to New Mexico to develop a relationship with her mother. Once she got to New Mexico and 

located her mother at her grandmother's home, her mother again rejected her. Julie is only 14. Julie has 

an extensive history of assault, robbery and truancy. She was on probation, so she was put on a plane 

and flown back to Illinois. Even though we were not yet working with Julie in the Redeploy program, 

YSBIV quickly accepted a referral and picked her up from O'Hare. 

When one first meets Dad he appears a bit intimidating as he has a skull and crossbones tattooed 

between his eyes, "FUCK" tattooed on his knuckles, his nipples are pierced, and he rarely wears a shirt. 

But he is actually a very concerned, loving father. Dad is not able to work because of a legitimate back 

injury. Again YSBIV began working with Julie, her father and the other children, providing the full array 

of services. They quickly responded, making stunning changes in the way the family interacts, discipline, 

communication etc. The children were no longer allowed to be truant and had to complete their 

homework. Dad worked in partnership with the clinicians and strived to learn new parenting techniques. 

Julie is set to graduate from treatment after the first of the year. She routinely tells her therapist that 

she does not want to be done, but wants to stay in treatment. The school is very pleased with the 

strides this family has made. 

We are very proud of the work we have done with these youth. It is very, very hard stressful work. Not 

all cases turn out so well. But stories like the ones I just shared with you make it worthwhile. 

If I can be of further assistance please feel free to contact me: {815} 431-3021. I would be honored to 

discuss our program further. 

/t!lOur most recent MST client {S. Fields} was expelled from Mt. Carmel High School in the Spring of 

2012. He entered and recently completed the MST program. As of August of 2012 he is again enrolled 

in school, and so far is dOing fairly well. At a court appearance on October 16, 2012 his father told the 

court that the MST program was the most beneficial program they have participated in and he was 

highly complimentary of the program. 

#21 have a success story on one of my cases I recently dosed out of Jefferson County Re-Deploy. 

Savannah H. was referred to the MST program for multiple problems such as substance abuse; runaway 

behaviOrs; and school problems. After engaging the family and getting mom to buy into the MST 

program, changes were made immediately. savannah's school problems consisted of truancy; academic 

struggles, and behavior concerns with peers and staff. Mom and I began prioritizing the biggest drivers 
628 

to Savannah's behaviors and it was identified that her substance use had the biggest impact on her 

school success and overall compliance. The Therapist began working with mom on implementing 

structure, monitoring and a Behavior Plan that addresses behaviors by linking powerful consequences 

and rewards directly to the behaviors. Mom was engaged and on board with Therapist recommendations 

evidenced by her follow-through with plans. Mom began to feel empowered and her confidence 

regarding her parenting skills increased; which led to changes in Savannah's behaviors. Savannah began 

testing limits; however mom remained consistent and utilized her sodal supports. Savannah began to 

comply with the new structure in the home, and realized that mom was serious about rule enforcement. 

Savannah eliminated her substance use; which was the driver that caused her to skip school, act out in 

school, and lack respect for school staff. Mom increased her collaboration with school staff and began to 

build a solid linkage with school staff by implementing a communication plan. Savannah made a turn 

around in school, and successfully completed the MST program. Savannah completed the MST program 

with zero unexcused absences; zero discipline reports, and positive reports from each of her teachers 

stating her progress, and positive changes this school year. Savannah's academic performance increased 

and she was able to earn straight A's and B's on her report card. Savannah became paSSionate about her 

education and linked her sobriety to her academic! school success. Mom's level of empowerment; 

supervision; and increased parenting skills played a key role in Savannah's overall success. 

Please note: Kids Hope United is now One Hope United. Please note my new email address. 

McLean County 

In McLean County, and in all Counties throughout the State, educating clients continues to be 

one of the most important and difficult aspects of probation. With Redeploy services, McLean County 

has been able to work with the schools in our local districts to determine the educational program that 

best suits the individuals we serve. This is done through assessments and regular contacts with all team 

members who are working with the client. In McLean County, many of the clients are behind in school 

by as much as two years, making graduation seem impossible. Knowing how long it will take them to 

graduate, clients become frustrated and stop attending school all together. With the help of Redeploy, 

Heartland Community College (Hcq, and The McLean County Youth Build Program (Youth Build), clients 

are given a new perspective on how their education can be completed. 

HCC works with Redeploy clients to assess their current education level and is able to provide 

them with the educational services needed to successfully complete their G.E.D. The cost of the G.E.D. 

exam is $50.00, making it unaffordable for many of our clients. When entering the Redeploy program, 

clients are told Redeploy will assist or pay for the G.E.D. exam, as long as they complete the assessment 

and pre- placement exam required by HCC. Over the past year, HCC has helped four Redeploy Clients 

successfully complete their G.E.D.; and while college is not for everyone, all four ofthe clients went on 

to take collegiate level classes at HCC. 

Youth Build is an alternative educational setting which offers either a high school diploma or 

G.E.D., while providing skills in carpentry and warehouse management. Clients are typically referred to 
629 

Youth Build for the same reasons as those who attend HCC and are assessed by the Redeploy team and 

the case manager. The case manager will take on the role of the parent and assist the individual in 

gathering all information needed to enroll at Youth Build. In FY 12, McLean County Redeploy assisted a 

client who was heavily involved with the selling of narcotics as well as gang activity. He was a regular 

topic at monthly meetings and it seemed as though all hope was lost; however, that was not the case. 

His Redeploy case manager was able to sell him on the idea of the Youth Build program and found the 

"hook" to help him be successful. The individual registered for the program and began attending on a 

regular basis. He earned his high school diploma in a year and is now taking courses at Lincoln 

Community College. 
630 

December 8, 2012 

Honorable U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate's Assistant Majority Leader and 

Chaim1an of The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitutional, Civil 

Rights, and Human Rights & Fellow Subcommittee Members 

Re: Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Dear Senators: 

I am a Board Member of the Restorative Schools Vision Project, (RSVP) a nonprofit organization located in Sacramento, Califomia. As an organization we have 

dedicated ourselves to offering schools an alternative to zero tolerance discipline 

policies. We have done this by facilitation workshops in schools and school 

districts in Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices as well as by having a 

presence in the schools themselves. We have also participated, as a member 

organization of the Dignity in Schools Campaign, (DSC) in facilitation workshops 

nationally on both Restorative Practices and Social and Emotional Learning. As a 

member of DSC we have advocated for putting an end to the School-to-Prison 

Pipeline. 

Over the past six years, working in local public schools we have observed first 

hand how students, particularly those of color, are disproportionately singled out 

for harsh punishment, particularly out of school suspensions. The most common 

reason given for the overwhelming number of these suspensions is for "willful 

defiance", a very subjective standard that does not lead to understanding or true 

accountability and often comes about as a result of cultural misunderstandings on 

the part of administrators and teachers. 
631 

We have offered a viable alternative to out of school suspension in Restorative 

Justice Practices. As reflected in the DSC Model School Code, ( See 

~L!..'.~i?ll!..'.):.~"'-"~~c'~,L!!.~"..'.!2."-,~,,,,--~~c~'---"~~~JCJ Restorative Justice is a 

theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by 

misconduct rather than punishment by: 

·Identifying the misconduct and attempting to repair the damage; 

"Including all people impacted by a conflict in the process of responding to 

conflict; and 

·Creating a process that promotes healing, reconciliation and the rebuilding of 

relationships to build mutual responsibility and constmctive responses to 

wrongdoing within our schools. 

The Model Code defines Restorative Practices as social and emotional practices 

that offer "a framework for a broad range of restorative justice approaches that 

proactively build a school community based on cooperation, mutual 

understanding, tmst and respect, and respond to conflict by including all people 

impacted by a conflict in finding solutions that restore relationships and repair the 

harm done to the school community." Evidence based research has proven that 

teaching social and emotional practices in sehools not only reduces conduct 

problems but also improves student academic performance by as much as 11 %. 

(Seerum~~Lill~~~nm~~lliWilid~illilllillibillwn~ 

Recognizing the deleterious effect that suspensions have on student achievement 

and how school pushout leads to eventual youth incarceration, we believe that 

Congress must now show strong leadership in putting and end to the sehool-toprison-pipeline. 
632 

Legislation similar to that authored by Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), 

Restorative Justice in Schools Act, H.R. 415 introduced in the House last year 

would give school administrators and teachers the tools needed to help our youth 

learn compassion as well as learn how to resolve their conflicts without violence. 

This year, bipartisan legislation introduced in the House by Judy Biggert 

Dale E. Kildee (D-M1), and Tim Ryan (D-OH), The Academic, Social, and 

Emotional Learning Act of 2011, HR 2437 will expand the availability of 

programs that teach students skills such as problem-solving, conflict resolution, 

responsible dccision- making, relationship building, goal-setting, and self 

discipline. "This legislation will help teachers provide result-driven instruction in 

skills that keep children focused on learning and prepare them to succeed in the 

real world," says Representative Judy Biggert, a member of the House Education 

and the Workforce Committee. 

These are examples of recently introduced legislation that can be funded by the 

and would go a long way 

toward ending the school-to-prison pipeline. 

Respectfully, 

Richard Jaffee Cohen 

Board Mcmbcr, Restorative Schools Vision Project 
633 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

I am faculty at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, California.1 Through my work at 

Loyola's Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, I am the co-director of a juvenile justice clinic. 

Within the clinic, I teach substantive classes on trial skills and juvenile law and I supervise law 

students representing clients in delinquency proceedings in Los Angeles. In addition, I teach 

Criminal Procedure and a seminar course on issues in criminal justice. Before joining the faculty 

at Loyola, I was a trial attorney at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 

("PDS"). At PDS, I represented three categories of clients: 1) children charged in delinquency 

court, 2) children charged as adults with serious and violent felonies, including homicide, and 3) 

adults charged with serious and violent felonies, including homicide. Prior to becoming a 

lawyer, I taught high school and ran an after-school volunteer program at the Maya Angelou 

Public Charter School in Washington, D.C. As a teacher, I worked with many youth who had 

been adjudicated delinquent and had spent time in juvenile correction facilities. 

My testimony will describe how the school to prison pipeline has impacted three of the 

clients I have represented in juvenile delinquency court in Los Angeles. I have chosen stories to 

demonstrate a few important concerns about the school to prison pipeline: 1) children are 

punished twice, 2) timing is important to intervention on behalf of children with special 

education needs, and 3) increased police presence and increased funneling of children to 

delinquency courts for incidents occurring at public school2 can have a negative, stigmatizing 

effect. 

1) CHILDREN ARE PUNISHED TWICE - ONCE IN SCHOOL AND AGAIN IN DELINQUENCY 

COURT 

Simply put, children who misbehave at school are subject to two punishments. The 

consequence doled out by the public school for the offense which occurs in school is immediate. 

A child is suspended, expelled, or given detention. Notice of the pUnishment is immediate, even 

if an expUlsion hearing is required a few days later. The consequence which occurs in juvenile 

delinquency court, on the other hand, will happen at a later date and time, often at a much 

later time depending on the jurisdiction. 

Young people benefit from consequences which are immediate. The impact of a 

consequence which is doled out months later is not as great as the consequence which 

immediately addresses the problematic behavior. School is the most appropriate place to deal 

with problems that occur in school. The connection is direct and the consequence can be 

immediate and therefore meaningful to the child. The passage of time is felt more accurately 

by children. A period of months feels longer to a child than it does to an adult. 

1 My testimony is offered in a personal capacity and is not a representation of either Loyola Law School or the 

Center for Juvenile Law and Policy. 

2 If a child is in private school, the police are not involved, so these concerns are for those students who attend 

public school only. In Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, California where I have taught and practiced as an 

attorney, public schools are disproportionately filled with poor children and children who belong to racial and 

ethnic minority groups. 
634 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Ben Lopez;3 

On January 9,2012, Ms. Johnson, a Los Angeles High School Assistant Principal 

suspended Ben Lopez ("Ben") for allegedly possessing a controlled substance, marijuana, on 

school grounds. Ben was fifteen years old at the time. On January 9th, Ms. Johnson took 

immediate action and suspended Ben from school. Ms. Johnson further directed Ben and Ms. 

Lopez, his mother, to go to the Los Angeles Police Department at some point. Ms. Johnson did 

not provide a specific date for them to appear at the police department and no citation was 

given to Ben on January 9th. Ben and Ms. Lopez both went to the Los Angeles Police 

Department on January 27,2012. At that time, Ben was given a citation for allegedly violating 

California Health &Safety Code § 11357(e). 

Ben and Ms. Lopez went to the Los Angeles Juvenile Court in March 2012, on the date 

they were cited to appear, they presented the citation, and they were informed that no case 

had been filed by the District Attorney at that time. They were turned away by court personnel. 

Neither Ben nor Ms. Lopez received further notice of a new court date. 

On September 24,2012, the District Attorney filed a petition against Ben. The petition 

alleged one count based on the alleged conduct on January 9, 2012: a violation of Health and 

Safety Code § 11357(e). Nothing in the discovery provided by the prosecution contained any 

rationale for (1) the failure of the District Attorney's office to prosecute Mr. Lopez when the 

offense originally occurred or (2) the delay in prosecution of the case from January 9th, when 

the incident occurred, to September 24th, when the District Attorney filed the petition. 

Arraignment was scheduled for September 24,2012. However, Ben and his family did 

not receive any notice of the scheduled arraignment. In Los Angeles juvenile delinquency 

courts, attorneys are not appointed by the court and do not meet their clients to commence 

representation until the date of the arraignment. As Ben's purported counsel, I contacted Ms. 

Lopez by telephone based on the information contained in the citation provided to me in 

discovery for the purpose of informing Ms. Lopez of the court hearing for Ben on that date. Ms. 

Lopez informed me that she had not received any notice of the September 24th appearance. I 

then represented to the Court that Ms. Lopez could bring Ben to court on September 26, 2012. 

The Court issued and held a bench warrant until September 26,2012, the date of the continued 

arraignment in this matter. 

Ben and Ms. Lopez were present in Los Angeles court for the arraignment on September 

26,2012. On September 26th, Ben entered a denial to the single charge for a violation of Health 

and Safety § 11357(e). On September 26th, I informed the Court of (1) the extraordinary delay 

of eight and a half months from the date of the offense to the date of both the filing of the 

3 Ben Lopez is not the name of the young man in this story. I have changed his name to protect attorney-client 

confidentiality. This case occurred within Los Angeles County. I have changed the name of the school 

administrator, the location of the offense, the school name, the police department name, and the courthouse 

where it occurred, but I have not changed exact dates or the length oftime between dates. 

2 
635 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

petition and the arraignment and (2) the failure to notify Ben and Ms. Lopez about the court 

date of September 24,2012. Ms. Lopez's address was correct on the citation and petition. 

The next hearing in the case was scheduled for October 31,2012. In advance of that 

hearing, I filed a motion to dismiss the case based on failure to prosecute," speedy trial rights,S 

and in the interests of justice.6 This was Ben's first and only ever case in delinquency court. He 

had not gotten into any trouble at school before or since this incident in January of 2012. 

Possession of marijuana in school is a misdemeanor offense in California carrying no 

confinement time.7 The judge heard the motion and denied it. 

By the time Ben had reached me as his attorney, it was too late for me to provide him 

with any assistance in the disciplinary procedures at Los Angeles High School. Due to this 

experience, he and Ms. Lopez decided he should go to another school and he had already 

transferred schools. Ben enrolled in a continuation high school instead of a traditional high 

4 Failure to prosecute or abandonment of prosecution is also called a motion for dismissal for want of prosecution. 

5 Speedy trial rights for criminal defendants arise out of due process concerns and trial rights. See Fifth 

Amendment to u.s. Constitution, Fifth Amendment to State Constitutions. Some courts have concluded that the 

nature of adolescence and the underlying rehabilitative goals of juvenile courts mean that speedy trial guarantees 

should be applied even more rigorously in juvenile delinquency court than in the adult criminal context, see, e.g., 

P. V. v. District Court in and for the Tenth Judicial District, 199 Colo. at 360, 609 P.2d at 112 ("It is our view that the 

speedy resolution of juvenile proceedings brings about more significant benefits to a child and to society than are 

accrued through application of speedy trial rules in adult proceedings. Certainly the average juvenile is far more 

vulnerable to psychological harm during the pretrial period than the average adult would be."); In the Matter of 

Benjamin L., 92 N.Y.2d at 667, 708 N.E.2d at 160, 685 N.y.s.2d 404 (reasons for speedy adjudication "are even 

more compelling in the juvenile context [than in the adult criminal context]" because "a delay in the proceedings 

may undermine a court's ability to act in its adjudicative and rehabilitative capacities" and because the "nature of 

adolescence" may render a delay acutely prejudicial for the juvenile and his or her defense) Trial rights are also 

generally associated with the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Sixth Amendment corollary to 

State Constitutions. Speedy trial rights guard against three separate injuries that can be suffered by an accused as 

a result of undue trial delay: (i) prolonged pretrial incarceration; (ii) inconvenience, indignity, and anxiety resulting 

from the pendency of unresolved charges for a protracted period; and (iii) prejudice to the respondent's ability to 

present defensive evidence at trial when the trial is not held promptly in relation to the events at issue. See, e.g., 

United States v. Ewell; 383 U.S. 116, 120 (1966) (Speedy Trial Clause is "an important safeguard to prevent 357 

undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation 

and to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself"). There are also 

California specific speedy trial timetables once a petition has been filed. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 657(a)(1) 

(2012) (a juvenile has a right to a trial within 30 days of filing of a petition; and, for detained children, a right to 

trial within 15 days of the order of detention). In California, misdemeanors in adult criminal court have a statute of 

limitations of one year. 

6 The court's authority to dismiss a juvenile court petition in the interests of justice in California arises under CAL. 

WELF. & IN5T. CODE § 782. That section states in relevant part: "A judge of the juvenile court in which a petition is 

filed ... may dismiss the petition .. .if the court finds that the interests of justice and the welfare of the minor require 

such dismissal or it finds that the minor is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation." CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 

782 (2009). The court shall have jurisdiction to order such dismissal regardless of whether the minor is, at the time 

of such order, a ward or dependent child of the court. Cal. WeI. & Inst. Code § 782 (2009). 

7 See California Health & Safety Code § 11357(e). 

3 
636 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

school. When I met Ben almost nine months after the incident, I realized he presented with a 

number of issues that made me concerned that he was a child entitled to special education 

services. I referred Ben and Ms. Lopez to a special education lawyer and he is in the process of 

pursuing those services currently. Ms. Lopez had also already gotten Ben connected with 

counseling services to deal with his marijuana usage. 

In early November, Ben received the opportunity to have probation. Some of the terms 

of his probation include community service, counseling, drug testing, performance in school, 

attendance at school, and consent to search. 

2) TIMING IS IMPORTANT TO INTERVENTION ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL 

EDUCATION NEEDS 

Ben's story demonstrates how failure to have the services of an attorney at an early 

stage can lead to fewer legal resources to support a child subjected to disciplinary proceedings 

for a school event. It may also mean that the student changes to schools, disrupting their 

education. The impact of the absences of legal services is compounded when a child is entitled 

to special education services. A child with an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") is entitled to 

a manifestation determination prior to the imposition of a school disciplinary consequence. 8 

This procedure is designed to ensure that a child is not unfairly punished for an incident which 

was a manifestation of his or her disability. 

Having a delinquency lawyer can help to link children and parents with resources. 9 For 

an example of what can occur when a child has the early intervention of a delinquency attorney 

and / or special education attorney, I will share information about a case where my client's 

behavior was a manifestation of her disability. I referred, Julia,10 the client whose story I share 

below, to a special education attorney through my office.ll The education attorney 

represented Julia at the manifestation determination IEP. However, as this case illustrates, 

even if a child wins a manifestation determination hearing, that determination does not haye 

any meaning in delinquency court and the child will not receive a lesser or different punishment. 

Further, children with mental health issues should have an IEP and may have behavior 

problems in school due to their health. 

8 A child is entitled to special education services and an IEP under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

("IDEA"), a federal law incorporated into state law in all fifty states and in the District of Columbia. Underthe 1997 

Amendments to the IDEA, school personnel seeking to exclude a child for discipline reasons must make additional 

steps. The school personnel must first determine whether the behavior in question was a manifestation of the 

child's disability. 20 U.S.c. § 1415 (k)(4),(5). The IEP team, which includes parents and other "qualified personnel," 

makes the manifestation determination. 20 U.S.c. § 141S(k)(4)(8). 

9 Education rights belong to the parent and not the child. 

10 Julia is not the name of the young girl in this story. I have changed her name to protect attorney-client 

confidentiality. This case occurred within Los Angeles County. I have eliminated the name of the school resource 

officer, the teacher, the location of the offense, the police department name, the psychiatrist, and the courthouse. 

I have not changed dates. 

11 Ideally, service providers should function as we do in my office at the Center for Juvenile Law and Policy and as I 

did as an attorney at PDS, where defense attorneys in delinquency court and education attorneys work together to 

provide holistic support for clients we jointly represent. 

4 
637 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Julia: 

At fifteen years old, Julia first became my client in January of 2009 when she was 

arrested and detained for three offenses: (1) Second Degree Commercial Burglary, in violation 

of the PENAL CODE 459, a felony, (2) Resist, Obstruct, Delay of peace office or EMT, in violation 

of PENAL CODE, 148(A)(1), a misdemeanor, and (3) Battery in violation of PENAL CODE 242, (a) 

(1), a misdemeanor. In this case, Julia was accused of stealing beer from a liquor and 

convenience store (felony commercial burglary and battery). She was with an older boy at the 

time. He was not arrested. Julia managed to get out of the backseat of the police car where 

she was detained and ran away (resisting, obstructing, delaying a peace officer in execution of 

his duties). After getting away from the police, Julia then went to school. She was wearing 

handcuffs when she got there. 

Julia presented with mental health issues, substance abuse issues, a history of neglect in 

the home, familial mental health history, difficulties in school, and emotional issues. I referred 

Julia to a special education attorney within my office. She was assessed, a process that took 

several months, and ultimately deemed eligible. Her special education placement and 

Individualized Education Program (iEP) began in October of 2009. Her IEP designation at that 

time was Other Health Impaired (OHI), and she was thought to suffer from ADHD. She then 

suffered several hospitalizations for self-injurious behavior. 

Julia's second arrest was in March of 2010 for an incident which occurred at school. Julia 

was sixteen years old. She was charged with three offenses: (1) Burglary Violation of PENAL 

CODE 45, a felony, (2) Petty Theft, Violation of PENAL CODE 484(A), a misdemeanor, and (3) 

Vandalism Under $400 Damage-Damage/Destroy in violation of penal code 594(A). These 

charges arose out of an incident where Julia broke into the athletic office at her high school. 

She broke the window with her hands and crawled through the broken glass. Once inside, Julia 

took some money that was in the office. 

When the teacher found Julia, she had alcohol on breath. Julia told the health clerk, 

"This is not the kind of life for me, no one listens to me, is this what I have to do in order to get 

someone's attention ... ?" The teacher requested that Julia be placed on a 5150 mental health 

hold because of her emotionally labile state and concern that Julia was at risk for self-harmY 

Although the school police officer at the scene did not feel that Julia met 5150 criteria, and did 

not take her to a hospital, a psychiatrist I later got appointed through the Court conducted an 

evaluation of Julia and reviewed the school records of this incident in addition to hospital and 

IEP assessment records. The doctor believed that Julia's "comments and dysregulated behavior 

suggested that she would have likely benefited from psychiatric assessment and possible 

intervention on that date." 

12 CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 5150, states in part, " ... an application in writing stating the circumstances under 

which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or 

professional person, and stating that the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has 

probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or 

herself, or gravely disabled." 

5 
638 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Julia shared with me as her counsel and with the psychiatrist that she broke in to the 

school because she was frustrated and upset, and that she found money on the desk which she 

took as an after- thought. Julia also explained that she was in a state of mind at the time where 

she was not thinking clearly and feeling depressed and not caring what happened to her. 

According to the psychiatrist, it was "clear from review of the police records and photos that 

Julia was in a state of distress and exercised poor judgment in breaking into the office. [Julia)'s 

depressive symptoms and history of self-injurious and impulsive behaviors likely impaired her 

judgment in appreciating the dangers in climbing though a broken glass window (i.e. sustaining 

mUltiple injuries).,,13 

At a manifestation determination, Julia's conduct in this incident was deemed a 

manifestation of her disability. In court, after a plea agreement in this case was reached, Julia 

was suitably placed in a residential treatment facility. 

Julia was only identified as a child entitled to special education services after she was 

first arrested and became my client in juvenile delinquency court. Having an education 

attorney enabled her to have greater services provided through school. Her education attorney 

represented her interests and the interests of her parents at a manifestation determination IEP. 

Despite the fact that the school was on notice of Julia's issues and the teacher recognized her 

mental health needs, the officer in this case did not respond with an appreciation for Julia's 

mental health needs and did not show deference to the education professional. 

3) INCREASED POLICE PRESENCE AND INCREASED FUNNELING OF CHILDREN TO 

DELINQUENCY COURTS FOR INCIDENTS OCCURRING AT PUBLIC SCHOOL CAN HAVE A 

NEGATIVE, STIGMATIZING EFFECT 

While police and school resource officers are used differently in different school districts, 

in the large urban school district of Los Angeles, I have found that my clients are arrested and 

processed through juvenile delinquency court for offenses, no matter their age, special 

education status, mental health issues, or the circumstances of the event. 

Maria:14 

When Mario came to court, he set off the metal detector. Mario brought every trophy 

he had even earned with him to court to show the Judge. He was eleven. 

Mario was a sixth grade student in middle school when he was arrested for hitting 

another student, Javier,15 with a padlock in November of 2009. Mario was overweight and was 

" Julia was diagnosed with the following Axis 1 DSM-IV DIAGNOSES: Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Anxiety 

Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, ADHD Not Otherwise Specified, Parent Child Relational Problem and Polysubstance Use, RIO Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. 

14 Mario is not the name of the young boy in this story. I have changed his name to protect attorney-client 

confidentiality. This case occurred within Los Angeles County. I have changed or eliminated the names of the 

teacher, school and police officers. I have not changed the dates or the length of time between dates. 

6 
639 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

teased for his weight. This incident occurred after a pattern of verbal attacks and unwanted 

touching by Javier, the student Mario hit. By all accounts, including the classroom teacher's 

account, Javier was the class bully. 

According to the teacher, she was first alerted to a n issue when Javier told her that 

Mario, who sat directly behind Javier, was kicking his chair and bothering_him. The teacher told 

Mario to stop bothering Javier and to do his work. Shortly after, another student reported to 

the teacher that Mario was crying. She saw Mario crying and asked what was wrong. The 

teacher told the school resource officer that Mario suddenly got up and started hitting Javier in 

the back of his head with a padlock. The teacher immediately got in the middle and stopped 

Mario. Javier was taken to the hospital and needed stitches on his head. 

Mario was detained, arrested, taken to the police station, booked, interrogated, and 

later released to his mother. 

Mario was charged in a petition dated January 2010, with one felony, assault with a 

deadly weapon, a padlock, in violation of Penal Code §245(A)(1), and special allegation, Penal 

Code §12022.7 (bodily harm inflicted during commission of felony not having bodily harm as an 

element). In January 2010, Mario was arraigned, where he entered a denial to all charges. In 

February, I filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code §782.'6 This 

motion was heard and denied in March 2010. 

The officer who interrogated Mario claimed that he read Mario his Miranda rights and 

that Mario waived his rights because he really wanted to explain what really happened with 

Javier.'7 According to the officer, Mario told him that Javier had been bullying and "scooping" 

him since the beginning of November 2009. Mario explained that "scooping" was when 

someone "grabs another person by the tits and pulls on them." Mario told the officer that 

during 6th period around 1:00 pm Javier had come up behind him in the restroom while he was 

washing his hands and scooped him. Mario also told the officer that when Javier "scooped" 

him, it made Mario mad and he wanted to tell Javier to stop bulling and "scooping" him. 

The officer reported that Mario told him he tried to get Javier's attention during 7th 

period by tapping him on the shoulder to tell him to stop "scooping" him, but Javier ignored 

him_ According to the officer, Mario went on to describe that it really made him mad when 

Javier told the teacher about Mario bothering him. The officer claimed that when the teacher 

"I have also changed the name of the bully / "victim" in this case in order to protect his privacy. His real name is 

not Javier. 

16 See infra note 6. 

17 In addition to Miranda warnings and waiver, because Mario was less than 13 years old, the officer was also 

supposed to complete what is called a "Gladys R." form. There was nothing in the police report about 

administering a Gladys R. with Mario, but there was a partially filled out Gladys R. Questionnaire attached to the 

crime report. It says it was completed by the school resource officer who was responsible for detaining Mario at 

the school. California law establishes a presumption that children under 14 are unable to commit crime and that 

may be defeated by clear and convincing evidence. In re Gladys R., 1 Cal.3d 855, 464 P.2d 127 (Cal. 1970). 

7 
640 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

then told Mario to leave Javier alone, Mario was further aggravated. It was at this time that 

Mario took out his padlock, held it in his right hand, and hit Javier before the teacher stopped 

him. Javier needed medical attention and Mario told the officer that he was sorry that what he 

did meant that Javier had to go the hospital. The officer reported that when he asked Mario 

why he did not tell an administrator or the teacher about being "scooped", Mario said he did 

not want to tell on anyone and wanted to try to handle it himself. 

When I met Mario at his arraignment in juvenile court, he was still eleven and a sixth 

grader. Mario appeared to be a shy and soft-spoken child. He enjoyed math and science. At 

the time, he said that he hoped to one day be a dentist because teeth fascinated him. Mario 

also has a history of depression and anxiety. At his previous school, Mario received many 

awards, which his mother saved, for things such' as, being student of the month, perfect 

attendance, completion of assignments, good attitude, honor roll, certificate of citizenship. 

After the alleged incident, Mario was forced to switch schools. Mario liked his new 

school because, in his words at the time, "no one is mean to me there." Mario also participated 

in an after-school program at his new school and maintained a 3.0 GPA. 

Before this incident, Mario had no prior history of misbehavior either at home or at 

school, and he had no disciplinary problems since. 

Several years prior to this incident, Mario's parents took him to a psychiatrist for 

treatment of depression for a period of about a year. His parents resumed Mario's counseling 

with the same psychiatrist after the incident with Javier and well before he got to court. His 

psychiatrist offered his opinion that Mario did not pose future anger management issues. 

All of the foregoing mitigating facts and circumstances, many of which were contained 

in the police report, were presented to the bench officer18 in an effort to obtain a dismissal in 

the interests of justice. Additionally, after investigating the case, I was able to present the 

prosecuting attorney and the bench officer with a letter from Javier and his parent expressing 

that they both did not want to see Mario charged in delinquency court for this incident. The 

bench officer denied the motion. 

Mario successfully completed a period of probation and will be eligible at eighteen to 

seal his juvenile record. Should Mario seek employment prior to turning eighteen years old, he 

will have to declare that he was arrested. 

To me, Mario should never have been forced to go to court. The child who he injured 

and his parent were not interested in prosecution. Mario and Javier could have both benefited 

from sitting down and working this out, perhaps with their parents. There were background 

issues in this case - bullying - that the school was best-suited to address. Mario should not 

have been subjected to the stigma of arrest, criminalization, and having to go to court. He 

18 In California delinquency courts, cases are heard by Judges, Commissioners, or Referees. This case was before a 

Commissioner, 

8 
641 

Testimony of Samantha Buckingham Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

should not have to deal with the consequences, 'even if only until he is eighteen, of having a 

juvenile record. I will never forget the image of him, at eleven, with his backpack of trophies. 

CONCLUSION 

I hope my experiences and those of my clients will suggest some questions that deserve 

greater research and attention in the committee's quest to understand the school to prison 

pipeline more fully. As a high school teacher and as a defense attorney for children in 

delinquency court, I have seen repeatedly that without opportunity for achievement, support, 

encouragement, and success in school, the greater the chances a child will wind up in the 

delinquency system. The children in juvenile delinquency court, and the adult offenders I have 

represented in criminal court, have presented with disproportionately high occurrence of 

special education needs in school, a history of school failure, and a history of educational 

neglect. In the jurisdictions where I have practiced, I have seen a number of children ushered 

through delinquency court without concern for whether juvenile court is the best place to 

address their issues and without concern for the stigma that goes along with arrest, 

criminalization, and processing through the court system. 

9 
642 

The foUowing submissions are a representative sample of numerous additional statements 

submitted by students, youth organizers, parents and other family members, teachers, 

school administrators, juvenile court personnel, and others discussing their personal 

experiences with the school-to-prison pipeline. For additional statements, please contact 

the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. 
643 

~ DRUM- DESISRrSING UP & MOVING 

72-1 8 ROOSEVElT AVENUE 2.0 FlOOR, JACKSON HEIGHTS, NY 11372 

Q.B!lM TEL. (718) 205-3036 I FAX (718) 205-3037 I WWW.DRUMNYC.ORG 

Good afternoon everyone. My name is Nilesh Viswashrao and I am a youth leader 

of DRUM- Desis Rising Up and Moving, which is a community based 

organization in New York City organizing low-income South Asian immigrants 

and we are a core member of the Dignity in Schools Campaign National and New 

York. Today I would like to talk about the role ofNYPD in the New York City 

public school system, 

According to the Student Safety Act data, injust less than 3 months, there were 

279 Arrests, and 532 summonses. You have to wonder what is the number going to 

be for the whole school year. And we need to ask ourselves, is this school safety? 

Is this the NYPD showing us that they are keeping us safe, by arresting us and 

giving us court summons for the most minor things? The majority of students in 

NYC public schools are youth of color, and yes you guessed it, the 279 Arrests and 

532 summons the majority of those are Black, Latino, youth of color in lowincome communities, such as myself. The NYPD's control of our schools 

criminalize us. NYPD criminalize and target us in schools just like they target 

people of color in the streets. About a few weeks ago we leamed that there have 

been over 684,000 Stop and Frisks by the NYPD in 2011 and 91 % ofthem were 

people of color. 

In schools the zero tolerance policies haven't helped, they've only left us with the 

disturbing numbers we have today. Taking purely punitive approaches to our youth 

has done nothing but criminalize them, pushing them out to the streets, pushing 

them into incarceration. When I was a student in high schools everyday I was 

harassed by the SSA's and NYPD officers, looking for any and every reason to 
644 

slam my face into the pavement, me and my friends were threatened, frisked, and 

discriminated against, to the point where most ofus never made it past high school. 

One particular incident was when I walked into a fight outside of my school and 

NYPD officers and SSAs came to break it up and I got arrested. Even though I had 

nothing to do with it! I was handcuffed to a fence and searched by the officers and 

then questioned. After which I was given a $50 fine and a court summons to 

attend. I am one of too many youth of color with this kind of school experience, 

and I'm here to say, stop the school to prison pipeline now! 

Our schools lack proper funding. Last year there were 23 schools on the NYC 

Schools Closing List. These are schools that lack the resources to provide us with a 

proper and quality education. And yet, the city pays $221· million on school 

policing, on metal detectors, scanners, police vans- is that fair? Is it fair that every 

year while our schools go through budget cuts, lose teachers, students get 

suspended, harassed and pushed out, the NYPD never faces a budget cut? The 

NYPD never has to worry about being under resourced, never worries about being 

held accountable for what they do to youth of color. Until now. 

New York City public schools must end the use of zero-tolerance discipline and 

require the use of restorative justice and positive behavior support interventions. 

We need to stop relying on NYPD officers and School Safety Agents for handling 

discipline issues and the stop spending $221 Million every year on school policing. 

That is money our schools needs. 
645 

Dear Chairman Dick Durbin: 

It is with great honor and appreciation of your work with the Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights that I write this to be 

submitted on record on the discussion of Ending the School-to-Prison-Pipeline. 

I live in Santa Monica, California. I am a parent and community leader. I advocate for 

educational system and juvenile system changes in order to stop the school-to-jail-pipeline 

that has incarcerated so many youth for many years. I want to take this opportunity to 

share two incidents of two children who were railroaded into the system. As well as share 

some of the work we are doing to address this issue and safeguard children. 

The first story is about a 13 year old African American middle school student who had been 

bullied by a bigger student. The bigger student had been harassing the African American 

student for some time now who finally defended himself by standing up to the bigger 

student. The next morning the bigger student went to school accompanied by an older 

sibling who went to an administrator and filed a complaint that the African American student 

had pulled a knife on him. The African American student was summoned to the assistant 

principal's office where he was questioned about the incident. The African American 

student explained what happened, the administrator asked about the knife, and the student 

explained he never had a knife. The student was suspended and the assistant principal told 

him she was calling the police. The police came, did a search. no knife was found and the 

police advised the principal that the later the grandmother, who was the legal guardian, was 

contacted the better. The African American student was handcuffed and arrested in front of 

other stUdents. This occurred despite witness testimony of no knife and no prior bad 

behavior in school or outside of school. His rights were not told until after arriving at the 

police station. No parent or school official was present at the time. And, the grandmother 

was not notified of his arrest until later that day. This was the first time the student had ever 

had contact with police. 

The second incident happened at the same middle school. The student was a 12 year old 

Latino student. A Caucasian student threw an open milk carton on the back of the Latino 

student. The Latino student pushed the Caucasian stUdent away from him. The 

administrator was called to the scene and spoke to both students separately. The Latino 

student was suspended and the principal called police, and police arrested the Latino 

student and charged him with assault with a deadly weapon (because he used his fists 

when he pushed the Caucasian student). The Caucasian student only received Saturday 

school. Police removed the Latino student from campus and took him to the local police 

department where he was detailed. He was removed from campus during lunch time. The 

parents did not get a call until hours later to let them know their son had been detained. 

Like in the previous incident, this was the first time the student had contact with the police. 

Both of these students now had a criminal record and were now in the ·system'. They were 

labeled and considered trOUble-makers and youth who didn't have promise for a good 

future. Their arrests and having to go to court caused a great deal of harm to them 

psychologically and emotionally. It also took a toll on both of their families. One of the 

parents worked in the medical field for 15 years at the time this happened to her son. She 

was so worried about her son going to jail during the court process that she had a difficult 
646 

time focusing at work. One day while at work she injected a patient with a wrong dose of 

medicine and lost her job. She was out of work for some time and because of the 

seriousness of it she was seen as a liability and never gained employment in the medical 

field again. She found a job in a preschool and her income to help provide for her family 

was much lower and had a negative impact on the economic stability of the family. 

Both of these families were so frightened by what happened that they outreached to other 

parents for help. A group of parents and community leaders got together with them and we 

began our own investigation of these incidents as well as into police protocol, and 

suspension and expulsions. We found several things that raised red flags. One was that 

when we went to the school district to inquire about student arrests on campus they had no 

information, so we inquired about student suspensions and expUlsions which confirmed 

what we saw happening. It confirmed that students of color, while they made up the 

minority of the students, made up the majority of suspensions and expUlsions in most of the 

district's schools, in particular the middle school where these two incidents took place. And, 

we found out the reason the district wasn't aware of arrests or how many was because the 

administrators at the middle school were calling some of the officers directly rather than 

calling 911 where calls get recorded. So, there was no way of knowing how often police 

was called, how many arrests and the demographics of the students arrested. 

We began to get the word out into the community asking parents and students to come 

forward if they had had something like this happen to them. We had so many parents come 

forward that we did not have enough volunteers to document their stories. We mobilized 

about 600 people to attend a school board meeting where we brought the district's data on 

suspensions and expulsions and personal testimony of arrests from students and parents. 

The superintendent at that time created a task force comprised of some of the parents who 

testified, district staff, police personnel, and other community members to address this 

issue. Later that year the school board adopted a new policy. The required report would 

provide information about the student, the reason police were summoned and police 

response. A second procedure would create a uniform protocol for administrators to follow 

when a student is questioned by police. Such a protocol would require administrators to fill 

out a written incident report; notify parents or guardians of the student involved; notify the 

student involved that the student has a right to have parents or guardians present during 

questioning and that if a stUdent requests parents or guardians to be present, questioning of 

the student must stop if parents or guardians are not present. In addition, the protocol 

required that administrators could release stUdent records to pOlice ONLY if permission is 

given by the parents of the student or if police present administrators with subpoena or a 

court order. 

The above incidents and policy implementation took place ten years ago. I believe we've 

made some impact, however, youth of color are still entering the juvenile and prison system 

for minor offenses and defiances. The zero-tolerance policy is very punitive and ties the 

hands of administrators to intervene in altemative and restorative ways. Police approach 

and policies are geared heavy towards enforcement, not prevention or intervention, and are 

very aggressive and destructive to children. The trauma encountered during an arrest or 

incarceration can change a child for the worst. This is why the federal government must colead this work with local government, agencies and communities. The City of Santa 

Monica, the Santa Monica Malibu School District, non profits and community members 
647 

continue to work on this important issue. Two years ago we began a more cohesive and 

collective approach with the various institutions to work towards systems and institutional 

change. (please note that the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica-Malibu School 

District have also submitted statements for this hearing highlighting their leadership and 

outlining the collective work). We are doing whatever it takes, however, we need the federal 

government's help in achieving the utmost success for all children. We need federal policies 

in place that are aligned with this work and a reinvestment of money to provide alternatives 

to incarceration. 

Thank you for having a discussion on this issue, and I greatly hope that you make this issue 

a priority and put forth the efforts needed to ensure no more children are railroaded into the 

prison system. The future of our children depends on us doing better now. 

Best Regards, 

Irma Carranza 
648 

Principal: r ames R. Sporleder 

December 10, 2012 

Lincoln High School 

421 South 4th Ave 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 

(509) 527-3083 

(509) 527-3011 fax 

To: Chairman Durbin, Members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and 

Human Rights. 

From: Jim Sporleder, Principal of Lincoln High School in Walla Walla, WaShington 99362 

Re.: 'Pipeline to Prison" and the "Traditional Model" of School Discipline 

Dear Chairman Durbin: 

I am a principal of an Altematlve High School, and after 20 years of implementing "Traditional Discipline: I 

have changed my philosophy and have made a complete paradigm shift in my beliefs and the manner in which 

I address student discipline. Three years ago I was introduced to the Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE 

Study) and how Complex Trauma impacts brain development and how high levels of stress impairs a studenfs 

ability to learn, problem solve, being able to focus, making appropriate decisions. I have learned that a student 

needs time to be able to de-escalate before doing any problem solving, or discussing the immediate 

consequences of their behavior. At Lincoln we look at students through the 'lens" or what is causing the 

behavior, versus the tradttional model of reacting to the behavior. Since we have implemented a trauma 

sensitive approach, our 'Out of School Suspensions' went from 728 days out of school to 135 days in days in 

just one year. We went from 600 office referrals to 320 in that same year as well. I stand firm that we are 

holding students more accountable than we ever did under the traditional approach. Why? I use "In School 

Suspension" which holds students accountable to for attendance, getting their school work completed, and I 

know my kids are in a safe place. What have we seen? Stronger student relationships, students accepting 

responsibility for their behavior and consequences, and the greatest resutt .... we are seeing students with a 

history of behavior problems, changing and becoming more connected to school, which in tum brings more 

success in their classes. I am a strong supporter for the Washington League of Voters who has aggressively 

challenged disciplinary policies that place a student on a 'Pipeline to Prison'. The traditional model of 

discipline has mislabeled so many kids as; lazy, unmotivated, disruptive, disconnected, angry, explosive, 

without taking the time to seek the cause of the behavior. What I have discovered since I have made my 

paradigm shift, the results that I am seeing aligns with the research. All of our schools across the country have 

students that have been impacted by ACE's and Complex Trauma. The predictors of ACE students are very 

similar with Pipeline to Prison, if interventions are not put into place. The research clearly shows that students 

experiencing high levels of stress physiologically cannot control themselves when they are in the 'Fight-FlightFreeze' mode. I can only speak for our secondary schools, as a school system we are suspending students for 

too long a period of time, this only reinforces a student not feeling valued, cared for, and sends a message that 

we don't want you here. 

I feel the advocacy movement....'Pipeline to Prison", is exposing and challenging disciplinary policies that are 

excessive and do not show any evidence that they have any significant impact on the student. Students that 

come to Lincoln who have a long history with discipline are usually already involved in the Juvenile Justice 

System, supervised by a Probation Officer, and most likely are severely deficient in credits to graduate on time. 

However, by using the strategies from the ACE Study, these students can make changes and be successful. 

How? By developing positive adun relationships, showing them that they are valued, you appreciate having 
649 

them in school, discipline with dignity, and looking for the cause before giving the consequences, When a 

student knows he/she is cared for and valued, behavior begins to change, the student feels more connected to 

school, and they begin to make academic progress towards earning their credits for graduation, These are 

great kids that have been mislabeled, 

Please take note to what I am going to share, The brain research has been around a long time, but we don1 use it when 

we make decisions or develop policy that impacts the lives of the students, Use the research' ~ is a powerful tool to not 

only change policy, but to provide the reasons why we need to make Significant changes, The ACE Study is a great place 

to start"" ~ shows how empathy and a different approach through a new understanding, motivates the change from 

a traditional model to look through the "Lens" of a Trauma Sens~ive Model. Google Lincoln High School Walla Walla 

Washinaton and you will see the reduction in suspensions that we have experienced since we changed our model. If you 

make policy change and then mandate that ~ be followed, I believe you will lose the purpose and goal of creating an 

effective policy change that is to keep more kids in schooL For those who are mandated to follow the policy, they will 

resent the mandate and that will have a negative impact when the principal is dealing ~h the student in a resentful 

manner or w~h anger. Create Policy that is tied to the ACE Study and n gives a solid reason why we need to make 

changes in how we handle student discipline, I believe the policy, integrated ~h the research, has a greater opportun~ 

to demonstrate a solid reason why we need a paredigm shift across our system that is more effective, holds students 

more accountable, and at the same time"",pursues the cause of the behavior so that any underlined issues can be 

addressed ~h empathy and support, We have a huge challenge before us, Zero Tolerance Policies, High Stakes 

Testing, Current Policies that Label Schools as Focus Schools", "even when the playing field is so lopsided, These are 

some of the things that need to be a part of the discussion, for many of these things that I have mentioned are in my 

opinion why so many students get removed from schooL They are labeled and pressure is to remove them so that they 

don't impact the learning of others, I have also found that the Trauma Sens~ive Model is met w~h strong 

resistance." "We are paid to teach, we are not counselors, behavior is taken personally therefore consequences are more 

punijive, students have to be held accountable"". on and on. A Trauma Sens~ive Model holds students more 

accountable, shows significant positive outcomes, keeps students in school as much as possible, and looks to finding 

support and empathy for thosa students that are experiencing difficun times in their lives and the stress is overwhelming, 

Sincerely, 

Jim Sporleder 

The Walla Walla School District is an Equal Employer aod complies with all "'Iuirements of the ADA 
650 

Name: Jaritza Geigel City and State: Brooklyn, NY 

Organization: Make The Road New York 

I attended public school my whole life. High school was no different. 

I first attended High SChool in Manhattan for the first two years. 

At the time I was dealing with a lot of issues in the home that began to make its 

way into school. By my sophomore year I found myself sitting in a room with my 

guidance counselor encouraging me to go to an alternative school. She made it 

seem like it was the only solution for me, but as I walked through the halls I 

noticed that half of the students that I came in with were slowly starting to 

disappear. We had been pushed out of the school so that they could keep their 

graduation rates high. I remembered sitting in Math class that day watching the 

way my teacher interacted with the students. Those that didn't understand were 

pushed to the back and those that could keep up got more out of him than the rest 

of us. 

The last two years of my High School experience was spent at The Bushwick High 

School for Social Justice. The teachers, staff, and administration were completely different. They were encouraging, funny, supportive, and engaging. 

If there was anything that I wish I could change was the fact that I had to go 

through scanning every day and deal with rude School Safety Agents, and a dean 

that was quick to suspend instead of taking into account all sides to the story. 

For the last three months I had been harassed by a senior female student. For 

three months I approached staff and the dean about it and not once was she 

suspended. When we finally had mediation and they made me feel like I was the 

person harassing her. The last day of school we got into an altercation and even though for three months she instigated it I was the one who got suspended for the 

first week of my senior year. All I could remember thinking was unfair they had 

been. How is it that I get harassed and the minute there'S an altercation I'm 

the one that gets suspended, it wasn't fair. 

Unfortunately, this was happening a lot. I had a friends getting suspended for 

having a hat on, or being caught in a 'sweep', because the teacher told them to 

stand in the hall way. I had one friend that the moment he stepped into school 

he was being called into the main office and then wouldn't be seen for another 

week. It was getting ridiculous. I was a witness when a female safety agent 

handcuffed my classmate and proceeded to punch her in the face. 

With the way discipline was being forced on us and going through metal detectors, 

and scanning everyday I felt like a criminal. It made it hard to want to even come to school. It wouldn't matter how hard teachers and staff tried to make the 

environment welcoming, because every morning our day consisted of being yelled 

at, and stripping out of many layer of clothing. 

I have been a part of my organization since I stepped into their partnership high 

school, The Bushwich High School for Social Justice, at the age of 16. I have 

watched my fellow classmates be suspended or arrested for minor infractions. Now 

five years later, as a youth organizer at Make the Road New York, I listen as my 

young people come in and tell me that it's still happening. Students, 

particularly black and brown, are still being suspended, and arrested for minor 
651 

infractions. These same young people who felt as I felt every time they stepped 

foot inside their school the feeling of being a criminal. 

In NYC, students with the Student Safety Coalition fought for the Student Safety 

Act. A bill that requires the NYPD and the DOE to release data of arrests, 

suspensions, expulsions, based on race, gender, IEP, etc. They would release 

this data to the City Council. 

With the data to back up what young people have been saying for years about being 

criminalized and targeted in their schools we have been pushing for changes to 

the Discipline Code through Dignity in Schools- NY Chapter and are seeing some changes begin to happen. 

We are also pushing for restorative justice practices that are really address the 

social and emotional support of students and work on creating a more educational 

environment for young people. Black, brown, LGTBQ, undocumented, and students 

with IEPs shouldn't have to walk into school and walk in fear of being targeted, 

harassed, or mistreated inside their schools. It's great that the School to 

Prison Pipeline is finally being addressed, because make no mistake this is 

something that has been happening for years and hopefully today we will take 

real, common sense next steps to dismantling it. 
652 

•• 7 -.a.1 .-

December 5, 2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Stephanie _ Trifone@Judiciary-dem.Senate.gov 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-ta-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the Subcommittee 

on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

My name is Jarrel Strong and I am a high school student from Miami, Florida. I am a member of 

Power U Center for Social Change, a member organization of the Dignity in Schools Campaign. 

I am submitting this testimony to share my experience with school push out. I have experienced 

school push out and I believe this leads to school-to-prison pipeline. 

At my school, Miami Carol City Senior High, the principal, administrators, and the chairman 

over discipline handle discipline by consistently giving students out-door suspensions with no 

questions asked. I've been suspended from school because I was out of school uniform. Neither 

the security guard, nor the administrators asked me why I was out of school uniform. I was 

placed in in-door suspension for 3 whole days which had me missing work and earning failing 

grades in my core classes. I believe this is unfair because students are not given the opportunity 

to tell their side of the story. 

In addition to the incident I experienced, I also wituessed a queer (gay) student getting jumped 

by over 6 football players. The queer boy was embarrassed of being beaten up and having over 

100 students in the cafeteria witness the event. He was bruised and scratched up and received 10 

days out-door suspension, while the foot ball players received no sort of discipline. These cases 

often come up in my school. 

Some students feel that they can't change this and are scared to speak up against it. Students tell 

me that the administration has power to do whatever they want so that is why things are the way 

they are. These harsh discipline policies discourage students from attending school because they 

feel that the school environment feels like a jail house. Students feel like they are criminals who 

are being severely punished and have no right to their education. 

Power U Center for Social Change 

164 NW 20th Street, #104 Miami, FL 33127 

Tel 305-576-7449 Fax 305-573-8772 info@'powel1l.org 
653 

My school is a 1raditional public school. Some minor infractions students are suspended for are 

being tardy to school, being out of school uniform, talking back to school employees, and 

skipping school. Students are arrested for fighting and bringing pepper spray to school. Kicking 

students out of school is not a solution that helps students resolve their problems. 

The school-to-prison pipeline has impacted me because I have seen that Black and Latino 

students are affected the most by the zero tolerance policies compared to White students. At 

Power U Center I participated in a research project where over 600 students were surveyed in 

which they were asked how zero tolerance policies had impacted them. In our study, for the 

2008-2009 school year, we found that Black students were four times more likely to be 

suspended than White Students. This proves that my peers are being trapped in this school-toprison pipeline. There are no positive messages sent to students that are suspended and arrested 

because pushing students out doesn't encourage students to stay in school or want to go to 

school. 

As a result of what I see in schools I feel something must be done. In my community we are 

working to change this system by organizing our friends and other students to speak out against 

unfair suspensions and arrests. We have had a lot of success doing this in schools and in the 

community. We know that we can make a change here. Our first step is spreading the word. 

People need to know that what is going on is unfair and that they can change that. As students 

and young people we can help fight back for what's right. We do outreach at high schools to get 

more youth involved and speak at school board meetings. 

I feel that the solution to unfair suspensions and arrests is the implementation of Restorative 

Justice. Restorative Justice helps misbehaving students deal with the harm they have caused to 

individuals and to the school community. Restorative Justice recognizes the needs and the 

purpose behind a student's misbehavior and addresses the problem. Zero tolerance has many 

negative side effects on the person who did harm, without getting to the root cause of the 

problem or making things right. Restorative Justice also works with all participants to create 

ways to make things right and make plans for future changes. 

As I mentioned before, I am a member of the Dignity in Schools Campaign and I support the 

federal recommendations they have proposed. I feel that implementing Restorative Justice into 

schools at a federal level will benefit students and the school community. 

Sincerely, 

Jarrel Strong 

Student Leader 

Power U Center for Social Change 

Power U Center for Social Change 

164 NW 20th Street, #104 Miami, FL 33127 

Tel 305-576-7449 Fax 305-573-8772 info@powel'll.org 
654 

Comments to the Senate Judiciary SUbcommittee on the ConstItution, Human RI&hts " evil RJshts 

December 12, 2012 Hearl", on Endl", the -School to PrIson Pipeline" 

To the Honorable Chairman Durbin and Honorable Members of the Committee: 

As an attorney, special education advocate, and parent of a child with a disability, I commend 

the Committee for taking up this Important Issue. There are a number of questionable disciplinary 

practices In our public schools, some of which I have seen firsthand and some of which I read about all 

too often In the press. Unfortunately, disparities are dear from disciplinary referral data, including 

referrals to (or from) the Juvenile Justice system. The data show that discipline referrals 

disproportionately impact students with disabilities, minorities and the economically disadvantaged. My 

comments focus on students with disabirrtles. 

Behavior & Disability: The Nexus that Drives DiscIpline Referrals by Administrators 

Whether In or out of the classroom, the behavior of students with disabilities is frequently 

misunderstood, leading to a high number of discipline referrals! Many families I serve have children 

with an autism spectrum disorder (ASDI or AD/HD. Teachers frequently find their behavior in class, such 

as fidgetiness, distractlblRty, off-topic or socially inappropriate comments, failure to demonstrate active 

nstenlng, and lack of Impulse control, unacceptable. The failure to take a "disability perspective" In such 

cases will frequently lead teachers to believe that the behavior Is purposefully disrespectful. For those 

students with an autism spectrum disorder, and for some with AD/HD too, the nature of the disability 

can significantly affect whether the student can recognize and adapt to classroom norms (sit down, stay 

still, do not Interrupt, look like you are paying attention by tracking the teacher with your eyes, do not 

fiddle with your pendl, etc.). 

Rather than addressing the underlying need, or ignoring the offending behavior, some teachers 

refer for discipline and repeatedly chastise students In front of their peers. This can have a terrible 

Impact on the student. School can become a hostile environment for those facing challenges posed by a 

disability. Removal from school often feels like a relief to such a student. From the behavioral analysis 

perspective, this Is called a positive reinforcement of a negative behavior. It's a big "no-no" because It is 

Ineffective and can cause undesirable behaviors to Increase rather than decrease. 

Outside of the classroom setting, students with ASD or AD/HD may find It difficult to judge 

whether other students are being friendly or If their peers are actually messing with them. In an effort 

to fit In, such students are particularly prone to pressure from their peers and may be less savvy In their 

explanations to administrators. In this way, social defICits can contribute In significant ways to students 

with disabilities exercising poor judgment and can lead to negative perceptions of them. 

Positive Behavior Intervention Support 

It does not have to be this way. In Virginia and In many other states, training projects supported 

at the state level are underway to provide ·Positive Behavior Intervention Support"" or PBIS at the 

school (and sometimes district) level to provide positive and effective interventions school wide, with 

1 
655 

buy in from students, teachers and administrators. The reach of these projects has been limited, 

however, and it requires the schools to Mget on boardM with a significant commlbnent. Some school 

districts have been resistant to participating in these state programs In spite of demonstrated results. 

Among these are highly regarded school systems in Northern Virginia whose diSCipline disparities for 

students with disabilities are notable. 

Practices of Concern 

School districts have their own policies which may vary in implementation at individual schools. 

Some administrators may opt not to make formal referrals. Problems tend to concentrate in particular 

schools. There are numerous dlsclplinary practices known by special education advocates to be used on 

students with disabilities in school districts in Northern Virginia. Among these are ~ (being kept 

In a room alone Isolated from other students), ~ (being physically restrained by school personnel 

or school resource officers). This Issue was recently highlighted in a Washington Post article printed on 

December 7, 2012, about a civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of a student in the Prince William County 

Public Schools. Students with disabilities are also suspended for long terms or reassigned to 

-alternative- school programs frequently for behaviors relating to the student's disability. The behavior 

frequently reflects the school's failure to recognize or meet the needs of the student. Students with 

disabiRties who are victims of!2Y!!l£!!!g often get disciplined for reacting to the bullying. Schools have a 

difficult time sorting out victims from bullieS, and being less socially savvy does not help a bullying victim 

make his case. Zero tolerance policies can result in absurd outcomes, such as expulsion of elementary 

students for bringing a toy gun to school. 

It should be a concern to everyone that this Is happening to students with disabilities at a much 

higher rate than the rest of the public school population. For example, based upon the most recent 

Arlington County Public Schools data available on the United States Department of Justice Office of Civil 

Rights (2004)11, 60% of long term suspension or expulsion cases were for students with disabilities, 

although students with disabilities made up less than 159(, of the school population in 2004. A school 

administrator Is III equipped to function as investigator, judge, jury and executioner - and yet It Is at the 

school level that all this is determined. In cases of physical aggression, all too often any Involved 

students, Including victims, are punished. Thus a victim of aB8ression is victimized twice: once by the 

bully and again by a school system that does not allow Victims to defend themselves from violence. 

Even when facts are not clear, school systems still proceed with expulsion proceedings. The 

evidentiary standard for school discipline is a lower standard. The due process offered does not afford 

much legal protection. In fact, the school discipline process seems to undermine the rights of minors in 

a myriad of ways. For example, schools take student statements without a parent present even when it 

is known they will most likely face a criminal charge. Students are expected to show remorse if they 

want a better outcome from a hearing officer, but expresSions of remorse can be taken as admissions of 

wrongdoing. 

2 
656 

Parallel Systems of Justice?: WIly Schools Malee Bod Courts 

One of the most disturbing trends we are seeing in VIrginia Is the way in which schools have 

created a parallel justice system by exercisillB their authority under state law. This is happening In two 

different contexts: through the crimlnallzation of rule breaking In school, resulting In Increasing 

numbers of referrals to law enforcement, and through the exercise of school jurisdiction for ·crimes in 

the community" which are referred to schools by law enforcement. Mandatory coordination between 

law enforcement and schools can be disadvantageous In a number of ways. Mostly, It ·ups the ante" so 

that schools do not feel free to use misbehavior as an opportunity to counsel students on their choices 

or give second chances to students. 

"Zero tolerance" attitudes have spread around the country with states authorizing courts to try 

juveniles as adults, eliminating probation and parole, and passing three strikes laws. This environment 

has contributed to the Increase in school discipline cases. Cases that would never be pursued by police 

are being pursued by schools. Children are treated as If they are lost causes, removed from the regular 

education setting, reassigned to "alternative schools" or expelled altogether. 

Adults Get More Due Process Defending A Speeding TICket 

When school offenses cross over into the criminal universe, the stakes are high. Adults have 

more due process defending a speeding ticket than public school students do when a school investigates 

a student accused of a crime. In cases where criminal charges have been filed, students facing expulsion 

find their legal rights squeezed between two parallel systems. If they cooperate with the school system 

to Improve their chances of avoiding expulsion, students may place themselves at additional risk in a 

pending criminal case. 

Schools make very poor courts. The school discipline process provides extremely limited due 

process. For example, in Fairfax County expulsion hearings, students have no opportunity to bring their 

own witnesses or to confront witnesses against them, or even to know the Identity of the person who 

has provided evidence against them. If witness statements are provided, they are heavily redacted. 

Witness statements are taken bV administrators and redacted to remove the names of witnesses or 

other involved students. There Is no opportunity to challenge the rellabli1ty of witness statements or to 

elicit exculpatory evidence. In short, school officials conclude what happened and students have a very 

limited opportunity to contest their version of the facts. 

An -appear to the School Board is a closed proceeding, such that the student and their 

advocate or parent Is not permitted to attend, and the decision is made "on the administrative record." 

ThIs is the same "record" that precludes the confrontation of witnesses, a constitutional protection in 

criminal cases. Even typical legal arguments, such as whether the facts offened actually meet the criteria 

of a school policy violation Is often skipped in the typical school hearing case. 

Meanwhile, the school presents their version offacts, based upon their internal investigation. 

The school also presents a disciplinary record, which, when listing every minor offense, can look nke a 

long rap sheet. Offenses as minor as making an Inappropriate comment, Interrupting, or repeatedly 

3 
657 

tapping your pencil on a desk may be listed on discipline records as "insubordination" or Mshowing 

disrespect to a teacher" or "causing a disruption in class: 

Again, schools make poor courts. Even serious offenses that result in recommendations for 

expulsion do not result in juvenile detention for many students, especially If there is no past criminal 

history. However, they often result in the student being expelled from school, making it far more likely 

they will avoid authority figures, instead gravitating toward people who may not make good role 

models. 

Some Virginia school districts are now opting to pursue disciplinary action for offenses occurring 

away from school and which also have no connection to school." These cases are reported to schools by 

law enforcement, as mandated by state law, and can result in expulsion or reassignment to a "nontraditional school: Although reassignment to such a school means the student with a disability will 

continue to receive their education, they most likely will not receive the special education services they 

require or complete the classes in which they are enrolled. These facts alone place them at risk of not 

graduating on time or obtaining a standard or advanced diploma. 

School board authority to expel students is so broad that children can forfeit their right to 

attend school at any time. The consequences of these policies are significant. One could argue that for a 

young person expulsion from school or school "reassignment" Is more life altering than anything else 

that could happen to them as a kid. Students who are removed from school are essentially discarded by 

our society at a very young age. When a person Is treated in this manner, should It surprise us when 

they decide that they do not care to conform to social norms? 

By passing the Americans with Disabilities Act' and the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act~, Congress took a strong stand: that we would not hide those who fall outside of the comfortable 

norm, that we would not force them behind dosed doors and away from others, that we would not 

segregate them from the rest of the school population. The education policy of the United States ls to 

indude students with disabilities, to place them In the least restrictive environment. Disciplinary 

practices in our schools are seriouslY undermining this policy. 

What action can be taken to reverse this trend? 

1. Public schools should limit the types of offenses that can lead to expulsion. 

2. All "zero tolerance" policies in school should be reevaluated to determine if outcomes 

justify their use. 

3. School districts should report data on diSCipline by school and by all disability categories that 

exist under the state law so that schools can identify the need for training. 

4. Schools should pursue Positive Behavior Intervention Support training so that teachers are 

better prepared to handle behaviors that are interfering with instruction in the classroom. 

5. With regard to students with disabilities, Congress should revise the provisions for 

"Manifestation Determination Review .... (MDR) under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act so that the review is meaningful. The MDR hearing is often a rubber stamp. 

It is extremely difficult to meet the current standard for an MDR. Students with disabilities 

4 
658 

are being expelled even when it is clear that their disabilities contributed directly to the 

actions for which they are being disciplined. This means that children are removed from the 

school system and placed in alternative settings where they are lesslikeiy to be successful, 

where they will not receive the same of services or an equivalent education, at a higher cost 

to the school system. 

6. Reassignment should require a finding by the school that the student poses a direct danger 

to other students based upon factual information in the school's possession. A mere charge 

pending in a criminal matter should not be enough to conclude that the student is 

dangerous to others. 

7. Schools need to take real steps to eliminate bullying by teachers, administrators, parents 

and students alike. 

We as a society need to be more inclusive so that individuals who stand out or have 

eccentricities are not victimized. Congress should act to end the School to Prison Pipeline. It all starts 

with how discipline is handled in our schools. Students with disabilities make up a disproportionate 

number of discipline referrals. The behaVior resulting in discipline is often caused by the failure of 

schools to identify and address the needs of a student with special needs. The Committee should 

consider what revisions to federal law may be needed to ensure that this disparity is eliminated. 

I thank that Committee for the opportunity to submit comments. 

Respectfully yours 

~ Juliet Hiznay 

101 South Hudson Street 

Arlington, Virginia 22204 

(703) 685-2S96 

J Discipline referrals data broken out by special educations students Is often collected by school districts, but the 

data Is not always publicly available. In Northern Virginia, It is known that special education students make up 

more than 40% of discipline referrals in some school districts although students with disabilities make up 15% or 

less of the student body. This data should be collected and made available to the public, preferably broken out by 

subgroup and disability. If this Is done states and districts will be in a better position to identify where positive 

behavior training support is most needed. 

• Virginia's PBIS training support Is described at http://ttac.odu.edu/pbisva 

m Source: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/DistrictSchooISeartb (see custom charts and detailed data tables). 

wVA Code Section 22.1-277.2:1 (2009) . 

, 42 U.S.C. § 12102 et seq. (2008) 

" 20 USC § 1415(k)(1)(E) 

.. C20 USC § 1415(k)(1)(E) 

5 
659 

Esmeralda V., 14 years old 

Roosevelt High School, LAUSD 

When I was a ih grader, still in middle school I clearly remember being stopped by a school 

police officer. I had stayed after school with my friend and we were waiting for my teacher to 

stay with her. As we were waiting to cop passed by, he said to leave because we were not 

allowed to be there. 

He never asked us why we were there although we had a good reason. After he left we still 

stayed waiting for the teacher, and he passed by us again. He cussed at us and told us if he 

came back and we were still here he will give us a citation. 

This made me feel so mad because he didn't even bother to asking why we were there. Talking 

about this still makes me angry, because I didn't do anything wrong for him to treat me like that 

as well as my friend. 

I have known students who have been arrested for skipping class tagging, having makers, being 

on school grounds when they say you're not supposed to be, and being accused of stealing or 

taking something at school been The school doesn't care about us, they never ask what, when 

or why. They instantly assume we are doing something wrong. 

This is why I joined The community Rights Campaign's Taking Action Club at my school to get 

power to fight back learn my rights and get other students to do the same. 
660 

Jacquelin R. 

11 Ib grade at Crenshaw High School, Los Angeles Unified School District 

Los Angeles, CA 

When I was in glb grade at Barack Obama Preparation Academy, I went to the bathroom 

with a friend and there were girls smoking in there. The police came in and accused us of 

being with them. We told them we weren't but they still accused us and searched our 

bags and interrogated us, asking us invasive questions, like whether any of our parents or 

family members smoked marijuana. 

After that I went back to class but I couldn't really concentrate. It gave me a headache. 

The next day I didn't want to go to school. I was scared I might get blamed or accused of 

doing something else I didn't do. That feeling lasted for about a month and then it slowly 

started going away. My mom was really mad that they were harassing innocent youth 

like us. 

That same year, I had a cousin at another nearby middle school who got a ticket for 

tagging. He was in 'J'h grade. And I had two other friends at Barack Obama who got 

tickets, one for stealing and the other for marijuana. 

This kind of thing really affects students. You have this constant fear that you are going 

to get caught for doing something, or that you are going to be at the wrong place at the 

wrong time and get caught up. You worry about getting a criminal record that will mess 

up your life. 

It continues at my high school, Crenshaw. The assistant principal regularly comes into 

classes to do random searches, often with a Security Officer. Because of my experience 

in middle school, every time this happens, I feel nervous and stressed. What if they find 

the markers in my bag-will I get a ticket for tagging like others I've seen who get 

caught with markers? 

I got involved with the Community Rights Campaign when I heard organizers talking 

about just how many people get these tickets and who gets them most, and I realized this 

is unjust and that we can fight it. We need to make sure this stops happening and help 

people who have already had these experiences to realize they were treated wrongly. 
661 

Name: Marcela Moralez-Morris City and State: Grand Rapids, MI 

Organization: Juvenile Court 

I am a supervisor over a court school program servicing youth on probation and who are 

suspended/expelled, truant or academically behind. The purpose of this school is to 

ensure that youth who are delinquent still have a place to go to get their education. Many 

of our students want to be in school and enjoy the extra help given by my staff. They are 

involved with small classroom settings, tutors and proficient teachers. In my past years 

working as a probation officer, I have seen many kids getting kicked out of school for 

minor reasons but mostly because they were known to be on probation or trouble in the 

community. The more a youth gets suspended, the farther behind they become and the 

less likely they will be able to succeed in the classroom. This leads to increased time on 

the streets and a higher risk of delinquency. 

Many of our youth would get suspended from school and go to juvenile detention. The 

kids would spend days sometimes weeks in detention attending school only to receive 

elective credits that do not count towards their graduation. I have seen many kids 

become frustrated stating they completed the work but yet not getting the appropriate 

credit for their efforts. These kids then become problems in their base schools because 

they don't want to complete work they have already completed in detention and they 

become further behind academically. We see many youth who are 16 or 17 years old 

who have no credits towards graduation come through the juvenile courts. When the 

court orders them to attend school, they push back against that as much as possible. 

What 16 or 17 year old wants to take classes with ninth graders? So instead, they will act 

out to get put out of school back to the streets where they want to be. If educators would 

take the time to listen to the young people and help them instead offorce them they may 

have better academic success. I believe kids want to learn but they do not want to be in 

an environment where they are behind because they do not want to look "stupid" or be 

with students who are not their age. 

Many of the public schools our youth attend in our area use the zero tolerance for 

everything. I have seen youth kicked out of school for 3 days just for yelling or swearing 

in the classroom. I have seen youth expelled because of gang talk on their facebook 

page, but who have minimal problems in school. Now, one of the bigger school districts 

here are suspending kids for sagging their pants. Once schools know a youth is on 

probation, they will target that youth and ensure that they get suspended and/or expelled. 

I know kids need to be held accountable for their behaviors, but sending them to the 

streets only encourages delinquent behavior and more referrals to the court. There are 

many other methods to use instead of suspensions and expulsions. I know there are four 

exceptions to the zero tolerance rules but many of the school districts strictly enforce 

automatic expUlsions. 

The school program that I oversee has two classrooms with 14 students in each room. 

will not allow youth to be sent home unless there is a threat to security, other students or 

staff. Most behavior problems can be addressed by separating the student from the 
662 

classroom and talking with them one on one. Most of the kids have many other issues 

going on in their life that sometimes need to be addressed before they can be successful 

in a classroom setting. We try to help them both academically and socially. In order for 

youth to be successful, they need to know they have support, guidance and respect. 

When they know they can trust someone, they will work hard. 

Discipline is different now then when I was a student because they would involve 

parents, teachers and other staff. Now, the police or probation officer is called before a 

parent is notified. Schools rely on the courts to assist with problem students instead of 

making parents become involved and hold their youth accountable. Kids are being 

charged nowadays with things you never would have been charged with when I was in 

school. A fist fight when I was a student would result in parents being called, an after 

school detention or Saturday school. Now, it's an assault and battery, you get a record 

and possible expulsion. This type of treatment towards our youth tells them they are not 

worthy of being in school, you can't make mistakes and now they are labeled. The youth 

then become the target of the police. This also makes it difficult for youth to mature and 

grow. They are unable to get jobs or get into college when they have a juvenile record. 

This also make youth ineligible for school of choice. A student may want to go to a 

school outside of their district but with suspensions or behavioral problems, other schools 

will not want to take them. When a youth makes a mistake, they are limited to what they 

can do to improve and change their ways. 

Our community has been holding some meetings to address the school to prison pipeline. 

Some of the school districts in the area are starting to recognize the issue but still feel 

they are following policy or their hands are tied when disciplining students. Our 

community has a strict discipline charter school which enrolls the youth the other schools 

expel. This has been a great place for probation officers, youth, parents and the 

community to ensure the continued education of troubled youth. It is important to 

understand when a youth is not in school. they will be out in the community with no 

supervision during the day and then will be at a higher risk to become involved in 

delinquent behavior. If a student can go to school at a strict discipline charter school, 

they should be able to remain in a regular school. 

There are several steps that can take place to help both the schools and the students who 

misbehave. First of all, sending a youth home for several days or expelling them only 

allows them to come back with minimal improvements. If you keep them in school. give 

them discipline during school or after school, the youth will still be able to complete their 

school work and won't get behind. There can be different programs to reward positive 

behavior to entice a kid to do well. Schools need to have group counseling or life skills 

as part of their curriculum. Many of the youth today are dealing with issues in the 

community and at home that adults didn't have to deal with. Some youth are coming 

from single parent homes, parent(s) who are incarcerated, involved with the juvenile 

courts, watched a friend get shotlkilled, use substances, are being threatened by gangs, 

involved with gangs, financial problems or many others. Having group sessions where 

youth can express themselves and gain guidance into how to make positive choices and 
663 

avoid peer pressure can be very beneficial. Youth need to understand the choices they 

make and the consequences that can occur from those choices. 

Part of the programming with my school includes rewarding youth with student of the 

week, calling parents on a weekly basis to give positive reports not just negative ones, 

having group counseling sessions two hours per week to discuss topics that my be 

effecting our students and talking with them individually about problems. It is amazing 

how youth respond to student of the week. They fight for that recognition and sometimes 

argue as to why they should get the honor and not someone else. They also come to 

school. They know they have staff that support them and will help them. Even some of 

the students who are the most difficult would stand up for one of the staff if someone was 

giving them a hard time. They take pride in their grades and try to work hard. Many of 

my students do not want to leave once their trimester is over. My program is a trimester 

long to help get youth on track to return to their base school. We try to keep students 

when we can, but limited finances and staff will not always allow for that. We have kids 

in our school who have committed serious offenses, belong to gangs, have been expelled 

for guns and many other issues and the majority of those students complete the program 

successfully. 

The federal government can assist with keeping youth in school by providing funding for 

after school enrichment programs or funding for counseling during the school day. As I 

stated above, my program provides life skills groups for the students. This is a great 

program for youth to participate with as it teaches them skills needed to be successful not 

only in school but in life. Making money available for tutors and mentors will also be 

important for students who need them. The federal government can help by making sure 

that the money that is allocated for each student follows them to whatever school they are 

placed in. For example, if a student is attending X School District on count day but gets 

suspended or changes to another school due to discipline issues, the money school X is 

receiving should be sent to the new school. This will make sure schools work with the 

student instead of getting the money then kicking the youth out of their school. The 

process that is currently in place allows the original school district to reap all the benefits 

of a student who no longer attends their school. The receiving school district then 

provides for the student, but is limited to resources because of funding. 

I have been working with juveniles for over 16 years. I have seen youth come through 

the system and go on to prison, youth who go on to college and youth who go to the 

morgue. I believe the system fails them daily. I also believe that this can change and that 

schools need to be held accountable for educating and supporting our youth. Youth 

spend the majority of their time in school eating breakfast, lunch and learning. It's 

important to make sure we have highly skilled educators that cannot only teach but who 

also are able to work with youth and the issues they may bring. Schools should be able to 

get rid of a teacher who cannot work with students or lack conflict resolution abilities. 

School is not only about academics, it should teach about life, choices and consequences. 
664 

School to Prison Pipeline Testimony 

Marlyn Tillman 

Co-Founder 

Gwinnett SToPP 

Snellville, GA 30078 

I am a parent and an education advocate in my community. As a parent we always advocate for 

our children. It is a very different world than the one we baby boomers experienced while 

growing up. There are many influences and pressures that today's youth face. There's peer 

pressure to engage in risky behaviors; there's the high stakes testing; and then there's the 

"tracking" and profiling that school systems do. School systems decide the track our kids are on; 

who will follow the special education or regular education path, who will further their 

education, and they help determine who will go on to the juvenile justice system. And of course, 

they want students to believe that once they enter those hallowed halls, all of their rights are 

left outside the school house door. 

I'm sure that you have heard the expression "zero-tolerance equals zero sense" in relationship 

to school discipline policies. Students suspended for cutting a birthday cake with a knife that 

was present in the school. A student suspended for violating a school's prohibition on chains, 

which are categorized as weapons, by carrying a Tweety Bird wallet key chain. The five year-old 

arrested at school In Georgia for throwing a temper tantrum. These are the cases that made It to 

the press. What about the kid that was suspended for glaring at the teacher? Or what about the 

child who was expelled from school for defending herself when attacked by a fellow cfassmate? 

None of those real life incidents made the press. 

My son learned that he could be targeted for the clothing that he wore. The problem was the 

school would not tell him which clothing was considered gang related activity and therefore, 

prohibited. The school wanted to be the fashion police but they would not provide a list of the 

fashion faux pas so that he would not fall under scrutiny. In Gwinnett County Public Schools 

(GCPSl, gang related attire was at the highest level of disciplinary action. And in my view, it was 

used to target and profile the black students at the school. 

But my son, Kyle, knew that wasn't right or fair. In this instance, the school administrators had 

the wrong kid. Kyle had just spent two weeks that past summer at the Crump law Camp housed 

at Howard University School of Law. The camp included a trip to the Supreme Court where he 

received a pocket sized copy of the Constitution. So when they questioned him about his 

cfothing and they wanted to search his backpack.he tells them which amendments that they will 

violate and proceeded to pull out his pocket copy to show them. Of course, that didn't garner 

him much favor with the school administrators. He was disciplined for being disrespectful and a 

gang member. I later told him that unfortunately, students aren't recognized for having 

protection from illegal searches in school. 

My son was an honor student and the child of a very active, Involved parent, avid PTA'er; held 

offices, chaired committees; yet this happened to him. And this very active parent after falling to 

resolve this Issue at the local school and county level was forced to seek a legal remedy for my 

student. What happens to the children whose parents don't know the Constitution or the laws 
665 

that are there to protect them? Should they be destined to permanent expulsion or the juvenile 

system? 

In this post 9-11, Columbine and Va Tech world that we live in; it is imperative that we s,top the 

assault on our freedoms and the Constitution and that we speak for those that are afraid or 

don't know. Please continue to support the ACLU in the much needed work that they do. They 

are supporting what we stand for as a country. If one of us loses our rights, all of us lose our 

rights. If this trend continues future generations will not know the America that we've been 

privileged to know. 

To carry on this work, I have founded an organization and joined others who fight against the 

School to Prison Pipeline. This is near and dear to my heart is because of the attempt to place 

my son In the pipeline. I shudder to think what kind of person he would be today or where he 

would be, had GCPS ripped him out of his AP and Honors classes to go to the alternative school, 

technically because of his clothing but really because of his black skin. 

In GWinnett, nearly 30% of the population of the alternative schools receives special education 

services and nearly 70% of the alternative school population is minority, even though 

collectively, all minorities comprise 44% of the overall student population. I, myself overheard a 

school employee ask a tribunal member that took a break from an ongoing hearing; "Have you 

gotten to the part where they're found guilty yet? And if that's what's happening in Gwinnett; 

what is happening in the rural areas? These Gwinnett numbers are also reflected in nation-wide 

statistics. These problems are systemic and not genetic. To Gwinnett's credit, they have begun 

to review their policies but, sadly, have refused to look at how biases interpiay. 

The prison industrial complex is real and it is swallowing our children and our future 

Respectfully Submitted. 
666 

Statement by Tracey Wells-Huggins, RN and Founder of 

Renewed Minds CDC, Inc. 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

December 8, 2012 

When my son was three-years-old I was called by his pre-school teacher to 

have an impromptu conference based on his "obvious defiance to authority 

figures." It appeared that she was able to speak intelligently to this fact based on 

his insistence that he count out 1-2-3 cookies when promoted to only count 2. 

Her theory was further proven by his additional intentions of pouring a full glass 

of milk (to go with the 3 cookies I am certain) instead of the half glass that he was 

instructed to pour. Defiant to authority at age 3? I was afraid for my son because 

I couldn't understand what kind of system labels a child so harshly at such a 

young age. Later I realized that this language was my first encounter with the 

school to prison pipeline. 

Fast forward to the 3rd grade, due to his difficulty with reading, my son had 

his first IEP (Individualized Education Plan) and this was also our introduction to 

the world of Child Study Teams. Fear that my son would be 'labeled' again and be 

forced to live with this stigma launched me into a full scale learning frenzy about 

the best ways to advocate for him. After all, who better to fight for a child than a 

mother? I would have thought that my presence and often persistence would 

have been a welcomed to those in the education system. I learned that my very 

presence and questions made me a 'problem parent' especially when many 

parents don't show up for meetings. Decisions can be made easily when no one is 

questioning why this or that is considered best practice. It also is uncomfortable 

to challenge the 'experts' about finding something positive to say before outlining 

all the negative things they have 'seen in your child'. The pipeline has been 

allowed to thrive and grow based on the fear of challenge ... until now. 
667 

Our story gets deeper. When my son was arrested but had not been 

detained or charged officially with a crime, the school denied him access on the 

very next day based on input from the local police. This really opened our eyes. It 

is far easier to suspend a child from school and create a 'log of inappropriate 

behavior' leading them directly into 'alternative schools' often viewed as the last 

stop before detention in my community. The message that the 'bad kids' are the 

ones in these settings and the stigma attached is horrible. Renewed Minds as an· 

organization makes educating these students about the pipeline through poetry 

slams and workshops an ongoing part of our work. Since these students are the 

ones being pushed out the most it makes sense to engage them as partners in this 

fight for their lives and futures. 

The correlation between children with IEP's and involvement in the 

juvenile system is a significant red flag that we must address with our movement. 

It is clearly no coincidence that an overwhelming percentage of youth involved in 

juvenile courts and held in detention centers across this nation have educational 

needs that have gone underserved, misdiagnosed and/or even neglected due to 

overcrowded classes and ratios that make it almost impossible to an effective 

educator for students who need extra help. If you were to take a poll of any 

detention unit, jail or prison population you would see a trend of many 

incarcerated individuals with great potential. The link between education as a 

system and the juvenile justice world must be taken seriously into consideration 

and slated for immediate change. Advocacy from those of us directly affected 

and in the fight is only the beginning. We need the support of the federal 

government to move this matter forward. Not getting that support reinforces the 

message that our youth are merely dollar signs for an industry that thrives on 

ignorance and under educating the vulnerable. 

My son is now 20-years-old and is currently active in a great local GED 

program. He had considered returning to 'regular school' after having dropped 

out, but the knowledge of his past experiences and the fact that 'they know me 

from past' led him to think outside the box. He will be successful because he 

wants to be and he has support from his family. The need for the relationship 

between education and juvenile justice is clear to those of us who have been 
668 

affected by it personally. It is our most sincere hope that our government will not 

only get acquainted with our cause but take serious action to support it and 

promote real change for all. 

Tracey Huggins 

Aka 

Will's Mom 
669 

December 4, 2012 

[Tre' Murphy] 

[2524 N Charles St.] 

[Baltimore, MD 21218] 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on ending the school to-prison 

pipeline before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human 

Rights, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. My Name is Tre Murphy and I am an organizer for 

the Baltimore Algebra Project and Alliance for Educational Justice. I have witnessed the schoolto-prison pipeline flfsthand and urge the committee to resolve to keep students in our schools, 

and not in prisons. 

As the Senate Subcommittee meets to explore the problems that perpetuate the school to prison 

pipeline, I urge you to pay close attention to the youth led organizations across the country that 

have already come together to propose a solution through what we call the National Student Bill 

of Rights (NSBR). The National Student Bill of Rights for all Youth (NSBR) is an effort to bring 

together youth from across the country to define a youth vision for education and social justice. 

Youth from different cities in 23 states are developing local bills and working together to write a 

national bill that will become a unifying document for youth nationwide and a driving force for a 

new youth movement. Key rights include: the right to employment, the right to recreation, and 

the right to study curriculum that acknowledges and addresses youth's material and cultural 

needs. We believe that if these and other rights were protected by the federal government, many 

more youth would be in the pipeline to college than in the pipeline to prison. 

The facts show that since the creation of zero tolerance laws and regulations we have seen a 

significant spike in youth charged with crimes. This has lead to problems with their records and 

to negative effects on their education in ways never seen before. 

But it doesn't stop there: among many other things there is still the problem that youth voices 

aren't being heard. We know from research and experience that youth have always been on the 

fore-front of any great movement, but when it comes to the educational system and all the things 

that directly affect them there is little youth voice in decisions, and if there is it is almost never 

taken into consideration. 

There is also the problem of school closings that has contributed to the school to prison pipeline. 

When we allow our schools to close down and force students out of a community that they are 
670 

familiar with tensions result within the educational community itself. No one knows better how 

to avoid educational disturbances than the youth who have experienced them. 

The organizations who submit this testimony believe the best way to stop the school to prison 

pipeline is through rights outlined in the National Student Bill of Rights created by young 

people. We are entitled to these rights, but arenot yet granted them under federal law. 

For more information see www.nationaistudentbillofrights.orgorcontactTreMurphy 

tmur.phy@baltimorealgebraproject.org, Collique Williams wcollique@gmaiJ.com. Saeda 

Washington saeda@yucyouth.org, Nique Douglas nique@orojectsouth.org 

Baltimore Algebra Project Youth United for Change 

Project South Alliance for Educational Justice 

BYOP - Boston-area Youth Organizing Project 
671 

Youth Art & Self-empowerment Project (yASP) 

Written Testimony on the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

By three young people incarcerated in Philadelphia's adult jails 

The school to prison pipeline affected me and my family by me being arrested and keeping me 

out of school for a fight. I'm in prison and still not in school, how is that helping me? I'm 

missing days and learning lessons from school for a fight. Suspensions or arrest doesn't send a 

good message for students because the problem still is not getting resolved by suspending 

students or arresting them. The students didn't get no counseling or a chance to talk it out. 

Suspensions is just a vacation off of school you still out of days of work and education. And 

getting arrested, you get months and days out of education. People's families are concerned and 

worried about what's going to happen when I get out. Am I going to be able to return to school? 

Parents spend a lot of money for education to just throw a student education away like that. I 

need my education I been out of school for a month now I can't wait to return. I'm going have 

lots of work to do. Also children don't get report cards and things that matter when they get put 

out of school then there marked absent everyday that's when truancy court comes for them but 

they got put out of school that's not fair for a student that got suspended or arrested. Something's 

has to be done concerned, my family is to and the community's. 

By Chaundrah, 15 years old, at Riverside Correctional Facility 

School to prison pipeline 

I believe youth especially young black males need stability. Good teachers, challenging work 

and after school programs. Will keep teens busy and out of the streets. A lot of teens just need 

someone to be there and support them. So if they don't have a good stability at home, they 

should have teachers and counselors to be there. Because the job of a teacher is not just to teach 

it's to care and nurture the young teens and their minds. As I grew up the teachers I had were 

very impatient with me and my behavior problems. But all I needed was a patient and caring 

teacher. 

By Jaleel, 17 years old, at Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center 

School-to-prison pipeline 

The reason for young people going from school into prison is because of our environment and 

friends. My favorite saying is "friends are future". Pick your friends wisely because your friends 
672 

can make you go down the wrong path. Another reason of the school going into prison is because 

attitudes, and sometimes our backgrounds. Ifwe didn't get into any trouble since day one of our 

early years in school, we would never have a background to begin with. Since we have a 

background that's how we recognize. Everything really happens from 2nd grade. You know 18 

and older vote for the president? Well 2nd graders test scores vote for jails. I say that because 

however we do in 2nd grade on our test decides if a new jail opens. They pick 2nd grade because 

1st grade is smooth but 2nd grade is when school really is school. I looked up on the internet 

before and it said 70% of the world that failed the 2·d grade and everyone I know failed it was 

the 2nd grade. The school-to-prison pipeline is all set- up for real 

By Tysheed ,17 years old, at Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center 
673 

To: U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

From: Nina Sears, New York, NY 

Date: Monday, December 10,2012 

Subject: Hearing to End the School to Prison Pipeline Testimony 

I first learned about the impact of the School to Prison Pipeline (STPP) during the summer of 

2007. Along with several other college students, I was a servant leader intern with the Children's 

Defense Fund's Freedom School Program at Maya Angelou Public Charter School (MAPCS), 

Evans Campus. The CDF Freedom Schools Program "provides summer and after-school 

enrichment that helps children fall in love with reading, increases their self-esteem, and 

generates more positive attitudes toward learning.,,1 

I did not know the term for it at the time; however, I knew a system existed. And so did my 

scholars. For some students, MAPCS represented a final stop before alternative schools or 

juvenile detention. Some of our students, predominantly young, African American men and 

women, had hopped from school to school in hopes of finding a place of acceptance and 

academic support-leaving a trail of suspensions and expUlsions. Upon first look of their 

records, it would seem easy to make judgments about their behavior, character and ability to 

learn. To many, they were "trouble-makers," "delinquents," and "dangerous." 

During our daily reading circles, they shared horror stories of being thrown out of classrooms 

and schools by teachers and principals, whom they perceived as uncaring. The reasons for the 

punishment seemed miniscule: wearing their hats in the school building, eating in class, and 

"talking back" to a teacher. When students were outside of school, opportunities abound for them 

to actually get in trouble. And some did. However, the perceptions previous school officials held 

of the students did not align with what I saw in my classroom over those five weeks. I witnessed 

something totally different: 

When students were spoken to with respect, they responded respectfuIly. 

When asked to help establish standards for our classroom to follow, not only did they contribute 

their ideas to build a safe space for one another, they were able to hold themselves accountable 

for their actions. 

If they stepped outside of the cooperation contract, and required disciplinary attention, most 

responded well to simply being puIled aside and having a chat with me versus automatic 

dismissal from class or-even worse--the school. 

Our students were able to "behave." They were like any human being who desired to be treated 

with respect, fairness, and understanding. 

1 Retrieved :from htto:Uwww.childrensdefen§e.orgIprograms:campaignstfteedom.schools/. 
674 

Yet a majority of my male scholars experienced the opposite of this in their public schools. 

Sadly, it was no coincidence they shared similar stories. According to the U.S. Department of 

Education's Office of Civil Rights 2002-2003 data, Black students have a higher risk of out-ofschool suspension. They are nearly three times as likely as White students to be suspended and 

are about two and halftimes more likely to be expelled.2 Black students continue to be 

overrepresented among suspensions and expulsions. It is likely that many Black students, similar 

to my scholars, tend to be disciplined more severely for more subjective reasons. 3 

My students honestly noted the punishments they received did little to change their behavior. 

Many were suspended multiple times. Based on findings of the American Psychological 

Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008), "school suspension in general appears to predict 

higher future rates of misbehavior and suspension among those students who are suspended.,,4 

My scholars tended to have negative views of their old schools as a result of the punishment 

cycle. While the pipeline does not guarantee immediate passage to prison, the connections are 

too large to ignore. In a study of incarcerated individuals, nearly all interviewed said "their 

school experiences involved detentions and various forms of outplacement."s 

After three summers with the Freedom Schools Program, I moved to New York City, where the 

School to Prison Pipeline became even clearer. While working in different capacities in 

education, I learned about the peculiar relationship between the New York City Department of 

Education (DOE) and the Police Department (NVPD). The Student Safety Agents, who were 

once employed by the Board of Education, now report directly to the NVPD. This may not have 

been so large a problem, if evidence demonstrated that this change resulted in: fewer student 

suspensions, expulsions and arrests, a change in student behavior, and similar resources put 

toward ensuring the holistic well-being of each student. None exists. According to the New York 

Civil Liberties Union there are some 5,200 school safety agents in city schools. However, this is 

nearly double the number of guidance counselors who work for the DOE.6 

What message does this send to our students? One could argue the DOE and other school 

systems with large police presence are most concerned about the safety of our students. While I 

do not doubt the DOE and NYPD are worried about student safety, I do question the 

effectiveness of the methods employed. 

In my current work as a college advisor with an educational nonprofit in New York City, I taught 

a small class of incoming freshmen students during our 2011 Summer Bridge Program. The 

students and I spoke extensively about issues of education justice with particular focus on the 

, Russell Skiba et aI .• "Are Zero Tolenmee Polioi .. Effeotive in the SoOOoI.1" American Psychologioal Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 

A"",riCtVt PsycholOgist, Deoember 2008. 

, Ibid. 

" Ibid, 

, Ronnie Casella (2003). Punishing Dangerous .... through Preventive Detention: IlIustmting the Institutional Link ben..en Sohool and Prison." 

DeC01UUUC""8 the School'" Prison Pipeline, p. 66. 

, New York Civil Liberties Union, "Number ofPoIice Officers in Major Cities vs. SSAs in NYC Schools." Retrieved iTom 

hnp"/twww nyclu.orgl1ileslnumber of poljce officers in maior dtil"S vs ssa.s in nyc schools. pdf. 
675 

pipeline. The class time became a space for the students to share their stories with the school 

system. All had attended New York City Public Schools. As we read different materials and 

discussed the role of schools in this pipeline, they were astounded to realize they were a part of 

this system unknowingly. It was incredulous to them that there was a name to describe and 

discuss what they had known. 

One of the male students angrily shared, "This was my life." He had been suspended multiple 

times from school and had poor relationships with some of his teachers and the schools' safety 

agents whom he felt did not care about him. During a long-term suspension, the work he 

received at the alternative site did not match the pace of his classes. He fell behind, and thus 

cared less and less about the work. The student credited a traumatic event outside of the school 

environment as well as the care and supports of this educational nonprofit for encouraging him to 

make a life-change and pursue a college education. Without adequate support, the student was 

not sure of his life's outcome. Many youth, especially who do not have access to additional 

resources, rely on their schools. If their schools deny these supports, through suspension and 

expulsion, this can "frustrate them, erect further blockades in their life courses, and accelerate 

their slide toward delinquency.,,7 

Just as that student had been labeled, I saw the same connection to my scholars. In 2007, I was 

fascinated by this dichotomy. The students who were labeled by others, and seemed to live up to 

those labels, were human beings. When treated as such, they responded positively. They came to 

know their worth and importance through our summer program. If this could happen during a 

five-week summer program, I am convinced it is possible on the school level. Nearly six years 

after that summer experience, I continue to hold to this ideology: no child is unteachable, 

unreachable, and unloveable; everyone deserves a chance to learn, and be treated with dignity. I 

have worked in various capacities in youth development and have yet to see this proven untrue. I 

continue to teach and share information whenever I have the opportunity, so others become 

aware of this system and are sparked to take action. 

To be clear, this is not a blame game. I recognize this pipeline is a result of a number of systems 

working together. I do not fault teachers or administrators, especially those who work in schools 

that are resource-strapped and focused primarily on the outcomes of standardized tests. In these 

tough environments, I imagine how difficult it can be to juggle both the academic and weJlness 

needs of students. Burnout often becomes an issue for teachers and administrators who attempt 

to address both. However, there are alternative methods such as Positive Behavior Interventions 

and Supports and Restorative Practices. These methods have been utilized on the school and 

district level with promising results. 8 Of course, implementation of these methods is key and not 

necessarily easy. On the federal level, it will be critical to provide funds to State Educational 

Agencies to ensure districts--with some of the highest and most disproportionate disciplinary 

'Ibid, p.69 

• Dignity in Soh""l. Campaign, Fact Shoet: Creating Positi .. School Climate and Discipline; Retrieved from 

httppwwwdjgoityinschoois.org/fiJes!Fact Sheet RestorativeJustlce PSIS pdf 
676 

rates-are able to implement these methods successfully. It would be a great next step to tear 

down a system that devastates the lives of many and to restore dignity and respect to our 

students. 

Thank you to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights for bringing this important issue to light and allowing so many to share their 

stories on public record. 
677 

Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

"10% reduction In overall adolescent arrests in 2011" (from previous year)JPPO records in a community 

that has 1500 adolescent referrals to the Juvenile Probation office for pre-adjudication review, only 75 

end up incarcerated in our local detention facility. 

Why? 

In 1999, our local District Court Judge Barbara Vigil started a Regional Juvenile Justice Board. Serving 

District 1 which includes Santa Fe, this Board brought together the local police department, sheriffs 

department, Child Protective Services, the Juvenile Probation Office, local mental health providers and 

School District representatives to sit at the table and discuss our juvenile justice system. The Board took 

on a project; Targeted Community Action Project (TCAP) that started with selecting a criteria of 

adolescents to use for wraparound services to determine what we needed to do to break the "Prison to 

Pipeline" effect in our community. (A community of approx. 90,000 we house over 500 inmates in the 

local county detention facility and over 1,000 in a State Penitentiary) TCAP initially selected ten (10) 

high-risk youth that were involved with every segment of the local service continuum. OVer a three year 

period representatives from all the member organizations met weekly in Judge Barbara's chambers to 

review cases and provide support. During this period of time TCAP worked with 23 clients and their 

families. Of the 23 clients only one was committed to a correctional facility. We received grant funding 

and used it to provide a support model that we call1CM - intensive community monitoring which works 

with youth that are on interim status between the preliminary hearing and their adjudicatory hearing. 

Over 87% of these ICM youth complete their probation successfully with no additional delinquent acts. 

Over the years, the partnership between board and the local school distrlct has addressed truancy, 

early childhood issues, and applied for and received the prestigious SSHS grant (2008). We continue to 

work together to strengthen a community wide approach to diversion from detention. The school 

district participates actively as a Board member. 

Most important elements ofthe work we do: 

In the commu nity - juvenile justice system. 

Day Reporting Program - This program offers an alternative to detention by providing an all-day 

program at our local detention center. Half of the day is devoted to educational remediation 

and remainder of day offers access to life skills instruction and interaction. 

• JPPO interviews with truants, and arrested youth to divert them from incarceration 

• Our JJPO uses a Risk Assessment Inventory tool to determine if a youth is eligible to be placed in 

detention. The tool determines the risk level necessary for a youth to warrant detention. 

• leM program (as described above) 

In the school district: 

School District Asset based discipline plan - Behavior Expectations for Students (changed from 

Code of Conduct that describes the offense rather than the positive behavior expectation) 

Project Success SpeCialists in the MS - Student Assistance Program that addresses life 

circumstances that are causative factors in life of a juvenile delinquent - drug involvement, 

violence, etc. 

Universal Prevention Curricula -Second Step Pre-K through 3,d grade and grades 7-8 and 

Botvin's lifeskills Curriculum grades 4-6. Bullying Prevention GUidance lessons in all grades. 
678 

Trauma First Aide (used by school counselors) and a classroom model called "Slow Down Time" 

to reduce trauma in students at all grade lellels 

Mental Health Referral System (5 mental health agencies adopt schools to prollide clinical 

counseling on campus, referrals from parents) 

HS Second Chance program - students returning to HS after a long absence or return from 

detention enter school through this program. It prollides assessments to determine lellel of 

performance, Credit Recollery E202D plus Reconnecting Youth Curriculum to help students 

ready themseilles to re-enter the regular classroom. 

Contribution by Tita Gervers, SSHS Project Director, Santa Fe Public Schools, New Mexico and Jack 

Ortega, Santa Fe Regional JUllenile Justice Board, Santa Fe, New Mexico 
679 

CONFERENCE, INC. 

December 10.2012 

"Ourfailure to institutionalize the supports necessary ro provide Black males with a substantive 

opportunity for success yielded a climate where in 20] I, according to lvAEP, academically 

onZv 10% of Black male graders are deemed pr()/icient in S'h grade reading, and only 52% 

are [!;raduatingji'om high school in a/our-.vear period. Thus the penal institutions remain 

populated with /00 many Black males and the classroom teaching and student rolls with too 

few." 

John H. Jackson. President and CEO Schott Foundation for Public Education 

The Urgency of Now: The Schott 50 State Rep[ort on Public Education and Black Males 2012 

On behalf of the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference. I am pleased to submit this statement for 

the record to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human 

Rights. 

The mission ofthe Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference (SDPC) is to nurture, sustain, and 

mobilize the A/i'iean American faith community in collaboration with civic, corporate, and 

philanthropic leaders to address critical needs of human and socialjuslice within local. national, 

and global communities. SDPC seeks to strengthen the individual and collective capacity of 

thought leaders and activists in the church, academy, and community through education, 

advocacy. and activism, 

SDPe was named for Dr. Proctor. a leading theologian, pastor, civil servant and university 

president of the 20th century. Dr. Proctor's voice echoes in our organizational core that it is by 

God's mercy and grace that "some of us are further along on the scratch line." but we all share 

the burden of knowing, we are not yet frce:' 

Our current work includes our many cHarts to address issues of criminal justice refonn in this 

state and the nation. with special attention given to racial disparities and related intergenerational 

consequences these disparities have upon African Amcrican families and communities. We are 

currently engaged in hosting community justicc hearings in twenty-two states on the impact of 

the criminal justice system on the African American community, as experienced by those closest 

to it. As we bear witness to the relationship between schooling and prisons, education vs 

incarceration, we see the devastating toll the school to prison pipeline has on our communities. 

The Schott Report made special reference to the impact on African American males. When you 

examine the impact educational policy and the culture of violence are having on young African 

American girls, you see additional and difTerent patterns of othering and entry into the criminal 

justice system. 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee: Schools To Prison Pipeline 12.12.12 
680 

Simply put, this nation must interrupt the systemic nature of the school to prison pipeline, 

reverse and prevent the mass incarceration of young African Americans, other youth of color and 

those from marginalized and low-income communities. 

Enough research has been done to identify specific triggers, both policy and operational, that are 

more likely to predict and/or result in the disparate entry of certain children into the criminal 

justice system. At the heart ofthe school to prison pipeline are the consequences of failing 

schools which also institute policies such as zero tolerance as a band-aid approach to "manage," 

not educate children. The cycle is systemic, far too predictable and increasingly beginning at a 

much earlier age. 

From the perspective of the faith and educational community, several assumptions and 

observations are submitted for review and consideration. 

1. Budgets are a reflection of values. The disproportionate funding of jails over jobs is quite 

telling about the nation's values and the perceived potential value of young African 

American youth in this nation. 

2. The era of zero tolerance has resulted in significant increases in the numbers of 

expulsions and/or negative behavioriallabeling of children. The era of zero tolerance has 

also resulted in younger and younger children being subject to said labeling and push out. 

These are symptoms of a failed educational system, along with inadequate family and 

community systems to support children. In the most prosperous nation in the world, this 

standard is unacceptable. 

3. Often the children are being taught by the least experienced teachers, many not familiar 

with the children's community and culture, leading to even greater age, socio-economic 

and cultural gaps between the children and the instructional team, resulting in more 

disciplinary referrals. 

4. The reality is that all children bring their situations from home and community across the 

threshold of schools. These realities include poverty, hunger, parental instability and 

increasingly homelessness. In the midst ofthese realities, these same children have less 

access to recreational facilities, extra-curricula activities, health professionals and social 

workers. The physical buildings, in which many urban school children attend, are hardly 

environments to affirm self-discipline and learning. 

S. The physical presence of police, the inter-transferability of education-police agency 

budgets in some cities, send a message to all members of the school community about the 

state of affairs. While there is increased support in areas of policing, there is declining 

support to address the years of erosion of resources in the areas of support that make for 

healthy well-rounded children. 

Where do the children learn the necessary life skills that help them deal with anger, 

disappointments, othering, marginalization, challenges etc., if in the place where they come to be 

socialized and educated the response is for them to be pushed out, rather than afforded models 

for restorative justice and positive affirmation? 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee: Schools To Prison Pipeline 12.12.12 
681 

What are the consequences to those who don't get pushed out, but rather must bear witness to 

more and more punitive environments, driven by fear, threats and violence? What must a child 

internalize to have to bear witness and focus more on how to navigate a hostile system than 

embrace an affirming one? 

In conclusion, any group who finds that I of 3 of their young males are facing prison or under 

the control of the justice system, as is the African American community, is at risk for survival. 

Today, the United States leads the world in incarceration rates, approximately 700 persons per 

100,000 population. U.S. incarcerates 25 percent of all prisoners in the world and is only 5% of 

the world's population. One-third of black men between the ages of 18 - 28 are in prisons, jails, 

on parole or waiting for their day in court. Women with children are one of the fastest growing 

demographics in incarcerated persons and more than 7 million children have a parent under some 

form of correctional supervision. 

The racialized and class patterns and systems which perpetrate mass incarceration in this nation 

are clear markers that this country is moving further away from core practices that evidence a 

real democracy and freedom for all. Prisons have become sites of relocation; failed schools are 

fueling them and now there is a movement to privatize the failure and misery of America's 

children. 

The Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, along with the National Cares Mentoring Movement, 

begun by Susan Taylor, Editor Emeritus of Essence Magazine, recently convened a group of 

students in a Chicago high school. Two of the most recurrent responses to the questions about 

barriers to their success and violence in their communities were the lack of recreational facilities 

and opportunity for employment. 

As the U.S. Senate considers the "fiscal cliff," let us do all we can to protect our children from 

being pushed off the cliff by a system offailed schools and institutional finger pointing that 

result in greater evidences of a society devoid of compassion and care for the most vulnerable of 

all, the children. 

Let us hope that the fruit of this hearing will help to reverse the trends of the school to prison 

pipeline. 

Iva E. Carruthers, PhD 

General Secretary 

Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee: Schools To Prison Pipeline 12.12.12 
682 

December 10, 2012 

Honorable Dick Durbin, 

As a school district, we in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District know that our job is 

to prepare students for a bright future, not one that includes prison and joblessness, We, as 

educators, realize that we need to constantly examine our practices and programs and we know 

that the underfunding of public education in California makes it even harder for us to implement 

plans that truly support our most at-risk youth and keep them on the road to a life of options and 

personal development. We are pleased the federal government and the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights is examining these same 

issues through hearings on the school-to-prison pipeline, In the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified 

School District we have a community already endeavoring to examine these critical issues and 

we know it will take all agencies, state and federal, to examine and change policies and 

practices that leave our most at-risk youth without the supports they need to lead productive, 

fUlfilling lives, 

We are fortunate to be a pre-K through 12 public school district in a community that values the 

mission and goals of public education, In partnership with the City of Santa Monica and local 

agencies, non-profits and organizations, we are collaborating on The Santa Monica Cradle to 

Career (C2C) Initiative, a collaboration that was created because of our community's desire to 

develop a system that works to ensure that all youth in our community have every opportunity 

for success, from birth into adulthood, Our lofty objective is to unite the various systems and 

organizations that work to support youth so that all children, whatever their ages, have a 

network of services that are integrated to make sure our community's youth are supported and 

guided as they travel the road from childhood to adulthood, 

Schools cannot do it alone, The key to ensuring that at-risk youth have the resources and the 

support they need is to have all agencies working together. Working with leaders from the city 

of Santa Monica, Santa Monica College, a variety of local nonprofit, neighborhood and parent 

organizations as well as partners in the business community, our school district leaders are 

seeking ways to share information and data so that we can best support the young people in our 

community, intervening when necessary and clearly identifying strengths as well as 

opportunities for collaboration that will shore up areas where we fall short of meeting the needs 

of our youth, Our Youth Well Being Report Card is an excellent example of how we have begun 

to examine those areas and identify areas for improvement. We encourage the federal 

government to find and support new ways of ensuring the success of our most vital national 

resource, our youth, 

Sincerely, 

Sandra Lyon 

Superintendent 
683 

Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Written Testimony from the Schott Foundation for Public Education 

For the Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Human Rights: December 12,2012 

I. Background 

The Schott Foundation for Public Education is pleased to have this opportunity to submit written 

testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human 

Rights as part of the Committee's hearing on the school-to-prison pipeline. The Schott 

Foundation supports grantees working toward promoting a high quality education for all, paying 

particular attention low-income students and students of color. The Foundation also supports 

grant-making, convenings, strategic planning and donor collaboration to: 

• Build public will to guarantee every child has the right to high-quality public 

education. 

• Support statewide campaigns to educate the public and policymakers .. 

• Develop partnerships with donors, funders, business leaders, education reform 

advocates, teachers, parents, youth and community leaders. 

• Foster the growth of emerging leaders in traditionally underserved communities. 

As the Foundation noted in its recent report The Urgency of Now: The Schott 50 State 

Report on Public Education and Black Males, all too many of our nation's most vulnerable 

students are locked out of educational opportunity, pushed out of school and then locked up in 

prison. The Committee is no doubt aware of the following facts: 

• Just over half of the nation's Black male students graduate from high school with regular 

diplomas four years after ninth grade; 

• The unemployment rate of those Black Americans lacking a high school diploma is now 

equal to the nation's unemployment rate in the worst days of the Great Depression; 

• One-third of Black male young adults without a high school diploma will serve time in 

prison; 

• The best way to prevent crime and reduce poverty is to increase the quality of the 

education available to all Americans. 

Before describing the way in which the school-to-prison pipeline works, it will be useful to 

describe its effects. 

II. Effects of the School-to Prison Pipeline 

One of the most serious effects of the school-to-prison pipeline and other causes of the mass 

incarceration of young adult Black men is the impoverishment of Black neighborhoods. 

Professors Lance Hannon and Robert DeFina have determined that, for the nation as a whole, 

"had mass incarceration not occurred [during the period 1980 to 2004], poverty would have 

decreased by more than 20%, or about 2.8 percentage points. At the national scale, this translates 

into several million fewer people in poverty had mass incarceration not occurred ... '" Given the 

disproportionate number and percentage of African-American men among the incarcerated, the 

increase of Black poverty from mass incarceration is obviously yet more substantial. 
684 

Professor Bruce Western has observed that " ... the main effect of the prison boom on gender 

relations is due precisely to the approximate fact that men go to prison, and women are left in 

free society to raise families and contend with ex-prisoners returning home after release."'; Over 

half of the Black men in prison have children and nearly as many were living with those children 

when they were sent to prison.iii Research shows that before most young men who went to prison 

did so, they were contributing significantly to their households' income. This contribution may 

have been enough to keep those families out of poverty.'" Once men are incarcerated, that 

contribution comes to an end and in many, if not most, cases their families fall into poverty. 

While a man is in jail, his partner (or former partner) and their children are deprived of his 

income and, given the employment difficulties of ex-prisoners, after he is released they are 

deprived of his full potential as a worker and the income he can provide to his children's 

household is severely limited. In most cases, from the moment of arrest (if not before"), his 

children live in a household with an income below the poverty line. Professors Hannon and 

DeFina find that this effect, unsurprisingly, is "especially pronounced in areas with a high 

proportion of non-White residents,,,"i that is, ghettoes where most Black men of an age to have 

young children are likely to be incarcerated, on parole or probation. 

As there are approximately 850,000 Black men who are incarcerated, it is reasonable to estimate 

that as many as one-third ofthe Black families living in poverty are the families of incarcerated 

men and many more are the families of formerly incarcerated men. Looked at from the point of 

view of the children themselves, Professor Betty Pettit concludes that " ... one-quarter of recent 

cohorts of black children can expect to have a parent imprisoned during their childhood ... 

Among recent cohorts of children of high school dropouts ... 62 percent of black children had a 

parent who went to prison before they reached age seventeen. ,,"a According to Professor Pamela 

Oliver and her associates at the University of Wisconsin, "The income results seem quite 

straightforward. High rates of Black male imprisonment are associated ... with reduced family 

income, especially in less educated families ... Thus, one clear path of effect from imprisonment 

to child poverty is through the reduction in male incomes due to imprisonment.,,viti This 

reduction in incomes is not only while the father is in prison, but for years after his release from 

prison. Western and Pettit calculate that incarceration reduces earnings for Black men through 

age 48 by 44%.;x As the median income for Black males is approximately $40,000, a 44% 

reduction brings that income to the poverty level. 

The incarceration of young adult Black males has significant economic consequences not only 

for the partners (or former partners) of prisoners and ex-prisoners, not only for their children, but 

also for the neighborhood and for the wider community. The impact of reduced incomes due to 

the mass incarceration of men on the Black community, as well as on individual families, is 

severe: a 9% reduction in average earnings for all Black men, incarcerated or not: (The effect of 

post-incarceration earnings reduction for the Black community is more than four times that for 

the White community.) In addition, there are issues pertaining to the changing nature of the 

American economy. Peak manufacturing employment in the United States was reached in 1979 

at 19,426,000:; In 2011 it was down to 11,733,000:;; while the population had increased by 85 

million. The disappearance of nearly half the employment opportunities traditionally available 

to those with limited educational attainment living in poorer communities further impoverishes 

those communities and contributes to the incidence of violent crime. The poorer the community, 

of any race or ethnicity, the more violent crimes occur there. The more violent crimes, the more 

2 
685 

long-term incarcerations and as a result the poorer the community. The increasing 

impoverishment of American families in the lower tenth- or fifth income levels accelerates this 

increasing rate of violent felonies, and hence, incarcerations!iii 

The school-to-prison pipeline begins early. Children from low-income households where the 

adults have relatively low levels of educational attainment arrive at pre-school with substantially 

smaller vocabularies and other resources than children from higher-income households with 

better educated parents. Those three- and four-year-old children who are most in need of high 

quality, full-day, preschool programming are the least likely to receive it, despite decades of 

research showing the strongly positive results of high quality early childhood education. State 

funding for Pre-K programs is actually decreasing nationwide, while less than a third of fouryear-olds and just 4% ofthree-year-olds are enrolled in those programs. All too often Pre-K 

programs are inadequate even for those children fortunate enough to be enrolled in them. Nearly 

half those programs fail to meet a critical level of quality standard benchmarks.'iv And push-out, 

shamefully enough, begins with these young children. Research by Walter Gilliam at Yale has 

shown that Black boys in preschool are much more likely to be locked out of classes and 

expelled from school than any others. Gilliam has demonstrated that this is because of the 

inadequate training of the adults, not because of unusual behavior by the children. xv 

Unfortunately, neither the quality of education available for Black and other students from lowincome families nor the discipline policies applied to them improve once they enter the K-12 

system. Per student expenditures on education vary with the relative wealth of their 

neighborhoods, not with the challenges facing the students. Some districts spend $25,000 to 

$30,000 per students, others have only a fifth or less of that. The chances of a student receiving 

a high quality education, in many parts of the country, can radically increase by merely crossing 

a district boundary from an underfunded, urban district, to a well-resourced suburban district. 

This is not only the case between districts; it is also the case, astonishingly enough, within many 

districts. 

According to a recent U. S. Department of Education study of Title I schools (Le., those serving 

high percentages of students from impoverished families) by Ruth Heuer and Stephanie Stullich: 

"42 percent to 46 percent of Title I schools (depending on school grade level) had per-pupil 

personnel expenditure levels that were below their district's average for non-Title I schools at 

the same grade level, and from 19 percent to 24 percent were more than 10 percent below the 

non-Title I school average."xvi In other words, nearly half the schools serving students from 

impoverished househo Ids received less funding from their district than those serving students 

from more prosperous households and nearly a quarter of those had per student expenditures 

significantly lower. Researcher Ary Spatig-Amerikaner has used the newly available database of 

actual state and local spending on school-level personnel and non-personnel resources analyzed 

by federal researchers Heuer and Stullich to show that "schools with 90 percent or more students 

of color spend a full $733 less per student per year than schools with 90 percent or more white 

students ... On average, the high-minority schools ... would see an annual increase of $443,000 

in state and local spending if [the 1 were brought up to the same per-pupil spending level as those 

schools with very few nonwhite students. This is enough to pay the average salary for 12 

additional first-year teachers or nine veteran teachers." xvii Spatig-Amerikaner attributes these 

differentials in per pupil instructional spending to "maldistribution of resources at the district 

3 
686 

level ... Districts have teacher assignment practices that place the least-experienced teachers in 

high-minority, high-poverty schools. Because novice teachers earn so much less in salary, the 

total spending at these high-needs schools is likely to be lower than spending at schools in 

wealthier neighborhoods that employ veteran teachers" (p. 14). 

The Schott Foundation has found that students from low-income families, especially male Black 

students, are less likely than others to be identified for Gifted and Talented programs, less likely 

to be enrolled in Advanced Placement courses, less likely to attend schools offering a high 

quality, challenging curriculum. There are other issues unnecessarily limiting the educational 

achievement of male Black students. Gifted and Talented programs typically receive more 

resources than regular classrooms. In theory, assignments to these should be race-neutral: 

Whites, Blacks, Latinos and Asians have equal proportions of intellectually gifted children and 

talent can be found everywhere. And yet, U. S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights 

(OCR) district-level data shows that while Black students have an equal chance of receiving the 

increased resources characteristic of Gifted and Talented programs as White, non-Latino students 

in Montgomery County (MD) and Milwaukee, but barely more than one-tenth that opportunity in 

Memphis and Nashville. Male Black students are assigned to Advanced Placement Mathematics 

at less than a tenth the rate as male White, non-Latino students in some districts. Disparities in 

access to courses like Advanced Placement Mathematics are traceable to district policy 

decisions, as the College Board has repeatedly advocated an "open admissions" policy for its 

Advanced Placement program. All students should have the opportunity to attempt these wellresourced programs, which often are taught by a school's best-qualified teachers. 

Similarly, the ratio of male Black to male White, non-Latino students classified as Intellectually 

Disabled (replacing the Mentally Retarded category) reach 8-to-1 in Atlanta and 6-to-\ in Wake 

County, despite decades of research showing that such disabilities are evenly distributed in the 

population. Such classifications all too often carry with them a stigma and restrict student access 

to challenging curricula. 

A recent study by Michael A. Rebell and his colleagues at Teachers College, Columbia 

University, found that "schools with high proportions of low-income, struggling or disabled 

students. " could not afford enough staff members to meet standards in core subjects or in 

services like extra help for struggling students [some 1 were not meeting state minimums for the 

amount of instructional time devoted to science, including ... high schools that were not 

offering any chemistry or physics classes. .. Schools could not keep up with standards in art, 

occupational studies, health and physical education. None were offering the minimum amount of 

support services for struggling students, like remedial after-school programs. Students with 

disabilities were not receiving enough extra academic support .. .xviii These findings are 

consistent with those reported in the Foundation's study: A Rotting Apple: Education Redlining 

in New York City. Just as preschool students need more schooling and higher quality education, 

so K-12 students, especially Black and other students from low-income families, need the same: 

challenging curriculum; well-trained and passionate teachers; extended school days, weekends 

and summers for more education supported by individual opportunity plans. Tragically, their 

chances of having such excellent opportunities to learn today are slight. 

4 
687 

In addition to being locked out of opportunities for quality education, male Black students are 

pushed-out of school by subjective and inequitably applied school discipline policies. According 

to the most recent available national survey by the U.S. Department of Education (2006), an 

extraordinary 19% of all male Black students were suspended from school that year, as 

compared with the closely aligned male Hispanic and non-Hispanic White rates of much less 

than half that. Out-of-School suspension ratios vary from approximately 8 to 1 in Newark and 

Atlanta (and 6 to I in two other Atlanta metropolitan area districts) down to less than twice the 

percentage of male Black as compared to male White, non-Latino students being given these 

punishments in districts like Boston. The absolute percentage of students give out-of-school 

suspensions also varies widely. 

Based on what comes as close as possible in social science to a controlled experiment, a Justice 

Center of the Council of State Governments and the Public Policy Research Institute study ofa 

rich record base maintained by the Texas State Education Department documented that while 

Black and White students come afoul of objective rules ("mandatory actions") in approximately 

equal proportions, when public schools in Texas act on their own discretion, they punish Black 

students nearly a third more often than both Hispanic and White, non-Hispanic students, and 

male Black students much more often yet. xix The consequences for the educations of Black 

students are severe. According to the study: "A student who was suspended or expelled for a 

discretionary violation was twice as likely to repeat his or her grade compared to a student with 

the same characteristics, attending a similar school, who had not been suspended or expelled" (p. 

xi). Further, "a student who was suspended or expelled for a discretionary violation was nearly 

three times as likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice system the following year," and so 

into the criminal justice system later. A conservative estimate is that 300,000 Black male 

students punished with out-of-school suspensions each year, who would not have been removed 

from the classroom if they had been from any racial or ethnic background other than Black. 

III. Solutions 

There are alternatives. In Connecticut, school suspension law allows for many forms of 

intervention other than out-of-school suspensions to improve students' behavior. A few of the 

dozens of examples from a Connecticut Voices for Children report" include the following: 

• School-wide behavior supports; 

• Reduce unstructured time, adding more supervision at targeted times and locations 

• Active teaching of social skills and addressing the behavioral challenges that data 

indicate are most prevalent; 

• Mentoring, including peer mentoring programs, to improve school climate and student 

discipline; 

• Reflective essays, apologies, and responsible thinking classrooms designed to 

encourage and teach children to think through their behavior; 

• Community Service. 

Out-of-school suspensions are counter-productive for the student and for society at large. They 

disproportionately affect male Black students and are a major factor in perpetuating education 

inequities. According to Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union: 

Suspensions, often the first stop along the [school to prison] pipeline, playa crucial role 

in pushing students from the school system and into the criminal justice system. Research 

5 
688 

shows a clear correlation between suspensions and both low achievement and dropping 

out of school altogether. Such research also demonstrates a link between dropping out of 

school and incarceration later in life. Specifically, 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 in turn triples the likelihood that a person will be incarcerated 

later in life.""i 

Those students have arrived at the terminus ofthe school-to-prison pipeline: incarceration. 

Lock-out through inequitable school funding; inadequate opportunities for challenging 

coursework; disparate consignment to inappropriate Special Education programs and push-out 

through inequitable school discipline policies and practices are all barriers to achievement for 

male Black students and entry-points to the school-to-prison pipeline. 

What is to be done? 

The Schott Foundation supports the Opportunity to Learn Campaign, a national movement to 

create a stronger, safer, more prosperous America now by closing the opportunity gap in public 

education. The campaign connects advocates across the country to ensure every child's 

fundamental civil right to a high-quality public school education, regardless of where they live. 

The OTL Campaign seeks systemic policy change at the local, state and federal levels to hold 

our nation's elected officials and education leaders accountable for providing every child access 

to four research-proven resources that are necessary to have a fair and substantive opportunity to 

learn: 

• High-quality early childhood education; 

• Highly prepared and effective teachers; 

• College preparatory curriculum; 

• Equitable instructional materials and policies. 

In addition to these vital supports, policymakers have an agenda of actions to close the school-toprison pipeline, varying from ending disparate and inequitable school funding between districts 

and within districts, to equal protection actions to end the inequitable rules and practices currently 

in effect in the area of school discipline and to bring to an end the introduction of punitive and 

harmful practices into the nation's schoolrooms. 

Notes 

i DeFina, Robert and Lance Hannon The Impact of Mass Incarceration on Poverty 

Crime & Delinquency. Crime Delinquency OnlineFirst, published on February 12,2009 as 

doi:l0.1177!0011128708328864, p. 21. 

ii Western, Bruce. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006, p. 

15. 

ui Pettit, Becky. Invisible Men: Mass Incarceration and the Myth of Black Progress. New York: Russell 

Sage Foundation, 2011, p. 84. 

iv Hannon and DeFina, p. 3. 

6 
689 

v According to Defina and Hannon, "Two-thirds of people detained in jails report annual incomes under 

$12,000 prior to arrest" (emphasis added). This is half the poverty level for a family offour. 

vi DeFina, Robert H. and Lance Hannon. "The Impact of Adult Incarceration on Child Poverty: A CountyLevel Analysis, 1995-2007." The Prison Journal 201 090: 377 originally published online 9 September 

2010 DOl: 10.1177/0032885510382085. The online version of this article can be found at: 

http://tpj.sagepub.com/contentl90/4/377, p. 16. 

vi; Pettit, Becky. Invisible Men: Mass Incarceration and the Myth of Black Progress. New York: Russell 

Sage Foundation, 2011, p. 87. 

m; The Effect of Black Male Imprisonment on Black Child Poverty 

Pamela E. Oliver, Gary Sandefur, Jessica Jakubowski, and James E. Yocomp, p. 12. 

"' Western and Pettit, op.cit., p. 12. 

x Western, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Becky Pettit. Collateral Costs: Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility. 

Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 20 I 0, pp. 12-4. 

xiAs a matter ofinterest: "Total justice employment" grew from 1,270,342 in 1982 to 1,797,704 in 1992.xi 

By 2007 it had reached 2.5 million, an increase of93% over that in 1982. 

,w Bureau of Labor Statistics, Establishment Data, Historical Employment, Table B-1. Employment on 

nonfarm payrolls by major industry sector, 1962 to date. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseebl.txt 

,w; Certain statistical ,anomalies have obscured the extent to which mass incarceration has impoverished 

Black communities. "The lower tail of the black wage distribution is further truncated by the joblessness 

ofinmates. As the criminal justice system has grown, the observed wages of black men increasingly 

overstate the economic well-being of the general population. Moreover, reliance on estimates of the 

population derived from household-based samples increasingly understate racial inequality in economic 

outcomes." Pettit, Becky. Invisible Men: Mass Incarceration and the Myth of Black Progress. New 

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011, p. 53. 

xiv National Institute for Early Education Research. The State of Preschool 20 II. 

http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/2011 yearbook_executive _s ummary. pdf 

xv Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: ExpUlsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. 

New Haven, CT: Yale University Child Study Center. 

xvi Heuer, Ruth and Stephanie Stullich. Comparability of State and Local Expenditures Among Schools 

Within Districts: A Report from the Study of School-Level Expenditures. U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 2011, p. 

29. 

xvU Spatig-Amerikaner, Ary. Unequal Education: Federal Loophole Enables Lower Spending on Students 

of Color. Center for American Progress, August 2012. 

xvili http://www.nytimes.coml20 1211211 O/nyregion/years-after-ruling-poor -schools-in-new-york-stillstruggle.html?ref=nyregion 

xix Fabelo, Tony et aI., Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to 

Students' Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement, 2011. 

xx Dufresne, Alexandra et al. Teaching Discipline: A Toolkit for Educators on Positive Alternatives to 

Out-of-School Suspensions. www.ctvoices.org/publications/teaching-discipline-toolkit-educatorspositive-alternatives-out-school-suspensions 

xx; http://www.nyclu.org!content/impact-of-school-suspensions-and-demand-passage-of-student-safety-act 

citing Goertz, M.E., Pollack. J.M. & Rock, D.A. (196). Who drops out of high school and why?: Findings 

from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, 357-73, available 

at www.tcrecord.org/Contentasp?Contentld=688 and Coalition for Juvenile Justice. Abandoned in 

the Back Row: New Lessons in Education and Delinquency Prevention. 2001 Annual Report, 

available atwww.juvjustice.org/media/resources/resource_122.pdf. 

7 
690 

liE II 

ESTERN 

ESERVE 

rrr 

SCHUBERT CENTER 

FOR CHILD STUDIES 

December 7, 2012 

Schubert Center for Child Studies 

Case Western Reserve University 

10900 Euclid Avenue 

615 Crawford Hall 

Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7179 

Phone 216-368-0540 

Fax 216-368-1196 

E-mail schubertcenter@case.edu 

htlp:/lwww.case.edu/artsci/schuberl 

Thank you Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 

the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Committee members. 

We deeply appreciate your attention to the important matter of education and the urgent need to 

address damaging school disciplinary policies and practices that effectively leave so many young 

people on the margins of society. My name is Gabriella Celeste and I am submitting testimony as 

an interested party concerning the December 12,2012 Subcommittee hearing on "Ending the 

School-to-Prison Pipeline." As the Child Policy Director with the Schubert Center for Child 

Studies at Case Western Reserve University ("Schubert Center"), I am part of a larger group of 

stakeholders and experts in Ohio that the John T. and Catherine D. MacArthur and George Gund 

Foundations have helped to convene to collectively address issues in the juvenile justice system. 

The Schubert Center bridges research with policy, practice and education for the well-being of 

children and families. It is in this capacity that I offer the following input for your consideration. 

This testimony will briefly discuss the importance of education as a protective factor for healthy 

child development and the value of a positive school climate overall, and will highlight some 

Ohio school discipline data and implications for young people in the juvenile justice system and 

in other life domains; some of the relevant state and federal school discipline policies that 

contribute to the exclusion of students from school; some promising practices in Ohio and 

elsewhere that provide potential interventions and alternatives to school push-out practices; and, 

finally, some considerations for federal policy opportunities to address the "school-to-prisonpipeline." 

Education as a Protective Factor for Children and the Value of Positive School Climate 

"One of the most important findings of educational psychology of the past 30 years is the 

positive relationship between the amount and quality of engaged time in academic learning and 

student achievement" (Skiba & Rausch, 2006). Models of youth violence and delinquency have 

identified school alienation-school bonding as one of the strongest variables in predicting 

delinquency (Skiba & Rausch, 2006). School failure and disengagement are widely recognized 

as risk factors predicting delinquency; factors including commitment to school, involvement in 

conventional activities such as sports teams and school clubs, and bonding with teachers, parents, 

and peers can serve to protect and insulate even the most at-risk youth from delinquency and 

other problems (Jenson & Fraser, 2006). Positive school climate is associated with academic 

achievement, school success, effective violence prevention, student healthy-development, and 

teacher retention (Cohen, 2009), Conversely, research has found that schools with harsh 

disciplinary practices typically have lower achievement scores and other poor outcomes (Losen, 

201/). 
691 

A Snapshot of School Discipline in Ohio 

In Ohio, school disciplinary practices resulted in 3,990 students being expelled from school and 

203,627 out of school suspensions in the 2010-2011 school year (ODE, 2011). 

Out-oj-School Suspensions and Expulsions: While declining slightly, out-of-school 

suspensions continue to be administered frequently and primarily for non-violent conduct. 

During each of the last three school years, the combined number of out-of-school 

suspensions for truancy and "disobedient! disruptive behavior" was greater than the 

number of out-of-school suspensions for every other reason combined. In the 20 I 0-

20 II school year, 53.6 percent (109,320) of suspensions were due to disobedient/disruptive 

behavior and 4.5 percent (9,076) of suspensions were for truancy. Similarly. while 

"fighting/violence" was the largest single category for expulsions (27 percent), 24.5 percent 

(976) of expulsions were for disobedient/disruptive behavior and 6.8 percent (273) of 

expulsions were for truancy. The data illustrated in the charts below was retrieved from the 

Ohio Department of Education Interactive Local Report Card (ODE, 2011). 

OHIO OUT-OF-SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS BY REASON A."JD YEAR 

j£j,\ 20W-201l 

lI§ 2009.20to 

~\ 20(l8~2009 

OHIO EXPULSIONS BY REASON AND YEAR 
692 

• Disproportionate Impact of Disciplinary Practices on Ohio Students with Disabilities & 

Minority Students: In the 2010-2011 school year, students with disabilities made up 27.5 

percent of the total out of school suspensions but only represent 14.8 percent of the total 

enrolled student population for the same year. The racial disparities are even greater. For 

instance, although black students made up only 16.1 percent of the total student popUlation 

during the 2009-2010 school year, they accounted for a 50 percent of the students expelled 

that year as well as 50 percent of the students given out-of-school suspensions. Of the total 

out-of-school suspensions given to black students, 53 percent were for disobedient! 

disruptive behavior, compared to 47 percent of the suspensions given to white students for 

the same behavior. Additionally, according to the 2010-2011 State Report Card for Ohio, 

only 56 percent of black students graduated on time versus 83.8 percent of white students. 

The following are some examples of "zero tolerance" disciplinary practices in Ohio schools: 

17-year old arrested and subsequently expelled for shooting a paper clip with a rubber 

band (Kalail, 2010). 

• Middle-school honor student with no disciplinary record was expelled for 80 days 

because he mistakenly left his Swiss Army knife in his backpack after a weekend Boy 

Scout camping trip (D' Aurora, 2012). . 

• An eight-year-old girl in Cincinnati received an II-day suspension and was proposed for 

expUlsion for bringing nail clippers to school (Mrozowski & Byczkowski, 2004). 

• A 13-year old honor student from Fairborn, Ohio was suspended from school for 10 days 

for accepting two Midol tablets from a classmate (Associated Press, 1996). 

Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion: The "School-to-Prison Pipeline" in Ohio 

When students are removed from the classroom as a disciplinary measure, the odds increase 

dramatically that they will repeat a grade, drop out, or become involved in the juvenile justice 

system. 

• Graduation Rates: While Ohio's overa1l4-year graduation rates are similar to the 

national average, Ohio ranks 46th in the country for graduation rates of black males, the 

group most impacted by harsh disciplinary practices (Schott Foundation for Public 

Education, 2012). According to comparable state-by-state graduation data recently 

released by the U.S. Department of Education, Ohio ranks fourth highest in the nation in 

the gap between white and black (59 percent and 85 percent respectively) student 

graduation rates (Richards, 2012). 

• Academic Failure & Dropouts: During the 2010-2011 school year alone more than 

1,800 Ohio students withdrew due to expUlsion (ODE, 2011). When students return to 

school after a period of disciplinary exclusion, they have lost ground academically which 

can contribute to further acting out and increase the likelihood of further disciplinary 

action. A Texas study found students with at least one disciplinary contact were five 

times more likely to drOp out of school compared to those without any disciplinary 

contact. (Fabelo et ai., 2011). 
693 

Pathway to Prison: Roughly 80 percent of Ohio adult prisoners are high-school dropouts. 

(ODRC, 2012). When students are suspended or expelled, they often stay home 

unsupervised, increasing the chances of behavior that can lead to juvenile court 

involvement (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003, p.l207). 

Unintended Consequences: Discipline Policy as a Factor In School-to-Prison-Pipellne 

While school discipline is primarily a school district level matter, Ohio's statutory code 

addresses school discipline procedures in several ways that may contribute to the "school-toprison-pipeline." For instance, Ohio's "zero tolerance" law requires each district school board to 

adopt a "policy of zero tolerance for violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior, including 

excessive truancy" (ORC 3313.534); and by permitting the permanent exclusion of students ages 

16 or older from school for committing a criminal offense as defined in the statute, which 

references and extensive list of eligible offenses including complicity (ORC 3313.662). At the 

federal level, the No Child Left Behind reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act encourages referrals of students to law enforcement for school-based behavior, as 

well as funding for school resource officers and other security personnel and supplies (20 U.S.c. 

§ 7II5(b)(2)(E)(ii)-(vi)). 

Rather th<\ll zero tolerance mandates, state and federal policy could promote effective 

alternatives to exclusion for all students consistent with a school-wide positive behavior 

interventions and supports (PBIS) framework and provide guidelines to narrow the use of 

expUlsion as a last resort, for instance by suggesting specific limits on exclusionary practices for 

non-violent behaviors, such as "disobedient/disruptive behavior." In addition, while the Ohio 

Department of Education requires school districts to collect and report discipline data, improving 

state and federal data reporting requirements to ensure all schools, including charter and 

alternative schools, provide disaggregated data (by gender, race, disability, socioeconomic status, 

etc.) that includes the nature of disciplinary offenses for both special education and regular 

education students as well as tracking the types of school-based referrals to juvenile court, would 

better inform decision-making and illuminate potential points for alternative interventions. 

Promising Practices & Efforts to Dismantle the "School-to.Prison-Pipellne" 

Evidence-based and cost effective changes in school disciplinary practices can greatly increase 

positive school climate, leading to greater academic achievement, school success, effective 

violence prevention, healthy student development, and teacher retention, as well as diverting 

struggling students away from the juvenile justice system. Best practices incorpOrate adolescent 

development principles to better ensure effective outcomes for young people. Ohio's SchoolBased Responder Model, piloted in Jackson and Summit counties as a school-based juvenile 

court diversion program focused on youth with mental health needs, has shown promising 

results. The Summit county model has been successfully expanded from three middle schools to 

twelve schools and has a training manual to promote replication throughout the state. Jackson 

county has also expanded its "Teen Talk" responder model to serve all of the county school 

districts and partnered with a local behavioral health provider to expand its satellite services 

(Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Action Network, a Project of Models for Change, 2011). 
694 

These efforts warrant further study to document their effectiveness and to consider opportunities 

for replication and expansion, particularly funding strategies to support school-community 

resource partnerships. In addition, other evidence-based strategies to effectively keep students in 

school and avert juvenile court involvement include extension of PBIS tiered strategies to a 

broader range of students district-wide, adoption of effective restorative justice practices and 

provision of culturally sensitive classroom behavior management teacher training and support to 

maximize students' opportunity to learn and reduce disciplinary referrals (American 

Psychological Association, 2008). 

We commend the efforts of the U.S. Department of Iustice and U.S. Department of Education to 

address the school-to-prison-pipeline and to promote positive disciplinary options to keep 

children in school and improve the climate for learning through their joint "Supportive School 

Discipline Initiative" (DOl, 2011). States and school districts would benefit from federal 

guidance, technical assistance and fiscal incentives to adopt and expand efforts to end the schoolto-prison-pipeline. Specifically, to: 

Revise stotutory zero tolerance and related discipline policies: These revisions should 

reinforce the shared mission of student learning and school safety, promote school-wide 

PBIS and effective alternatives to expulsion, and reduce overuse of exclusionary 

disciplinary practices, law enforcement and justice system intervention. 

Improve statewide daIIJ collection and reporting: Improve school safety and discipline 

data collection and reporting at the school-level and statewide, including charter and 

alternative schools, to better reflect the demographics (e.g. special education and regular 

education students) and the nature of the reported disciplinary offenses, as well as schoolbased referrals to juvenile court. 

• Expand school-community partnerships promoting evidence-based practices to 

effectively keep students in school, increase academic success and reduce risk of 

juvenile court involvement. This includes funding for school-based mental health 

providers as well as restorative practices and positive youth development providers and 

services. 

We are willing to assist you and your staff in any way and appreciate your attention to this 

important issue impacting our young people and our nation. Thank you for your attention and 

consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Gabriella Celeste, J.D. 

Director, Child Policy 

Phone: 216-368-5314 

Email: mgc36@case.edu 
695 

American Academy of Pediatrics (2003). Comminee on school hcal~ polky sl.lltement, out-of..scnool suspension and expulsion. P~di4fria. 112, 1206-

1209, Retrieved from http://pooiatrics.aaDPublicatioDs,org/coDtentlI12JS/1ZOtl.fu1J.pdf. 

American Psychological As~tioo. Zero ToJennce Task Force (2008) An: zero tolel1lt1ce policies effective In schools? .'\n evidentiary review and 

recommcndarions,.A.o!mit'om P~~III 63, 852-862, 

Associated Press. (1996, October 2). School defends dismissal honor student borrowed mido!. Tht Ci1lrilflfoti Posl. Retrieved frOtn 

http://www.highbearn·com. 

Cohen,.J. et d (2009) Scbool Climate. Research, Policy, Practice and TeadtuEclucarion. Tlt1dmrulilt!~Volll1.No. 1. pp. 180-213. 

D'Aurom,.], (20t2,]anuary 21). Zero toleraace policies bleed education, Tbt Cf#Nminn Disp4tdJ. Retrieved from http://www.dJspatch.com. 

Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs (2011. July 21). Alfm7lf! CnttrlIl HoltJer. SKfWgry DIII7a111 a1l1l0JlnR effirl If; nspolld to Kbool-lo-prilOll p;pt1i1l1 ~ 

~good tfiHipli"t pradku, Retrieved from 11tt:p:llwww.iustice.gov/gpa/pr/2011 lIulyl !1·ag:951,htmL 

Fabela, T., Thompson. M.D., Plotkin, M., Cannicbad, D., Marchbanks, M.P., & Booth. B.A. (20ll,July). Brwhngst!xmh' rwks: A sIo/nIiJt.Jht,p fJ/mlll 

sn,f)fJ/ oisdplinl nlaks ffJ JlNrWtu' IJImSJ (l1Idjtmmi14jJlSM im'O/lIIJmMJ. New York: Council of State Governments Justke Center and the Public Policy 

Rescan:h Institute at Texas A&M. University. Retrieved from http://jusr.icecenter.csg.orglresourc.es/juveniles. 

Jenson,J. M. & FraseI'. M. W. (2006). A risk and resilience. framework for child, youth. and family policy. In J. Jenson & M. Fraser (Eds.), SfNiDlpJi~ 

for rhikbm a"djtJl1liw: A risk. and militl7t4 pmpwillt, (pp. 1~ I B). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Ka!ail, K. (2010, November). ZIITC tolmr".,- ow IIH Jmmihmtnl)if tht mil"? Pre3ented at the 2010 Ohio School Boards Association Capital Coolerence 

and Trades-how. Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved from hnp:llcc ohioschoolboards.orgI2010/ul2!oads/StlssuesM0n3 pdf 

Laseo. D. (2011), Discipline Policies, Successful Scbools and Racial Justice. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from 

. btto:llnepc.colorado.eduJfiJes!NEPC·SchooIDi5Cipline.pdf 

Ohio Depanment of Educ;o.cion. (2011). Ifll(f"(utif't loIal rrpurlfimi (Online data file]. Rct(ic\'cd from http:/blrc.ode.star.e.oh.us/ 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitabon and Corrections. (2012). F"fJIMII'!J aslud q6IIJlMfls. Renieved from www.drc.ohio.i.O.l/web/fas.htm 

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3313.53 (1998). 

Menial Health/Juvenile Justice Action Network, a Project ofModds fur Change (2011). SchooJ-basc:d divenlon: Strategic innovations frotn the 

Mental HcalthnuvenileJustice Action Netwau; . Retrieved from http://www.lacoyoum.org/PortaJs/O/content files/School~ 

S,md%2QPjvmion"/020?911 pdf 

Mrozo~ki.J. & Byczko~Jci, J. (2004. February 23), Area schools lead in tough discipline:: Officials worry kicked out kids headed for fiillure, TIN 

Qndnnatj Elfll'Ii~ Retrieved frotn htw:/Iwww·enauirer,com 

Richards,J.s., (2012, November 26). Ohio's grad ratC$ show racial disparity, Tbt CoINmbra DYpaIth. Retrieved from Imp:/ Iwww.dhpaochcom. 

Skiba. RJ .• & Rausch, M-K (2006). Zero toknnce, suspellSion, and expulsion: Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C. M. Evert50n & C. S. 

Weinstein (&1s.), HtJlldboM; of rlaJJr'JOIII r1ItZ!ICl!ml1lt Rutmrn, pradla, alld ro,,~ U1IfI.1 (pp. 1063.1089). Mahwah, NJ: Edbaum. 

The &hott Foundation for Public Education, (2012). Tbt lIT1I"ry if' noSl: tbe SrhoJi 50 flog ""ort 011 ptdJlir Msuation and b/.nk fltalu. Retrieved from 

hUp:/ Iblackboysreport.Ol'g/wgenq-of~now.pdf. 

20 U.S.C. § 7115(b)(2)(E). 
696 

ct'OUTHICARQUNA '.d . . 'pn esee· 

i'"'r'EGAt JUSTICE CENTER 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

and 

From: South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Centerl 

Re: Hearing on the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Date: December 19, 2012 

I. Description of Our Organization 

South Carolina Appleseed Legal .Justice Center (SC Appleseed) has a thirty-year history of 

fighting for low income South Carolinians to overcome social, economic, and legal injustice. 

Among other goals, SC Appleseed works to iuIprove the public school system so that it better 

serves low-income, special needs, and minority students in South Carolina. SC Appleseed staff 

has wolked on a number of education policy issues, including special education, discipline, 

enrollmelJ.t, support for English Language Learners, education of homeless students, school 

finance, bullying, and the education of students in foster care. SC Appleseed has advocated on a 

statewide level for legislation and policies to ensure equal educational opportunities for all 

children as well as engaged in systemic litigation on education issues. We serve as a leading 

resource for community groups and individuals who wish to become active in their local schools. 

Since 2008, we have worked specifically on statewide efforts targeted at improving educational 

outcomes and reducing disciplinary removals of students with disabilities. By partnering with 

other legal and advocacy organizations in the state, we have provided direct assistance to over 

200 families. We have used that information and other data shared by fellow special education 

stakeholders to develop and maintain a database of special education issues in our state. We are 

part of a number of networks of service providers which have also informed our efforts. We 

h8ve conducted parent outreach and training, and provided technical assistance, outreach and 

training to build the network of legal and lay advocates available to work with students and 

parents on special education issues. The great majority of the assistance requested by both 

families and other organizations has involved addressing school discipline, specifically 

exclusionary tactics including suspeusion and expulsion. 

SC Appleseed respectfully submits this information to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights about the effects of the school-to-prison pipeline 

questions or requests for sources or additional information to Amanda Adler. Staff Attorney. 803-

108. amandaadIer@scjustice.org. 

P.O. BOX 7187 

COLUMBIA. SC 29202 

803.779.1113 

www.sciustice.org 
697 

~ .. $OLlTHIC.ARCll. IN. A .... '.d ...' Upn esee- ~EGAl JUSTICE CENTER 

in our state and appreciates the Subcommittee's attention to this pressing issue. We hope that the 

information contained herein is informative and helpful? 

II. The School to Prison Pipeline in South Carolina 

Recent data released by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) 

reinforces what we have already learned through our experiences working with South Carolina 

students and families: our state has a school-to-prison pipeline epidemic which begins when 

students are denied needed services in school and instead are systemically removed from the 

education process. According to OCR 2009-10 data, the most recent available, over 103,000 

suspensions were issued in South Carolina and over 3900 students were expelled. Our 14.78 

percent suspension rate is one of the highest in the nation. 

South Carolina is a state with deeply entrenched, intergenerational pockets of poverty, and 

disability and poverty present dual challenges for many of our state's students. Many of these 

same students are children of color and are often enrolled in low-performing schools in the state. 

Our work has focused on the needs of Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)-eligible students 

who have been pushed out of school. While IDEA requires that schools provide procedural 

safeguards for students with disabilities who manifest -behavioral challenges, we have found 

many instances where those safeguards are ignored or circumvented, and students instead face 

lengthy suspensions without services or even expulsion. 

In addition to these administrative discipline options, students in our state also face the 

possibility of being charged criminally for school misbehavior. One of the most often-used 

charges for which students were referred to the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice 

(DJ1) is a vaguely-written law that makes "disturbing schools" a crime. The wording of the law 

has caused the arrest of many students for incidents such as throwing pencils, running in 

hallways, and acting "obnoxiously." Tragically, the end result for far too many disabled students 

is evident: the rate of IDEA-eligible students in our DJJ school system is three times that of 

other public schools in the state. 

The pipeline in our state is also fed by a lack of needed - and legally-required - services for 

students with disabilities in our schools. By way of example, SC Appleseed recently brought 

special education litigation against one of the school districts in the state. That action was meant 

to stem the tide of students being pushed out of schools and into a life consigned to academic and 

economic failure. The defendant school district was found to be systemically denying their 

students adequate counseling services, psychological services, social work services, or other 

supports, even for students with voluminous documentation of mental health needs, including 

one student whose records stated he "heard voices in his head telling him to do bad things." That 

student receiving five (5) minutes of counseling per week. Many other students with similar 

receiving the same token amount of services. The district was ordered to take 

uses the most recent, publicly available data. 

P.O. BOX 7187 

COLUMBIA, SC 29202 

803.779.1113 

www.scjuslice.org 

2 
698 

d l.OUTH ICAJ1QlINA ... d ..... pn esee.",· 

I"'rEGAl JUSTICE CENTER 

immediate corrective action, but our work over the course of years tells us that this is far from 

the only district failing its most vulnerable students. 

Our dismal graduation rates are well-known nationally. Public high schools in South Carolina 

graduate only 6 1. 7 percent of their students. This is 12 percent less than the national average and 

26 percent less than the state's federally-defined graduation performance goal. The graduation 

rate for students with disabilities is even more alarming: only 38.4 percent of students with 

disabilities in South Carolina graduate with a regular high school diploma. An effective method 

of improving these numbers is by insisting that schools stop suspending and expelling our 

students. 

Further, the harsh punishments described above are meted out disproportionately to students of 

color and students with disabilities. While 6.9 percent of the state's white students were 

suspended, 19.2 percent of its black students received that punishment. The expulsion rate for 

black students was almost four times higher than for white students. Further, students of color 

who also have disabilities are even more at risk of being excluded from school. 

HI. Stemming the Pipeline in South Carolina and the Nation 

Most importantly, taking action to stop the pipeline and to keep students in school has the 

potential to mitigate human and civil rights violations in South Carolina and across the country. 

The student population described above is systemically being denied equal access to our public 

education system as they are pushed out of school and into the criminal justice system. 

Unfortunately, in South Carolina, as in many other states, education is still viewed as a privilege 

to be eamed or deserved, and we must, at a minimum, enforce the student rights to an education 

that do currently exist under law. 

Stopping the pipeline could also serve to mitigate poverty in our state. South Carolina's high 

school graduation rate ranks us forty-seventh in the nation. This educational crisis bears out 

effects far beyond high school, though. The pervasive poverty in our state is hurting children, 

families, and our economy and prospects for a bright future. Over one in five of our young 

children under the age of six live in poverty and thirteen percent of all our children live in 

extreme poverty. In addition, South Carolina ranks forty-third among states for overall child 

well-being. 

The pushout problem has also had disastrous consequences for South Carolina's future 

workforce. In 2009, approximately three-fourths of adults in the state did not have a college 

degree and almost one out of every four had no high school diploma. Instead, they have a much 

higher risk of entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. South Carolina ranks thirtysixth in nation in the percentage of adults with bachelor's degrees. In 2011, South Carolina 

in the nation in per capita income. On average, each person in the state has 

less income than the average American. By working to help bridge the education 

P.O. BOX 71 87 

COLUMBIA, SC 29202 

803.779.1113 

www.sciustice.org 

3 
699 

d. SOUTMIC"'I<QUN~ d ... ·.' pn esee 

rrEGAl JUSTICE CENTER 

gap in our state by stopping the school to prison pipeline, we can also improve the economic 

fortunes of our citizens. 

IV. Recommendations for Action 

Using information we have gleaned from convening a number af statewide stakeholder 

discussions, meeting and talking with hundreds of parents, seeking the input of school officials, 

and working with partner organizations, SC Appleseed respectfully makes the following 

recomm,endations. 

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a well-known, research-supported, datadriven, proven method of improving schools' climate and reducing exclusionary discipline which 

feeds the school-to-prison pipeline. It is currently practiced to one degree or another in over 250 

South Carolina schools. When implemented properly, PBIS has reduced discipline referrals for 

students of all ages, and is effective with students with disabilities and other circumstances 

which place them at risk of being caught in the pipeline. According to the South Carolina 

Department of Education, PBIS is a "major advance in school-wide discipline." However, PBIS 

is not universally adopted in our state, and federal action to incentivize or even mandate its 

implementation could make a huge difference for South Carolina students. 

Data collection is desperately needed in order to fully understand when and why students are out 

of school, but districts in South Carolina are largely unaccountable for the exclusion of students. 

Federa,l action that would require school districts to disaggregate and report data by school on 

suspensions, expulsions, and criminal charges against students, the duration of each exclusion 

from school, and the reason for the discipline would help families, communities, and other 

stakeholders participate with the schools to stop the school to prison pipeline, Additionally, for 

those students who have already been incarcerated, there is a need to require school districts to 

report on the number of students readmitted at the end of their punishment. 

Increased federal support for the enhanced enforcement of IDEA protections can help protect 

students from disabilities from being forced from schoo!. When parents challenge the actions of 

a school district, whether over the denial of needed services or over the removal of a student 

from school, they typically face a daunting system of complex law and regulation without 

representation or any other assistance. Given this uneven playing field, school districts typically 

prevail and there is little consequence for districts that systemically engage in illegal actions that 

feed the school to prison pipeline. Currently-available data could be used in new and different 

ways to red-flag districts that show trends of pushing out students with disabilities and provide 

those districts help in making meaningful improvements. Also, parents need reliable and 

responsive avenues when they report IDEA violations which could be accomplished with federal 

support incentives. 

the national level must be paid when states criminalize typical adolescent 

At a minimum, additional and specific data should be collected about juveniles 

P.O. BOX 7187 

COLUMBIA, SC 29202 

803.779.1113 

www.scjustice.org 

4 
700 

d .. $OIJTHICAI<QLlN.'.A .. d .. pn esee· ~EGAL JUSTICE CENTER 

incarcerated for nonviolent and status offenses while at school, and the involvement of school 

resources officers in facilitating that contact with the criminal justice system must be 

documented as part of that effort. Federal funds must not perpetuate the school to prison 

pipeline by supporting over-policing in schools and criminalization of students which research 

has repeatedly demonstrated only lessens the chances for academic success. 

In conclusion, we commend Chairman Durbin and our fellow South Carolinian Ranking Member 

Graham for convening last week's hearing and welcome the opportunity to participate further in 

the ongoing work of the Subcommittee. 

P.O. SOX 7187 

COLUMSIA, SC 29202 

803.779.1113 

www.scjustice.org 

5 
701 

S PLC @ Southern Poverty Law Center 

TESTIMONY OF 

400 Washington Avenue 

Montgotnefy. AL 36104 

T 334.956.8200 F 334.956.8481 

www.splcenter.org 

THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 

regarding 

ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 

Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

December 12,2012 
702 

fflTRODUCTION 

The Southern Poverty Law Center respectfully submits the following testimony regarding 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" to the Senate judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. Founded in 1971, the Southern Poverty Law 

Center ("SPLC") is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, 

and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. SPLC is based in 

Montgomery, Alabama, and has offices in Atlanta, Georgia, New Orleans, Louisiana, Miami, 

Florida, and Jackson, Mississippi. 

Atthe SPLC, we work to break the cycle of juvenile incarceration by making schools and 

juvenile justice systems more responsive to the needs of children, families and the communities 

in which they live. SPLC has represented, and continues to represent, youth who are subject to 

unlawful arrest and excessive force at school. We challenge the over-reliance on school 

suspension and zero-tolerance discipline policies that disproportionately affect AfricanAmerican and Latino students. We seek reform through public education, community 

organizing, litigation, legislative advocacy, training and technical assistance. We commend the 

Subcommittee for recognizing the crisis that is pushing children out of the classroom and into 

the criminal justice system and for its willingness to hear from advocates, parents, and the 

students who experience this problem directly. 

There is still much work to be done to end the school-to-prison pipeline, particularly in 

the Deep South. 

2 
703 

The School-to-Prison Pipeline Begins with Inequities in Public Education 

There are higher rates of children living in poverty in the Deep South than anywhere in 

the United States. Approximately one in four children in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and 

Louisiana live in poverty with even higher rates in Mi~sissippi. I Poverty in our communities 

seeps into our schools and classrooms. Of the twenty states that spend the least amount per 

pupil, ten are in the South? This leads to fewer resources and qualified teachers and 

professionals. In Alabama, less than 10 percent offour-year-olds are served in state-funded prekindergarten.3 Mississippi is the only state in the country with no state-funded pre-kindergarten 

program.4 Studies have repeatedly shown that children without access to pre-kindergarten are 

less prepared for school and fall behind academically.s 

A father recently shared with us that his son, who attends a majority African-American 

school in Alabama, does not have a qualified eighth grade math teacher, and has not had one all 

year. That his son is failing math comes as no surprise. When this father expressed his concern 

to the principal, the principal said he had to choose between hiring an eighth grade math teacher 

and hiring a librarian. The principal chose the librarian. Administrators should not have to make 

such choices. The amount that Alabama spends per pupil per year has decreased by more than 

1 Demographics of Poor Children from the National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, 

Columbia University, http://www.nccp.orglprofilesldemographics.html(select desired state from dropdown menu; then select 

"All Children: Poor" from the profile dropdown menu) (last visited Dec. 10,2012). 

2 Public Education Finances: 2010, Table I I: Slates Ranked According to Per Pupil Public Elementary-Secondary School 

System Finance Amounts: 2009-2010, U.S. Census Bureau, available at http://www.census.gov/newsroom!releaseslpdflcbI2-

II3_tablell.pdf. 

, Preschool/or Y'all, Preschool Matters Today, Nationallns!i!u!e for Early Education Research, www.preschoolmatters.org 

(last visited Dec. 10,2012). 

4Id 

, Eileen M. O'Brien & Chuck Dervarics, Pre-kindergarten: What the research shows, The Center for Public Education, 

(March 2007), available at http://www.centerforpubliceducation.orglMain-MenulPre-kindergartenlPre-KindergartenIPrekindergarten-What-the-research-shows.html. 

3 
704 

$1300 since 2008-the largest decrease in per pupil spending in the country.6 Students who are 

struggling academically, and whose academic needs are not being addressed, are more likely to 

act out to avoid embarrassment. Without proper spending, schools lack the protective 

interventions, like reading specialists and paraprofessionals, to ensure these students get the help 

they need. In poor school districts, where classrooms are packed, needs are great, and resources 

are scarce, students who misbehave are often either suspended or referred to law enforcement. 

Each year, Mobile County Public Schools in Mobile, Alabama suspends and expels 

thousands of students-disproportionately students of color and students with disabilities-for 

minor misbehavior such as tardiness, skipping, and uniform violations. In 2010-2011, 74 

percent of all school suspensions were for nonviolent, non-drug related offenses. In Mobile, 

long-term suspensions can last anywhere from II days to the end of the semester. Many students 

receive back-to-back long-term suspensions. These students fall behind academically, are 

repeatedly retained and eventually age out and are often encouraged to drop out of school. This 

"push out" of students occurs against a backdrop of zero tolerance discipline policies, unlimited 

principal discretion to suspend, and a denial of due process protections for students facing 

exclusion. In 2010, the SPLC initiated a campaign in Mobile those reform exclusionary school 

disciplinary practices and empower parents to become advocates for their children and 

community. In partial fulfillment of this goal, we filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of students 

who were suspended for months at a time over minor misbehavior and who were denied any due 

process to defend themselves against the removal. 

'Phil Oliff, et .1., N~ School Year Brings More Cuts in State Funding!or Schools, Center on Budget .nd Policy Priorities 

(Sept. 4, 2012), http://www.cbpp.orgifilesJ9-4-12st'p.pdf. 

4 
705 

In North Florida, African-American students are subjected to harsh discipline practices 

at a much higher rate than white students. African-American students are frequently written up 

for vague and minor offenses. In Bay County, Florida, one student was written up for defiance 

because he refused to take his book out and work during class. Another student in Bay County 

was suspended for three days for classroom disruption because he was tapping his pencil on a 

desk. In Escambia County, Florida, African-American students number 14,730 or 36 percent of 

the school population yet account for 65 percent of students receiving out-of-school 

suspensiqns. These harsh discipline practices push students, disproportionately AfricanAmerican students, out of school and into the school-to-prison pipeline. The school districts' 

ambiguous policies result in vastly disparate disciplinary activity, high levels of subjectivity on 

the part of teachers and administrators, the overuse of justice system involvement, and 

dramatically reduced educational opportunities for African-American children. In summer of 

2012, the SPLC filed a series of civil rights complaints to challenge these discriminatory 

disciplinary practices in North Florida. 

These harmful zero tolerance policies and practices occur in school districts all across the 

South. For every student that our campaigns will reach, there are thousands more that will be left 

unreached. There is still much work to be done particularly here in the Deep South. 

Brutal School Disciplinary Tactics Fuel the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

The school-to-prison pipeline is fueled by brutal disciplinary practices where children are 

literally pulled out of their classrooms, placed in handcuffs or other restraints, maced, and 

arrested for minor misbehavior. 

5 
706 

In Birmingham, Alabama, nearly every high school has one or more police officers 

permanently stationed in the school. These officers are routinely called to handle minor 

disciplinary problems, and once they appear, the school administrators consider the situation a 

police matter. Students are arrested-and sometimes maced-for normal, adolescent 

misbehavior such as swearing, horseplay, and disrespectful conduct. While the physical effects 

of this punishment are horrific-injury to the eyes, temporary loss of vision, burning and 

discoloration of the skin, loss of breath and, in some cases, respiratory arrest-the impact goes 

far beyond that. When a child is maced, that child is arrested, taken to the juvenile lock-up, strip 

searched, and then left in a cell to wait for a parent to come. Although Birmingham schools and 

police have signed an agreement with the family court that children should not be arrested for 

this low-level misbehavior, the arrests and the trauma it causes the children continue. In 

December 2010, the SPLC filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of students who were subjected to 

the use of chemical weapons, primarily mace, by police officers acting as school resource 

officers in Birmingham City Schools. 

Students at Jackson, Mississippi's Capital City Alternative School are regularly 

disciplined for minor infractions by being shackled for hours at a time to fixed objects like 

railings, desks, and chairs. These students are left unsupervised in isolated rooms and are denied 

access to classroom instruction. In June 2011, the SPLC filed a complaint against Jackson 

Public Schools to stop this practice and recently reached a comprehensive agreement that bars 

the use of fixed restraints by all District staff on any student. 

In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, school officials have given armed police "unfettered 

authority to stop, frisk, detain, question, search, and arrest schoolchildren on and off school 

6 
707 

grounds" in violation of the children's civil rights and school district policy.7 Students are often 

arrested for minor misbehavior--often not involving criminal misconduct-that should be 

handled by school personnel rather than police officers. In fact, 70 percent of the school arrests 

over the past two years were "dismissed, refused, or diverted by the COurts.,,8 We filed a civil 

rights complaint on behalf of African-American school children in Jefferson Parish who are 

disproportionately subjected to the overuse of arrests and seizures. 

These campaigns challenge incidents of school arrests and uses of force, but the impact to 

the students and their communities extend far beyond these incidents. Not surprisingly, studies 

show that being arrested has detrimental psychological effects on children. An arrest nearly 

doubles the likelihood that a child will eventually drop out of school. Coupled with a court 

appearance, an arrest nearly quadruples the odds of dropping out and increases the likelihood of 

future interaction with police. School arrests and uses of force fuel the pipeline by pushing 

students out of classrooms and into jails, detention centers, and prisons. 

The Prison End of the Pipeline 

The Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility ("WGYCF") is a youth prison in Leake 

County, Mississippi. WGYCF is operated by a private prison company. It houses over 1,200 

young men between the ages .of 13-22 nearly all of them African-American. All of the youth at 

WGYCF were tried and convicted in the adult criminal justice system. Nearly eighty percent of 

the youth at WGYCF are incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Many of the youth at WGYCF 

had similar experiences in school: they struggled academically, started acting out, and 

7 Q.B., et aI. v. Jefferoon Parish Public School System, Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education, Jan. 11,2012, 

h!tp:l/cdna.splcenter.orglsitesidefaultifiles/downloadsicase/011112jeftParish_Arrest.pdf. 

8Id. 

7 
708 

eventually got kicked out. Their arrests followed soon thereafter. Mississippi's criminal laws 

allows children as young as 13 to be tried as adults for any criminal offense. Once imprisoned, 

these youth are subjected to horrific abuse and mistreatment, and for years were denied any 

educational opportunities. If released, they face the uphill battle of living as convicted felons. In 

20 I 0, we filed a lawsuit challenging the abuse, dangerous conditions and lack of medical care 

and educational services and recently reached a comprehensive. agreement to rectifY these 

harms. 

In Meridian, Mississippi, youth are routinely arrested and transported to the juvenile 

detention center for minor classroom misbehavior. In addition, if a student is on probation and 

suspended from school, it can be considered a probation violation in which case the student is 

sent to the detention center to serve the length of the suspension. At the detention center, 

children are subjected to additional abuse, including the use of mace and other restraints. 

Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit to stop these illegal practices. We are 

very pleased at DOl's actions yet urge Congress to remember there are many more "Meridians" 

across the South. 

STPP Contributes to the Re-segregation of the South 

The school-to-prison pipeline excludes a disproportionate number of African-Americans 

from the classroom and subjects them to harsh discipline, excessive use of force, and increased 

criminal justice involvement. Essentially, it pushes youth, particularly African-American youth, 

out of schools and into the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems. 

The 2009-20 I 0 Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection survey, the most 

expansive of its kind, covered 85 percent of the nation's students and was the first release of this 

8 
709 

crucial federal data since 2006. The results from the schools surveyed show public school 

systems in the Deep South where Bhick students represented 18 percent of students but 46 

percent of those suspended more than once and 39 percent of those expelled. One in five Black 

boys and more than one in 10 Black girls received an out-of-school suspension compared to one 

in 14 White boys and one in 33 White girls. Arrests and police interactions also 

disproportionately affect low-income schools with large African-American and Latino 

populations. Black and Latino students represented more than 70 percent of those involved in 

school-related arrests or referrals to law enforcement--an astonishing number that requires 

rigorous examination of the reasons why and action to change unfair racial practices in the 

application of discipline. 

CONCLUSION 

The school-to-prison pipeline consists of the policies and practices that pull students out 

of classrooms, science labs, and libraries and push them into abusive and violent jails and 

prisons. It is a crisis that disproportionately impacts African-American and Latino children, their 

families and communities. We hope to protect our children by bringing an end to the zero 

tolerance policies and over-policing that push children out of school, and to refocus public 

resources toward evidenced-based disciplinary practices that keep children in school. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

To truly end the school-to-prison pipeline, we urge Congress to encourage, and school 

districts to implement, the following reforms: 

9 
710 

1. Increase the use of research-based alternatives to suspension, such as positive 

behavior interventions and supports, in order to remedy not simply punish misconduct; 

2. Require annual reports on the total number of in-school suspensions, out-of-school 

suspensions, extended or long-term suspensions, expulsions, and arrests disaggregated by race, 

poverty, and gender; 

3. Create agreements between the schools, police departments and court systems in 

districts with high arrest rates to limit school-based arrests and the use of restraints like mace 

and handcuffs; 

4. Provide simple explanations of infractions and due process procedures in the 

student code of conduct to ensure consistency in application and limit unfettered administrator 

discretion that has historically operated to the detriment of children of color; and 

5. Create appropriate limits on the use of law enforcement officers in the public 

school setting. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard on these important matters. 

Jadine Johnson, Staff Attorney 

Jerri Katzerman, Deputy Legal Director 

Southern Poverty Law Center 

400 Washington Avenue 

Montgomery, Alabama 36104 

10 
711 

Statement by Juanita Lauritsen, Executive Director, 

Southwest Minnesota Private Industry Council 

The Southwest Minnesota Private Industry Council (PIC) provides youth 

employment services in 14 southwest Minnesota counties. Youth are referred 

through a variety of sources including schools, human service agencies, county 

public health agencies, community corrections departments, parents and past 

or current participants. A variety of services are offered, including, but not 

limited to: work experience, career exploration activities, post-secondary tuition 

assistance, and job seeking/retention assistance, transition services and 

support services. 

Educators in Southwest Minnesota have long expressed concerns over the 

readiness of some students to succeed in today's competitive job market. 

Employers in our area are echoing that sentiment and have asked for 

assistance in better preparing young adults for the responsibilities of 

employment. Corrections staff have indicated a need to employ young 

offenders in order to give them an avenue to pay restitution to their victims. 

The Southwest Minnesota Private Industry Council (PIC), in coordination with 

the Southwest Minnesota Workforce Council, Youth Council, educational 

institutions, local employers, community corrections, Workforce Center 

Partners and other local agencies has developed a plan to work towards better 

preparing these young adults to be competitive, responsible, skilled employees. 

While the collaboration between agencies, the courts, and schools in Southwest 

Minnesota has always been a source of pride, there are still unmet needs for 

young offenders. The PIC has an established reputation for conducting work 

experience opportunities and career exploration programs to fit the needs of 

young offenders in hopes of giving them a new start. 

Students who lack good work skills, references, or have restitution obligations 

take part in a work experience program. Many of the students live in very 

small towns with few job opportunities plus their reputation may hinder their 

chance for employment. The work experience component is a valuable tool to 

use to help at-risk youth become more prepared for independent living. 

Students who have no work history or less than stellar reputations have a 

chance to prove they can be successful, with work site supervisors acting as 

mentors. 

Paid work experiences offer the opportunity to gain employment, develop work 

skills necessary to succeed in future jobs with less risk to the employer, and 

earn money to pay restitution to victims. Whenever possible, participants are 

placed in work experience sites that match their skills and their interests as 

well. 
712 

Work experience sites offer the following jobs: 

• Library Tech 

• Youth Corps (Wildlife Management) 

• Teacher's Aid 

• Tire Technician 

• Custodian 

• Child Care Aid 

• Food Prep 

• Stocking 

• Lawn Maintenance 

• Small Engine Mechanic Assistant 

• Office Assistant 

• Sandwich Artist 

• Restaurant Hostess 

• Maintenance/Janitorial Assistant 

• Cashier/Customer Service 

• Youth Peer Leader 

• Embroidery 

• Hair Salon Assistant 

• Ag Implement Assistant 

• Computer Repair 

• Shelf-Stocker 

• Activities Assistant 

• Dietary Aide 

• Library Page 

• Assembler 

• Floral Shop / Assistant 

• Auto Shop Assistant 

In response to educator and employer concerns over students' lack of 

preparedness to compete in the job market, the PIC has partnered with a 

variety of businesses and agencies to organize several eventsj services aimed at 

assisting youth put at-risk. 
713 

EVENTS & SERVICES 

"Employees" of "LifeSkills, Inc." Learn Many Soft Skills at the lOth 

Annual LifeSkills Event 

Submitted by: Kati Birhanzl 

Attitude, Attendance, Appearance, Ambition, Accountability, Acceptance, 

Appreciation. The participants in the 10th annual LifeSkills Event were invited 

to "bring their A game" as shown in the You Tube video which played while 

they entered. (View it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3 cVGsQrck). 

Invitations sent out weeks in advance to the alternative learning 

programs and centers in our 14-county service area, asked participants to 

complete an application with interview questions. They were also encouraged to 

dress for success at the event. 

As participants entered the Conference Center on the Southwest 

Minnesota State University campus, they were greeted by Cathy Ervin, 

Southwest Minnesota Private Industry Council (PIC). Ervin signed in the 

"employees" who were then directed to use their time cards to punch in for the 

day. 

Hope Torma and Kati Birhanzl with PIC delivered messages throughout 

the event focused on the soft skills they were learning, hands-on in various 

ways. As participants actively engaged in their three "department meetings", 

they built teamwork, leadership, problem-solving, budgeting and fmancing 

skills. The Marshall Area Financial Empowerment Collaborative, Students in 

Free Enterprise of SMSU and PIC job counselors provided these sessions. 

A partner in the event, SMSU Cultural Diversity Department delivered a 

"company-wide" address. Michele Sterner educated the participants on social 

norms, explaining how some body cues, faces, motions or words are different 

depending on the culture. Student volunteers from this department also 

assisted in the employee evaluation. 

During the event, attendees were evaluated on basic attributes necessary 

to be a good employee (teamwork, leadership, following directions, attitude, 

taking appropriate break times, tiIneliness transitioning between sessions, 

etc.). Certificates and prizes demonstrating and relating to the skill in which 

they showed great effort were given to those who ranked highest. Full 

evaluations with positive feedback were given to the teachers for their students. 

Beginning with their initial application, interview questions, and actions while 

"on the job" that day, every participant walked away with tools to assist them 

in becoming a great future work force. 

• Available Services 

o Paid work experience at no cost to employers 

o Job Keeping and Seeking Assistance 

o Career Exploration and Assistance 

o Post-Secondary Education Assistance 
714 

• Youth Events 

o Breaking Traditions 

o Career Expo 

o Classroom Workshops 

o College Visits 

o LifeSkills 

o Camps to Careers 

• Post-Secondary Education Assistance: Offer assistance in exploring, 

applying for and funding college expenses. 

• Career Exploration Activities: Staff acts as resources to both program 

eligible youth and teachers who request assistance in the classroom. Can 

be a format presentation, small group discussions or on an individual 

basis. Resources included; labor market information, career assessment 

and interpretation, arranging field trips, in-class speakers, one-on-one 

information interviews, and job shadowing. 

Breaking Traditions & Camps to Careers: 

Hands-on career exploration sessions offered in partnership with the 

Minnesota West Campuses. 

• Job Seeking and Keeping Skills: Staff acts as resources to both 

program eligible youth and teachers who request assistance in the 

classroom. Can be a formal presentation, small group discussions or on 

an individual basis. 

• Breaking Traditions: The SW MN PIC also hosted its 18th annual 

Breaking Traditions event and was held at four of Minnesota West 

Community and Technical College's five campuses giving participants 

more opportunities to explore careers through hands-on exploration as 

well as tours of program areas offered at Minnesota West campuses. All 

students were exposed to non-traditional careers for their gender; 

ranging from Cosmetology to Plumbing and HV AC. Among the four 

campuses visited a total of 80 youth participated and increased their 

awareness of career opportunities and what colleges can help offer and 

what steps need to be taken to become a future student. 

• Camps to Careers: Healthcare Camps to Explore Dental Assisting & 

Allied Healthcare Careers Career Camps for Young Adults Offered in 

Canby and Luverne Southwest Minnesota high school students and 

recent graduates had the opportunity this month to explore career 

opportunities in one of the fastest-growing segments of the healthcare 

industry. Two- one day summer career exploration camps, offered 

through an innovative program called Minnesota Camps to Careers, 

allowed young adults to try on a career in two critical segments of the 
715 

healthcare industry: dental assisting and allied healthcare careers. Camp 

participants received hands-on experience, classroom instruction and 

professional career development guidance, including on-the-job training 

to build networks within the healthcare industry, and improving job 

readiness when seeking permanent employment. Dental Assisting and 

Healthcare careers cover a variety of skill and education levels. Median 

wages in these growing industries range from $41,695 to $166,400. 

Dental assistants help dentists with patient care, office tasks, and lab 

duties. The increasing trend for people to keep their natural teeth will 

fuel the demand for dental services. Demand will also increase due to a 

higher emphasis placed on dental care in younger generations. Health 

care is a growing industry in SW Minnesota and a good long term career 

prospect. The dental assisting camp was held June 19 on the Minnesota 

West Community and Technical College Canby campus. The allied 

healthcare career camp was June 210n the Minnesota West Community 

and Technical College Luverne campus. For more information, contact 

Eriann Faris, Southwest Minnesota Private Industry Council, Inc. Phone 

800-818-9295. Email: efariS@swmnpic.org. 

To view a video on Camps to Careers, visitwww.campstocareers.org. 

• Tri-WAY: Skills are developed that will enable youth to be prepared to 

search for a job, safety on the job and understand expectations on the 

job. This is part of the intake/application process. The Tri-Way can now 

be located online at www.swmnpic.org under BrainShark. Classroom 

presentations can also be done as requested. 

TITLE II funds for these projects are used to support current state and federally 

funded employment programs (Workforce Investment Act and Minnesota Youth 

Program). These programs collaborate together to provide the services 

necessary to get young offenders back on track after their involvement with the 

corrections system, while reducing recidivism, and learning the value of 

responsibility and accountability. 

Success Stories 

Brandon 

Brandon was referred to the SW MN Private Industry Council's Youth Programs 

by Principal of the Worthington ALC December 2010. Brandon at the time of 

enrollment was on probation for a petty offense and was expected to be 

completed on March 2011. At that time he was working at a local small engine 

shop as a shop assistant/ custodial. Brandon really enjoyed his job and had 

developed a positive relationship with his supervisors. Brandon successfully 

completed probation. In August 2011 Brandon reoffended, and was charged 

and found guilty for a felony offense and was brought to trial. At all of his court 
716 

proceedings his worksite supervisors were present at all of them, which showed 

him positive support and a reminder that he has great potential. Through the 

entire process Brandon also showed great communication skills, keeping in 

contact with PIC staff through his entire process from court to detention. 

February 2012, Brandon was released and contacted PIC staff to see about 

being placed back at his old worksite, so that he could work towards paying off 

fines and restitution and he was placed back at the small engine shop. 

Brandon has shown great strides and his potential and confidence have grown 

tremendously. From February to August of 2012 Brandon has missed zero 

days of school, is passing all of his classes, has worked and paid off all court 

costs and fines and also paid $1,704.29 towards restitution. On August 6th, 

2012 Brandon approached his worksite supervisor with concern that his work 

experience may be ending due to funding. Brandon's supervisor said he knew 

someone that did the hiring at one of the grocery stores in town and would give 

them a call and a positive work reference for Brandon. That same day Brandon 

received a phone call to interview and on August 10th Brandon was hired on 

and is working 15-20 Hours per week while he continues to work on finishing 

his senior year of high school. 

Tanna 

"At 14 years old, I attended inpatient treatment for meth addiction. I was there 

for approximately 45 days. I continued with outpatient care four days a week 

when I was released and continued to do so for about 6 months. It was difficult 

because I wasn't able to finish my eighth grade year of junior high since I had 

to go to treatment two weeks prior to the end of the term. Fortunately, my 

school cooperated with me and I was able to finish my work in treatment and 

still acquire enough credits to pass. While doing outpatient treatment, I had to 

miss half of the day of school Monday through Thursday, which wasn't easy. It 

was a challenge to keep up on my schoolwork and still attempt to live a normal 

life of a now 15 year old. It was hard to face the fact that my life was far from 

normal. I successfully completed inpatient and outpatient treatment and have 

not used since May 28, 2005. My current supervisor, is the one who introduced 

me to the idea of applying for PIC Youth Programs. She thought the program 

would work out well for me, and it has! I have worked as her office assistant 

since June 2009. I assist her with activities like after school clubs and Parent's 

Night Out during the school year. In the summer, I helped her with summer 

camps, a mentoring program, and other short term classes for children. I 

absolutely love working with children and they really show me how precious life 

truly is. PIC also helped me to complete my Certified Nursing Assistant course, 

which I needed to apply for nursing school. I have learned a lot while working 

through PIC Youth Programs. I have learned organization and communication 

skills. I am currently attending college and plan to complete the coursework for 

the Registered Nurse program. By working through this program, I realized that 

going to college is a huge necessity to have a successful occupation as an 
717 

adult. I greatly appreciate all that PIC has done for me and the program will be 

in my heart forever! Thank youl" 
718 

School to Prison 

Pipeline 

Testimony 

12-13-12 

For more than 35 years, the Student Advocacy Center of Michigan has worked to assure all Michigan's 

children realize their right to a quality public education, but we continue to be appalled by the number of 

children and youth excluded from their schools with no education, deserted by the very people charged to 

help them learn and then handed over to law enforcement. We no longer seem to take responsibility as 

adults of doing the hard work of teaching our children to learn from their mistakes. Rather, we take every 

opportunity to exclude them from a supportive community. 

Consider a recent case of ours - a soft-spoken high school student with an emotional impainnent who is 

now receiving only two hours of instruction a week at home and is being called to court for an incident 

involving an apple paring knire. The school principal said she believed that the student = intended to 

hurt anyone, but she still recommended that he be excluded from school. The student used the knife to cut 

an apple (his mother usually cuts his apples but they were running late that day) and later to sharpen a 

pencil after his broke during an exam. When the teacher asked for the knife, he also handed her the blade 

shield. He said he never intended to hurt anyone and the panel seemed to believe that. But still, his case was 

forwarded to the police and the student was excluded from school. (Of course, the district continues to 

receive full funding for the student.) 

Or consider the case of a young teen repeating the 7'h grade who will now have to try it a third time because 

she is expelled from every public school in the state for a year. She was frequently mouthy in class and one 

day, a teacher slapped her in the face, according to 16 eyewitness accounts. The student says she walked 

away after that, but others say she seemed to have some physical contact with that teacher, who remains in 

the classroom. The mother has called the "virtual schools" touted by the school board who expelled her, but 

they say they can't enroll expelled students and even if they could, they are full. But she's welcome to pay 

more than $1,000 to take classes. The mother, like so many of our clients, can 'I afford this. 

These cruel policies have disproportionate impacts on the very students who need additional support if we 

care about the achievement gap -low-income stude~ts, students of color. students. with disabilities. and 

students with mental illness. These policies are not making our schools safer; they are damaging the life 

chances of our most vulnerable children. And it must stop. 

School districts must be expected to educate ALL students, even the ones who make mistakes in school and 

need extra adult guidance. Withholding education cannot be allowed. This must be explicit. For too long, 

the federal zero tolerance policy has been used by our state as an excuse to push out far too many students 

from the education they deserve and'our community needs them to have. Reform is urgent. 

Thank you for taking time to study this issue. 

Peri Stone-Palmquist, LMSW, MPP, CTS 

Executive Director 

1921 W. Michigan Avenue. Ypsilanti. MI48197 (734) 482·0489 f: (734) 482·0737 

contact@studentadvocacycenter.org www.studentadvocacycenter.orgfacebook.com/studentadvocacycenter 
719 

Written Testimony of Texas Appleseed 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Hearing: ''Ending the School to Prison Pipeline" 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012, 2:00 PM 

Dirksen 226 

Texas Appleseed Contacts: Deborah Fowler, Deputy Director 

Kathryn Freeman, Staff Attorney 

Mike Vitris, Staff Attorney 

1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 201 

Austin, TX 78701 

(512) 473-2800 

www.texasappleseed.net 

APPLESEED 
720 

Texas Appleseed appreciates the opportunity to present written testimony before the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights of the Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary. We commend the Subcommittee for its interest in the 

problems associated with exclusionary student discipline, often referred to as the "School 

to Prison Pipeline" (pipeline). 

Texas Appleseed, a non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization, is part ofa national 

network of 16 public interest law centers in the United States and Mexico. Our mission 

is to promote justice for all Texans by leveraging the volunteered skills and resoUrces of 

lawyers and other professionals to identify practical solutions that create systemic change 

in broad-based issues of social equity. Texas Appleseed has been researching the 

existence of the Pipeline in Texas schools and advocating for change at the local and state 

level for the last seven years.! 

The "school-ro-prison pipeline" is not a problem that is unique to a single state, or a 

handful of school districts, but rather a problem that exists nationwide. It is marked by 

the increased use of suspension and expulsion in the years following adoption of 

sweeping "zero tolerance" laws at the state level. It is also marked by an increased 

reliance on school-based law enforcement to handle what used to be routine student 

discipline issues. Anecdotal stories in Texas abound, and are much like those that have 

surfaced in other states: 

• An II-year old student in suburban Houston arrested and expelled for pulling a 

fire alarm. 

• A I2-year-old girl given a Class C misdemeanor ticket for "Disruption of Class" 

for spraying perfume on herself after other students told her she smelled bad. 

• A I7-year old honors student arrested and jailed for truancy when she missed 

school to work. two jobs to support herself and her siblings. 

Perhaps most relevant to this Subcomittee, this is a problem with significant implications 

for the judiciary and those who safeguard constitutional rights. Nationally,juvenile and 

criminal court judges have complained of the growing reliance on the court system to 

handle low-level student misbehavior.2 In Texas, these problems spurred the Texas 

Judicial Council to create a Juvenile Justice Committee focused specifically on this 

issue? And, as will be discussed, the impact of these policies on African American 

students and students with disabilities raises critical issues regarding protection of 

constitutional rights. 

I See Texas Appleseed, Texas' School to Prison Pipeline: Dropout to Incarceration (2007); Texas' School 

to Prison Pipeline: School Expulsion (2010); Texas School to Prison Pipeline: Ticketing, Arrest & Use of 

Force in Schools (2010); Breaking Rules, Breaking Budgets: Cost of Exclusionary Discipline in II Texas 

School Districts (2012). 

2 See Judge Steve Teske, A PerfectStonn, an Imperfect System Equals Injustice (2011), available at 

http://jjie:orgljudge-steve-teske-perfect-stol1ll-imperfect-system-equals-injusticel8817 

3 See Texas Judicial Council webpage for committees, available at http://www.courts.state.tx.us/tjc/cteactive.asp 

2 
721 

Ultimately, the question for policy makers to ask is whether this type of discipline is 

working to promote good student outcomes - both for those who are disciplined, and for 

the rest of the student population. Texas Appleseed's research and that of others 

indicates it is not, and that better solutions exist. 

I. Texas' Research Shows Reliance on Exclusionary Discipline is Ineffective 

What is unique about Texas is our access to data collected each year by the Texas 

Education Agency (TEA). Few states are collecting discipline data that is as robust as the 

data Texas collects. This data has allowed Texans to study the existence and effects of 

the Pipeline by examining trends in discipline and outcomes associated with it. 

Texas Appleseed's first two reports analyzed suspension and expulsion data/or every 

school district in the state, and our third report analyzed arrest and Class C ticketing data 

for 26 school districts. The findings of these three reports were surprisingly consistent, 

though they focused on different aspects of discipline and policfug, revealing: 

• Wide variation in disciplinary referral and use of law enforcement to ticket or 

arrest students, suggesting that where a student attends school, and not the nature 

of his or her behavior, detennines the likelihood of disciplinary or law 

enforcement action. 

• Discretionary school decisions to suspend, expel, and refer to an alternative 

school disproportionately impact African American and special education 

students. 

• Students become involved in the Pipeline at an early age. Our research 

showed that elementary school students - even as young as kindergarten -- are 

subject to suspension, referral to alternative education programs, and ticketing and 

arrest by school-based police officers. 

Perhaps most distressing was our finding that though good information is readily 

available about research-based programs proven successful in reducing behavioral 

problems and improving academics, relatively few Texas districts are implementing such 

programs. 

In 2011, The Council of State Governments (CSG) used Texas data to conduct a 

landmark study of the correlation between student discipline, academic attainment, and 

involvement in the juvenile justice system.4 This report relied on a student-for-student 

match of data between the TEA data system and data maintained by the Texas Juvenile 

Probation Commission. This unique data set allowed CSG to conduct a multivariate 

analysis - allowing them to test single predictors of poor outcomes and focus specifically 

on the effects of student discipline. 

4 The COWicil of State Governments, Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School 

Discipline Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement (2011). 

3 
722 

Among the reports key findings: 

• Six in ten pubUc school students were 'suspended' or expelled at least once 

between their 7

tt1 & 12th grade school years, and 97 percent of the disciplinary 

referrals were made at the discretion of school officials for low-level 

misbehavior, rather than for the serious mandatory violations included in the 

state's "zero tolerance" provisions. 

• 31 percent of students with one or more suspensions or expulsions repeated their 

grade level at least once, and Nearly 10 percent of students with one discipIinary 

contact dropped out compared to 2 percent of those with no disciplinary contact. 

• Students who were suspended or expelled for discretionary violations were nearly 

three times as likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice system the 

following year. 

CSG's findings showed the same trend Texas Appleseed's research revealed regarding 

race and student discipline, showing 83 percent of African American male students 

had at least one discretionary disciplinary referral, though their rate of mandatory 

referrals was lower than that of other students. When the effect of race alone was 

isolated as part of the multivariate analysis, African American students were shown to 

have a 31 percent higher likelihood of a discretionary discipline referral when compared 

to other students. Students with disabilities were also significantly more likely to have a 

discipline referral. 

Another surprising finding from the CSG report indicates that the oft-quoted defense of 

exclusionary discipline - that removing disruptive students from the classroom works to 

promote learning for those who remain - does not hold true. CSG compared discipIinary 

rates between campuses with virtually identical student and campus characteristics and 

found, "a school that makes frequent use of suspension and expulsion does not 

necessarily create an environment that enables the overaU school to achieve better 

academic outcomes."s 

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the Texas research - both 

Appleseed's and CSG's - is that the traditional methods of handling student discipline 

simply don't work for today's students. Not only do they fail to lead to positive student 

outcomes in the fonn of improved behavior and academic success - they appear to be 

more harmful than helpful. Further, they have a particularly harsh impact on African 

American students and students with disabilities - student populations that are already at 

increased risk for dropout and juvenile justice system involvement. 

S Council of State Governments, supra note 4 at 82. 

4 
723 

ll. The Role of "Criminalization" in the Texas Pipeline 

In addition to problems associated with internal student discipline, more recent research 

indicates that increased reliance on school police (sometimes referred to as "School 

Resource Officers" (SROs)) to handle low-level, non-violent misbehavior also plays a 

role in the Pipeline. Texas Appleseed's third School to Prison report, published in late 

20 I 0, focused on this piece of the Pipeline.6 Again, this is not a .problem that is confined 

to Texas - reports from across the nation reveal similar patterns. 

In Texas, perhaps one of the more unique manifestations of this problem. is the very high 

number of Class C misdemeanor citations - or tickets - issued to children by school 

police officers. Low-level misconduct such as c~ing, chewing gum, or disrupting 

class-misbehaviors formerly dealt with by a detention or a trip to the principal's 

office-'--8l"e now met with criminal charges, This practice of ticketing is widespread 

throughout the state --last year alone over 229,000 non-traffic citations were issued to 

juveniles in Texas.8 Texas Appleseed just completed an updated analysis of ticketing and 

arrest data for 42 school districts, finding: 

• The most COmInonly cited "offenses" in all of the school districts that provided 

data were "Disruption of Class" or "Disorderly Conduct." Students are frequently 

cited for making too much noise in class or for using profanity, but are also often 

cited for schoolyard fights. 

• As is true of internal disciplinary referrals, African American students are 

overrepresented in school-based ticketing and arrest In many districts, they 

received tickets at rates two-to-three times their representation in the student 

body. 

The consequences of even a Class C violation can be very serious for students and their 

families. First, the student's parent or guardian must appear in court with the student, 

requiring the parent to take time off from work for as many appearances as are necessary 

to resolve the case. Fines represent a serious financial costs in addition to any wages lost 

to the parent's time offfrom work. The fine for a Class C Misdemeanor can be up to 

$500. Students are also assessed court costs of at least $70 dollars in addition to a fine. 

• Texas Appleseed, Texas School to Prison Pipeline: Ticketing, Arrest & Use of Force in Schools (2010). 

7 Justico Policy Institute, Education Under Arrest: The Case Against Police in Schools (2011); Charles 

Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, Filst Do No Harm: How Educators and Police Can Work 

Together More Effectively (20 I 0); Lisa H. Thurau and Johanna Wald, Controlling Par/Mrs: When Law 

Eriforceme7ll Meets Discipline in Public Schools, 54 N.Y.1. SCH. 1. REv. 977, 1015 (2009); American Civil 

Liberties Union of Connecticut, Hard Lessons: School Resource Officer Programs and School-Based 

Arrests in Three Connecticut Towns (2008); New York Civil Liberties Union, CriminaJizing the 

Classroom, The Over-Policing of New York City Schools (2007); Pennsylvania Protection & Advocacy, 

Inc, Arrested Development: Students with Disabilities and School Referrals to Law Enforcement in 

Pennsylvania (2004). 

8 Based on FY 2012 data from the Office of Court Administration, available at 

http://www.courts.state.tx..usipubs/AR2012ltoc.hnn.Itinot clear that this includes data for all courts; this 

figure is likely conservative. 

5 
724 

For students with multiple tickets, these fines can multiply. One municipal court 

providing data to Texas Appleseed indicated a youth had received as many as 11 tickets. 

In the same court, more than 350 youth had received multiple tickets, with some 

receiving as many as six. The financial repercussions of a ticket, or multiple tickets, can 

be devastating for families with limited resources. One parent explained to Texas 

Appleseed: 

My son has" received tickets for various offenses ranging from 

horseplay ... {to] having cigarette butts in his jean pockets . .. three for 

foul language, {and] one huge one for missing school (classes - not whole 

days). The total for said tickets was $1,520, [but] it might as well have 

been a million to someone in my financial situation. 

Financial penalties are not always the most serious aspect of a youth's ticketing case. 

Failure to pay a fine or satisfy the obligations of a deferred disposition can result in a 

youth' s arrest once he or she turns 17. Furthermore, while a Class C criminal conviction 

may not seem important to a 14 year-old, a criminal record can have serious implications 

for the student's college plans and professional future. Because these misdemeanor 

tickets are prosecuted in adult criminal courts rather than in the juvenile system, they 

carry the same consequences that a criminal conviction carries for adults - the protections 

afforded to youth in the juvenile system do not apply to these cases. Youth appear in 

court without appointed counsel and often simply plead guilty or "no contest" If a 

student is convicted, he or she may have to reveal the conviction on college and job 

applications. These convictions may also bar a student from joining the military, and can 

carry consequences for professional licenses. ' 

Students also may be arrested on Texas campuses when they are charged with a Class B 

misdemeanor offense or higher. Appleseed's data shows that most school-based arrests 

are made for non-violent offenses. In many cases, the behavior does not appear to merit 

this harsh result. Examples of stories that parents or attorneys have shared with Texas 

Appleseed include: 

• An II-year old special needs student who was arrested for "assault on a public 

servant" after throwing a packet of papers at her teacher. 

• A 17-year-old student with Asperger's who was arrested and put in jail for 

striking her teacher's aid. The student, who weighed 95 pounds and was barely 

:five feet tall, did not ixijure the aid. 

• A middle school student who became annoyed with the boy behind her who was 

kicking the back of her chair. After repeatedly telling him to stop, she jabbed his 

ankle with her pencil. The pencil broke the skin - requiring the boy to get "a 

bandaid from the nurse's office. The young woman was arrested for "aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon." 

While Texas AppJeseed in no way condones classroom disruption, use of profanity, 

schoolyard fights, or assaultive behavior - it is in not clear that the use of law 

6 
725 

enforcement is an appropriate or effective way of managing thls type of low-level 

misbehavior. 

Rather. there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that use of school-based law 

enforcement to correct non-violent misbehavior leads to poor outcomes. Multiple studies 

have documented the problems ~ociated with relying on school police to correct 

misbehavior through arrest or referrals to the juvenile justice system.9 In Texas, Tarrant 

County recently hired the National Center for School Engagement to conduct a review of 

the underlying reasons for truancy in the county's school districts. NCSE found, "Police 

tickets seem to serve to alienate students from school."IO This tends to confirm 

conversations that Texas Appleseed has had with students and parents statewide. In fact, 

Texas Appleseed has learned that in some cases, high fines associated with tickets lead 

some parents to un~nroll their children from school, feeling their financial circumstances 

left them with no other option. 

m. Better Options Exist 

A. School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (SW PBIS) 

Better options do exist, and a well-developed body of research supports programs or 

models that not only reduce the total number of disciplinary referrals, but may also 

improve overall school culture and academics. One such program - School-wide 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW PBIS) - is becoming an increasingly 

popular alternative to "zero tolerance" disciplinary models. Several states have created 

statewide SW PBIS initiatives, providing technical assistance and support to schools and 

districts interested in the model.ll 

SW PBIS is based on the proven model that children perform best when they are 

explicitly taught what to do, when positive behavior is identified and praised, and when 

behavioral mistakes are corrected and met with effective consequences. Emphasis is on 

preventing misbehavior before it occurs, and celebrating positive behavior. SW PBIS 

schools report major improvements in academic performance (including standardized 

tests),12 attendance, and school climate. This results in significant reductions in 

disciplinary referrals, school-based disciplinary actions (such as detentions or in-school 

9 See Philip I. Cook, Denise C Gottfredson & Chongmin Na, School Crime Control and Prevention, 39 

CRIME &: lUST. 313, 372 (2010); Catherine Y. Kim, Policing School Discipline, 77 BROOKLYN L. REv. 1, 

26 (2012); Gary Sweeten, Who Will Graduate? DfS71lptfon of High School by Amst and COWl 

/l1Ilolvement, 23 JUSTICE QUARTERLY 462, (2006). 

10 Tarrant County Truancy Task Force, Truancy Solutions: A Collaborative Plan for Schools, Police 

Departments, Community Agencies and the Juvenile Justice System (2012)(on file with author). 

II For example, several states - including Florida, nIinois, and Maryland - have created s~level support 

~grams fOT schools interested in implementing school-wide PBIS. 

2 See Academic Achievement and the Implementation of School-wide Behavior Support, available at 

http://www.pbis.Qrglpbis newsletter/volume 3fissue I.aspx. 

7 
726 

suspensions), off-campus disciplinary actions (such as expulsions or placements in 

alternative schools), and referrals to special education based on behavioral concerns. 13 

B. Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) 

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is not one curriculum or program; rather, it is a 

systems change framework that should occur throughout the entire school.14 In general, 

costs of implementing a SEL framework will include training costs and student surveys. IS 

Hiring additional personnel is usually unnecessary.l6 Several specific frameworks or 

programs can be used to implement SEL, including Developmental Assets, Caring 

School Community program, and Tribes Learning Community. 

The goal ofSEL is to help children strengthen their ability to work constructively with 

others, manage their emotions, resolve conflicts with consideration for others, develop 

positive relationships, work more effectively, and make responsible, safe, and ethical 

decisions.17 SEL can foster school improvement and can be implemented from preschool 

through high school.l 

g Effective SEL programming taught consistently can reduce school 

dropout, nonattendance, conduct problems, and substance use. l9 

C. Restorative Justice Model 

Restorative Justice, when applied to a school setting, focuses on how student behavior 

has harmed others and how to make amends.20 Schools often use. the Restorative Justice 

model as a way to build community in schools and to strengthen connections between 

students and the school as an institution.21 By building these connections, restorative 

13 Robert Homer et al., A Randomized, Wair Lisr Controlled EffecttveMSS Trial Assessing School-Wide 

Positive Behavior Support ill Elementary Schools, Journal of Positive Behavioral Supports, Vol. II, pp. 

133-148 (2010); Jeffrey R. Sprague & Robert H. Homer, School Wide Positive Behavioral Supports, ill The 

Handbook of School Violence and Safety: From Research to Practice (2007). For additional research on 

PBIS, please visitwww.pbis.org 

14 TeIepbone Interview with Donna BlacIc, Educational Consuitant{Sept. 17,2012). l> Id 

161d 

17 Whar Is SEL?, COLLABORATIVE FOR ACADEMIC, SOCiAL, AND EMOTIONAL LBARNING, 

http://casel.org!why-it-matterslwhat-is-seV (last visited Sept 27, 2012). 

18Id 

19 See David Osher et aI, Developing Safe, Supportive and Effective Schools: Facilitating Student Success 

to Reduce School Violence, Haruibook a/School Violellce and School Safety (201 I). 

20 David R. Karp and Beau Breslin, Restorative Jusrlce in School Commll1liries, 33 Youth & Society 249, 

250 (2001). 2J ld 

8 
727 

justice focuses on student culture as a whole, rather than merely directing change at 

singular issues, such as drug and alcohol abuse.22 

In a school setting, restorative justice often occurs in restorative circles in the classroom, 

where students can deal with the harm of student misbehavior or rule-breaking that has 

affected the classroom or school community?3 A restorative circle in the classroom 

provides an opportunity to use community values to address the problem and allows 

everyone to communicate?4 It is essential to have a whole school approach to restorative 

justice.25 SW PBIS is a helpful framework to have in place or to implement with 

restorative justice. 26 

Ed White Middle School in San Antonio implemented the model by providing a two-day 

training, materials, and a part-time consultant to visit the school three to four days a week 

and to attend staffmeetings?7 The Institute of Restorative Justice and Restorative 

Dialogue at The University of Texas at Austin is using the model at Ed White for 

research on restorative justice.28 Ed White uses the highly recommended whole school 

approach to restorative justice?9 

D. These Options are Also More Cost Effective 

While schools across the nation are facing budget shortfalls, SW PBIS, SEL, and 

Restorative Justice not only pay offwith increased student attendance and significant 

reductions in disciplinary referrals, but also achieve these results at a fraction of the cost 

of suspensions and expulsions. 

Texas Appleseed recently completed a survey of the financial costs to II school districts 

of suspension, expulsion, and school security costs.30 During the 2010-2011 school year, 

we found that these 11 school districts spent nearly a combined $140 million on out 

of school suspensions, referrals to Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs, and 

expulsions to the Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs. 

In addition, these II districts also spent about $87 million on security, monitoring 

services and campus policing. Spending on school security and policing far outweighs 

what these districts spend on social work services--a combined $18.6 million, during the 

llId 

13 Telephone InteIview with Dr, Marilyn Armour, Associate Professor, The University of Texas at Austin 

and Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue (Sept 24, 2012), 

24Id 

2$ Id 

u, Id 

27Id 

28Id 

29 Iti. 

3. Texas AppJeseed, Breaking Rules, Breaking Budgets: Cost ofExcJusionary Discipline in II Texas 

School Districts (2012), 

9 
728 

2010-2011 school year. Spending additional resources on counseling and social work 

services could do more to address the root causes of student behavioral problems at 

school. 

We compared the costs of exclusionary discipline to those of SW PBIS, SEL, and 

Restorative Justice and found that these programs are far more cost-effective than the use 

of traditional, exclusionary discipline.3

] . 

IV. Conclusion 

Texas-based research demonstrates that the overreliance on suspension and expulsion 

have serious academic, financial, and public safety consequences. In addition to concerns 

regarding the effectiveness of suspension and expulsion, we have a growing concern over 

the "criminalization" common school misbehavior in Texas. 

Texas is moving toward solutions. Several legislative initiatives have taken positive 

steps to decrease internal disciplinary referrals and Class C ticketing.32 In 2011, the 

Governor's office funded a pilot in Waco ISD that has reduced Class C ticketing in that 

district by 77 percent - and has announced plans to create a competitive grant for districts 

that wish to replicate this pilOt.33 As discussed in om Cost of Discipline' report, many 

school districts have opted to implement alternatives that have both reduced disciplinary 

referrals and costs associated with exclusionary discipline.34 But more remains to be 

done. 

We thank the Subcommittee for its interest in the issue, and for holding this hearingpublic forums dedicated to engaging stakeholders in finding solutions to this problem are 

critical. 

311d. at 73. 

n See Council of State Governments, supra note 4, at 9. 

33 Office of the Governor Criminal Justice Division, Waco Independent School District & Public Policy 

Research Institute of Texas A&M, Powerpoint Presentation: Re-thinking Law Enforcement in Texas 

Schools (20 12Xon file with author). 

34 Texas Appleseed, Cost of Discipline, at 73-76. 

10 
729 

Texas OIiC)I 

Statement for the Record 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

December 12, 2012 

Crime Rates, Zero-Tolerance, School Discipline and the Juvenile Justice System 

by Marc Levin, Director, Center for Effective Justice, 

and Jeanette Moll, Juvenile Justice Policy Analyst, Center for Effective Justice 

900 Congress, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78701" (512) 472-2700 

www.texaspolicy.com.mlevin@texaspolicy.comandjmoll@texaspolicy.com 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is pleased to provide the following comments to the Subcommittee. 

Introduction 

It is universally acknowledged that children will misbehave. Thus, so long as institutionalized education exists, 

so too will disciplinary problems. Both school discipline practices and the prevailing societal norms evolved 

with the educational institutions, which created the present-day system of zero-tolerance discipline: a system of 

mandatory punishments for specified behavior with little discretion and few alternatives. Zero-tolerance policies 

today extend to cover drugs, alcohol, violence on and off campuses, plus other relatively minor infractions. 

Zero-tolerance policy supporters claim that this method of discipline is forceful enough to eliminate school 

violence through deterrence and removal from the classroom. Advocates also argue that the zero-tolerance 

policy is clear·cut and uniform, and can provide peace of mind to parents. 

The data, however, reveals that the intended results of zero-tolerance measures were not necessarily achieved. 

Many studies have been conducted on zero-tolerance policies that cast doubt on their effectiveness. 

Furthermore, current crime and victimization rates do not indicate that zero-tolerance policies have produced 

increases in school safety. On top of that, these programs have been found to cost millions in taxpayer dollars 

each year through costly alternative programs for suspended students, while other costs compound the taxpayer 

investment, including lost educational hours for students and lost wages for parents taking time off work to deal 

with a suspended child. 

This evidence indicates that alternatives to zero-tolerance policies may lead to a more effective system of school 

discipline for students by keeping them in school and reducing overreliance on the justice system for schoolbased discipline. A tiered response to most low-level school discipline issues could create a far more effective 

approach to discipline via effective, targeted intervention into minor misbehavior, while ensuring that the most 

serious of on-campus offenses are still dealt with immediately, appropriately, and strictly. 

Zero-Tolerance in Practice 

An Overview of Zero-Tolerance 
730 

Zero-tolerance policies generally mandate a certain punishment-usually suspension or expulsion-for certain 

misbehavior with little room for deviation. A swift, mandatory, and severe punishment was predicted to not only 

deter school crime but also to quickly correct student behavior. Furthermore, a rigid framework was expected to 

allow far more expedient handling of disciplinary issues: students would have a defined set of rules and easily 

understand the boundaries, while and administrators would have a simple policy to apply. 

These policies originally applied to guns and deadly weapons on school campuses, but were slowly expanded to 

incorporate a great deal of student conduct, 1 including alcohol, drugs, and lesser violence.2 

Sadly, at the same time that zero-tolerance policies were growing in breadth and degree, one of the most serious 

and horrific instances of school violence occurred. In April 1999, in a tragic school shooting incident, 13 

students were killed by two of their classmates in Littleton, Colorado. This horrific-but rare--incident was 

highly publicized, and stoked fears that violent crime was possible at even "safe" suburban schools.' 

Understandably, parents were terrified and concerned about a widespread problem involving crime at school, 

and administrators relied heavily on zero-tolerance policies to quell those fears. 

Zero-Tolerance Policies in Texas 

In 1995, Texas enacted the modem version of the school discipline code, as part of a revision of the entire state 

education law.' The new code firmly established zero-tolerance measures for a number of infractions, and gave 

local school districts the latitude to establish additional individualized standards for school discipline. Each 

district must establish a code of conduct that sets out the circumstances and behavior, including both the state 

standards and the individual district rules, that triggers removal from a classroom, placement in a Disciplinary 

Alternative Education Program (DAEP), suspension, and expulsion.' Thus, school discipline in Texas varies 

widely between different districts and schools, and involves not only zero-tolerance measures, but also a variety 

of alternative placements for disciplined students and sanctions that go beyond the scope of the state standards. 

Texas did make an effort to introduce some level of discretion in school discipline. In 2009, the Legislature 

approved House BilI!7!, which mandated consideration of specific factors in disciplinary decisions, including 

self-defense, intent or lack thereof, disciplinary history, and disabilities affecting capacity to appreciate 

wrongfulness.6 

There are a number of disciplinary options. First, suspension is permitted for any behavior so specified in a 

particular school's code of conduct, which can be broad enough to cover behavior both on- and off-campus.7 

Second, misbehavior can also be addressed through a Class C misdemeanor citation. Under Texas law, such 

citations can be issued for disrupting class or other activities, which includes emitting an unreasonable amount 

of noise, enticing a student away from class, preventing or attempting to prevent a student to attend class, and 

entering a classroom without permission and disrupting activities.8 

Third, placement in a DAEP is a disciplinary option separate from suspension. Along with adoption ofa zerotolerance policy, the Legislature mandated that schools establish DAEPs, which provide education for students 

with discipline issues in a separate setting from the rest of the student body.' Placement in a DAEP can be 

mandatory or discretionary, and the misbehavior which can trigger a DAEP placement is specified in either the 

Texas Education Code or locaf codes of conduct. 

The fourth disciplinary option is expulsion. Expulsion is mandatory for the following behavior on school 

grounds or at a school activity: 

The use, exhibition, or possession of a firearm, illegal knife, club, or a variety of other weapons; 
731 

Aggravated assault, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, arson, murder, attempted murder, 

indecency with a child, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, manslaughter, negligent homicide, 

or sexual abuse of young children; and 

Felonious drug or alcohol possession, delivery, or use. 10 

Expulsion is discretionary for a wide variety of behavior. II Expelled youth are not necessarily completely 

without educational opportunity, however. Twenty-eight Texas counties with populations greater than 125,000 

are mandated to implement Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs) to educate expelled 

students and sometimes those in juvenile justice placements." While six counties outside of this statutory 

fIlandate have chosen to implement their own JJAEPs, the rest of Texas counties do not have JJAEPs and 

ordinarily expel students "to the street" without any provision for continued education. 

Empirical Evidence: Zero-Tolerance and School Crime 

There have been a variety of efforts to evaluate zero-tolerance policies and the resulting gains or losses in school 

safety and discipline measures. In 2006, a task force of the American Psychological Association published a 

study that found: 

Zero-tolerance policies had a negligible effect on the consistency of punishments; 

Strict removal of disruptive students did not increase school safety ratings or academic achievement 

(even when controlling for socioeconomic status); and 

• Children who were disciplined under zero-tolerance models were not deterred from further misbehavior 

and were more likely to re-offend." 

Other studies have highlighted the lack of gains in safety measures, the correlation with increased crime and 

disruption, or the disproportionate application of zero-tolerance policies.J4 Still other evaluations look at the 

impact zero-tolerance policies have on dropout rates, which indicate that removal from school interrupts the 

habit of regular attendance and can serve as a precursor to dropping out of school." 

The effects of high suspension rates due to zero-tolerance policy programs are another focus of study. 

Researchers point to increased numbers of students suspended from public schools and the ways suspension 

detracts from academic performance and capabilities and factors into dropout rates." In fact, dropping out of 

school is often the beginning of a series of poor decisions. Statistics from the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice indicate that at least 40 percent of adult prison inmates in Texas prisons in 2011 dropped out ofschool.17 

Zero-tolerance policy opponents argue that the policies are far too broad, capturing innocuous behavior and 

jeopardizing students' futures in the process. Examples across the United States are quite dramatic: 

A six-year-old was suspended from school after sharing lemon drops with another student;" 

Another student was suspended for drug possession after turning over another student's marijuana to 

authorities;l9 

Kindergartners playing cops and robbers were suspended because they used their index fingers and 

thumbs to make a mock firearm;2. 

A student received a suspension after confiscating a knife from a suicidal classmate and securing it in 

his 10cker;2l and 

• A l2-year-old Boy Scout in Texas was expelled, arrested, and placed in an alternative school after 

accidently leaving his scouting pocketknife in his jacket pocket." 

Zero-Tolerance Policy Outcomes 
732 

"Breaking Schools' Rules" 

In 2011, the Council of State Governments Justice Center, along with the Public Policy Research Institute at 

Texas A&M University, released the findings from a six-year study of every seventh grade student attending a 

Texas public school between 2000 and 2002.23 The study tracked the records of almost one million students to 

capture the wide ranging impacts of school discipline policies. 

The study results indicated the following: 

Almost 60 percent (553,413 students) received at least one disciplinary action (which includes 

suspensions, DAEP placements, or expulsions);2' 

Of those students, the average frequency of discipline was eight suspensions or expulsions per student, 

while half of the students had received at least four disciplinary actions;" 

African-American students were more likely to be disciplined than their white or Hispanic peers; and 

Students with educational disabilities were also more likely to receive a disciplinary action." 

The study also found a correlation between specific disciplinary actions and being held back a grade, failing to 

graduate, and contact with the juvenile justice system suggesting that current discipline was ineffective at 

correcting misbehavior.27 Finally, there were substantial differences in discipline rates between schools very 

similar in demographics and risk factors, indicating that zero-tolerance policies are not successful in reducing 

inconsistencies and disparate treatment by school discipline systems." 

This report focused only on suspensions and expulsions; however, there is another widely used disciplinary 

method in Texas schools. As previously mentioned, schools may issue Class C misdemeanor tickets for a wide 

range of behavior as listed in each school's code of conduct. Out of the courts that report such data, almost 

275,000 non-traffic tickets were issued to juveniles in Texas.» The fines for such tickets cost up to $500 and 

require time away from school for the youth and often time away from work for a parent. The data on the use of 

these Class C misdemeanor tickets reveals that minorities and special education students were 

disproportionately given tickets as well.'· 

Are Schools Safer Today? 

School discipline is an expensive proposition: in the 2009-2010 school year, schools across Texas spent $327 

million on security and monitoring services." At last tally, DAEPs alone cost schools an additional $232 

million.32 In light of these expenditures, as well as the exhaustive variety of disciplinary resources and the 

extensive zero-tolerance state laws in place for almost two decades, Texas taxpayers. parents. and students 

should be benefitting from dramatically safer schools. 

Schools are indeed safer, but the degree to which schools are safer than prior to the implementation of zerotolerance in Texas is no greater than the degree to which the rest of the country is safer, and merely tracks the 

national drop in crime rates during the last two decades. Put another way, there is no indication that zerotolerance policies have made schools safer; by some measures, schools are actually less safe than other public 

places. 

Indicators of crimes committed on school grounds and by juveniles shed light on whether zero-tolerance policies 

have had an effect on school safety or juvenile desistance from crime. First, when considering where violent 

crimes occur across the nation, the proportion of all violent crimes that occur at school has barely fluctuated in 

the last decade. 
733 

Figure 1: Percent of All Violent Crim~~~ Occuring at School I 

16.00% ,------------~----------. I 

14.00% +--------""".~-~:__--~£.---..::~--....,-----+--.:~,.._-

12.00% +------------------------"'_::-r-----

10.00% +-------------------------------

8.00% +------------------------------

6.00% +-------------------------------

4.00% +--__r_-~--~-__r_-~r_-_._-_,_-~r_-_._-_,_--r_-.,_-__, 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics 

The percentage of violent crimes at school was 

equal in years 1996 and 2008,13.3 percent 

(see Figure I). This suggests that zero·tolerance L-~-y;~~i~ii~~~~~~~~~~~§~i~.~ policies have not been able to drive violent crimes 

out of schools, or reduce the proportion that occur at 

school as opposed to other locations that are not 2010: Ages 12·14 27.5 

overseen by zero·tolerance policies. 1996: Ages 16·19 105.2 

2010: Ages 15·17 23 

Second, when considering victimization rates (which t-:-19:::9"'6:-: ""A'::g'-es-:':I 2::-.""1 S::-at-:S.,.c""h-oo-:I:---------:":12"'1-! 

includes victims of crime that are both reported and 2010: Ages 12.18 at School 32 are not reported to authorities), schools are still the 

least safe places for youth, and actually have become 1996: Ages 12· 18 away from School 117 

less safe than in 1996 across the country. 2010: Ages 12·18 away from School 26 

Source: Bureau of Justii:e Statisties 
734 

140 .-----~-------------------------------------------------------

Figure 2: Nonfatal Victimization Rates per 1000 Persons 

120 +-------------- ----------------

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

1996: Ages 2010: Ages 1996: Ages 2010: Ages 1996: Ages 2010: Ages 1996: Ages 2010: Ages 

12-15 12-14 16-19 15-17 12-18 at 12-18 at 12-18 away 12-18 away 

School School from School from School 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics 

---- ---------------------' 

Nonfatal victimizations were highest at school in 1996 and 2010 (see figure 2) as compared to victimization 

rates away from school as well as victimization rates for youth generally. 

Furthermore, victimizations were 1.03 times more likely to occur at school than away from school in 1996. In 

2010, that ratio grew to 1.23. 

It is important to note that victimization rates have fallen between 1996 and 20 I 0; however, the drop is in the 

same proportion as the drop in victimizations unrelated to school, indicating that it is the universal drop in crime 

rates that is responsible for the decrease in victimization_ Further, the increased ratio-from 1.03 to 1.23-<lf 

victimizations at school as opposed to away from school indicates further failings of zero-tolerance policies. 

A third and final indicator as to the relative safety of schools specific to Texas is the number of referrals made 

by schools to juvenile probation departments. Schools can make referrals, akin to arrests, to juvenile probation 

departments for student behavior. 

Figure 4: Change in Referral Rates: 1999-2010 

--Number of Total Referrals --Number of Referrals from Schools 

130000 8500 

120000 

110000 

100000 

90000 

80000 

70000 

60000 

50000 

/'... 

~---- ~ 

_. ,~ 

~ 

199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 

Source: Tex.s Juvenile Justice Department 

8000 

7500 

7000 

6500 

6000 

5500 

5000 

4500 

4000 

3500 

3000 

Refer 

ral 

rates 

by 

schoo 

Is are 

down 

howe 

ver, 

the 
735 

referral rates are down in roughly the same proportion that overall referral rates are down. The drop in referral 

rates for Texas overall, when compared to those specifically from schools, reveals a mirror-image drop in 

referrals. 

Figure 5 

necrease in Total Referrals 

150000 r----... --------------.... 8000 ~.-------------.---------

100000 

50000 

o 

In both types of referrals, the drop in referral rates between 1999 and 2010 amounted to a 27 percent drop. The 

universality of this decrease is indicated by the drop in total juvenile arrests across Texas (which includes those 

that do not result in a referral to juvenile probation), which decreased 24 percent between 1999 and 2009 (the 

last year for which data is available)." This suggests that the drop in referrals is attributable to the overall drop 

in crime and not a drop in school crime as a result of effective discipline through a zero-tolerance policy. 

To be sure, it is very good news for students, teachers, and parents that school crime is down. But the drop in 

school crime and victimization is more likely due to the overall drop in crime across the country over the last 

two decades, not the zero-tolerance policies in effect in Texas. 

A New Scbool Discipline Model 

Zero-tolerance policies have failed to bolster school safety as opposed to other places youth frequent and have 

produced high costs for taxpayers. Largely in response to these issues, a more effective model for school 

discipline has developed in the form of a three-step, or tiered, disciplinary model. 

This model was pioneered by Judge Steven Teske, a Georgiajuvenile court judge who saw increasing numbers 

of students in his courtroom for behavior that did not require judicial management. To that end, Clayton County, 

Georgia, convened the "Blue Ribbon Commission on School Discipline," which was tasked with reviewing 

current policies and identifYing possible alternatives. 34 

The result of the Commission's work was a cooperative agreement signed by officials in the court system, 

schools, police departments, and juvenile justice agencies to reform their school discipline procedures." The 

agreement established a three-step system to address certain misbehavior. The plan is limited to the following 

types of behavior: misdemeanor-type delinquent acts involving offenses against public order including affray, 

disrupting public school, disorderly conduct, obstruction of police (limited to acts of truancy where a student 

fails to obey an officer's command to stop or not leave campus), and criminal trespass (that does not involve 

damage to property)." 
736 

The agreement prohibits a juvenile complaint to be filed for one of these offenses unless certain prerequisite 

steps have already been taken on the first and second offenses." The first offense results in a Warning Notice, 

admonition, or no action, within the discretion of the school resource officer (SRO).38 A second or subsequent 

offense results in a referral to the School Conflict Diversion Program, Mediation Program, or other program 

sponsored by the court. The program is attended by both the student and the parent, and the program administers 

reports the successful completion (or not) to the schooL" If these steps are unsuccessful in curbing the 

delinquent behavior, ajuvenile complaint may be filed upon the third offense." 

The results of this new approach to handling school. disciplinary issues are significant: referrals to the juvenile 

court dropped 67.4 percent, saving those valuable resources for more serious cases in genuine need of judicial 

case management; the rates of weapons on campus are down 73 percent; and graduation rates increased 20 

percent." 

One rather unexpected outcome of this system is an increased level of school police presence on campus and 

more positive interactions between students and school police officers. Clayton County schools report that 

because school police officers do not have to leave campus to transport and file referrals for low-level offenses 

as frequently, officers are able to spend more time on campus, increasing their knowledge of and familiarity 

with the student body, and engaging in more friendly and positive interactions with students." Students, then, 

began to perceive officers as being on school campus to help, leading to increased information sharing about 

concerns on campus, bolstering the percentage of crimes solved." 

This system was recently adopted in Jefferson County, Alabama, where family court officials, the district 

attorney, law enforcement, and Birmingham City Schools collaborated to adopt a tiered discipline plan. In that 

jurisdiction, the agreement applies to minor school-based offenses-defined as affray (fighting), third-degree 

criminal trespass, third-degree assault, disorderly conduct, harassment, menacing, and minor theft." 

Just as in Clayton County, the first offense under the new system results in a Warning Notice, admonition, or no 

action, at the discretion of the school official. The second offense results in admonition and counsel, a second 

warning, or an assignment of the student and parent to a School Conflict Workshop." Upon the third offense, 

the school may refer the student to the court. The agreement does include an exception for "exceptional 

circumstances," which permits school administrators to bypass the graduated system. 

A T~as Experiment 

News of Clayton County's success has quickly spread. Last year, Governor Rick Perry's Criminal Justice 

Division sought to determine whether Judge Teske's disciplinary system in Georgia could be replicated in 

Texas. The Division partnered with the Waco Independent School District (WISD) and the Waco Police 

Department to develop progressive sanction diversion programs, which were initiated last summer .. Rather than 

simply referring a student to the juvenile justice system, WISD now has several options for disciplinary 

interventions, including a peer-to-peer mediation and mentoring program, the Parent and Student Education 

Diversion Program, or Teen Court' (an alternative to the automatic DAEP placement for fighting mandated in 

Waco). Early results show a 27 percent drop in citations issued." 

Conclusion 

Given the high rates at which students are disciplined under the zero-tolerance policies, the empirical data on the 

zero-tolerance model which calls into question its efficacy, and the disparate treatment afforded students under 

• Sanctions usually handed down by the reen Court include verbal or written apologies, community service to the school, 

or a requirement to attend Saturday school to make up missed schoolwork. 
737 

the current system, careful implementation of an alternative model for school discipline, such as the tiered 

approach, may produce substantially better outcomes. 

The recent drop in school crime is so statistically similar to overall drops in crime that it cannot be substantially 

attributed to zero-tolerance policies. Given how often zero-tolerance policies remove students from campus, one 

would expect schools to be safer than other places for youth since the application of zero-tolerance policies. 

Unfortunately, this is not the case, which creates a significant need for more effective disciplinary systems. 

The tide is beginning to tum away from zero-tolerance policies: the Michigan Department of Education recently 

resolved that its schools should review and limit zero-tolerance policies while focusing on alternatives," 

Chicago's Board of Education increased discretion for school officials," and Colorado's Legislature enacted 

legislation'9 to gradually eliminate zero-tolerance policies from its schools.'o 

Through proper reforms, policymakers can ensure zero-tolerance policies are focused on the most serious of 

student offenses which truly create a danger on school campuses, and provide effective intervention for lowlevel behavior. These more effective approaches decrease unnecessary reliance onjustice systems, conserving 

those resources, and can create higher rates of success in school and graduation. 

While the present system might be broken, it is not beyond repair. Schools exist not only to teach math, science, 

and history, but also serve as safe places where children can learn to be functioning members of society. 

Appropriate responses to behavior and ensuring that children remain in school must become a priority in 

schools. 

, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, '"America's Least Wanted: Zero~ Tolerance Policies and the Fate of Expelled Students," in Public Assault on 

America's Children: Poverty, Violence and Juvenile injustice (2000), pgs. 101·129. 

2 Christopher Boccanfuso and Megan Kuhfield, "Multiple Responses. Promising Results: Evidence-Based Nonpunitive Alternatives to 

Zerololernnce" Child lrends (March 2011), pg. 2. 

J GJeM Muschert, "Frame-changing in the media coverage of a school shooting: The rise ofCo!umbine CIS a national concern" The 

Social Science Joumal46:1 (March 2009), pg. 169. 

, "Bill Analysis: C.S.S.B. I." Public Education Committee (April, 1995), pg. 1. 

'lex Educ. Code § 37.001. 

• House Biil171 81" Legislature, 

7 Tex. Educ. Code § 37.005. 

• lex. Educ. Code § 37.124. 

9 rex Edue. Code § 37.008. 

10 lex, Ed"c. Cooe § 37.0071.). 

II Tex. Educ. Code § 37.007(b) et seq. 

12 Tex. Educ. Code § 37.011. 

IJ Russell Skiba et a1. "Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations" American 

Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (August 2006), pgs. 40-51. 

14 See Russell Skiba and Reece Peterson, '"School Discipline at a Crossroads: From Zero Tolerance to Earlv Response .. Exceptional 

Children 66:3 (2000), pgs. 337-339. 

15 "Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of Zero Tolerance and School Discipline Policies" The Advancement 

Project and Civil Rights Project (July 2002), pg. 11, 

16 Johanna Wald and Daniel Losen. "Defining and redirecting a school-fa-prison pipeline," in New Directions for Youth Development 

(2003), 

17 "Statistica1 Report Fiscal year 2011 "Texas Department ofCriroinal Justice, pg. 1. 

IS Cora DeGette, "6 Vear Old Busted For Candy," Denver Pos~ Nov. 19 1997. 

19 James Hanks, "School Violence: From Discipline to Due Process," (2004) pg. 50. 

20 "Kindergartners Suspended for Playing 'Cops·.·· Los Angeles Times, April? 2000. 

" Ratne,.. LoudOlm County Public Schools, 16 Fed, Appx, 140 (4th Cir. 2002). 

22 Helen Eriksen, '~Discipline bill on PerIY's desk" Houston Chronicle, June 4. 2005. 

13 Tony Fabelo et ai, "Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile 

Justice Involvement t. Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University 

Puly201l). 

'Ibid. pg, 36. 
738 

"Ibid. pg. 37. 

" Ibid. pgs. 42, 50. 

17 Ibid. pgs. 60, 66. 

" Ibid. pg. 82. 

29 "Texas' School~to~Prison Pipeline: Ticketing. Arrest & Use of Force in Schools," Texas Appleseed (December. 2010) pg. 18. 

" Ibid. pg. 68-69. 

11 "2010-11 State Profile Report Academic Excellence Indicator System" Texas Education Agency, Division of Performance Reporting. 

:3Z "Texas State Government Effectiveness and Efficiency," Legislative Budget Board (Jan. 2011). pg. 537. 

" FBI Arrest Statistics: 1994-2009. 

:34.I'A Written Report Presented to the Superintendent and Board of Education." Blue Ribbon Commission on School Discipline (Jan. 

2007), pg. 5. 

:JS "Cooperative Agreement Between the Juvenile Court ofelayto" COUDty, the Clayton County Public School System the Clavton 

County Police Department the Riverdale Police Department the Jonesboro Police Department the Forest Park Police Department. the 

Clayton County Department QfFamily and Children Services. the Clayton Center for Behavioral Health Services. Robert E. Keller 

Ristrict Attorney and the Georgia Deparbnent of Juvenile Justice." 

6 Ibid. pg. 4-5. 

37 Ibid. pg. 5. 

" Ibid. pg. 5-6. 

"Ibid. pg. 6. 

"Ibid. 

41 Steven Teske. "A Studv of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools' A Multi-Integrated Systems Approach to Improve Outcomes for 

Adolescents" JoumaJ of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing (20ll) pg. 93. 

42 Steven Teske~ Brian Hu~ and Cora Graves, "'Collaborative Role of Courts in Promoting Outcomes for Studenls: 

The Relationship Between Arrests. Graduation Rates and School Safety" Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court, pg. 138. 

" Ibid. 

44 "Collaborative Agreement" Birmingham City Schools Collaborative. 

4j uCollaborative Agreement" Binningham City Schools Collaborative. 

46 Information and data on the "Suspending Kids to School" program was compiled from interviews conducted with Criminal Justice 

Division staffand Charlene Hamilton, Program Manager, Suspending Kids to School. 

47 "Resolution to Address Sc.hool Discipline Issues Impacting Student Outcomes." State of Michigan Department of Education (June 

20(2). 

48 UBoard of Education Approves Student Code of Conduct to Foster Positive. Safer Learning Environments and Limit Removal of 

Students from Schools" Chicago Public Schools, Press Release (June 2012). 

"Summarized!fu!2!Y fur Bill Number HBI2-1345,last accessed July 23, 2012. 

so House Bill 12~ 1345. Second Regular Session, Sixty-eighth General Assembly, State ofCoJorado. 
739 

Testimony by Dr. Robert K. Ross 

President and CEO 

The California Endowment 

Why Is California Suspending More Students than it Graduates? 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Graham, and members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Dr. Robert K. Ross, and I serve as President and CEO of The California Endowment. Our 

foundation is dedicated to expanding access to affordable quality health care and improving the overall 

health of Californians. 

For the past two years, The Endowment has worked very hard to raise awareness about the problem of 

extreme school discipline and to help schools and school districts reform their discipline policies. 

It might surprise you that school discipline is such a high priority of a health foundation like ours. And to 

be honest, it surprises me too! So before beginning the substance of my testimony, I wanted to explain 

how we came to focus on this issue and why we believe it advances our health mission. 

It started when The Endowment launched "Building Healthy Communities," a program in which we work 

extremely closely with 14 cities and neighborhoods across California, helping local advocates reshape 

their communities in ways that improve health. It's part of a broader effort at The California 

Endowment to promote the idea that health isn't just the result of what happens inside a doctor's 

office. We say "Health Happens Here:" in schools, in neighborhoods and with prevention. 

As part of our Building Healthy Communities planning process, we sat down with young people in our 

target neighborhoods and asked them: What are the obstacles to getting ahead in your neighborhoods 

and in your schools? What blocks you from leading a healthier life? 

We kept hearing the same answer, over and over again. Young people told us that extreme school 

discipline policies were among the biggest barriers they faced. Excessive suspensions were pushing them 

away from school, making it harder to earn a diploma. These young people understand the value of 

graduating high school, and they want to attend college, too. They believe that education is the key to a 

successful life-and they're right, of course. All the research shows that educational attainment is 

strongly correlated with increased earnings, reduced chronic disease rates, and longer and happier lives. 

I was surprised that school discipline was raised so frequently by young people in our Building Healthy 

Communities sites. To be honest, the issue hadn't been my radar screen at all. But I believe that we 

should listen to our young people, so we studied the issue and helped our youth leaders understand 

how to work with education leaders and policymakers to advocate for change. 

In a very short time, we've achieved strong results. In addition to changes at the school and district 

level, I'm very pleased to report that effective January 1 five new laws take effect in California that steer 

schools and school districts toward common-sense discipline approaches. California is joining the ranks 
740 

of states like Colorado, Connecticut and Florida in working at a statewide level to improve school 

discipline policies. And together, our states have elevated school discipline from a local concern to a 

national priority. 

Today, I'm going to share with you some of what we've learned about school discipline policies in 

California and throughout the nation. I'll start with these six headlines, and then I'll come back and add 

some additional detail. 

1. Our schools suspend too many students, often for minor infractions that would have meant a 

stern lecture, or a visit to the principal's office back when I was a student. 

2. African Americans and Latinos face a disproportionate risk for suspension. It's unfair, and it 

almost certainly contributes to persistent achievement gaps. 

3. It doesn't work. There is no evidence that more suspensions lead to safer campuses or more 

productive classrooms. In fact, a growing body of research suggests just the opposite-that 

academic achievement goes up when suspension rates go down. 

4. There is a better way. Pioneering schools and school districts are discovering alternatives to a 

suspension-first approach, and they're achieving great results. 

5. People support reform. Surveys conducted by The California Endowment show overwhelming 

support for common-sense reform. 

6. Teachers and school administrators need our help. Shifting away from longstanding practice is 

hard, and we can't reasonably expect schools to reform their policies without expert advice, 

training, and ongoing support. 

Now let's discuss those points in some detail. 

1. Public schools suspend too many students. 

According to the California Department of Education (CD E), California's public schools issued more than 

719,000 suspension and expulsion orders during the 2010-2011 academic year-more students than 

California graduates each year. To put that in perspective, there are 718,000 public school students in 

the entire state of South Carolina, home to the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Graham. That 

means if South Carolina shut down its entire school system and suspended every student in the state, 

from Kindergarten through 12th Grade, the Palmetto State would still record fewer suspensions than 

California. 

In California, most suspensions were issued for reasons unrelated to violence or drug abuse. I heard 

about one student being suspended for playing with water balloons after one popped too close to a 

teacher. Another was suspended for slapping a desk out of frustration, after a confrontation with an 

administrator over the school's dress code. These students displayed poor judgment, as teenagers often 

do. But when I was a student, infractions like these would have been handled with a stern lecture or 

perhaps a visit to the principal's office. Instead these students were sent home. They fell behind in their 

classwork and may have been completely unsupervised during the day. Yes, they made mistakes. But 

surely, suspension wasn't the appropriate remedy. 

2 
741 

Calltorma IS not an outlier In ItS approach to school discipline. As a percentage at students in our public 

school system, California's suspension rates are about average-and individual stories like the ones I just 

shared are common in all parts of our nation. Extreme school discipline policies, which lead to excessive 

suspensions, exist in California, Illinois, South Carolina, and every other state in the union. 

2. African Americans and Latinos face a disproportionate risk of suspension. 

According to an analysis of data released by the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, 

White students face a 5% risk of suspension in any given academic year. That means about one in 20 

White students will be suspended, on average. For African Americans, suspension risk more than triples, 

to 17%. Latino suspension rates are 7%. Disparities in California public schools are similar. 

The UCLA Civil Rights Project looked even closer at California's suspension trends and reached some 

stunning conclusions. For example, African Americans with disabilities face a 28% risk of suspension. In 

some major districts, suspension rates for African American males with disabilities exceed 50%. 

Educators across the country are working diligently to reduce persistent achievement gaps-especially 

achievement gaps between African American boys and their peers. It's a complex challenge, and I do not 

claim to have all the answers. However, I'm absolutely certain that keeping young people in school is 

part of the solution. Sending African Americans boys home, to fall further behind in their schoolwork, 

can't possibly help. 

3. It doesn't work. 

There is no evidence that extreme school discipline policies make classrooms safer. After reviewing 

research about the effectiveness of zero tolerance policies, a special task force of the American 

Psychological Association had this to say: 

An extensive review of the literature found that, despite a 20-year history of implementation, 

there are surprisingly few data that could directly test the assumptions of a zero tolerance 

approach to school discipUne, and the data that are available tend to contradict those 

assumptions. Moreover, zero tolerance policies may negatively affect the relationship of 

education with juvenile justice and appear to conflict to some degree with current best 

knowledge concerning adolescent development 

I come from a research background, so I'll translate that for you. Basically, it means there is no evidence 

that zero tolerance policies are good, and considerable evidence to suggest they're bad. 

But what about the impact on suspended students themselves? Does a suspension jolt students into 

better behavior? Do they get "scared straight?" Again, the evidence is clear. Suspended students are 

more likely to drop out, repeat a grade, and get into serious trouble with law enforcement. And it's not 

just repeat offenders. A study released last year by the Council on State Governments Justice Center 

showed that even one school suspension increases students' risk for dropping out. 

Suspensions don't help students find the right path, they simply push them further away from schooL 

3 
742 

Finally, there is no evidence that schools with higher suspension rates perform better academically. in 

fact, existing research suggests just the opposite-that schools with lower suspension rates score higher 

on achievement tests than demographically similar schools with high suspension rates. 

4. There is a better way. 

Schools in California and across the nation have indentified alternative approaches to school disciplinestrategies that reduce suspension rates while holding students accountable for their actions. And these 

alternative approaches are working. 

For example, at Garfield High in East Los Angeles, administrators reduced the number of suspensions 

from 510 in 2008-2009 to ONE in 2010-2011 after implementing a discipline policy based on the Positive 

Behavioral Supports model. During that period, Garfield's score on California's Academic Performance 

Index increased by 114 points. 

Similarly at Davidson Middle School in the San Francisco Bay Area, suspensions dropped from 375 in 

2008-2009 to 45 in 2011-2012. Davidson relied primarily on Restorative Justice strategies, in which 

students who misbehave "make it right" by fixing any damage they've caused. Davidson's performance 

on the API increased 65 points during that four year period. 

S. People support change. 

In the spring of 2012, The California Endowment commissioned a survey to gauge California's attitudes 

toward school discipline reform. The results were clear and unmistakable: 

80% of Californians believe that school discipline policies should be reformed; 

92% support prevention-oriented policies that teach positive behaviors, while holding students 

accountable for their conduct; and 

61% recognize that suspensions increase risk for dropping out and committing crimes in the 

future. As I described earlier, this opinion is supported by the research. 

These poll numbers tell part of the story, but they can't capture the energy and enthusiasm supporting 

reform in California. For example, when Governor Jerry Brown was considering whether to sign or veto 

the school discipline legislation I referenced earlier, a number of youth advocates circulated an online 

petition urging his support. Within days, 15,000 Californians added their names. It was a pace I'd never 

seen before. I've attached the full text of that petition as an addendum to my testimony. 

6. Teachers and administrators need help. 

Since The California Endowment first began working to reform school diSCipline policies, we've learned 

just how challenging it can be to change longstanding practices. Policymakers cannot simply write a new 

law and expect that everything will be fixed overnight. Discipline reform is an ongoing process. 

4 
743 

Often, administrators don't fully understand their options and feel boxed-in by zero tolerance policies 

with mandatory suspension requirements. Teachers may have been taught to send all discipline cases to 

the principal's office, so they lack the training needed to solve small problems on the spot and identify 

emerging behavioral issues before they grow into full-blown classroom disruptions. 

Educators want help. This year, The California Endowment asked EdSource, a highly respected education 

think tank, to survey district leaders responsible for discipline policies and learn more about their needs 

and priorities. The results both surprised and encouraged us. California education leaders strongly 

prioritized resources and training. Their top two priorities were hiring counselors and providing 

additional instruction and resources for teachers and administrators. Increasing security staff ranked 

dead last. 

To support these leaders, The Endowment created a $1 million fund to help Central Valley school 

districts transform their approaches to school discipline. As a region, the Central Valley has particularly 

high suspension rates, but it's also home to some of the most innovative reformers in our state. We 

believe the area is poised for rapid progress and are excited by the number and quality of applications 

received. The energy our fund helped generate demonstrates to me that educators truly want help 

improving their approaches to school discipline. Applications are under review right now, and I expect to 

see great results from our grant program. 

And finally, many of the California laws going into effect January 1 are designed to provide schools with 

tools they can use to reduce suspensions while continuing to hold students accountable for their 

conduct. The Endowment strongly commends Governor Brown and leaders of the California legislature 

for taking these meaningful steps toward reform. 

While I'm on the subject of commending policy leaders, I want to highlight the work of the U.S. 

Department of Education, and in particular its Office of Civil Rights. The Department volunteered to 

release national suspension data earlier this year, knowing full well that release could to criticism. 

Rather than sweep controversial findings under the rug, the Department chose to release them in the 

full light of day. That was a courageous decision, and it accelerated demand for change in California and 

other states. In addition, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice jointly created the 

Supportive School Discipline Initiative, which aims to bring safe and productive learning environments to 

every classroom in the nation. Secretary Duncan and Attorney General Holder have demonstrated real 

leadership on this issue, and we appreciate their actions. 

* * * 

In conclusion Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that the youth leaders who approached us in our 

Building Healthy Communities sites were right all along. Extreme school discipline policies are an 

obstacle to student success in California and across the nation. 

5 

Because we suspend too many students; 

Because African American and Latino students are disproportionately affected; 

Because extreme school discipline doesn't create productive school environments; 
744 

Because there are better approaches; 

Because the people support change; and 

Because teachers and administrators need our help 

The time for common-sense reform is now, 

Thank you for the opportunity to share this testimony with the Subcommittee, If you have any 

questions, please let me know, 

References 

Number of California Susoensions in 2010-2011: 

http://d q, cd e, ca ,gov I data q u estl Ex puis i 0 nl Exp Re p 0 rts/Sta te Ex p, aspx? c Yea r= 2 0 10-

11&cChoice=ExpDatal&Pageno=1 

Student-Submitted Stories about School Discipline in California 

http://www.youtube.com/user IFixSchoo IDisci pline ?featu re=watch 

Analvsis of OCR data bv the UCLA Project on Civil Ri~ 

http:// c iv i I rights p ro ject, ucla, ed u/ reso u rce sIp ro je cts/ ce nte r -fo r -elv i 1-rights-re m ed iesl sch 00 1-to-pri so nfo Ide r /fed e ra I-re po rtsl u pco m i ng -cc rr -re s ea rc h/lose n -g i lies p i e-o p p 0 rtu n ity -s us pe n d ed-cc rr -2 0 12, P df 

f\merican Ps'i£h..Q!Qgl~al Association Report on "Zero Tolerance" School Discipline Policies 

http://www ,a pa ,org/ pubs/infol re ports/zero-tolera nee ,pdf 

information about the Impact of Suspensions on School Perf9rrnance and Individual Students 

http://j usticece nte r, csg, ° rg/ re so u rces/i u ve nile sIre po rll/rpt 

See also, Rausch, M, and Skiba, R, (2006), The Academic Cost of Discipline: The Relationship Between 

Suspension/Expulsion and School Achievement, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana 

University (no link available), 

Information about Public Attitudes Toward School Discipline Reform 

http://tcenews,calendow, org/ releases/ new-statewide-poll·shows-strong-231781 

informaji2J:L"bout Eclli~.i2tQr Attitudes tOYJard School DisciplilJi' Reform 

http://www,edsouree,org/assets/files/publications/edsource_discipline_surveL09-10_v6,pdf 

Information about The California Endowment's School Discipline Fund 

http://tcenews,calendow ,org/ releases/ californ ia-endowment-creates-1-231937 

Statemen.\.jJy,lbe California Endowment Commending Governor Jerry Brown and California's Legislative 

Leaders for Enacting Common-Sense School Discipline Reform 

http://tcenews.calendow,org/releases/the-california-endowment-issues-statement-regarding-governorb rown-a n d -t h e-ca lifo rn i a -I egis I atu re-s-a eti 0 ns-o n-is s u es-re I a ted -to-co m m 0 n-se n se-sch 00 I-d isci pi i n e 

6 
745 

Addendum 1. 

Petition Submitted to Governor Jerry Brown by the Alliance for 

Boys and Men of Color 

Nearly 15,000 people sign Change.org petition to Fix School Discipline 

Petition Submitted to Governor Jerry Brown September 2012 

by the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color 

Available online at: htto:!!www,change,org!petitions!gov-brown-time-to-fix-school-discipline-in-ca 

Gov. Brown: Time to fix School Discipline in CA 

"We are students, young leaders, and concerned citizens from across California who need your 

help to fix a big problem in our state the overuse of harsh, out-of-school discipline, Legislation 

awaiting your signature would bring vital improvements to education policy for students and 

schools across the state. 

In 2011, California schools suspended students out of school more than 700,000 times, making 

California a national leader in a contest we don't want to win. In fact, we are suspending more 

students each year than we are graduating from high school. 

How can students learn if they are not in school? 

Too often, suspensions are for things that used to just get students sent to the principal's office, 

like being late, talking back, or horsing around. When a student is suspended, they fall behind in 

classwork, are for more likely to drop out, and for more likely to get in trouble with the law and 

enter the juvenile justice system. Young men of color bear the brunt of these out-oJ-school 

removals and, not surprisingly, have the highest rates of dropout and incarceration in the state. 

Some school districts are finding solutions that help all students. Los Angeles, Oakland, West 

Contra Costa, Woodland county and others are holding students accountable for their behavior 

while also sharply reducing school removals by using restorative justice and positive behavior 

approaches. Studies show that all students in the school do better academically when these 

reforms are implemented and school safety and attendance rates also improve. 

WE NEED YOUR HELP! Several bills are on your desk right now, including SB 1235(Steinberg), AB 

1729 (Ammiono), and AB 2242 (Dickinson), that will make California a leader in keeping 

students in school and using effective discipline approaches. Together we can bring 

improvements to all students and schools across the state. 

We all win when students thrive. Please stand with us and sign these bills, to keep students in 

school!" 

7 
746 

Addendum 2. 

Article published on EdSource.org about California legislation to Promote Common-Sense School 

Discipline Policies 

Available online at: !J1tp:!/www.edsourcC'.org!todav(2012/bills-influencing·schooI-disciplinary-policieshead-to-governor!1944711.UMEHxazvOTO 

Bills influencing school disciplinary policies head to governor 

August 28th. 2012 

By Susan Frey 

Seven bills that collectively will shift thinking on how California schools discipline students will likely land 

on the governor's desk at the end of the current legislative session on Friday. 

Although the bills no longer mandate changes that their authors originally envisioned, "they start to lay 

out alternatives to suspensions and expulsions," said Erika Hoffman, a lobbyist for the California School 

Boards Association (CSBA). "These bills set out a process for how teachers. administrators, and school 

board members can begin to think about discipline differently." 

The new laws emphasize a more constructive approach to discipline, such as working with students and 

parents to tackle the root causes of the disruptive behavior and requiring students to ma ke amends 

instead of simply removing them from school. 

The bills are aimed at changing punitive discipline policies that have led to a disproportionate number of 

African American and Latino students facing suspensions and expulsions. 

"California issues more suspensions than diplomas each year," said Laura Faer, an attorney with Public 

CounsellJw Center, a pro bono law firm based in Los Angeles that is the chief sponsor of many of the 

bills. 

The bills fall short of requiring districts to embrace the more positive methods because legislators are 

wary of creating mandates that the state would have to fund. 

Funding training for teachers and administrators in the new disciplinary approaches is the hard part. 

Hoffman said. "We are having a hard time funding just about anything. But it's a goal we can all work 

for." 

Although CSEA and the ,Association of t;:alifomia School AdQlinistrators {ACS1;l originally opposed the 

bills, they now support the amended versions. Laura Preston, a lobbyist for ACSA, said she hopes to 

work with Public Counsel and other proponents to provide training to administrators and do it "without 

the heavy-handed approach" of a mandate when districts are struggling to make ends meet. 

Faer said the amendments, though a compromise, should help all schools focus on "solutions to 

discipline that hold students accountable and keep schools safe, while also improving attendance and 

achievement." 

8 
747 

By the end of the legislative session on Monday, five of the bills had passed the major legislative hurdles 

before being sent to the governor, and the remaining two appear likely to be approved by the 

Legislature by the end of the week. Faer is hopeful the bills will become law, saying her organization has 

been working closely with the governor's office on the amendments. 

The bills that have passed the major legislative hurdles include: 

Senate Bill (58) 1088. introduced by Sen. Curren O. Price, Jr., D-Los Angeles, prohibits public 

schools from "denying enrollment or readmission to a pupil solely on the basis that he or she 

has had contact with the juvenile justice system." 

581235, introduced by Sen;lte President pro Tem Darrel! Steinberg. D-Sacramento, Sen. Price, 

and Sen. Michael J. Rubio. D-Bakersfield, encourages a school district where the number of 

pupils receiving off-campus suspensions in the prior year exceeded 25 percent of either its total 

enrollment or of a numerically significant subgroup to implement positive behavioral 

interventions or other strategies designed to address the school climate. The bill also requires 

the superintendent of public instruction to invite such schools to attend a regional forum to 

provide assistance and training in positive approaches to discipline. 

Assembly mil (AD) 2537, introduced by ilssembiymember V. Manuel Perez, D-Coachella, gives 

more flexibility to school administrators in deciding whether to expel students for possessing a 

controlled substance or an imitation firearm. It also no longer requires administrators to notify 

police if a student is disciplined for unlawful activity. 

AS 1729. introduced by A5sem~ember Tom iI'1:UJliano,_D-San Francisco, would authorize 

administrators to use "alternatives to suspension or expUlsion that are age appropriate and 

designed to address and correct the pupil's specific misbehavior." It would also authorize 

districts to document the other means of correction used and to place that documentation in 

the student's record. Other interventions include a positive behavior support approach, a 

conference with the parent and student, or participation in a restorative justice program in 

which the student makes amends to anyone he or she has harmed. 

AS 2616, introduced by i\ssemblymember Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto, gives school 

administrators the discretion to address each individual student's circumstances for being 

absent, including investigating the root causes for the student missing school. It also provides a 

different approach when classifying students as truant. 

The following bills are likely to be approved by the Legislature: 

9 

/\B 1909. introduced by Assemblymember Ammiano, requires the agency that places a child in 

foster care to notify the education liaison of the child's school district at the time of placement, 

and requires the agency to invite the pupil's attorney to any disciplinary hearing that may 

involve expulsion if the expUlsion is not required by law. 

6B 2242., introduced by i!.?se!1}i:Jly_member..B.gggr.QLc;J,[Ilson, D-Sacramento, prevents 

administrators from expelling or giving an extended suspension for students who have "willfully 

defied" authority or "disrupted school activities." Currently, about 40 percent of all suspensions 
748 

fall under willful defiance or disrupting school activities, according to Dickinson, The bill also 

clarifies what constitutes "electronic bullying" by phone, computer, or pager, 

One bill that had widespread support, AS 2145", introduced by Assemblymembers Dickinson and Luis A, 

Alejo, D-Salinas, did not pass, The bill would have required school districts to provide data on expUlsions 

and suspensions broken down by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other student 

characteristics, The bill would have cost $150,000 to implement and $30,000 each year, according to the 

Department of Finance, whose opposition made some legislators reluctant to support it, 

10 
749 

t,'\[n:Hsrn OF C\UFOH:,\I.\. LOS .\:\(;E1.1':S eeL, 

Il1r(I\1! l'iiOH( ron! 11H H()\Li\ll Fe, 

December 10.2012 

U.S. Senate Committee on the judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution. Civil Rights. and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20501 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

,nl\!\!!!! \1 ,rw\! "CIt \.(!" m!! 1)1'\(. HO\Til,21 

{{h \'\.cnr\.( \1 

Dear Chairman Durbin. Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the Suhcommittee on the 

Constitution. Civil Rights and Human Rights. 

My name is Daniel J. Losen and I am the Director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies (CeRR). an 

initiative of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the 

record. Improving our understanding of the contributors and remedies to the "school-to-prison pipeline" has 

been among the focal points of the research e!fo.is of The Civil Rights Project since 1999. 

Many of the submissions and much of the testimony you will hear will put a human'face on the far too frequent 

usc of suspension and expulsion in our nation's public schools. To sharpen the focus further. I call your 

attention to an important new research nnding by Robe.i Balfanz. Vaughan Byrnes and Johanna Fox of Johns 

Hopkins University. Their recent longitudinal study tracking a statewide cohort of 9th graders in Florida. found 

that being suspended just once was associated with an increase in the risk for dropping out. Specitically. the 

associated dropout risk for the cohort douhled from 16% fl)r students with no suspensions. to 32% for students 

suspended just once! As the authors concluded. "Thus the risk for long-term harm that such disciplinary policies 

imposl.! for students is a threat not for only students with multiple suspensions. but also for those students \'lith a 

single suspension:· l Given our grmving knowledge of the relationship between disciplinary exclusion and poor 

academic outcomes, the puhlic and education policy makers at every level should seek to know as much about 

suspensions as we currently know about attendance. test scores, and graduation rates. 

UnfOltunately. the magnitude of this problem. including the tremendous disparities along the lines of race. 

gender and disability status. has gone largely unnoticed. For this reason. I have attached nine separate 

descriptive slate level reports for review by the members of the committee (produced for this hearing). The data 

for each of the nine states in this submission (CA, IL. MN. PA, OH. Sc, TX. VA. VT) are derived from the 

I A statement summarizing the new research findings. and vvritten by the authors is also attached. Their full 

research paper along with tindings from approximately 15 others regarding both the harms and the remedies to 

frequent disciplinary exclusion will be presented at ajointly sponsored conference. Closing the School 

Discipline Gap: Research 10 Practice. to be held in Washington D.C. on January 10.2013. The co-sponsors are 

Education Week. The Equity Project at Indiana University and Gallup. 
750 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies' recent national report, Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of 

Disciplinary School Exclusion. The National report contains details on every state and district surveyed by the 

U.S. Department of Education in 2009-2010. The report, and a downloadable file with these data are available 

on our website at www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu. The file allows users to find the data on their district easily, 

but also to compare states and districts using the sorting and filtering tools. 

The following is an excerpt from the executive summary. It is just a fraction ofthe extensive national, state and 

district level findings available in the full report and downloadable files. 

Well over three million children, K-12, are estimated to have lost instructional "seat time" in 2009-2010 

because they were suspended from school, often with no guarantee of adult supervision outside the 

school. That's about the number of children it would take to fill every seat in every major league 

baseball park and every NFL stadium in America. combined. 

Key Findings from Analysis at the National, State, and District Levels 

National 

• National suspension rates show that 17%, or lout of every 6 Black school children enrolled in K-12, 

were suspended at least once. That is much higher than the I in 13 (8%) risk for Native Americans; I in 

14 (7%) for Latinos; I in 20 (5%) for Whites; or the I in 50 (2%) for Asian Americans. 

State 

For all racial groups combined, more than 13% of students with disabilities were suspended. This is 

approximately twice the rate of their non-disabled peers. 

Most disturbing is the fact that one out of every four (25%) Black children with disabilities enrolled in 

grades K-12 was suspended at least once in 2009-2010. 

Students with disabilities and Black students were also more likely to be suspended repeatedly in a given 

year than to be suspended just once. The reverse was true for students without disabilities and for most 

other racial/ethnic groups. 

Suspension rates, based on the sample, varied dramatically between states; for example, North Dakota 

had an estimated rate of 2.2% for all students, whereas South Carolina suspended 12.7% of enrolled 

students. 

Although Blacks had the highest suspension rate in most states, in Montana, Whites (3.8%) were 

suspended more often than Blacks (3.4%). 

The highest suspending states (based on the sample) differed by racial group. 

o Illinois was highest for Blacks, at 25.3%. 

o North Carolina, at 17.8%, was highest for Native Americans. 

o Connecticut had the highest rate for Latinos, at 13.5%. 

o Whites and Asian Americans were highest in Wyoming, at 10% and 5.8%, respectively. 

When the risk for being suspended was compared for Blacks and Whites, Illinois had the largest racial 

gap in the nation (21.3%). Illinois also suspended nearly 42% of all Black students with disabilities. 

District 

Several of the nation's largest districts suspended 18% or more oflheir total enrollment, including 

Memphis, Tennessee; Columbus Ohio; Henrico, Virginia; and Chicago, Illinois. Almost 200 districts 

suspended more than 20% of all enrolled students. 

Although over 300 districts suspended over 25% ofthe Black children enrolled, high suspension rates 

for Black students were not the norm in every district. Of the 4,504 districts in the Civil Rights Data 
751 

l':\IYEHSlTY OF C\UFOH:\IA, LOS A:\GELES 

II \ • 1>\11" IH\I,\! • I (l" \"\{.! J!" \]1 HI Ill' nlljlhlDI • \\"\ 1)11 en. \\-.., 

CCL\ 

l\h\1l1\iH\·"\'I\(I\\! 

Ill!", ( 1\ lL Ble!rl>; 1'l{OIFU;l'!{{H H'l() DEBFC!!O~ en H 

(;I; \01 \! I' '>( nool OF J,!)1 eX"! in, ~ j,n 11\\1 \'ll()\ "1\ 1m ~ 

"170 \1 \'1'111'\1 \['1('\1, ,,( !I''\( r" m 111)!\(; 

[0<' \\,cru:.,. C UJ1Tll\\] \ \J{H)')\,j,21 

Collection (CRDC) sample that enrolled at least 10 Blacks and at least 1,000 students in aiL the risk of 

slispension for Blacks \\as 3% or less in over 1.400 districts, 

Similarly. oyer 300 districts slIspen(k'd oycr 25 0

ft) ufihe students \\ith disabilities. \\ ithout rc-gard to race, 

but \\dl over 600 districts ~'uspcndcd 3% or less of this subgroup. 

These data are shocking, but they cannot come close to capturing the full scope of the problem, One reason is 

that the data collected by the federal government tells us how many students were suspended one or more times, 

but not how many suspensions were meted out We know that many students are suspended repeatedly, but we 

don '( know how often or for how long. How many total days of instruction are lost to disciplinary exclusion? 

Further, little information is known about the reasons for suspensions. Finally, the federal government does not 

collect and report these data annually, 

Therefore, with this submission, I encourage Congress to start with one simple and non-controversial tirst step: 

require all state educational agencies to annually repon to the public the data on school discipline. 

disaggregated by race, gender, socio-economic and disability status. down to the district, and (to the extent 

permissible) school level. The repOliS should include: the number of students suspended, number of incidents, 

reasons for out-or-school suspensions. and days of lost instruction. 

Of course such public reporting would only highlight the problems, not solve them. But to solve the problems, 

educators also need a reliable stream of infonnation. Once school leaders and the public have identified the 

problems and are pursuing remedies, these same data will be essential to efforts at distinguishing what is 

working from what is not. 

In addition we also recommend the following: 

1, Include suspension rates among the factors schools and districts use to measure performance and 

provide incentive'S to limit the use of out-of-school suspensions as only measures oflast resort. 

2. Suppo.t stepped up federal civil rights monitoring and enforcement to address the large disparities in 

discipline by race, disability, and gender in the highest-suspending districts, 

3. Provide greater support for research on promising, evidence-based interventions and target more funds 

for the implementation of systemic improvements in approaches to school discipline, as well as for 

classroom management to ensure that teachers and principals have sufficient training and professional 

development opportunities in this area, 

In conclusion 1 would like to refer the members to the attached documents produced for this submission, I 

applaud the Chairman and all members of the committee for the attention they bring to the issues and encourage 

their future efforts to address these important problems with new legislation. As you pursue solutions, The 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies and the Civil Rights Project would be happy to provide any member of this 

committee with data analysis and WQuld welcome any opportunity to summarize the latest research findings 

once they are presented at the upcoming January 101

" conference, 
752 

Sinc~rcly. 

Director. Center for Civil Rights Remedies 

The ('i\ i1 Rights Project at 1 :C1.A 
753 

Minnesota 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.s. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12, 1 Minnesota was estimated to be ranked 38th, and therefore not among 

the highest suspending states in the U.S. in 2009-2010. However, it was 

approximately the 12th highest-suspending state for Black students and was fifth 

for the size ofthe discipline gap between Blacks and Whites. The following snapshot 

breaks down the suspension rates further by race and disability status at the state 

level, with additional details about rates in Minnesota' s districts. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Minnesota 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

o 

18.3 

i'ercent;]ge of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

N 1111 Students 

_IlIack 

~White 

- Hispanic 

",' J\sian American 

If Americill1 Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009-2010 as puhlicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.' This 

estimated risk for suspension for Minnesota is haspd on an O[H sample representing approximately 

90%, of all students in th" state. 

I OCR colkcts and publici) rcp(1rh data on the numhl..'r(lr~lmknts in 2009~IO. rill' data afc from t\\O 

cntin.:!y separate catq;ories. students :-.u:-.pcndL'd only one time (lod su:-pcnded 1\\0 or more iilll(..'~. Sludents 

\\CIT on!) counted in one ;\ ontional rcp()rt \\as cr('~lIcd the (enlef I{)f Ci, iI RC1ncdits oCthe Ci\ il 

Righb brcahhm!ls nfL'\CI') ~!alc alld in the OCR ,'\t each k\eL nutionaL 

the categorics to arri\ c at the l1!H.luplicah:d numb!..'!" stuJL'llb su~rcndcd one or 

more times. Lad1 n .. 'porting district' s ,>upcrinkndcnt ccrt! !!ed their di"L'ip!inc and L'nroJ1llll..'nt data ,1:'\ uccur~ltl'. For 

cach "tall'. the sinnpkd dbtrict numhl..'rs \\1..'1'1: L'ombillL'd und the tOl~d number or ...,tudL'nb ,,"u...;pcndl'd one or lllOf\: time...; 

\\~b dh idcd b) l'ncb group' :-. tola! enrollment. ! he ,tatc: nUlllb~r i:-; thL'fL'forc prc-;cntcd ;h all estimate and thl' sample 

..,ill'indical.:d. 

/\nal) si~ ,\as n:portcd b) 1 hL' ('e11tef !(lI' ('h iJ Righh RelllL'di,.;s t<aliolhlJ Hl'port: ()pportunitks rhL~ 

Disparah.' Impact Scholl I Discipline hy Daniel J. I.o~"':!l and Jonathan (;i!h:spic 

do\\ llioadahk :->p!'cadsht'l'l llw! jllr :;orting and compariSl'llS of ~\(T) SCllOOl diqrict and c\er) stall' pkasl' \ bit 
754 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Minneapolis, MN, are as follows: 

Over-all, 16.5%; Black, 34%); White, 4.5%; Hispanic, 5.9%; Asian American, 2.6%; 

American Indian, 22.6%. 

Many districts in Minnesota are not high suspending districts: Despite the 

alarming statewide average for Black students, and despite the even more 

disturbing findings that follow, it is important to note that many districts in 

Minnesota did not suspend high numbers of Black students. In fact, in 8 of the 63 

districts that suspended Black students in Minnesota, the suspension rate for Black 

students was less than the state average (4.9%)) for all students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school sllspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. [n the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on the data collected and reported by the u.s. Department of 

Education for 2006, was estimated as follows:' 

Black Males, 28.3°1<); Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3<)'h; Hispanic Females, 

8.5%; White Males, 10%; White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7.5%. 

The middle schools report also analyzed suspension trends in 18 large urban 

districts and found that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females between 

2002-2006. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a twice the rate of their nondisabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Figure 2 shows the rates broken 

down by race and disability for students ill Minnesota: 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in Minnesota 

; Daniel .I. l.o~(.?"n & Ru:-.~(:"!I J. ~klhn . . ")lIs/h.'lU/ed Fducmjoll,' ('rhUfi ,i/iddlc Schools in (,,,is;."", l'<ational Rcpol1. 1"111..' 

Ci, it Rights Projecl al l ',"L\ COlO). ,hailabk at ~_ccc=~.='".o~~,~"'=-''-'''.'. 
755 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

25.4 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

til All Students with 

Disabilities 

iIIlBlack 

-Hispanic 

\,. Asian American 

lIAmerican Indian 
756 

Illinois 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,1I11inois was estimated to be the 6th highest suspending state in the U.S. 

in 2009-2010 and the highest suspending state for Black students. The following 

snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability status at the state 

level, with additional details about rates for Illinois districts, including the largest 

district, Chicago. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Illinois 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

gBlack 

e",White 

Hispanic 

Asian American 

II American lndian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009-2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for Illinois is based on an OCR sample representing approximately 78% 

of all students in the state. 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state ilverage: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Chicago, are as follows: Over-all: 18%; 

Black: 30.3%; White: 6.3%; Hispanic: 8.9%; Asian American: 1.3%; American Indian: 

26.1%. 

1 OCR collects and publicly reports data on the number of students suspended in 2009-10. The data 

are from two entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended 

two or more times. Students were only counted in one category. A national report was created by the 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every 

state and district in the OCR sample. At each level, national, state and district, the analysis combined 

the categories to arrive at the unduplicated number students suspended one or more times. Each 

reporting district' s superintendent certified their discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, the sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended 

one or more times for each group was divided by their total enrollment. The state number is 

therefore presented as an estimate and the sample size indicated. 

2 Estimates are based on the analysis reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National 

Report: Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel 

J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). For a downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and 

comparisons of every school district and every state please visit wwwecivilrightsproject.ucla.edu. 
757 

Many districts in Illinois are not high-suspending districts: Despite the fact that 

Illinois ranks as the highest in the nation for Black students, and despite the even 

more disturbing findings that follow, it is important to note that many districts in 

Illinois did not suspend high numbers of students. For example, in approximately 

one third of the 176 districts that suspended Black students in Illinois the 

suspension rate for Black students was less than the state average (9.8%) for all 

students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The clata 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out-of- school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education, Urban Middle Schools ill Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on the data collected and reported by the U.S. Department of 

Education for 2006, was estimated as follows:' 

Black Males, 28.3%; Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3%; Hispanic Females, 

,8.5%; White Males, 10%; White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7,5%, 

The middle schools report also analyzed suspension trends in 18 large urban 

districts and found that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females in middle 

school between 2002-2006. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended at twice the rate oftheir 

non-disabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts 

across the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with 

disabilities (13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Figure 2 shows the 

rates broken down by race for students in Illinois: 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in IJIinois (by 

race) 

l Daniel .I, I .osen & Russell .I, Skiba. Slis/vIILled r:dllCClliol1." Crhall .\fiddle _,'chools ill ('risis. 

National Report. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA (20 10). Available at 

\\ \\ \\ .l'l\ ijrl;.2.hl'P!\)i~;I..-,t~'l\~ 
758 

50 

40 +-----11 .. 

30 +-----_M 

20 +--~== 

10 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

III All Students with 

Disabilities 

IrBlack 

"White 

= Hispanic 
759 

California 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,l California was estimated to be the 21st highest suspending state in the 

U.S. in 2009-2010 and the 15th highest suspending state for Black students. The 

following snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability status 

at the state level. with additional details about rates in California for highsuspending districts. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in California 

20 ~--------+h~-----------------------

15 ;-----

10 ;---'1-1--

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

iF. All Students 

Black 

~White 

eHispanic 

" Asian American 

II American Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009·2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for California is based on an OCR sample of approximately 91 % of all 

students in the state. 

1 OCR collects and publicly reports data on the number of students suspended in 2009·10. The data 

are from two entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended 

two or more times. Students were only counted In one category. A national report was created by the 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every 

state and district in the OCR sample. At each level, national, state and district, the analysis combined 

the categories to arrive at the unduplicated number students suspended one or more times. Each 

reporting district' s superintendent certified their discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, the sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended 

one or more times was divided by each group' s total enrollment. The state number is therefore 

presented as an estimate and the sample size indicated. 

2 Estimates are based on the analysis reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National 

Report: Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel 

J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). For a downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and 

comparisons of every school district and every state please visit www.civilrightsproject.uc!a.edu. The 

state level data are based on the sample of district OCR collected from that state. A detailed report on 

California, Suspended Education in California, by Daniel J. Losen, Tia Martinez and Jon Gillespie (2012) 

is also available at the same website. 
760 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in San Bernardino Unified, CA, are as 

follows: All: 13.6%; Black: 26.2%; White: 12.6%; Hispanic: 11.4%; and AsianAmerican: 6.6%; and American Indian: 18.3%. 

Some districts in California are not high suspending districts: For example, 

despite the alarming statewide average for Black students, and despite the even 

more disturbing findings that follow, it is important to note that some districts in 

California did not suspend high numbers of Black students. In fact, in 22 percent of 

the approximately 328 districts that suspended Black students in California, the 

suspension rate for Black students was less than the state average (7.1 %) for all 

students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on the data collected and reported by the U.S. Department of 

Education for 2006, was estimated as follows: 3 

Black Males: 28.3%; Black Females: 18%; Hispanic Males: 16.3%; Hispanic Females 

8.5%; White Males: 10%; White Females: 4%; All Males: 14.7%; All Females 7.5%. 

In Los Angeles, one third of all Black Male students (32%) had been suspended at 

least once. The corresponding rates for other groups was as follows: Black Females, 

19%; Hispanic Males, 15%; Hispanic Females, 8%; White Males, 11%; White 

Females, 3%. 

The middle schools report also analyzed suspension trends in 18 large urban 

districts and found that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females between 

2002-2006. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a twice the rate of their non· 

disabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Here are the rates broken down 

by race for students in California. 

3 The middle schools report was based on the 2006, U.S. Department of Education , 

s Civil Rights Data Collection. See Daniel J. Losen & Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: 

Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, National Report, The Civil Rights Project at UCLA (2010). 

Available at www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu 
761 

Fi 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

ension for Students with Disabilities in California brace) 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

!It All Students with 

Disabilities 

_Black 

;;;Hispanic 

... Asian American 

I American Indian 
762 

Virginia 

Summary ofthe Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,l Virginia was estimated to be the 18th highest suspending state in the 

U.S. in 2009-2010 and the 22nd highest suspending state for Black students. The 

following snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability status 

at the state level, with additional details about rates in Virginia for high-suspending 

districts. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Virginia 

18 ,---------~&------------------------

16 +-----t: 

14 -I-----f 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

HI All Students 

IlBlack 

'White 

• Hispanic 

.. Asian American 

II American Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009-2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.' This 

estimated risk for suspension for Virginia is based on an OCR sample representing approximately 

94% of all students in the state. 

IOCR collects and publicly reports data on the number of students suspended in 2009-10. The data are from two 

entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended two or more times. Students 

were only counted in one category. A national report was created by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil 

Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every state and district in the OCR sample. At each level, national, 

state and district, the analysis combined the categories to arrive at the unduplicated number students suspended one or 

more times. Each reporting district' s superintendent certified their discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, the sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended one or more times 

for each group was divided by their total enrollment. The state number is therefore presented as an estimate and the 

sample size indicated. 

, Based in part on prior analysis reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National Report: Opportunities 

Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). 

For a downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and comparisons of every school district and every state please 

visit ,,~,w.ciyilrightsproject.ucla.edu. 
763 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Henrico County, VA, are as follows: 

Over-all, 23.1 %; Black, 39.4%; White, 11.0%; Hispanic, 17.6%; Asian-American, 

3.9%. 

Some districts in Virginia are not high suspending districts: Despite the fact that 

Virginia is estimated to be a relatively high suspending state and the alarming 

statewide average for Black students, and despite the even more disturbing findings 

that follow, it is important to note that some districts in Virginia did not suspend 

high numbers of Black students. In fact, in thirteen percent of the approximately 82 

districts that suspended Black students in Virginia, the suspension rate for Black 

students was less than the state average (7.9%) for all students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education, Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students was estimated (based on federal data for 2006) as follows: 3 

Black Males, 28.3%; Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3%; Hispanic Females, 

8.5%; White Males, 10%; White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7.5%. 

The middle school report's analysis of 18 large urban districts also found that rates 

had risen between 2002-2006 most rapidly for Black Females. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a twice the rate oftheir nondisabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Here are the rates broken down 

by race for students in Virginia 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in Virginia 

3 This report was based on tbe 2006, U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection. See Daniel J. Losen 

& Russell 1. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, National Report, The Civil Rights Project at 

UCLA (2010). Available at www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu 
764 

30 ,-------~~--------------------

25 +-----

20 +----

15 

10 

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

• All Students with 

Disabilities 

• Black 

-Hispanic 

"Asian American 

II American Indian 
765 

Vermont 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,1 Vermont was ranked an estimated 41st, among the lowest suspending 

states in the U.S. in 2009-2010 and ranked 42nd, also among the lowest states for 

suspension rates for Black students. The folloWing snapshot breaks down the 

suspension rates by race and disability status at the state level. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Vermont 

8 ~----------------------------~r-----

7 +---------~----------------II 

6 +-------

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

m All Students 

Black 

I!lWhite 

"Hispanic 

...... Asian American 

II American Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009·2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for Vermont is based on an OCR sample of approximately 59% of all 

students in the state. 

IOCR collects and publicly reports data on lbe number of students suspended in 2009· 10. The data are from two 

entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended two or more times. Students 

were only counted in one category. A national report was created by lbe Center for Civil Rights Remedies ofthe Civil 

Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every state and district in lbe OCR swnple. At each level, national, 

state and district, lbe analysis combined the categories to arrive at the unduplicated number students suspended one or 

more times. Each reporting district' s superintendent certified lbeir discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, lbe swnpled district numbers were combined and lbe total number of students suspended one or more times 

for each group was divided by their total enrollment. The state number is therefore presented as an estimate and lbe 

swnple size indicated. 

Z Estimates are based on the analysis reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National 

Report: Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel 

j. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). For a downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and 

comparisons of every school district and every state please visit www.ciyilrig\1tsproject.ucla.edu. 
766 

Often districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rate for Black students in Burlington, VT, was 11%. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on the data collected and reported by the U.S. Department of 

Education for 2006, was estimated as follows: 3 

Black Males, 28.3%; Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3%; Hispanic Females, 

8.5%; White Males, 10%; White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7.5%. 

The report also analyzed suspension trends in 18 large urban districts and found 

that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females between 2002-2006. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a !:Wice the rate of their nondisabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Here are the rates broken down 

by race for students in Vermont. 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in Vermont 

3 Daniel J. Losen & Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, National Report, The 

Civil Rights Project at UCLA (2010). Available at www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu. 
767 

20 

18 ~"-""'~""~'""~~.~"""""~""""~"""---~"""""'"'"""'"~"-"'"" 

16 +"""""-","-~:,",;': 

14 +"""'" " ',",",,,".,.>',' 

12 ~"'-""~-" 

1 0 "t-'"~"""'""","""'" 

8 

6 

4 

2 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

_Black 

White 

Ii 

.. Asian 
768 

Pennsylvania 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,1 Pennsylvania was estimated to be the 26th highest suspending state 

in the U.S. in 2009-2010 and the 21st highest suspending state for Black students. 

The following snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability 

status at the state level, with additional details about rates in Pennsylvania for highsuspending districts. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Pennsylvania 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

~ All Students 

_Black 

'White 

-Hispanic 

'Asian American 

II American Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009-2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for Pennsylvania is based on an OCR sample representing 

approximately 77% of all students in the state. 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Pittsburg, PA, are as follows: Over-all, 

32.7%; Black, 42.4%; White, 16.5%; Hispanic, 20.5%; Asian American, 6.6%; and 

American Indian, 14.3%. 

IOCR collects and publicly reports data on the number of students suspended in 2009-10. The data are from two 

entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended two or more times. Students 

were only counted in one category. A national report was created by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies ofthe Civil 

Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every state and district in the OCR sample. At each level, national, 

state and district, the analysis combined the categories to arrive at the unduplicated number students suspended one or 

more times. Each reporting district' s superintendent certified their discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, the sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended one or more times 

for each group was divided by their total enrollment. The state number is therefore presented as an estimate and the 

sample size indicated. 

2 Based in part on prior analysis reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National Report: Opportunities 

Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). 

For a downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and comparisons of every school district and every state please 

visit \\'ww.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu. 
769 

Some districts in Pennsylvania are not high suspending districts: Despite the 

fact that Pennsylvania is estimated to be a relatively high suspending state and the 

alarming statewide average for Black students, and despite the even more 

disturbing findings that follow, it is important to note that some districts in 

Pennsylvania did not suspend high numbers of Black students. In fact, in one in 

three of the approximately 176 districts that suspended Black students in 

Pennsylvania, the suspension rate for Black students was less than the state average 

(6.5%) for all students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education, Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on data from 2006, was estimated as follows: 3 

Black Males, 28.3%; Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3%; Hispanic Females, 

8.5%; White Males, 10%; White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7.5%. 

The middle school report's analysis of 18 large urban districts also found that rates 

had risen between 2002-2006 most rapidly for Black Females. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a twice the rate of their nondisabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Here are the rates broken down 

by race for students in Pennsylvania 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in 

Pennsylvania 

3 This report was based on the 2006, U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection. See Daniel J. Losen 

& Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, National Report, The Civil Rights Project at 

UCLA (20 I 0). Available at www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu 
770 

25 

21.3 

20 +----

15 

10 

5 

o 

1.8 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

• All Students with 

Disabilities 

.. Black 

'.White 

-Hispanic 

..... Asian American 

IIAmerican Indian 
771 

Texas 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,1 Texas was estimated to be the 25th highest suspending state in the U.S. 

in 2009-2010 and the 26th highest suspending state for Black students. The 

following snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability status 

at the state level, with additional details about rates in Texas for secondary schools 

and for the largest district, Houston. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Texas 

20 

15 +----_.: 

10 -+-----,,..,..--11 

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

II! All Students 

If Black 

· .. White 

~Hispanic 

.. : Asian American 

IIAmerican Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009-2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for Texas is based on an OCR sample representing approximately 88% 

of all students in the state. 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Houston, are as follows: Over-all: 

11.1 %; Black: 19.5%; White: 4.2%; Hispanic: 8.9%; Asian American: 2.4%; American 

Indian: 13.2%. 

IOCR collects and publicly reports data on Ibe number of students suspended in 2009·10. The data are from two 

entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended two or more times. Students 

were only counted in one category. A national report was created by Ibe Center for Civil Rights Remedies oflbe Civil 

Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every state and district in Ibe OCR sample. At each level, national, 

state and district, Ibe analysis combined the categories to arrive at Ibe unduplicated number students suspended one or 

more times. Each reporting district' s superintendent certified Ibeir discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, Ibe sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended one or more times 

was divided by each group' s total enrollment. The state number is therefore presented as an estimate and the sample 

size indicated. 

2 Analysis was reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National Report: Opportunities Suspended: The 

Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). For a 

do,,"loadable spreadsheet Ibat allows for sorting and comparisons of every school district and every state please visit 

www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu. 
772 

Many districts in Texas are not high suspending districts: Despite the alarming 

statewide average for Black students, and despite the even more disturbing findings 

that follow, it is important to note that many districts in Texas did not suspend high 

numbers of Black students. In fact, in more than 27% ofthe approximately 227 

districts that suspended Black students in Texas, the suspension rate for Black 

students was less than the state average (6.5%) for all students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on the data collected and reported by the U.S. Department of 

Education for 2006, was estimated as follows: 3 

Black Males: 28.3%; Black Females: 18%; Hispanic Males: 16.3%; Hispanic Females 

8.5%; White Males: 10%; White Females: 4%; All Males: 14.7%; All Females 7.5%. 

Based on the U.S. Department of Education' s data for San Antonio Texas, in 2006, 

42% of all Black Male middle school students were suspended at least once. The 

corresponding rates for other groups was as follows: Black Females: 27%; Hispanic 

Males 23%; Hispanic Females 12%; White Males 19%; and White Females 12%. 

The middle schools report also analyzed suspension trends in 18 large urban 

districts and found that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females between 

2002-2006. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a twice the rate of their nondisabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Figure 2 shows the rates broken 

down by race and disability for students in Texas: 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in Texas 

, Daniel J. Losen & Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, National Report, The 

Civil Rights Project at UCLA (2010). Available at www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu. 
773 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

.~ All Students with 

Disabilities 

II Black 

'.White 

: Hispanic 

... Asian American 

1/ American Indian 
774 

South Carolina 

Summary ofthe Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,1 South Carolina was estimated to be the highest suspending state in 

the U.S. in 2009-2010 and the 6th highest suspending state for Black students. The 

following snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability status 

at the state level, with additional details about rates in South Carolina at the district 

level. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in South Carolina 

25 ,---------~T---.-----------------------

20 +-------~. 

15 +-----'~'_IIIII 

10 

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

I!i All Students 

"Black 

~White 

" Hispanic 

.. -Asian American 

IIAmerican Indian 

The source.of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009-2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for South Carolina is based on an OCR sample representing 

approximately 96% of all students in the state. 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Florence SC, are as follows: Over-all, 

23.1 %; Black, 32.8%; White, 12.5%; Hispanic, 13.6%; and Asian American, 3.4%. 

Some districts in South Carolina are not high suspending districts: Despite the 

fact that South Carolina is estimated to be the highest suspending state and the 

IOCR collects and publicly reports data on the number of students suspended in 2009-10. The data are from two 

entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended two or more times. Students 

were only counted in one category. A national report was created by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil 

Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdo"ns of every state and district in the OCR sample. At each level, national, 

state and district, the analysis combined the categories to arrive at the unduplicated number students suspended one or 

more times. Each reporting district' s superintendent certified their discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, the sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended one or more times 

was divided by each group' s lotal enrollment The state number is therefore presented as an estimate and the sample 

size indicated. 

2 Based in part on prior analysis reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National Report: Opportunities 

Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012) 

For a downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and comparisons of every school district and every state please 

visit w\vw.civilrightsproject.llcia.edu. 
775 

alarming statewide average for Black students, and despite the even more 

disturbing findings that follow, it is important to note that some districts in South 

Carolina did not suspend high numbers of Black students. In fact, in one sixth of the 

approximately 72 districts that suspended Black students in South Carolina, the 

suspension rate for Black students was less than the state average (12.7%) for all 

students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on the data collected and reported by the U.S. Department of 

Education for 2006, was estimated as follows: 3 

Black Males, 28.3%; Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3%; Hispanic Females, 

8.5%; White Males, 10%; White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7.5%. 

The middle schools report also analyied suspension trends in 18 large urban 

districts and found that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females in middle 

school between 2002-2006. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a twice the rate of their nondisabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Here are the rates broken down 

by race for students in South Carolina. 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in South 

Carolina 

3 These estimates are based on the 2006, U.S. Department of Education' s Civil Rights Data Collection. See Daniell. 

Losen & Russell 1. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, National Report, The Civil Rights 

Project at UCLA (2010). Available at \\ww.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu. 
776 

30 

25 ~-----

20 

15 

10 

S· 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

% All Students with 

Disabilities 

III Black 

"White 

m Hispanic 

,-' Asian American 

I American Indian 
777 

Ohio 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12, 1 Ohio was estimated to be the 19th highest suspending state in the U.S. 

in 2009-2010 and the 10th highest suspending state for Black students. The 

following snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability status 

at the state level, with additional details about rates in Ohio for high-suspending 

districts. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Ohio 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

1!i All Students 

Ii Black 

~White 

~Hispanic 

.. ' Asian American 

II American Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009-2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for Ohio is based on an OCR sample representing approximately 71% 

of all students in the state. 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Columbus City, OH, are as follows: 

IOCR collects and publicly reports data on the number of students suspended in 2009-10. The data 

are from two entirely separate categories. students suspended only one time and students suspended 

two or more times. Students were only counted in one category. A national report was created by the 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every 

state and district in the OCR sample. At each level. national. state and district, the analysis combined 

the categories to arrive at the unduplicated number students suspended one or more times. Each 

reporting district' s superintendent certified their discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state. the sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended 

one or more times was divided by each group' s total enrollment The state number is therefore 

presented as an estimate and the sample size indicated. 

2 Based in part on prior analysis reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National Report: 

Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel J. Losen 

and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). For a downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and 

comparisons of every school district and every state please visit www.civi1rigjJtsprojectucla.edu. 
778 

Over-all: 23.3%; Black: 29.2%; White: 15.7%; Hispanic: 11.7%; Asian-American: 

7.5%; and American Indian 12.5%. 

Some districts in Ohio are not high suspending districts: Despite the fact that 

Ohio is estimated to be a relatively high suspending state and the alarming 

statewide average for Black students, and despite the even more disturbing findings 

that follow, it is important to note that some districts in Ohio did not suspend high 

numbers of Black students. In fact, in one quarter of the approximately 158 districts 

that suspended Black students in Ohio, the suspension rate for Black students was 

less than the state average (7.7%) for all students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education, Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, based on data from the U.S. Department of 

Education from 2006, the national risk for suspension for middle school students 

was estimated as follows: 3 

Black Males, 28.3%; Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3%; Hispanic Females, 

8.5%; White Males, 10%: White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7.5%. 

The middle schools report also analyzed suspension trends in 18 large urban 

districts and found that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females in middle 

school between 2002-2006. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a twice the rate of their nondisabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Here are the rates broken down 

by race for students in Ohio 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in Ohio 

3 This report was based on the 2006, U.S. Department of Education' s Civil Rights Data Collection. See Daniel J. 

Losen & Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, National Report, The Civil Rights 

Project at UCLA (2010). Available at www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu 
779 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

25 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

• All Students with 

Disabilities 

• Black 

-Hispanic 

"Asian American 

II American Indian 
780 

Rhode Island 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,1 Rhode Island was estimated to be the 14th highest suspending state in 

the U.S. in 2009-2010 and the 25th highest suspending state for Black students. The 

follOwing snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability status 

at the state level, with additional details about rates for Rhode Island districts, 

including the largest district, Providence. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Rhode Island 

20 ,--------------------------------------

15 +-----11 

10 +----"""---11 

5 

o +-___ D 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

All Students 

II Black 

• .. White 

5 Hispanic 

'Asian American 

IIAmerican Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009-2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for Rhode Island is based on an OCR sample representing 

approximately 84% of all students in the state. 

Many districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Providence, RI, are as follows: Overall, 13.7%; Black, 19.7; White, 11.2%; Hispanic, 12.6%; Asian American, 7.8%; 

American Indian, 19.4%. 

1 OCR collects and publicly reports data on the number of students suspended in 2009-10. The data 

are from two entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended 

two or more times. Students were only counted in one category. A national report was created by the 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every 

state and district in the OCR sample. At each level, national, state and district, the analysis combined 

the categories to arrive at the un duplicated number students suspended one or more times. Each 

reporting district' s superintendent certified their discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, the sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended 

one or more times for each group was divided by their total enrollment. The state number is 

therefore presented as an estimate and the sample size indicated. 

2 Estimates are based on the analysis reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National 

Report: Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel 

J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). For a downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and 

comparisons of every school district and every state please visit wwwcivilrightsproject.ucla.edu. 
781 

Many districts in Rhode Island are not high-suspending districts: Despite the 

more disturbing findings that follow, it is important to note that many districts in 

Rhode Island did not suspend high numbers of students. For example, in four of the 

18 districts that suspended Black students in Rhode Island the suspension rate for 

Black students was less than the state average (8.6%) for all students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out-of- school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education, Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on the data collected and reported by the U.S. Department of 

Education for 2006, was estimated as follows: 3 

Black Males, 28.3%; Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3%; Hispanic Females, 

8.5%; White Males, 10%; White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7.5%. 

The middle schools report also analyzed suspension trends in 18 large urban 

districts and found that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females in middle 

school between 2002-2006. 

Providence was one of the districts studied in the 2006 report The middle school 

suspension rates in 2006 for Providence were as follows: Black Males, 32%; Black 

Females, 25%; Hispanic Males, 25%; Hispanic Females, 18%; White Males, 15%; 

White Females, 18%. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended at twice the rate of their 

non-disabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts 

across the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with 

disabilities (13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Figure 2 shows the 

rates broken down by race for students in Rhode Island: 

Figure 2. The Risk for Suspension for Students with Disabilities in Rhode 

Island 

3 Daniell. Losen & Russell 1. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, 

National Report, The Civil Rights Project at UCLA (2010). Available at 

www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu 
782 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

~ All Students with 

Disabilities 

II Black 

',White 

;;;; Hispanic 
783 

Utah 

Summary of the Use of Out-of-School Suspensions 

Analysis of Federal Data 

Based on the data districts reported to the U.S. Department of Education, across 

grades K-12,1 Utah was estimated to be the second lowest suspending state in the 

U.S. in 2009-2010 and the 5th lowest suspending state for Black students. The 

following snapshot breaks down the suspension rates by race and disability status 

at the state level, with additional details about rates in Utah for secondary schools 

and for the largest district, Salt Lake City. 

Figure 1. The Risk for Suspension for Students in Utah 

8 

6 

4 +---7"7"-

2 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who were 

suspended out of school one or more times 

III All Students 

_Black 

· .. White 

~Hispanic 

'" Asian American 

I I American Indian 

The source of all the raw data used to generate this report is the Civil Rights Data Collection from 

2009·2010 as publicly reported by U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2 This 

estimated risk for suspension for Utah is based on an OCR sample representing approximately 85% 

of all students in the state. 

Some districts have significantly higher rates than the state average: For 

example, the suspension rates for students in Odgen, the highest suspending 

district in the state, are as foliows: Over-all, 15.2%; Black, 20.3%; White, 14.2%; 

Hispanic, 16.3%; Asian American: 6.5%; American Indian, 11.4%. 

IOCR collects and publicly reports data on the number of students suspended in 2009·10. The data are from two 

entirely separate categories, students suspended only one time and students suspended two or more times. Students 

were only counted in one category. A national report was created by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies ofthe Civil 

Rights Project at UCLA containing breakdowns of every state and district in the OCR sample. At each level, national, 

state and district, the analysis combined the categories to arrive at the unduplicated number students suspended one or 

more times. Each reporting district' s superintendent certified their discipline and enrollment data as accurate. For 

each state, the sampled district numbers were combined and the total number of students suspended one or more times 

was divided by each group' s total enrollment. The state number is therefore presented as an estimate and the sample 

size indicated. 

2 Analysis was reported by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies National Report: Opportunities Suspended: The 

Disparate Impact of Exclusionary School Discipline by Daniel J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie (2012). For a 

downloadable spreadsheet that allows for sorting and comparisons of every school district and every state please visit 

\v\vw.ciyilrightsproject.llcla.edu. 
784 

Most districts in Utah are not high suspending districts: It is important to note 

that 12 of the 32 districts in Utah suspended 2% or less of the total enrollment and 

only 2 exceeded the national average for all students. Moreover, in 7 of the 13 

districts that suspended Black students in Utah, the suspension rate for Black 

students was less than the national average (7.4%) for all students. 

The risk for suspension is much higher for secondary students: The data 

summarized above represents all students in K-12 suspended at least once. We 

know that out of school suspensions are typically much higher for male students in 

middle and high schools. In the 2010 report by Losen and Skiba, Suspended 

Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, the national risk for suspension for middle 

school students, based on the data collected and reported by the U.S. Department of 

Education for 2006, was estimated as follows: 3 

Black Males, 28.3%; Black Females, 18%; Hispanic Males, 16.3%; Hispanic Females, 

8.5%; White Males, 10%; White Females, 4%; All Males, 14.7%; All Females, 7.5%. 

The middle schools report also analyzed suspension trends in 18 large urban 

districts and found that rates had risen most rapidly for Black Females between 

2002-2006. 

Students with disabilities are typically suspended a twice the rate of their nondisabled peers: Nationally, based on data on K-12 students from districts across 

the nation, approximately one out of every eight enrolled students with disabilities 

(13%) were suspended at least once in 2009-2010. Figure 2 shows the rates broken 

down by race and disability for students in Utah: 

ension for Students with Disabilities in Utah 

7 +----I!II' 

6 +----Ia 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o 

Percentage of subgroup's total enrollment who 

were suspended out of school one or more times 

i!<All Students with 

Disabilities 

ilBlack 

JF,White 

~Hispanic 

... Asian American 

II American Indian 

, Daniel J. Losen & Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis, National Report, The 

Civil Rights Project at UCLA (2010). Available at www.civilrightsproject.ucia.edu. 
785 

Sent Home and Put Off-Track: The Antecedents, Disproportionalities, and 

Consequences of Being Suspended in the Ninth Grade 

Robert Balfanz, Vaughan Byrnes, and Joanna Fox 

Everyone Graduates Center, School of Education, Johns Hopkins University 

Prepared for the Cl"ntc-r for ("h'il Rig.hts Rem{'dies and the Rescarch-to-Practicc CollnboratiYe. '\;at10n31 Conference, 

Clm;ing tltt! School Discipline Gap, to bt' held ,Janual'"Y 10,20)3 in \Vashil1gton, D.C. 

ABSTRACT 

Over the past several years, research from several states and large city school districts have 

identified out-of-school suspensions as one of the primary indicators of high school dropout. The 

exclusion of students from school for disciplinary reasons is directly related to lower attendance 

rates, increased course failures, and can set a student on a path of disengagement from school 

that will keep them from receiving a high school diploma and further affect their chances of 

enrolling in post-secondary schooling and realizing many life-long career opportunities. 

Recent research has also suggested that there are clear and evident demographic disparities in the 

use of out-of-school suspensions as a disciplinary measure and that certain subgroups of 

students, particularly those from minority and high poverty backgrounds, are more likely to be 

suspended, as well as more frequently, for longer durations oftime, and for more minor offenses. 

Given the impact of suspensions on student academic outcomes and the racial disparities in their 

application, any policies that serve to increase student exclusion from the schooling environment 

will also serve to further increase the achievement gap that exists between white and non-white 

students in the US and to institutionalize such inequality. 

This study is based upon a longitudinal analysis of data for a cohort of 181,897 Florida students 

who were first time 9th graders in the 2000-01 school year and follows them through to high 

school and post-secondary outcomes. Analysis of 9th grade suspension data finds that black 

students, students who are economically disadvantaged, and special education students are three 

demographic subgroups that are disproportionately suspended, both in the frequency of 

suspensions and the number of school days lost. While poverty and ethnicity are themselves 

highly correlated, poverty alone does not explain the disproportionately high suspension rates 

amongst black students, raising the possibility that imposition of suspensions are racially biased. 

Further analyses show that out-of-school suspensions in the 9th grade year are also significantly 

and negatively correlated to later high school graduation as well as post-secondary enrolment 

and persistence. Students' associated likelihood of dropping out double with their first 

suspension. Thus the risk for long-term harm that such disciplinary policies impose for students 

is a threat not for only for students with multiple suspensions, but also for those students with a 

single suspension. 
786 

Additional analysis though shows that disciplinary incidents are interrelated with other of 

indicators of student disengagement from school, such as course failures and absenteeism. 

Policies seeking to address these issues cannot focus on reducing suspensions alone but must 

also address student attendance and course passing in a comprehensive and systematic manner. 

For some students, the first event which throws them off track is being suspended, for others 

attendance and course failure may co-occur or come first, but in most cases within a year of 

being suspended ninth graders are also struggling with course failure or not attending school 

regularly or being suspended again and as a result are on the path to dropping out. Some policy 

alternatives such as early warning indicator systems, improved classroom management training, 

social emotional learning, and SWPBIS, target reductions in suspensions but are also part of 

broader efforts to improve student engagement and achievement. 
787 

1.IDIANA UNIVERSITY 

CENTER FOR December 10,2012 

EVALUATION & 

EDUCATION POLICY Russell J. Skiba, Ph.D 

The Equity Project at Indiana University 

1900 E. 10tb Street 

CEEP Bloomington, IN 47406 

1900 E. 10'" St. 

Bloomington, Indiana 

47406 

U.S.A. 

812-855-4438 

800-511-6575 

FAX 812-856-5890 

ceep@indiana.edu 

ceep.indiana.edu 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Hearing on Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham, and Members of the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the first ever hearing on 

ending the school- to-prison pipeline. My name is Russell J. Skiba and I am the 

Director of the Equity Project at Indiana University. The Equity Project conducts 

and disseminates non-partisan, high-quality research in order to better understand 

and address issues regarding K-12 educational inequity. For the last 20 years, 

researchers at the Equity Project have significantly advanced our understanding 

on a range of issues specific to educational inequity. We are currently conducting 

and commissioning leading edge research in school discipline, special education 

and the school-to-prison pipeline. While our research is not advocacy oriented, it 

has often been used to inform policy discussion through consultation with both 

the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, and the national dialogue, 

highlighted in such sources as the New York Times, USA Today and the 

Washington Post. 

Many respondents have shared their personal stories and experiences concerning 

the School to Prison Pipeline with the Committee. These stories are by no means 

idiosyncratic or unique, but rather are validated by extensive and consistent 

research findings on school suspension and expulsion. Although exclusionary 

and punitive approaches to discipline are intended to improve school safety and 

student behavior, a number of negative effects have been documented associated 

with suspension, expulsion, or increased police presence, including: 

• Negative impact on school climate: Schools with higher rates of suspension 

have lower ratings of academic quality, pay less attention to issues of 

school climate, and have been found to be perceived as less safe by 

students and teachers; 

• Reduced academic achievement and lost educational opportunity: School 

engagement and school achievement have been found to be lower in 
788 

schools with high rates of suspension and expulsion, especially for African American 

students; 

• Increased risk of school dropout: A recent study by the Council for State Governments 

found that suspended/expelled students were five times as likely to drop out as compared 

to students with no disciplinary action; 

• Increased riskfor involvement in the juvenile justice system: Suspended or expelled 

students have been shown to have an increased likelihood of contact with the juvenile 

justice system in subsequent years, even after controlling for demographics. 

Rigorous study over forty years has also consistently shown that students of color are 

disproportion ally represented in suspension and expulsion. Those disparate rates, which cannot 

be explained by either poverty or different rates of disruptive behavior, clearly place youth of 

color at higher risk for a range of negative educational and life outcomes. 

We applaud Chairman Durbin, Ranking Minority Member Graham and the other members ofthe 

subcommittee for bringing national attention to this issue. Ensuring that all students have an 

equal opportunity at a quality education that prepares them to be successful, productive, and 

contributing members of our democracy is critical to the future success of our country. As the 

subcommittee contemplates efforts to end the school-to-prison pipeline, the Equity Project at 

Indiana University stands ready to provide the highest quality evidence available that can ensure 

more of our students are successful. 

Sincerely, 

Russell J. Skiba, Ph.D. 

Director, Equity Project at Indiana University 

skiba@indiana.edu 

www.indiana.edul-equity 
789 

HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITIEE ON THE 

CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

"ENDING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE" 

WRITIEN STATEMENT SUBMITIED BY 

THE NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN DRUG POLICY COALITION, INC. 

December 12, 2012 

I have the honor on behalf of the National African American Drug Policy 

Coalition, Inc. ("National Coalition") initially created April 1, 2004 and 

incorporated as a District of Columbia non-profit corporation on January 12, 2006, 

and accorded its Internal Revenue Service its Section SOl©(3) tax-exempt status 

on August 30, 2006, as its Vice-President of Administration and National 

Executive Director, to submit this written statement as testimony on "Ending the 

School to Prison Pipeline" to reduce drastically the waste of our human 

resources resulting from mass incarceration in this Nation. 

The National Coalition was developed to bring together to act in unison 

those National African American organizations dealing with criminal and juvenile 

justice matters, healthcare issues related to substance abuse and mental health, 

and those areas seriously impacted by policies in these three (3) areas such as 

education, access to affordable housing, and workforce development and 

1 
790 

employment. At its core, the National Coalition has as its mission the elimination 

of disparate treatment and unlawful discrimination in the policies and their 

application in each of these areas, with the objective of advocating and educating 

the public as to what policies would best achieve these purposes. 

Among the initial organizations joining the National Coalition under the 

leadership of the National Bar Association were the Association of Black 

Psychologists; National Association of Black Social Workers, Inc.; Howard 

University and its School of Law; Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.; 

National Dental Association; National Black Caucus of State Legislators; 

Association of Black Sociologists; and National Black Nurses Association, Inc. 

Under my leadership as the National Executive Director starting August 1, 2004, 

other National African American organizations in these fields were approached to 

join the National Coalition, and they did so. 

Among them were the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 

Executives; National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice; National Black 

Alcoholism & Addictions Council, Inc.; Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Inc.; 

Association of Black Health-System Pharmacists; National Medical Association; 

National Black Police Association; National Alliance of Black School Educators; 

2 
791 

National Institute for Law and Equity; National Conference of Black Political 

Scientists; Black Psychiatrists of America, Inc.; National Black Prosecutors 

Association; National Organization of African Americans in Housing; and Thurgood 

Marshall Action Coalition. At that point, we incorporated as a District of 

Columbia non-profit corporation. Subsequently two (2) additional organizations 

joined the National Coalition - the National Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities Substance Abuse Consortium, Inc. and the National Association of 

Health Services Executives. In addition, at the present time there are sixteen (16) 

statewide and local chapters, and we have in existence Planning Committees in 

twenty (20) other cities and locales preparing to create Chapters to carry out our 

mission objectives. As a result of our growth and demand for our input and 

services, in the Fall of 2011 we amended our By-Laws to allow individual persons 

to join our National Coalition, as individual members. Membership is open to 

persons of all races and national origins who support our mission and objectives. 

From the very beginning one of our major objectives has been to develop 

and implement a proactive juvenile delinquency education and prevention 

program which would incorporate principles of self-determination and promoting 

a strong work ethic and a desire by students to excel in their academic studies. 

Thus we designed a three part program. First, we would send professional 

3 
792 

members of our member organizations and the disciplines they represent on a 

year round basis as requested into all schools starting at the Third Grade to do 

three things: 1) To give a health lecture on the biological, neurological and 

medical impact of underage drinking of alcoholic beverages and the use of illegal 

drugs, stressing the adverse consequences on their growth, health, wellness and 

intellectual capacity to learn to their maximum ability; 2) To become "role 

models" in telling their own personal stories of overcoming poverty and adverse 

conditions to become doctors, dentists, social workers, psychologists, lawyers, 

judges or members of other professions through not engaging in wrongdoing and 

excelling in their school studies as well as in sports or in music and entertainment; 

and, 3) To make a commitment to provide tutors to those students who need 

such help to stay at grade level and to reward those students starting in the 

Eighth Grade who can maintain a solid "B" average with a counselor-mentor in 

the field of endeavor the student then thinks he or she may want to make his or 

her life work. Thus, a youth who wants to become a doctor will be assign a 

doctor as a counselor-mentor to guide that youngster as if he or she were his or 

her own child. Likewise, a child who wants to become a lawyer would be 

assigned a lawyer or a judge, a youngster who wants to be an engineer would be 

assigned an engineer, and so forth for each and every profession where there is a 

4 
793 

National organization of such professionals. Finally, for these youth, we promise 

them apprentice-internships when they get to be juniors and seniors in high 

school, with the goal of significantly reducing school drop outs. This program 

applies not only to students who want to go to college, but also to students who 

want to go into the trades, vocations, or even the arts. This is our self-imposed 

self-determination or affirmative action program of Black professionals. 

We are also building collaborative relationships with all of the Black 

fraternities and sororities, both college and graduate chapters, 100 Black Men, 

Inc., and Concerned Black Men, Inc. The network we are establishing also 

includes retired African American military officers and non-commissioned 

officers. The Assistant National Executive Director of the National Coalition is 

Retired Major General John R. Hawkins, III, U.S. Army whose last active duty 

military assignment was as the head of the U. S. Army Human Resources office. 

We have also developed a collaborative relationship with the National Black 

Chamber of Commerce to promote mentorship and internship programs for 

Black youth all over the Nation who want to go into business. 

We conclude that such proactive programming will help change the 

attitude and perspective of our youth on the importance of educational 

5 
794 

achievement, and thus reduce truancy, bullying, disorderly and defiant conduct, 

and other disciplinary problems in schools which result in School Resources 

Officers calling in regular police officers to arrest misbehaving youngsters, taking 

them away from their duties of policing the community at large. We advocate 

that Principals and School Counselors should exercise stronger internal controls 

and even when school discipline is merited, it be in school suspension rather than 

pushing the child out of school onto the streets to engage in juvenile delinquent 

behavior. Zero tolerance should be tempered by an individualized determination 

as to whether the behavior or conduct in question was intentional by the youth or 

merely inadvertent or accidental, such as a kitchen knife inadvertently left in a 

student's handbag or a prescription medication inadvertently brought to school, 

and thus whether harmful conduct was intended which would be disruptive of the 

school environment. We plan to elicit affirmative recommendations from our 

Member Organization, the National Alliance of Black School Educators, on what 

procedures can be developed to deal with more school discipline cases in-house 

without referral to the juvenile justice system, thus subjecting these youngsters to 

the pressures which would lead them deeper into the pipeline to adult crime. We 

will also explicitly ask them for their recommendations in dealing with the 

disparate impact of suspensions and expulsions of African American and Hispanic 

6 
795 

American youth and how we can deal with the implicit bias and prejudice 

suggested by recent studies which show such substantial differences in how 

minority youth have been treated by school administrators and teachers. 

When external action is necessary to deal with a child's behavior and where 

the home is dysfunctional, we suggest an alternative to formal arrest and juvenile 

proceedings. We suggest the use of a citation making a referral to a diversion 

program, a non-profit Youth Court alternative program, where the youth is 

exposed to a process of taking corrective action, not repeating the offending 

conduct and behavior in the future and an attitude changing process. Of course, 

if the citation is not honored, an arrest could be judicially authorized for formal 

juvenile court proceedings. 

For example, in the District of Columbia, there is a non-profit corporation, 

called the "Youth Court of the District of Columbia." A youth is referred and must 

acknowledge his or her offending conduct, and then a youth jury of peers assess 

what the penalty should be, i.e. to write an essay about the offending conduct 

and how the youth will change and not do it in the future, perform a specific 

community service, and then return to be on a peer jury, or to serve as a defense 

lawyer. Through this role playing the youth comes to see and appreciate both 

7 
796 

sides of his or her conduct or behavior during a 120 day period. Many of these 

youth become so involved that they continue with Youth Court as a volunteer 

project for an additional period, their grades improve, they do not offend again, 

they become leading students in their schools, and some go on to college. For 

those students who are referred to Youth Court and where the youth needs a 

tutor, one will be provided through a collaborative relationship with the National 

African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc., and where the home is dysfunctional 

the youth will also be provided with a counselor-mentor as described above who 

will cater to that youth's aptitude and interest to develop a positive productive 

individual. It is our intent to develop the District of Columbia model to an extent 

that it will be considered as a model for other Youth Courts throughout the 

Nation. 

As previously stated our National Coalition is creating chapters throughout 

the Nation. Their primary mission is to serve as Coordinating Advisory 

Committees to State and local officials on drug policy, mental health, criminal and 

juvenile justice and related issues and to develop and implement a Speakers 

Program to provide professionals to go into the schools as described herein to 

engage in "fireside chats" with our youth. In addition we urge each chapter to 

develop liaison relationships with a minimum of three (3) churches with 

8 
797 

substantial African American congregations to encourage and expand their youth 

ministry programs and to provide speakers to those groups and internship 

opportunities to their youth as well as to encourage their retired and senior 

members to volunteer to be counselor-mentors and to become involved as 

volunteers in our youth program. 

Our biggest obstacle in implementing the program as outlined above has 

been obtaining adequate funding to afford the administrative staff necessary to 

implement the program as we have outlined it here. This program is in its 

infancy stage. We are broadening our outreach to private foundations as well as 

to the government to obtain additional revenue to hire 2-3 administrative staff 

persons full time to carry out these functions. Up to this time these functions 

have been performed by the volunteer efforts of the National Executive Director 

and the Assistant National Executive Director, with the part-time assistance of 

Howard University Center for Drug Abuse Research staff of two persons. 

Thus, we urge that instead of cutting government funding for mentoring 

programs across the Nation, such funding should indeed be increased. In the 

long run, they will save the government substantial funds in connection with law 

enforcement activities, court operations, and incarceration costs, and result in 

9 
798 

more citizens being productive in their lives, paying taxes to the government and 

thus increasing its revenue resources and increasing the productivity of the 

Nation and its well-being. 

We welcome this opportunity to submit our views and hope that they will 

be helpful as this Subcommittee considers proposed solutions for dealing with 

this most serious problem in our society where we imprison more persons than 

any other Nation on the face of this Earth and where we are slipping backwards in 

the quality of education we afford our youth, and the quality of our workforce -

both lay and professionals - is deteriorating in comparison with other 

industrialized countries of this world. 

10 

Respectfully submitted, 

Arthur L. Burnett, Sr. 

National Executive Director 
799 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE Nw, SUITE 1150, WASHINGTON, DC 20425 

www.usccr.gov 

December 19,2012 

Dear Distinguished Senators: 

We write in our individual capacities as three members of the eight-member U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, 1 and not on behalf ofthe Commission as a whole, to offer a public 

comment in response to the Senate's recent hearing on "Ending the School to Prison Pipeline." 

The Commission recently published a report on the related topic of "School Discipline 

and Disparate Impact,,,2 which examines a U.S. Department of Education ("ED'') initiative 

intended to reduce racial disparities in discipline. During a day-long briefing on the topic, the 

Commission heard sworn testimony from five teachers, seven school administrators, and an ED 

representative. The Commission also solicited letters from school districts across the country 

about their responses to the ED initiative and published all replies received in our final report. 

The report also contains several statements representing the varied views of all eight members of 

the Commission, which discuss in greater depth both comments made at the briefing and 

scholarly research into disciplinary disparities. Copies of statements authored by two signatories 

to this letter (Todd Gaziano and Gail Heriot) that express constitutional, statutory, and policy 

concerns about the ED initiative are also attached to this letter. 

Thank you for your attention. You may send any questions to Commissioner Heriot's 

special assistant, Alison Schmauch Somin, at aschmauch@usccr.gov or (202-376-7671). 

Sincerely, 

Gail Heriot 

Commisioner 

Peter Kirsanow 

Commissioner 

/l./'//~ 

Todd Gaziano 

Commissioner 

1 The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency that makes appraisals of the laws and 

policies of the Federal Government with respect to discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws under 

the Constitution of the United States because of color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the 

administration of justice. 42 U.S.C. § \975(a). 

'United States Commission on Civil Rights (2012). Full text of the report can also be found online at 

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/School Discipline and Disparate Impact.pdf. 
800 

Statement and Rebuttal by Commissioner Gail Heriot 

On March 8, 20 10, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stood on the Edmund Pettus 

Bridge in Selma, Alabama. The occasion was the forty-fifth anniversary of the confrontation 

known as "Bloody Sunday" between peaceful civil rights demonstrators and state and local 

police. There he delivered an emotional address in which he declared that the previous 

administration had been guilty of a lack of vigilance in combating discrimination and promised 

that he would "reinvigorate civil rights enforcement." 

The emotion that Duncan felt was understandable in view of the site of his speech. But 

Duncan's words had the ring of a general rallying his troops to fight the last war. His strategy-a 

frontal attack on what he evidently regards as hidden race discrimination-bears little relation to 

the problems schools, especially schools that primarily serve minority children, actually face. 

Instead of promising to cut through the layers of bloated bureaucracy that smother innovative 

schools and teachers at all levels, he promised to use the Department of Education's bureaucracy 

to double down on schools. His Department of Education would be conducting "compliance 

reviews" and issuing "a series of guidance letters to school districts and postsecondary 

institutions that will address issues of fairness and equity." lOne media report later said that 

rather than "waiting for cases to come in the door," Duncan's Department of Education "plans to 

use data to go find [civil rights] problems.,,2 

Disciplinary actions will be a special concern in carrying out Secretary Duncan's vow to 

root out subtle discrimination and disparate impact. He told the crowd, "African-American 

students without disabilities are more than three times as likely to be expelled as their white 

peers" and "African-American students with disabilities are over twice as likely to be expelled or 

suspended as their white counterparts." The Department of Education's plan, which had been in 

the works well before his speech, is to keep schools under careful surveillance: "We will review 

whether districts and schools are disciplining students without regard to skin color. We will 

collect and monitor data on equity," he said. 

The danger should be obvious: What if an important reason African-American students 

were being disciplined more often than white or Asian students is that more African-American 

students were misbehaving? And what if the cost offailing to discipline those students primarily 

falls on their fellow African-American students who are trying to learn amid classroom disorder? 

Will unleashing the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights and its army oflawyers 

cause those schools to eliminate only that portion of the discipline gap (if any) that was the result 

of race discrimination? Or will schools react more heavy-handedly by tolerating more classroom 

disorder, thus making it more difficult for students who share the classroom with unruly students 

to learn? 

I Crossing the Next Bridge: Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks on the 45th Anniversary of "Bloody Sunday" at the 

Edmund Pettus Bridge, Selma, Alabama (March 8, 2010), available at http://www.ed,gov/news/speeches/crossingnext-bridge-secretary-arne-duncan's-remarks-45th-anniversarv-bloody-sunday-ed. 

'Paul Baskin, "Education Department Promises Push in Civil Rights Enforcement," The Chronicle of Higher 

Education, March 8, 2010, 
801 

There are two sides to the "disparate impact" coin. Secretary Duncan focuses only upon 

the fact that, as a group, African-American students are suspended and expelled more often than 

other students.3 By failing to consider the other side of the coin-that African-American 

students may be disproportionately victimized by disorderly classrooms-his policy could easily 

end up doing more harm than good to the very group he is attempting to help. 

There are many theories as to why some students misbehave in schools and others do not. 

While both misbehaving and model students come from every walk of life, no one should be 

3 In this respect, the controversy over disparate impact in school discipline may have parallels to the controversy 

over the death penalty. For many years, some opponents of the death penalty argued that it should be abolished 

because it has a disparate impact on African-American male offenders. According to Department of Justice figures, 

34.6% of all offenders executed between 1976 and 2011 were black, 6.87% were Hispanic and 56.6% were white. 

This constitutes an overrepresentation of blacks, who made up around 12% of the American population during that 

period. Such an overrepresentation may seem troubling until one learns that Department of Justice figures over that 

period also record that 52.2% of all homicide offenders are black. Indeed, some studies have found that if there is a 

problem with the death penalty, it is not that black offenders appear to be discriminated against; it is that black 

victims appear to be discriminated against. Most homicides are within race. According to Department of Justice 

statistics, 46.9% % of all homicide victims are black, yet only 14.2% of those executed for homicide killed black 

victims. Some empirical studies have attempted to explain this as the result of a lack of value placed upon black 

lives by prosecutors. See Theodore Eisenberg, Death Sentence Rates and County Demographics: An Empirical 

Study, 90 Cornell L. Rev. 347 (2004)(citing studies suggesting that it is black victims who are discriminated against 

and arguing instead that such murders may simply be more likely to take place in places dominated by voters who 

oppose the death penalty). Those who advocate more lenient school discipline (or just different methods of school 

discipline) mayor may not have a point, just as those who oppose the death penalty mayor may not have better 

arguments regarding the death penalty controversy. But insofar as they premise their argument on the supposed 

disparate impact of the policies they oppose, they must recognize that there is another side to the coin. Efforts to 

reduce the number of African-American offenders who are subject to the death penalty are likely to exacerbate the 

disparate impact on African-American victims, which in the view of many is just as bad if not more so. Ultimately, 

it is to be hoped that policy over the death penalty and over school discipline matters can be decided over 

considerations that transcend race, gender or ethnicity. 

, I agree with Commissioner Gaziano that Title VI simply does not pennit the Department of Education to proceed 

against schools on a disparate impact theory and that the Department's regulation nonetheless adopting that theory, 

34 C.F.R. sec. 100.3, is therefore unauthorized by law. It requires actual discrimination. See Section 601 (Title VI) 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000d (No person shall "on the ground of race, color, or national 

origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any 

program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance"). See also Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). 

I also agree with Commissioner Gaziano that the problem with disparate impact analysis is not simply that it goes 

beyond what Congress authorized in Title VI; it actually contradicts Title VI. If one group receives more school 

discipline than another because (for whatever reason) its members violated more school rules than the other, raceconscious efforts to alter the "disparate impact" are usually themselves discriminatory. 

Commissioner Yald makes it clear that he would like to see disparate impact analysis used more widely. 

He calls the "revival of disparate impact analysis in [Title VI] enforcement" a "particularly commendable" 

development-although at least in the draft of his statement that was made available to me, he did not attempt to 

explain why the law pennits the Department of Education to pursue such a legal strategy. Among the racial and 

ethnic disparities that he believes are in need of remedying are "a wide achievement gap, disparate dropout rates, 

and skewed placement in special education or gifted and talented programs." Commissioner Yaki is, of course, right 

to be concerned with these matters, which he concedes are not necessarily the result of "conscious discriminatory 

intent." I would add that discrimination, either conscious or unconscious, has very little to do with these problems 

or their solutions. The sooner that is recognized, the sooner the problems can be solved. 

2 
802 

surprised to learn that students from households below the poverty line tend to present more 

discipline challenges than others. Since according to the U.S. Census 27.4% of blacks live 

below the poverty line, while 26.6% of Hispanics, 9.9% of whites and 12.1 % of Asians do, one 

should not be astonished to find that racial groups are not disciplined at the same rates.5 

Similarly, though probably not unrelatedly, 72% of African American and 53% of Hispanic 

children are now being born outside of wedlock, as opposed to 29% of white and 17% of 

AsianlPacific Islander children. 6 Given that much research has found that children born outside 

of wedlock or living in single-parent households are more likely to engage in anti-social behavior 

than other children, it would be naive to expect rates of discipline to be equal across races? One 

5 To the contrary, if living below the poverty line were the sole detenninant of who misbehaves inside or outside of 

the classroom (which it is surely not), one would expect African American students to be disciplined at roughly 2 to 

3 times the rate for white students-which is exactly ",hat Secretary Duncan's figures showed. Non-Hispanic white 

and Asian households also have higher median incomes than black and Hispanic households. According to the 

Census Bureau, in 2010 non-Hispanic white households had a median income of $54,620 and Asian households 

$64,308; black households had a median income of $32,068 and Hispanic households $37,759. See U.S. Census 

Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage 2010. See also Ellen Brantlinger, Social Class 

Distinctions in Adolescents' Reports of Problems and Punishments in School, 17 Behavioral Disorders 36 (1991). 

6 Child Trends Data Bank, "Births to Unmarried Women," available at 

htip:llwww.childtrendsdatabank.orgl?q=node/196. 

7 See, e.g., William S. Comanor & Llad Phillips, The Impact ofIncome and Family Structure on Delinquency, J. 

App. Econ. 209 (2002); Susan C. Duncan, Terry E. Duncan, Lisa A. Strycker & Nigel R. Chaumeton, Relations 

Between Youth Antisocial and Prosocial Activities, 25 J. Behavioral Med. 425 (2002); Lela Renee McKnight & 

Ann Booker Loper, The Effects of Risk and Resilience Factors in the Prediction of Delinquency in Adolescent Girls, 

23 School Psychology Int'I 186 (2002); Amy L. Anderson, Individual and Contextual Influence on Delinquency: 

The Role of the Single Parent Family, 30 J. Crim. Justice 575 (2002); Stephen Demuth & Susan L. Brown, Family 

Structure, Family Processes and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental 

Gender, 41 J. Res. Crime & Delinquency 58 (2004); Todd Michael Franke, Adolescent Violent Behavior: An 

Analysis Across and within Racialffithnic Groups, 8 J. Multicultural Social Work 47 (2000); Marcia J. Carlson & 

Mary E. Corcoran, Family Structure and Children's Behavioral and Cognitive Outcomes, 63 J. Marriage & Family 

779 (2001). But see Mallie J. Paschall, et aI., Effects of Parenting, Father Absence, and Affiliation with Delinquent 

Peers on Delinquent Behavior Among African-American Male Adolescents, 38 Adolescence 15 (2003Xfinding no 

delinquency difference in a non-random sample of 260 African-American, adolescent males between those who 

reported living with a father or father figure and those who did not). 

One of the witnesses at our briefing, teacher Patrick Walsh, made it clear that it was his opinion that the racial 

disparities in discipline were largely the result of poverty and family structure and not related to race per se. He 

stated: "It's not the African American girls on their way to UVa or William & Mary [who disproportionately are 

disciplinary problems at school]; it's not the black girls from Ghana or Sierra Leone or Ethiopia who come here to 

live the American dream, but it's the black girls who are products of what Colbert King in a great article that 

everybody should read that was in the Post last Saturday called an inter-generational cycle of dysfunction. Girls 

who have no fathers in their homes, who often are born to teen mothers. They're a small group, but the fact is they 

cause enonnous problems in school ... and it's the same with the boys." Transcript at 26-27. Walsh openly 

acknowledged that this cycle of dysfunction likely had roots in a history of racial discrimination. He was not, 

however, optimistic that the disparity would disappear before "the problems of poverty and teen pregnancy and lack 

of fathers can be reduced or solved." rd. See Colbert I. King, Celebrating Black History as the Black Family 

Disintegrates, Washington Post (February 4, 201l)(the article to which Walsh was referring). 

Efforts to suggest that the differences in the rates of discrimination between blacks and whites are 

anomalous (in the sense that they cannot be accounted for in large part by factors such as socio-economic class or 

fatherless homes) tend to fall short of the mark. Consider, for example, Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide 

3 
803 

cannot infer race discrimination from the differing discipline rates. Indeed, given that schools 

with African-American principals and mainly African-American teachers are just as likel?' as 

schools with white principals and mainly white teachers to have a large "discipline gap," it is 

unlikely that anything other than differing rates of misbehavior contribute significantly to the 

differing rates of discipline. Those who claim to have demonstrated that discrimination and 

racism are at work are simply scandalmongering.9 

Study on How Schools Discipline Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement-a report issued 

by the Justice Center of the Council of State Governments and the Public Policy Research Institute of Texas A&M 

University. That study purports to find that even after 83 different variables (including a measure of economic 

disadvantage) are taken into account, African American students are still 31.1 % more likely than white students to 

have been the subject of discretionary disciplinary action in the 9th grade. The implication, at least to some readers, 

was that perhaps some teacher reports of misbehavior by African American students were false or misleading.' But 

the presence of both parents in the student's home was not taken into account. And the method used to control for 

economic disadvantage was rudimentary. Rather than control for household income, parents! educational attainment 

or other markers of socio-economic status, the study controlled only for whether the student is eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch or other public assistance. A binary classification system of this type does not convey the 

whole picture. It treats a student whose parents earns a penny more than the eligibility cut-off the same as a student 

whose parents are both wealthy, well-educated professionals. Similarly, it treats a student whose parents earn the 

maximum allowable for reduced-price lunch benefit ($40,793 for a family offour in 2010), because they are both 

attending graduate school, the same as a homeless child being shuffled from one shelter to another. It is not clear 

from the Texas A&M study that students of different races with truly similarly-situated family and socio-economic 

status will have differing rate of school discipline problems. Moreover, it is certainly not clear that the AfricanAmerican students (or the students of other races) looked at by the study had not committed the infractions for 

which they were disciplined or that they did not deserve to be disciplined in the particular way the school authorities 

chose to discipline them. 

8 Tony Fabelo, Michael D. Thompson, Martha Plotkin, Dottie Carmichael, Miner P. Marchbanks III and Eric A. 

Booth, Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study on How Schools Discipline Relates to Students' Success and 

Juvenile Justice Involvement (2011)("Texas A&M study"). See also Catherine P. Bradshaw, Mary M. Mitchell, 

Lindsey M. O'Brennan, Philip J. Leaf, Multilevel Exploration of Factors Contributing to the Overrepresentation of 

Black Students in Office Disciplinary Referrals, 102 J. Educ. Psych. 508 (2010). 

9 See, e.g., Russell Skiba, Robert H. Horner, Choong-Geun Chung, M. Karega Rausch, Seth L. May & Tary Tobin, 

Race Is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African American and Latino Disproportionality in School 

Discipline, 40 School Psych. Rev. 85 (201IX"Skiba-Horner"). Skiba-Horner purports to find that African-American 

students tend to be punished more harshly for the same general categories of behavior. But the actual data behind 

the study do not support such a finding. The authors readily admit that, in making their comparisons ,their data 

failed to take into consideration whether the student was in any way a repeat offender-a variable that they further 

admit "might well be expected to have a significant effect on administrative decisions regarding disciplinary 

consequences. Skiba-Horner at 103. But this is no hypothetical possibility. Elsewhere in the Skiba-Horner analysis 

they find that "students from African-American families are 2.19 (elementary) to 3. 78 (middle) times as likely to be 

referred for problem behavior as their White peers." Id. at 85. In other words, their own data point strongly in the 

direction that African-American students are in the aggregate much more Hkely to be repeat visitors to the 

principal's office. This is a study at war with itself. 

Skiba-Horner attempts and fails to draw support for its conclusion by citing a number of earHer studies. Consider, 

for example, "Student Suspension: A Critical Reappraisal," which Skiba-Horner describes as having found "no 

significant difference in [discipHnable] behavior between African-American and white students." See Shi-Chang 

Wu, William Pink, Robert Crain & Oliver Moles, Student Suspension: A Critical Reappraisal, 14 Urb. Rev. 245 

(1982). In that article, the authors asked both black and white students eight questions designed to determine 

whether their propensity for anti-social behavior such as "Would you cheat on a test (if you could get away with 

it)?" and do you agree or disagree or are you undecided about whether if "you want to get ahead, you can't always 

4 
804 

be honest?" They found that among students with similar answers, black students tend to get suspended more than 

white students. This, of course, is not the same thing as finding "no significant differences in behavior between 

African American and white students." First, there was no finding that African American and white students gave 

similar answers to the questions; the study did not make such a comparison and instead simply compared African 

American students to white students who gave similar answers. Second, even among students who gave similar 

answers, there is no reason to believe they engaged in the same level of bad behavior. If, for example, the average 

white student with a high number of anti-social answers had greater reason to believe he would be punished by his 

mother and father if he engaged in bad behavior at school and got caught than an equivalent African American 

student, the anti-social white student could be expected to behave better. (Indeed, one of the main problems with the 

Department of Education's policy is that it deprives minority students of the opportunity to develop the discipline 

they need to succeed-something that white, middle-class students will often adequately learn at home.) In short, 

Skiba-Homer was off-base for citing this article as evidence that African-American students engage in misbehavior 

at the same rates as white students. 

An earlier effort by the lead author in Skiba-Homer was similarly flawed. Russell J. Skiba, Robert S. Michael, Abra 

Carroll Nardo & Reece L. Peterson, The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in 

School Punishment, 34 Urb. Rev. 317 (2002)("Skiba-Michael"). It purports to provide evidence that part of the 

reason that African-American students in the middle schools in the school district under study get referred for 

discipline a little over twice as often as white students is race discrimination on the part of teachers. It does so by 

demonstrating that among students who are referredfor discipline, African-American students are proportionately 

more likely to be referred for "Disrespect," ~~Excessive Noise," "Threat," and '''Loitering,n while white students are 

proportionally more likely to be referred for "Smoking," "Left without Permission," "Vandalism," and "Obscene 

Language." Apparently, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportions on matters of 

"Fighting," "Endangering," "Conduct Interference," "Throw/Propel Objects," "Gambling," "Sexual Acts," 

~'Indecent Exposure," "Minor Offenses," uSpit," "Truancy," and a few unspecified reasons for discipline referral. 

Skiba-Michael at 332-333, Table 5. 

Note that this is emphatically not the same thing as a finding that white students actually commit or are referred for 

committing "Smoking," HLeft without Permission," "Vandalism," or "Obscene Language" more often than African~ 

American students. Given that African-American students are referred for discipline at rates more than twice that of 

white students, it may well be (indeed it may be likely) that the rate of African-American referrals for these 

behaviors is higher than the rate of white referrals across the board. Skiba-Michael studiously avoids presenting 

data on that point and instead argues that because a somewhat higher percentage of the total African-American 

referrals are for conduct that is subjective in nature (compared to the percentage of total white referrals for that kind 

of conduct), teachers are likely being harsh on African-American students on account of their race. 

Even if this were the most plausible explanation for the different proportions, it is unclear that it would explain more 

than a very small proportion of the overall differences in rates of referral. More important, however, it is not the 

most plausible explanation for the higher proportion of referrals for subjective misbehavior among AfricanAmerican students. Given that the overall rates of referrals for misbehavior are more than twice as high for AfricanAmerican students as for white students, the number of African-American students who are repeatedly referred for 

misbehavior is undoubtedly much higher. It is perfectly sensible for teachers to be quicker to refer students for 

"subjective misbehavior" if the student already has a track record of misbehavior. If the best behaved student in the 

class says something that could plausibly be interpreted either as a threat or as a lame joke, teachers may be inclined 

to give him the benefit of the doubt; if a student who attacked another student last week says the same thing, it is 

more than reasonable to interpret his behavior less favorably. 

I strongly suspect one would find similar results if one looked at the arrest and prosecution records of adult parolees. 

Those who have never been arrested or convicted of a crime normally they get the benefit of the doubt when it 

comes to misconduct that requires the police officers subjective judgment; parolees are less likely to. Consequently, 

the proportion of parolees who get prosecuted for offenses that might be viewed as subjectively defined would likely 

be higher than the proportion of first-time offenders who get prosecuted for such offenses. But that would be true 

regardless of the offender's race. Skiba-Michael has uncovered no evidence that one would not expect to find under 

5 
805 

I do not purport to know the best way to maintain discipline in the nation's classrooms or 

to cause students to adopt the self-discipline they will need to live happy and useful adult Iives.lO 

I strongly doubt that there is a "one size fits all" best way. That is why the Constitution does not 

confer upon the federal government the authority to set school discipline policy, and Congress 

does not even purport to confer such authority on the Department of Education. These are 

matters best left to individual schools and local school districts. As a nation, we are better off 

having a variety of approaches to school discipline in order to foster experimentation and 

adaptation to local needs. For the same reason, education policy in general is best left to 

individual schools and local school districts. I1 

It is not, therefore, my intention to take sides in the general debate over whether 

suspension and expulsion rates are too high or whether more effective alternatives to current 

disciplinary policies can be found. 12 It may well be true, for example, as critics of current 

well-functioning school discipline policy where it happens to be the case that African-American students misbehave 

at higher rates than white students. The authors' conclusions to the contrary are unwarranted. 

10 A sometimes spirited debate over general school discipline policy has been going on for over a century. On the 

one hand, there is the Progressive view mostly closely associated with John Dewey who argued that strong 

disciplinary methods only served "to cow the spirit, to subdue inclination" and to foster "indifference and aversion" 

to schools. John Dewey, On Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education 129 

(1916). On the other, there are conservatives who argue that Progressive methods have been a disservice to 

students, especially those born into family environments that fail to instill self-discipline into each new generation. 

See, e.g., Jackson Toby, The Schools in Crime (James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia, eds. 1995). See also Gerald 

Grant, The World We Created at Hamilton High (1988). It is unnecessary forme to weigh in on that debate in order 

to make the points that (1) classrooms must be reasonably orderly in order for students to learn; (2) it is not the 

federal government's responsibility to decide what sort of discipline policy will best promote that orderliness or 

even what level of orderliness is to be sought; and (3) issues of race should not drive the debate. 

11 Indeed, one can go somewhat further: Even if one size could potentially fit all, it would be hard to know what that 

size is. The success of education policy, including discipline policy, is something that is hard to measure. In the 

short run, it is very difficult to tell what is working and what is not, and sometimes even in the long run, separating 

good practices from bad can be tough. As a consequence, education is prone to fads and fashions, not all of which 

have turned out to be in the best interests of students. A good example is the New Math. See Morris Kline, Why 

Johnny Can't Add: The Failure of the New Math (1973). Similarly, a debate raged for some time between 

advocates of the phonetic approach to literacy and those who favor the "sight-word" or "whole language" approach. 

It is doubtful that the last word has been written on this topic. Let us hope that the nation's children will be able to 

read it when it comes. See Rudolph Flesch, Why Johnny Can't Read-And What You Can Do About It (1955); 

Marilyn Jager Adams, Learning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print (1990). In the end, the best defense 

against the risk created by faddishness is a decentralized system of decision-making about education. Schools that 

march in lockstep have been known collectively to march off a cliff. 

12 One issue I am willing to take a stand on is the gross misuse of statistics. In their draft statement provided to me, 

Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki wrote, "One thing is painfully clear about the disparate state of school 

discipline imposed on students of color: it creates a highway from the schoolhouse to the jailhouse." In their view, 

a student who receives "disproportionate discipline" is "more likely to drop out of school." Draft Statement of 

Chairman Martin R. Castro and Commissioners Roberta Achtenberg and Michael Yaki at 7. The theory that African 

Americans are dropping out or turning to crime because they have been disciplined by schools is a fashionable one 

these days. Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki appear to be committed to it. See id. at 6 ("Studies have 

shown that students suspended in 6th grade are far more likely to be suspended again and research indicates that 

suspensions and expulsions are, in tum, correlated to an increased risk of dropping out. A research study has also 

6 
806 

practices argue, that because suspensions take misbehaving students out of the classroom, they 

have the effect of putting those students further behind their peers. 13 This is part of the price that 

has been paid for eliminating corporal punishment in most states and in severely limiting the use 

of "staying after school" as a method of dealing with student misbehavior. 14 Whatever the other 

virtues and/or vices of these approaches to instilling discipline in children, they did not have the 

effect of removing them from instruction for significant periods of time.ls 

shown that students who are suspended three or more times by the end of their sophomore year of high school are 

five times more likely to drop out or graduate later than students who had never been suspended"X citations 

omitted). But their theory runs headlong into Occam's Razor. A far simpler theory is that students who tend to 

misbehave when they are younger also tend to misbehave when they are older. The only thing that is "painfully 

c1ear~' is that the correlation Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki cite does not prove causation. 

13 Commissioner Yaki also complains that too many students are being arrested for offenses that are best dealt with 

outside the criminal process. Draft Statement of Commissioner Yaki at 1. He may be well be right. See, e.g., 

Kathryne Solove, Student Arrested for Burping During Class, ABC News (December 2, 2011). But a large part of 

the reason that too many trivial incidents are being treated as criminal matters is that school districts are hiring 

police officers (known as school resource officers ("SROs"» to patrol school hallways rather than relying on 

traditional school administrators to keep order. Problems are inevitably defined by the tools we use to deal with 

them. If police officers are hired to deal with school discipline issues, the issues will be viewed as criminal. In turn, 

the reason so many school districts hire police officers to keep order is the COPS in Schools program, which is 

funded through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322 (1994). COPS in 

Schools provides up to $125,000 per officer per year for three years to schools willing to hire such officers. 

This is not a race problem. It won't be cured by the "revival of disparate impact analysis" that Commissioner Yaki 

lauds. Draft Statement of Commissioner Yaki at 1. The way to stop the problem is for Congress to terminate the 

COPS in Schools program and for school districts to return to relying on more traditional school administrators 

focusing on discipline. Of course, that may not be as easy as it sounds. Once a program and the jobs that go with it 

are in place, it is devilishly difficult to get rid of them. That is why government should think twice and then twice 

again before creating a program. I note that the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was the 

brainchild of now-Vice President Joseph Biden and was a thoroughly bipartisan effort from start to finish. These are 

the kinds of programs that can cause the greatest problems. Nobody on either end of the political spectrum thinks 

them through until it is too late. If it becomes clear that they are not working well, the solutions offered (e.g. by 

Commissioner Yaki) consist of yet more federal intervention. At some point, it would be helpful for federal 

authorities to stop thinking of themselves as the solution to every local problem and thus to stop the cycle. 

14 These are not the only ways in which the art of maintaining order in the classroom and of helping students to 

internalize self-discipline has had to change with the times. At one point, teachers were encouraged to have one-onone relationships with their students. These days, teachers are discouraged from being in the same room alone with 

a student on account of concerns over sexual harassment and sexual harassment laws. 

IS Many schools apparently take the position that without parental consent they cannot keep a student after school. 

It is not clear to me why the state has the authority to compel a student to attend school during regular school hours, 

but has no authority to compel a misbehaving student to spend an hour or two after school unless the school has 

cleared this with the student's parents. Of course, that authority should only be exercised in a reasonable manner. 

Working out a model procedure that would permit this seems to me like a more useful project than Secretary 

Duncan's effort to force the problem into a "race discrimination" paradigm. This is a surmountable problem. 

Student who are sent home are more likely to fall further behind in school and to get into trouble than students who 

are kept after school. That is true regardless ofthe race of the students who are suspended or expelled. 

7 
807 

Rather than try to resolve all questions of school discipline policy,16 I will stick to two 

points that should be obvious, but which seem to have gotten lost in this debate. 

First, in general, disorderly students mean disorderly classrooms. And disorderly 

classrooms make learning less likely to occur-something that both teachers and students 

recognize. 17 The problem may be significant in many places, but it is particularly acute in innercity schools and other low-income areas.18 An alticle in the San Francisco Chronic/e, entitled 

"Students Offer Educators Easy Fixes for Combating Failure," had this to say on the topic: 

16 Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yald argue that zero-tolerance policies have contributed to the high 

number of suspensions and expulsions of minority students and !hat these policies should be reined in. By removing 

discretion from teachers, principals and other school authorities, such policies are designed to prevent 

discrimination, not promote it. Zero-tolerance policies can therefore sometimes be good policies. But no one can 

accuse me of being a fan of over~the-top zero-tolerance policies that are practiced in schools today. It is important, 

however, not to forget that many schools enacted zero tolerance policies at least in part due to federal pressure. See 

the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208.) 

When the Department of Education issued its policy declaring that school districts that don't control sexual 

harassment would face stiff consequences, school districts understandably adopted policies designed to remove 

discretion from teachers and principals. See 6-Year-Old Boy Accused of Sexual Harassment, WSPA-7-0n-YourSide (April 4, 2008); Yvonne Bynoe, Is that 4-Year-Old Really a Sex Offender?, The Washington Post (Oct. 21, 

2007); Scott Michels, Boys Face Sex Trial for Slapping Girls' Posteriors, ABC News (July 24, 2007); Gitika Ahuja, 

First-Grader Suspended for Sexual Harassment: Boy's Mother Says He's Too Young to Even Understand the 

Accusation, ABC News (February 9, 2006). These incidents were not isolated. According to the Maryland 

Departtnent of Education, 166 elementary school students were suspended in the 2007-2008 school year for sexual 

harassment, including three pre-schoolers, 16 kindergarteners and 22 first graders. In Virginia, 255 elementary 

students were suspended for offensive sexual touching in that same year. Juju Chang, Alisha Davis, Cole Kazdin 

and Olivia Stems, First-Grader Labeled a Sexual Harasser: Has Zero-Tolerance for Sexual Harassment in Schools 

Gone Too Far?, ABC News (Feb. 19,2009). And if over forty Maryland pre-schoolers, kindergarteners and firstgraders have been suspended for sexual harassment, can you imagine how many middle and high school students 

have been suspended for antics, real or imagined, that they never should have been suspended for? Schools cannot 

afford to be found out of compliance by the Department of Education or liable to a private litigant (who might use 

the failure to discipline any sexually harassing student as evidence of indifference). I fully expect the Departtnent of 

Education's new policy on bullying will result in similar zero-tolerance rules. Things are thus likely to get worse 

rather than better. That, of course, brings me back to Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki. They have 

vigorously supported the Departtnent of Education's new bullying policy. See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

Peer-to-Peer Violence and Bullying: Examining the Federal Response 90, 100, 214 (2011). Their enthusiasm for 

the Departtnent of Education's sexual harassment policy appears to be no less vigorous. See id. But their support 

for these policies cannot be easily squared with their concern over zero-tolerance rules. The latter is !he result of 

those policies. 

17 All of the teachers who testified before !he Commission were in substantial agreement on this point. See, e.g., 

Statement of Louise Seng at 36; Transcript at 26 (patrick Walsh testiJying); Transcript at 115 (Principal Suzanne 

Mackey stating that schools slide into chaos without enough discipline). 

I' Is it possible to overstate the degree to which classroom disorder is affecting middle- and high-income areas? Of 

course it is, and some people have. One careful scholar-New York University professor of sociology and 

education Richard Arum-reports that there is "little evidence supporting the contention that the level of disorder 

and violence in public schools has [generally I reached pandemic proportions." But, he writes, it is "indeed the case 

in certain urban public schools," various factors have combined "to create school environments that are particularly 

chaotic, if not themselves crime producing." Unless the problem is solved, students in these schools will continue to 

be shortchanged in their education. See Richard Arum, Judging School Discipline: The Crisis of Moral Authority 2 

8 
808 

Thousands of learned men and women gathered in Sacramento 

this week to chew over the vexing question of why black and 

Latino students often do poorly in school, someone had a fresh 

idea: Ask the students. 

So they did. Seven struggling students - black, brown and white -

spent an hour Wednesday at the Sacramento Convention Center 

telling professional educators what works and doesn't work in their 

schools. It was the only one of 125 panels at the two-day 

Achievement Gap Summit convened by state schools chief Jack 

O'Connell where students had their say. 

"If the room is quiet, I can work better - but it's not gonna happen," 

said Nyrysha Belion, a 16-year-old junior at Mather Youth 

Academy in Sacramento County, a school for students referred for 

problems ranging from truancy to probation. 

She was answering a question posed by a moderator: "What works 

best for you at school to help you succeed?" 

Simple, elusive quiet. 

Nyrysha said if she wants to hear her teacher, she has to move 

away from the other students. "Half our teachers don't like to talk 

because no one listens." 

The others agreed. "That's what made me mess up in myoid 

school - all the distractions," said Imani Urquhart, 17, a senior who 

now attends Pacific High continuation school in the North 

Highlands suburb ofSacramento.,,19 

(2003). This underlines my earlier point that Secretary Duncan's efforts may disproportionately harm the very 

students he is attempting to help. 

19 Natasha Asimov, "Students offer educators easy fixes for combating failure," The San Francisco Chronic/e, 

November 15,2007. These students' stories match up well with complaints that students gave in response to a 1998 

study, entitled "Strategies to Keep Schools Safe." "Some of my classes are really rowdy," a student from Seattle told 

the researchers;"and it's hard to concentrate." "They just are loud and disrupting the whole class," a student from 

Chicago similarly said about some of her classmates. "The teacher is not able to teach. This is the real ignorant 

people." Sasha Volokh and Lisa Snell, "Strategies to Keep Schools Safe," Policy Study No. 234, January 1998, 

available at http://reason.org/filesl60b57eac352e529771 bfa27d7d736d3f.pdf. 

This point was also brought home in an unusual manner at the Commission's briefing during a discussion about the 

effectiveness of detentions as a punishment. "The irony is that they [unruly studentsllilce the detentions," teacher 

Allen Zollman testified. "The detentions are a haven of tranquility apart from the mayhem that's going on in the 

schoo!.. .. I think they're behaving just badly enough to earn the detention." (Emphasis supplied.) Teacher Louise 

Seng also said she agreed with Zollman's remarks. Transcript at 52. Seng retired in 2006 from teaching at HarrisonMorton Middle School in Allentown, Pennsylvania, a majority-minority school where many students carne from 

9 
809 

Second, viewing the issue through the prism of race and poring over school discipline 

data in search of disparate impact is likely to create more heat than light. School districts don't 

need one discipline policy for African-American and another for white students and still others 

for Hispanic and for Asian-American students. They need one fair and effective policy that 

applies to everyone, letting the chips fall where they may. If schools should be modifying their 

discipline policies, it should not be because there are more students of one race than of another 

that are misbehaving in school. It should be because they have made a sincere judgment-free 

from federal coercion-that it is in the best interests of their students that they do SO.20 Given 

that federal law confers no authority upon the Department of Education's to formulate general 

discipline policy, it should play no role in the formulation of that policy. 

Real racial discrimination--or "disparate treatment," the rather bloodless term now in 

vogue--is another matter. There is no question that if a school were to administer discipline one 

way for misbehaving white students and another way for similarly misbehaving AfricanAmerican students on account of their race, that would be a violation of Title VI, which the 

poor backgrounds. Seng testified at our briefing that she was not then aware of efforts at Harrison-Morton or other 

majority-minority Allentown schools to lower disparities in discipline, but that she thought that any such efforts 

would have a negative effect on classrooms. An article in the Allentown Morning Call published eight months after 

Seng gave her testimony -Steve Esack, "Teachers Say Discipline Code Giving Students Upper Hand," The 

Morning Call, October 7, 2011- indicates that Seng's concerns may have been warranted. According to the article, 

Allentown recently adopted a new code of conduct that makes it more difficult for teachers to suspend students. A 

month after the new policy went into effect, teachers told The Morning Call that they believed that under the new 

policy, "students have the upper hand." See also Steve Esack, Parent Says Behavior at Allen High Out of Control, 

The Morning Call, October 13, 2011 ("Bathrooms are unsafe and trashed, detentions get ignored, study halls are a 

zoo, and school was dismissed 10 minutes early, without parental notification, last Wednesday to quell a potential 

gang fight with bricks and bats, [parent Karen Santone 1 said."). 

Two months later, the Morning Call reported that in the view of teachers and city residents "a culture of defiance" 

had set in at area schools." HSome have worried," it wrote, "that the district's staff cuts and a new discipline code, 

which seeks to reduce school suspensions so students don't miss class have contributed to the outpouring of 

incidents both on and off school grounds." Devon Lash & Steve Esack, Allentown School District Pays for Extra 

Police Coverage, The Morning Call, December 21, 2011. 

These articles do not mention racial disparities as impetus for this new policy. Nor do they mention the Department 

of Education's new initiative. But they do mention that the new approach in Allentown is rooted in Positive 

Behavioral Interventions and Supports, a popular decision-making framework that many of the school districts at 

our briefing said that they are using to try to curb disciplinary disparities. It would not be surprising if Allentown 

adopted the PBIS program at least in part as a response to the Department of Education's initiative. 

20 It is interesting to note that last month the Department of Education released a pair of guidances---{)ne for colleges 

and universities and another for elementary and secondary schools--instructing them on when and how they can 

give preferential treatment to minority students in admission in order to produce a racially diverse class. In those 

documents, the Department emphasized that the Supreme Court was willing to defer to their academic judgment that 

diversity is a compelling purpose. It seems odd that the Supreme Court would defer to school in a case involving 

actual intent to discriminate on the basis of race, while the Department of Education is unwilling to defer to the same 

school's academic judgment on what disciplinary policies are best. It is the former that involves actual race 

discrimination and hence raises serious equal protection issues, while the latter involves only racial disparate impact 

with no suggestion, much less proof, that any student is being treated differently on account of race. 

10 
810 

Department of Education has some responsibility for enforcing.2l Similarly, if a school were to 

administer discipline to misbehaving students whose victims were Hispanic differently from the 

way it would have administered it if the victims had been Asian, that would be a violation of the 

law. Of course, ordinarily school administrators and school district administrators know to take 

action when discrimination of that kind occurs without any prodding from the Department of 

Education. The country has changed a lot since Bloody Sunday. But there have been serious 

lapses even in recent years.22 When administrators fail to act, school boards have a 

responsibility to act, and when they fail, state education or civil rights authorities should do so. 

When these institutions default, the federal government has a responsibility to act. 

But Secretary Duncan's policy has little to do with allegations of actual discrimination. 

His program is to sift through data looking for evidence of disparate impact. If he does so, he is 

almost certain to find it. Indeed, ifhe were to sift through data looking for disparate impact of 

discipline policies on boys vs. girls or Japanese Americans vs. Vietnamese Americans, he is 

almost certain to find that too. Secretary Duncan does not explain why he regards higher rates of 

discipline referrals for African-American over white students to be a problem and not higher 

rates of boys over girls or whites over Asians. Middle-school students are more likely to be 

disciplined for bullying (or victimized by bullying) than are elementary or high school students. 

But if my observations as a middle-school student from 1969 to 1971 are any guide, it is because 

more middle-school students are bullies, not because of age discrimination. Disparate impact is 

not the same as actual discrimination, and it would difficult to find any education policy or 

practice that has no disparate impact based on race, national origin, gender, or some other 

protected classification. Seating students in alphabetical order has a disparate impact on Chinese 

21 For public schools, such discrimination would also be a violation of the Constitution. See U.S. Con st. amend. xiv. 

22 See, e.g., O.W. Miller III, Asian Students Under Assault: Seeking Refuge from School Violence, Philadelphia 

Weekly (September 1, 2009)(detailing allegations that Asian students in inner city Philadelphia high schools had 

been subject to racially-motivated, student-initiated violence about which high school administrators did little or 

nothing); Asha Beh, Attacks Against Asian Students Prompt Private Meeting, NBC Philadelphia (December 14, 

2009)("The students-and adult advocates-daimed that staff allowed this to happen on their watch and added 

taunts of their own"). In this case, both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Pennsylvania Human Relations 

Commission eventually stepped in. See Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Philadelphia School District 

on Anti-Asian Harassment, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in the News (December 15, 2010). 

Not all federal investigations into allegations of actual discrimination involve incidents of equal gravity. In response 

to a document request from the Commission, the Department of Education turned over correspondence with school 

districts regarding both disparate treatment and disparate impact discipline complaints that the Department had 

investigated within the last few years. One such letter, for example, contained an allegation that a Chicago Public 

Schools teacher discriminated against a student on the basis of race by "not giving Student A a glue stick for an inclass assignment, and then punishing the student by making him stay after class when he could not complete the inclass assignment because he did not get a glue stick." Letter from Don Ray Pollar of the Office for Civil Rights to 

Arne Duncan, Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, Re: OCR Docket 058 I 103 (July 15, 2008). After an 

investigation, the Department of Education concluded that there was insufficient evidence of discrimination to take 

further enforcement action. It is not clear to me that this investigation was a good use of the Department of 

Education's scarce resources, and it is tempting to wonder what the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention 

in Philadelphia would have thought about the modern reach of the federal government they had created. At least one 

can say, however, that the Department had received an actual complaint from someone who felt the student had been 

discriminated against on account of his race. 

11 
811 

Americans, since they have a disproportionate number of surnames beginning with the letters W, 

X, YandZ. 

No doubt Secretary Duncan would argue that his discipline initiative will not assume that 

all disparate impact is a violation of Title VI. Only that part ofa school district's discipline gap 

that cannot be explained and justified by the school district will form the basis of a finding of 

non-compliance with Title VI. But this reflects a lack of understanding of the nature of 

bureaucracy, the kinds of situations for which it is useful and the kinds of situations where it 

ordinarily does more harm than good. 

The edicts of bureaucracies are usually devoid of nuance by the time they reach the foot 

soldiers on the ground (in this case, classroom teachers). "Don't do X unless you have a good 

reason to do X" is naturally understood by school district administrators as "Don't do X unless 

you are confident that you can persuade some future federal investigator whose judgment you 

have no reason to trust that you had good reason to do X." In turn, this is communicated to 

principals as "Don't do X unless you jump through the following time-consuming procedural 

hoops designed to document to the satisfaction of federal investigators whose judgment you have 

no reason to trust that you had good reason to do X." Finally, this is communicated to the 

teacher as simply "Don't do X; it will only get us in trouble.,,23 

23 Teacher Allen Zollman testified that teachers in his school district already have to fill out a three-page form 

showing that they have exhausted all reasonable alternatives before finally referring a disruptive student to the 

principal's office: 

Before the student can be removed and placed in 'time out', the teacher must 

prepare a disciplinary referral-what many of us used to call a 'pink slip'. This 

is a two-page form with space for three offenses-not just one-and a checklist 

of measures taken by the teacher before issuing this referral. These measures 

include a private conference with the student, a change of seat location, a lunch 

time or after-school detention, or a phone call to a parent. Sometimes the 

foregoing strategies are effective, but often they are not. What is important to 

note here is that in order to get a disciplinary referral for disruption in my 

school, there must be three infractions and they must be documented in writing 

BEFORE the student can be removed from the classroom. 

All of this comes at a real cost: the need for documentation makes it harder to teachers to discipline students at the 

moment of the disruption, rather than days or weeks after the fact. Meanwhile, other students must suffer while the 

disruptive behavior continues: 

[Flor mere disruption, it is no simple thing to have a student removed at the 

time of the disruptive behavior. This means that for extended periods of time, it 

can happen that very little teaching and learning will take place in a given 

classroom ... [T]he need to build up a case to refer a misbehaving student and 

then wait for action at a higher level leaves me dealing with the problem myself 

for a while or, more often, persuades me to let things continue as they are 

without issuing a referral, in other words, teach through chaos. Indeed, because 

of behavior problems, there are times when very little teaching or learning takes 

place. 

In such an environment, students see few meaningful consequences for their 

actions, so they not only continue to misbehave but the behaviors get more 

12 
812 

Effectively administering school discipline is an enterprise that requires attention to the 

individual situation. This cannot be done well by distant bureaucracies.24 It must be done by the 

actual principals and teachers, under the supervision of local school district administrators and 

school boards. And the Department of Education's policy makes their effectiveness less Iikely.25 

brazen, with more and more students joining in the fun, until even the quoteunquote 'good' kids are acting out. They often become cynical, reminding 

teachers that nothing will happen to them. 

Jamie Frank offered a similar account of the problems with overly bureaucratic discipline in her 

school: 

You have to contact - we have a computer form where you have to check off the 

same thing. Three times you have to contact the parent before you can send 

them to the administrator, and then once it's at the administrative level you don't 

know what's going to happen to that child. You refer the child and it's up to the 

administration to determine what's going to happen. It's most likely that that 

child will be back in school if they are a minority student, ifthey are a minority. 

Transcript at 50. 

Ms. Frank drew the same lesson as Mr. Zollman about how bureaucracy leads to lenience, which in tum leads to 

disorder: lack of discipline "sends the message that nothing's really going to happen to these students." A typical 

student will think to herself, "In do the same thing, in misbehave again, nothing will really happen." 

2. The abundance of statistical information collected to assist federal and state authorities in setting disciplinary 

policy often obscures more than it illuminates, thus underlining the need for local control. For example, one muchcited report conducted by UCLA's Civil Rights Project and the University of Colorado's National Education Policy 

Center reports data showing African-American first-time offenders are suspended for dress code violations more 

often than their white counterparts. It does not appear to have taken into consideration that not all dress code 

violations are equal. A student who is suspended for wearing prohibited street gang colors or insignia is not the 

same as a student who is told to put on a sweater and given a warning for wearing a blouse that is too revealing. See 

Daniel J. Losen, Discipline Policies, Successful Schools and Racial Jw;tice (20 II). The only way to do justice is to 

pay close attention to the particular facts of each case. That simply cannot be done well at the federal level. 

25 Commissioner Kladney argues that the evidence presented at our briefing that "paperwork requirements 

interfered with [teachers'] ability to mete out discipline in the classrooms orwould result in no disciplinary actions 

being taken" is merely "anecdotal." "Relying on anecdotal evidence that teachers will not discipline students, 

because there is paperwork involved is wrong," he wrote. Draft Statement of Commissioner Kladney at 3. 

There are several responses to that argument To begin with, as David Hume once observed, the level of 

evidence necessary to persuade a reasonable person of the truth of a claim must be proportional to the claim. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims ... not so much. See David Hume, An 

Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding 114-16 (1748). 

No claim can be any more ordinary than "if you place costs on a particular human activity, you will get less 

of it; similarly, if you reward that conduct, you will get more of it." School disciplinary policies are themselves built 

on the widespread conviction that punishing bad behavior will result in students' doing less of it. The same thing is 

true applied to teachers. If you make teachers jump through procedural hoops before they can impose discipline, 

they will be less likely to impose that discipline. Indeed, the very purpose of Secretary Duncan's discipline 

initiative is to reduce the level of discipline currently administered to minority students, and the school districts that 

13 
813 

If the local authorities had been engaging in a pattern of resistance to the Constitution or 

federal authority, the situation might well benefit from the intervention of federal authorities 

despite the lack of nuance that such an intervention would inevitably entail.26 But such situations 

are rare. Far more common, however, are the day-to-day situations that require discretion on the 

part of those closest to the situation. 27 Outside of cases in which there is credible evidence that a 

student has been treated differently in a disciplinary matter on account of his race or ethnicitywhich should, of course, receive attention from local authorities and (sometimes, if necessary) 

I have discussed infra at _ h.ve adopted th.t purpose. It seems strange and naIve to take the position that it will 

be ineffective in its aim. 

But just in case someone does want more outside evidence (in addition to that provided by sworn testimony of our 

panel of teacher witnesses) that bureaucratic procedures slow down and ultimately reduce activity in the school 

discipline context, there is plenty of it. Nationwide, 70% of public middle- and high-school teachers told pollsters in 

2004 that "[r)educ[ing) the paperwork & formal documentation required to take disciplinary action would either be a 

"very effective" or '~somewhat effective" solution to the discipline and behavior problems found in the nation '5 

public schools. This poll was conducted by Public Agenda, an organization dedicated to research on public policy 

issues founded by Carter Administration Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and the well-respected pollster Daniel 

Yankelovich. The Public Agenda, Teaching Interrupted: Do Discipline Policies in Today's Public Schools Foster 

the Common Good? 38 (2004). It was not the respondents' favorite way to deal with the problem, but it garnered a 

very strong majority of teachers. The two favorites-garnering 94% support each- were (I)"Find ways to hold 

parents more accountable for their kids when they misbehave in school," and (2) "Treat special education students 

who misbehave just like other students-unless their misbehavior is related to their disability." These methods are, 

of course, also at odds with the Department of Education's school discipline initiative. Sadly, given the legal 

environment in which schools must operate, these teachers did not seem to agree that the paperwork requirements in 

effect then were unnecessary. But a strong majority (57%) ofthose of those answering the question on these 

requirements said they go "beyond common sense" and "mostly exist to protect the schools for parental or legal 

challenges." See also Richard Arum, Judging School Discipline: The Crisis of Moral Authority (2003). 

An additional troubling aspect of Commissioner Kladney's arguments is that it appears to place the burden 

of persuasion on the wrong side. Commissioner Kladney is defending a new policy that essentially wrests the power 

to control discipline from local hands and places it in federal hands. While "radical" is • much overused word. it is 

one that may be fairly be applied here. If the Department of Education can use its clout to require local schools to 

justify their discipline policies because of their disparate racial impact, then it can use that clout to require local 

schools to justify all their policies and decisions, since all policies have a disparate impact on some racial, national 

origin, gender, or disability group. See supra at II (pointing out that seating students alphabetically has a disparate 

impact on Chinese Americans, since. disproportionate number of Chinese surnames begin with the last four letters 

of the alphabet). In public policymaking, incomplete evidence is the rule, not the exception. It is part of the human 

condition. As a result, citizens ordinarily require the advocates of new initiatives to carry the burden of persuasion. 

To be adopted, an initiative should affirmatively be a good idea. It is insufficient to say, "I support this policy, 

because its opponents have not proven to my satisfaction that it is bad." 

26 See, e.g., Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 (1964). 

27 The tragedy of such policies, of course, is that there was no reason to believe the classroom teacher's judgment 

was in any way inferior to the federal investigator's concerning when it is appropriate or inappropriate to do X. Left 

to her own devices, she probably would have acted in a way the Department of Education would have approved of 

most of the time. Indeed, given the fact that she is there on the ground and hence privy to all the facts, she is likely 

to get it right more often than the federal investigator. But in the overly bureaucratized world of education, her 

judgment is discounted. Her role is reduced. 

14 
814 

from state and federal authorities-Secretary Duncan's initiative is likely to do more harm than 

good. 28 

Meanwhile, there is already evidence that the DeJ'artment of Education's discipline 

policy may be pushing schools in a troubling direction.2 Consider, for example, the Tucson 

Unified School District plan under which teachers and principals are expected to "striv[ e 1 for no 

ethnic/racial disparities.,,3o Elaborate procedures were set out requiring an "Equity Team" to 

28 Dr. Richard Arum has argued that the legal movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s toward greater students' 

rights (characterized by cases like Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975» has had a significant and not altogether 

salutary effect on schools across the country. 

"Educational litigation increased dramatically during the late 1960s and early 1970s~ a period we will tenn 

the student rights contestation period. While the volume of litigation has subsequently stabilized or 

moderately declined, both the threat of legal challenges to school authority and the effects of litigation on 

school practices remain." 

Richard Arum, Judging School Discipline; The Crisis of Moral Authority 5 (2003). 

According to Arum, "[tloday's schools inherit from that period a historical legacy" in which (I) "students 

have developed a sense of legal entitlement" that "has produced skepticism about the legitimacy of school 

disciplinary practices as well as a general familiarity with resorting to legal avenues to contest such practices"; and 

(2) schools have responded by "forms, practices, and cultures-including wide-spread normative taken-for-granted 

assumptions about the necessity of organizing school discipline in particular ways" that are not necessarily in the 

best interests of students. 

I don't know if Dr. Arum is correct. But if he is right, he has demonstrated that a small government 

agency can have a significant and deleterious effect on the discipline culture of schools across the country. He 

convincingly demonstrates that "the major institutional actor advancing legal challenges to public school 

disciplinary practices" during the late 1960s and early 1970s "was the Legal Services Program established by the 

Office of Economic Opportunity." Id. at 8. "In 1967, the OEO Legal Services Program ... employed nearly \,200 

lawyers; by 1972, the program ... employed over 2,000 lawyers." According to Arum, by 1972, these lawyers spent 

7.7% of their time challenging educational practices. Id. at 9. Let us hope that history is not repeating itself with a 

federal agency-this time the Department of Education-again having a significant and deleterious effect on 

discipline culture. See also Gerald Grant, The World We Created at Hamilton High (I988)(providing evidence for 

Dr. Arum's thesis at a New York high school). 

29 A typical school district receives eight percent of its funding from the federal government. See the U.S. 

Department of Education, 10 Facts About Education, available at 

httP;llwww2.ed.gov/about/overview/fediIOfacts/index.htrnl. In a district with many high poverty schools eligible 

for grants under Title I, the percentage of its budget coming from the federal government is likely to be even higher. 

See, e.g., Marty Strange, "Rural schools lose in funding formula," May 21, 2010, available at 

htlp;llwww.dailyyonder.com/rural-school-lose-funding-fonnuialZ010/05/10/2738 (a brief account of how the Title I 

funding formula works and why inner-city schools are disproportionately likely to fare well under it). 

No superintendent is eager to tell parents and teachers that she will be forced to cut her district's budget by eight 

percent or more next year. The Department of Education never need come close to actually revoking federal dollars; 

the mere possibility that such a funding cut could befall a district is often enough to send local administrators 

scurrying to do the federal government's bidding. 

30 Tucson Unified School District Governing Board, Post-Unitary Status Plan 25 (July 30,2009). 

15 
815 

ensure "social justice for all students" in discipline matters. The plan specifically sets out as its 

"goal" that the district "will reduce the disproportionate number of suspensions of African 

American and Hispanic students." (Italics added.) It states that one of "the expected outcomes" 

of the implementation of its new procedures, which includes a requirement that all long-term 

suspensions be reviewed by the "Director of Student Equity," will be a decline in out-of-school 

suspensions "especially with regard to African American and Hispanic students." 31 

The Tucson Unified School District does not state why it believes that greater attention to 

fairness in discipline will yield a reduction in suspensions "especially with regard to African 

American ahd Hispanic students." Perhaps it is supposed to be taken on faith. If, however, in 

moving towards its goal and expected outcome, the school district ends up consciously or 

unconsciously doing exactly what the law forbids--doling out discipline on the basis of a 

student's race or ethnicity-it will be in violation of the law, not in some sort of heightened 

compliance with it owing to its efforts to respond to disparate impact. This policy was likely 

adopted at least in part as a result of the belief that the Department of Education would regard its 

racial disparities in discipline to be evidence of a violation of Title VI. 

Dr. Hertica Martin, Executive Director for Elementary and Secondary Educations of the 

Rochester Public Schools in Olmstead County, Minnesota, testified both in person and in 

response to our inquiries by letter. She stated in her letter: 

As a result of analyzing our discipline data and the disproportionalities which 

exist, our schools have implemented a number of strategies ... to decrease the 

number of referrals for our black and brown students. The implementation of 

these strategies has resulted in a decrease of363 suspensions and expulsions from 

2007-2008 to 2009-2010 school years.32 

The Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School District was also forthright in explaining to 

the Commission that its reasons for reducing discipline overall is specifically to reduce racial 

disproportionality in discipline: 

31 Id. at 26. 

To address the disproportionate discipline of African-American 

students in the district [italics added], the WS/FCS [WinstonSalemIForsyth County] discipline policies were revised this year to 

specifically disallow administrators from aggravating disciplinary 

sanctions based on prior, unrelated misconduct. Further, minor 

code of conduct infractions occurring in prior school years may not 

be considered at all [italics in original] when assigning 

disciplinary sanctions. Administrators are also able to use 

mitigating factors in assigning discipline, and may consider 

circumstances such as a student's truthful statement, a student's 

32 Letter from Dr. Hertica Y. Martin to Lenore Ostrowsky of the U.S Commission on Civil Rights, January 12,2011. 

16 
816 

positive history, and a student's respectful cooperation during the 

discipline process. 33 

Perhaps Rochester's and Winston-Salem's new, more lenient policies will work better at 

keeping order than the old ones did. But I am not optimistic. The fact that their administrators 

seem to be driven by concerns about disparities in and of themselves rather than by concerns that 

the old policies were generally unsatisfactory is not a good sign. Moreover, a disciplinary 

system like Winston-Salem's that forbids teachers and principals from considering a student's 

past misbehavior in determining the proper response to the student's current misbehavior is 

wrongheaded in the extreme.34 

These school districts are not alone. In Dorchester, South Carolina, school authorities 

write, "The superintendent has established a Discipline Task Force to examine and ensure that 

policies and procedures are equitable for all students and lead to reduction in racial disparities in 

school discipline particularly among African American males.,,35 But it is unclear why they 

believe that fairness and a reduction of racial disparities in discipline are compatible goals. They 

do not appear to be suggesting that, up to now, their schools have been engaging in 

discrimination. Rather, they appear to be assuming that fairness and a reduction in racial 

disparities are one and the same. 

In Washington, D.C., concerns about racial disparities also led to repeals of policies that 

prohibited students from receiving credit for courses if they are absent from class too frequently. 

In the view of Jamie Frank, a teacher witness at the Commission's briefing, rescinding this 

policy actually disproportionately harmed minority students by taking away a previously strong 

incentive to attend class. Without such incentive, Ms. Frank said, too many minority students 

give into the temptation not to attend class and miss out on valuable learning.36 

33 Letter from Donald Martin, Superintendent ofthe Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools, to Lenore Ostrowsky 

of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, December 10, 2010, reproduced at page _ in this report. In the same 

letter, Winston-Salem stated that it has also changed its policy regarding suspensions. Before, short-term 

suspensions could last ten days at most; now, the maximum is eight. Also, no student can now receive an out-ofschool suspension for truancy. For these latter two changes, the district mentions only "fairness and consistency" as 

its motive, which in context might be readily interpreted to mean "fairness" to all racial and ethnic groups. 

J4 The general intuition that repeat offenders should be punished more harshly than first offenders runs throughout 

federal and state sentencing law. See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual secAAl.I ("The Comprehensive 

Crime Control Act sets forth four purposes of sentencing. (See 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a)(2).) A defendant's record of 

past criminal conduct is directly relevant to those purposes. A defendant with a record of prior criminal behavior is 

more culpable than a first offender and thus deserving of grater punishment. General deterrence of criminal conduct 

dictates that a clear message be sent to society that repeated criminal behavior will aggravate the need for 

punishment with each recurrence."); Cal. Pen. Code 667 et seq. (codifying what is sometimes popularly called the 

"three strikes law," which provides that a defendant with two or more prior felony convictions will be sentenced to 

life imprisonment.) A New York Times article published in 2010 states that twenty-five other states also have some 

version of the three strikes law. Emily Bazelon, Arguing Three Strikes, The New York Times (May 21, 2010). 

35 Memorandum to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights at 2 attached to Letter from Joseph R. Rye, Superintendent of 

Dorchester School District Two dated December 13,2010. 

36 Statement of Jamie Frank at 36. 

17 
817 

No one should imagine that the reactions of these schools to the Department of 

Education's initiative are a victory for African-American students struggling their way through 

inner city schools. To the contrary, the primary beneficiaries of this ill wind will likely be the 

businesses and activist groups who provide computer software aimed at tracking school 

discipline and training programs for teachers and administrators aimed at reducing disparities as 

well as the additional school administrators hired to carry out the new policies. 

18 
818 

School Discipline and Disparate Impact Briefing Report 

Statement of Commissioner Todd Gaziano 

The Department of Education's policy that threatens to sanction schools whose disciplinary policies 

unintentionally have a greater impact on students of certain races than others is flawed both as a matter 

law and policy. 

The Education Department's Legal Errors 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at Section 60 I provides that no person shall, "on the ground of 

race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 42 

U.S.C. § 2000d (emphasis added). Simply put, section 601 prohibits intentional discrimination by 

school officials on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin. That's what it means to act "on the 

ground of race, color, or national origin." 

Yet, the Department of Education's regulations go much further, prohibiting recipients from using 

"criteria or methods of administration which have the effict of sUbjecting individuals to discrimination 

because of their race, color, or national origin." 34 C.F.R. § 100.3 (emphasis added). As Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Ricardo Soto explained in his statement to the 

Commission, the Department's regulations prohibit "race-neutral policies, practices, or procedures that 

have a disparate impact on the basis ofrace, color or national origin." 

Although this phrasing has been part of the executive branch's lexicon for some time, it is still worth 

pausing a moment on the Orwellian doublespeak of anything having a "disparate impact on [a] basis" 

to show how hard the Department must strain to use some of the words of the statute in service of the 

opposite of what they provide. Because a disparate impact is usually understood as an unintended 

effect, and may include many unintended effects, this formulation awkwardly attempts to equate 

unintended "impacts" with the actual basis (or ground) for the action. Putting aside this nonsensical 

use of the English language, Soto's testimony accurately described the Department's disparate-impact 

theory and its subjective test relating to whether the Department thinks the educational reason for the 

action is both legitimate and substantial, and has no other reasonable alternatives: 

Unlike cases involving different treatment, cases involving disparate-impact theory do 

not require that a school had the intent to discriminate. Rather, ... the pertinent inquiry 

is whether the evidence establishes that a facially neutral discipline policy, practice, or 

procedure causes a significant disproportionate racial impact and lacks a substantial, 

legitimate educational justification. Even if there is a substantial, legitimate educational 

justification, a violation may still be established under disparate impact if the evidence 

establishes that there are equally effective alternative policies, practices, or procedures 

that would achieve the school's educational goals while having a less significant, 

adverse racial impact. 

Where does this authority come from? The text of Section 60 I most certainly does not prohibit 

unintended effects. If an action has an unintended racial effect, then the action was not taken "on the 

ground of race." Section 602 authorizes regulations to enforce the prohibition in section 60 I, but does 

not authorize rules to enforce other prohibitions agency officials deem desirable. 
819 

The prohibition in Title VI contrasts with, other federal civil rights laws in which Congress explicitly 

placed restrictions on actions or policies that have a disparate racial impact. Although some of these 

provisions have raised constitutional questions as applied to the states, at least there is no doubt that 

Congress forced the issue. For example, the 1991 amendments to Title VII explicitly authorized a 

"disparate impact" cause of action and set forth the burden of proof necessary to establish an "unlawful 

employment practice based on disparate impact." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(I)(A). 

Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), one circumstance which may be considered in 

determining whether political processes violate the Act is the "extent to which members of a protected 

class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision." 42 U.S.C. § I 973(b). Thus, 

Congress put in place at least a partial effects test in which the process is judged in part by its outcome, 

even if the process was not intended to discriminate on the ground of race. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits "using qualification standards, employment tests 

or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class 

of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the 

covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business 

necessity." 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (emphasis added). 

As the above examples show, Congress knows how to prohibit unintended policies or effects. The 

VRA and the ADA do not use the term "disparate impact" or even the word "effect" but they turn on 

the outcome of the actions at issue. There is nothing like that anywhere in Title VI. Indeed, the 

opposite is so. Congress prohibited actions taken "on the ground of' race, color, or national origin, 

and no fair reading of that clause can turn it into an outcome or effects test. 

In the most recent opinion from the Supreme Court on the subject, five justices seemed to agree that 

the Education Department's disparate impact regulations in Title VI were invalid, although the Court's 

holding did not resolve that question. In Alexander v. Sandoval, the Court wrote that it is "beyond 

dispute-and no party disagrees-that § 601 prohibits only intentional discrimination." 532 U.S. 275, 

280 (2001). The Court chose to rest its opinion in Sandoval, however, on whether private plaintiffs 

could sue to enforce disparate impact regulations issued under section 602. The Court held that there 

was no private cause of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations, id. at 291, and so there was no 

reason to reach whether the regulations themselves were invalid. Nevertheless, the majority's 

discussion of the disparate impact regulations is an unmistakable indication that five justices thought 

the disparate impact regulations were invalid. 

The Court twice noted that section 602 only grants federal agencies authority to "effectuate the 

provisions of [Section 60 I 1 of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, 

regulations, or orders of general applicability." And it repeatedly stated that section 601 only prevented 

intentional discrimination, see id. at 280-81. Section 602 does not by its terms empower agencies to 

issue regulations that go beyond prohibiting the intentional discrimination forbidden in Section 601. 

Thus, there is no textual argument that section 602 authorizes the disparate impact regulations. 

The Department's only defense is to rely on the now thoroughly discredited notion that federal 

agencies are empowered to enact any regulations that effectuate the broad purposes of the underlying 

statute rather than the statute's actual terms. The Supreme Court in Sandoval pointed out that it has 

abandoned support for that approach and had begun the process of invalidating regulations that had no 

other basis in law. [d. at 287. The reason the Sandoval Court assumed that the disparate impact 

regulations were valid in deciding that case is more complicated than is worth explaining here, but the 
820 

current Court often chooses a narrower ruling if that will dispose of the case, and one was available in 

Sandoval. Nevertheless, the five-justice majority's most telling indication of what it thinks about the 

validity of the Title VI disparate impact regulations is contained in this passage: 

We cannot help observing [in the dissent] how strange it is to say that disparate-impact 

regulations are 'inspired by, at the service of, and inseparably intertwined with' § 601, when 

§ 60 I pennits the very behavior that the regulations forbid. See Guardians: "If, as five 

Members of the Court concluded in Bakke, the purpose of Title VI is to proscribe only 

purposeful discrimination ... , regulations that would proscribe conduct by the recipient having 

only a discriminatory effect ... do not simply 'further' the purpose of Title VI; they go well 

beyond that purpose."] 

Given the Supreme Court's helpful warning, the executive branch should have shown similar restraint, 

reexamined the legality of its disparate impact regulations, and abandoned them since they were 

unauthorized. But there was no serious reexamination of the power that the federal agencies had 

claimed for themselves, at least there is none the Department has drawn to the Commission's attention. 

Instead, there was a series of pronouncements that the Supreme Court had not expressly overturned the 

regulations. These statements are bereft of analysis but declare that the federal government will 

continue business as usual. In short, the agency officials and bureaucrats doubled down on their own 

claim of power. Their pronouncements regarding the precise holding of Sandoval are accurate, but the 

legal foundation for the regulations themselves after Sandoval is more flimsy than ever. 

Intentional Discrimination in the Name "Fairness" 

Even if a disparate-impact regulation is authorized by Title VI, reliance on this "theory" is bad policy. 

In almost any real-world setting, one cannot ensure both equality of treatment and equality of results. 

Trying to ensure equality of result when the underlying merit is decidedly uneven---or in this situation, 

the underlying misconduct is uneven-can only be achieved by engaging in intentional discrimination. 

In at least some school districts, the law of averages dictates that some groups of students will merit 

more discipline than their proportionate share of the student population. If children from certain 

backgrounds (e.g., fatherless homes or neighborhoods with lots of gang members) misbehave at a 

higher rate and such children are not evenly distributed among all racial and ethnic groups, there is 

even more reason to expect differences in the level of misbehavior among different groups of students, 

whether that is potentially violent or just disruptive of learning. If discipline is meted out in proportion 

to who deserves it, a disparate impact will be found. The only way to "fix" the disparate impact is to 

intentionally discriminate. As Roger Clegg has written, "Under the guise of combating the problem of 

'unintended discrimination,' the [disparate impact] theory demands deliberate discrimination.,,2 

Concentrating on disparate impacts in each school or district will lead, sadly but inevitably, to 

discriminatory treatment of similarly-situated students in violation of the law. Teachers who try to get 

their numbers "right" by ensuring that discipline is evenly distributed among students of all races and 

ethnicities will have to treat individual students unequally. The converse is also true: Teachers who 

] Jd. at 286 n.6 (full citations omitted; ellipsis and emphasis in the original quote). 

2 Roger Clegg, Disparate Impact in the Private Sector: A Theory Going Haywire, BRIEFLY ... PERSP. ON LEGIS., REG., & 

L1T]G., NAT'LLEGAL CENTER FOR THE PUB. INT., Vol. 5, No. 12, at 1 I (Dec. 2001). 
821 

are careful to treat all students the same, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, will inevitably observe 

some disparate impacts if behavior meriting discipline is not perfectly distributed among those groups. 

The only exception to the above is if no discipline is ever meted out. 

Differences in family structure are one reason why students may misbehave at different rates. The 

estimated out-of-wedlock birth rates in the United States in 2010 were 17% for Asian or Pacific 

Islander, 29% for non-Hispanic whites, 53.3% for Hispanics, 65.6% for American Indians or Alaska 

Natives, and 72.5% for non-Hispanic blacks.] The rates of children estimated to be living in singleparent families in 2009 were 16% for Asian and Pacific Islanders, 24% for non-Hispanic whites, 40% 

for Hispanics, 53% for American Indians, and 67% for blacks.4 Growing up in sin~le-parent families 

puts children at greater risk of dropping out of school and becoming a teen parent. It is associated with 

much higher incidents of child neglect. 6 As the report notes on page [66], scholars cite family 

composition as a predictive factor in cognitive performance.7 Sadly, data from Wisconsin also suggests 

that "the probability of incarceration for juveniles in families headed by never-married single mothers 

[is much] higher than for juveniles in the two-parent family.'" In sum, family structure does not 

dictate the result for any child, but it does affect the odds of certain negative outcomes and behaviors. 

When determining whether a school district may have discriminated on the basis of race, the 

Department examines the rates of discipline for the different races of students in the district. Briefing 

Transcript at 158, 160-61 (Soto Testimony). Data alone may trigger an investigation. Id. at 185. Given 

this method of triggering the investigation, it is unlikely the Department would ever detect that a 

district is disciplining a group too little in order to get its numbers right. The Department notices 

disparities; a school district with disciplinary actions equally distributed among groups will not be 

noticed. The incentive for school districts, principals, and teachers is to make sure there are no 

disparities in discipline among races of students so as to avoid an investigation by the Department, 

which would be costly and time consuming for the school district. 

The report and the testimony of the witnesses demonstrated that administrators and teachers are very 

concerned about disparities in discipline. A teacher from the suburban Washington, DC area testified 

that her district monitors the disciplinary rates in her classes for African-American and Hispanic 

students relative to the other students. The district's expectation is that there will not be disparities, and 

she is held to account if there are.9 

3 BRADY E. HAMIL TON, JOYCE A. MARTIN & STEPHANlE J. VENTIJRA, U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV., CENTERS 

FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, NAT'L CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, NAT'L VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS, VOL. 

60, No. 2, BIRTHS: PRELIMINARY DATA FOR 20 I O,Table I (Nov. 2011). 

4 THE ANNIE E. CASEY FOUND., KIDS COUNT DATA CENTER, DATA ACROSS STATES: CHILDREN IN SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES 

BY RACE (PERCENT) - 2009. 

5 See MARK MATHER, POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU, U.S. CHILDREN IN SINGLE-MOTHER FAMILIES (May 2010). 

6 See DIANE DEPANFILlS, U.S. DEP'TOF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV., CHILDREN'S BUREAU, OFFICE ON CHILD ABUSE & 

NEGLECT, CHILD NEGLECT: A GUIDE FOR PREVENTION, ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION, Chapter 4 (2006) (citation 

omitted). 

7 Richard Arum and Melissa Velez, Class and Racial Differences in u.s. School Disciplinary Environments, at 4, chapter 

in IMPROVING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS IN SCHOOLS: LESSONS FROM ABROAD (Forthcoming: Palo Alto, Stanford 

University Press). 

'PATRICK FAGAN, HERITAGE FOUND., CONGRESS'S ROLE IN IMPROVING JUVENILE DELINQUENCY DATA (March 10,2000). 

9 Report at [33-34] (Statement of Jaime Frank). 
822 

Two school districts told the Commission they have changed their discipline policies in order to reduce 

racial disparities in discipline. The Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools in North Carolina revised 

its discipline policies to "address the disproportionate discipline of African-American students in the 

district.,,10 The Tucson Unified School District outlined the "shift" in its discipline policies with the 

goal "to ensure ... the reduction of disciplinary incidents" for African American students. Expected 

outcomes for African American students are "[r]educed discipline referrals to the office" and 

"[r]educed suspensions and expulsions.,,11 I do not know whether the original discipline polices were 

sound or not, but changing them solely to affect a racial outcome serves no educational purpose, and 

racial balancing for its own sake is not constitutional. 

Of the 17 school districts that responded to the Commission, nine reported using the Positive Behavior 

Intervention Support (PBIS) program, a "systems approach to preventing and responding to classroom 

and school discipline problems." One goal of the PBIS program is to "eliminate[ e 1 the disproportional 

number and racial predictability of the student groups that occupy the highest and lowest achievement 

categories.,,12 Artificially decreasing the discipline of misbehaving students or artificially increasing 

the discipline for goody-two-shoes students who are the best behaved is not a sound educational or 

civil rights policy. For the well-behaved students, it can only breed resentment, or worse, a desire to 

live "down" to the lowered expectation. 

The Counterproductive Effect on Minority Students 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with schools implementing programs to improve student behavior, 

which may eventually result in less disparity in discipline among different groups. The danger is that 

schools will weaken disciplinary measures in order to equalize the disciplinary rates, which will only 

increase disruptive behavior. 13 Such a change will harm well-behaved students the most by interfering 

with the productive learning environment they deserve. This may be especially harmful to minority 

students who, as Arum and Velez point out, "are exposed to school environments with high levels of 

disorder, violence and concerns over safety" and who therefore "face the disparate impact of 

inadequate and ineffective discipline in U.S. schools." "Significantly," they go on to say, "in schools 

with higher levels of disciplinary administration, we ... have found that the gap between AfricanAmerican and white student test performance does not exist.,,14 In short, an increase in the use of 

disparate impact investigations is likely to cause substantial harm to minority students about whom the 

Department professes concern. 

JO Letter from Donald L. Martin, Jr., Superintendent, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools to Lenore Ostrowsky (Dec. 

10,2010). 

II Letter from Augustine Romero, Director of Academic and Student Equity, and Jimmy Hart, Director of Academic Equity 

for African American Studies, Tucson Unified School District to Martin Dannenfelser (Dec. 13,2010). 

" Letter from Romain Dallemand, Superintendent, Rochester (MN) Public Schools, to Martin Dannenfelser (Nov. 30, 

2010). 

13 My own view is that the risks associated with too little discipline are greater than those with too much, and thus, any 

approach that lessens the proper level of discipline are worse than the converse, even if applied fairly across the board. 

14 Arum and Velez, supra note 7, at 35-36. 
823 

Rebuttal to Other Commissioner Statements 

Statements by Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki are unclear on some seemingly important 

points, or at least some points that seem important to them. Their joint statement begins with a 

condemnation of zero-tolerance policies, but the remainder of their statement is much more concerned 

with the exercise of discretion in discipline by school administrators. There is no acknowledgement of 

the contradiction between these two positions. The only easy way to harmonize them is to assume the 

authors advocate no discipline, but that is not supported by other portions of the joint statement. It is a 

puzzle. 

As for most zero-tolerance discipline policies, I'll register my opposition here, especially when they 

are used to sanction a kindergartener who makes a finger gun, grade school boys who draw pictures of 

soldiers, and others who bring nail clippers to school. Conservative and libertarian thinkers are the 

leading voices against crazy, zero-tolerance rules. ls 

Although Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki bemoan the increase of zero-tolerance 

policies,16 one ofthe main drivers of this increase is the kind of accusations leveled against school 

administrators in the rest of their joint statement, Le., that administrators' discretionary decisions are 

racially discriminatory. School administrators also may fear private litigation over their exercise of 

discretion, but there should be little doubt that the accusation of racial injustice from the federal 

government and others would be a powerful force encouraging the growth and blind application of 

zero-tolerance policies. 

The only conclusion a careful reader might draw from such a mish-mash is the importance these 

commissioners attribute to getting the racial percentages right, regardless of anything else. It would be 

unfortunate in the extreme, however, iftheir racial bean-counting contributes to the entrenchment of 

zero-tolerance policies, especially if such policies have the counterproductive effect that my fellow 

commissioners attribute to them. 

Turning to their central claim, Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki are relatively clear in their 

assertion that the disparities among racial groups in school discipline have a significant racial 

explanation, Le., that schools are unfairly disciplining blacks and Hispanics relative to whites and 

Asians due to their race and not because of other relevant factors. This is an extraordinary claim that 

calls for extraordinary, or at least very carefully documented, evidence. Yet, there appears to be very 

little evidence supporting that contention, certainly not the studies cited in their statements, which are 

either seriously flawed or easily distinguished. More scholarly study would be helpful, but it should be 

15 Prominent critics ofzero~tolerance rules have included my colleagues at The Heritage Foundation, see, e.g., HERITAGE 

FOUND., CASE STUDIES: CRIMINALIZING KIDS I: TRUE TALES OF ZERO TOLERANCE OVERCRIMINALIZATION (Dec. 2003) 

(high school senior arrested. suspended from school, and not allowed to attend graduation ceremonies for having a kitchen 

knife in her car in the school parking lot); HERITAGE FOUND., CASE STUDIES: CRIMINALIZING KIDS II: MISDEMEANOR 

MISTAKES AND FELONY FORGETFULNESS (describing arrests of children for minor offenses pursuant to zero-tolerance 

policies); and Reason magazine, see, e.g., Charles Oliver, No Hugging. No Learning, REASON HIT & RUN (Nov. 10,2011) 

(middle school students suspended for briefly hugging); Radley Balko, Further Adventures in Zero Tolerance, REASON HIT 

& RUN (Feb. 3, 2011); Radley Balko, Zero Tolerance Follies, REASON HIT & RUN (March 5, 2010). 

16 In the first paragraph oftheir joint statement, they report that "almost 90% ofD.S. public schools have established and 

implemented some sort of zero-tolerance policy ... resultring] in a substantial increase in the number of expulsions and outof~school suspensions currently being imposed by schools." 
824 

more rigorous and carefully designed than that relied upon by the activists who try to use simple 

disparities to prove something malevolent. 

The activists are not unlike those who think that differences in the racial composition of the prison 

population are proof of discriminatory treatment in the criminal justice system. Simplistic analyses of 

the offenses charged and sentences imposed compound the problem if they do not control for other 

important factors, including an offender's past criminal history. Any criminology graduate student can 

debunk. the poorly designed studies by demonstrating how the introduction of additional factors 

eliminates the supposed proof of discrimination. Unfortunately, the simplistic and faulty "studies" 

continue to fuel the myth of a racist criminal justice system. When all the relevant factors are taken 

into account: "[T]here is almost no reliable evidence of racial bias in the criminal justice system's 

handling of ordinary violent and non-violent offenses. Rather, the facts overwhelmingly show that 

blacks go to prison more often because blacks commit more crimes.,,17 

As is the case with pseudo-studies of racism in the criminal justice system, so it is with poorly 

designed studies of school discipline. One study cited by Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki 

found differences in punishment for students sent by teachers to the principal's office for committing 

supposedly similar offenses. Black and Hispanic students were more likely to receive suspension or 

expulsion relative to white students for similar offenses.I8 But the study's authors admitted they did not 

take into account which students committed prior infractions, "a variable that might well be expected 

to have a significant effect on administrative decisions regarding disciplinary consequences.,,19 More 

importantly, the authors' own data showed that blacks were 2.19 times as likely to be referred for 

misbehavior as whites in grades K-6 and 3.79 times as likely as whites in grades 6_9,20 making it much 

more likely that the black students were repeat offenders in any particular encounter. Since repeat 

offenders may rightly receive more punishment, the study cannot tell us whether administrators 

unfairly punished anyone. 

A Texas study, also cited by Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki, found that "African-American and Hispanic 

students were more likely than white students to experience repeated involvement with the school 

17 AMY L. WAX, RACE, WRONGS, AND REMEDIES 91(noting some admitted anomalies with certain drug offenses). 

Professor Wax continues: 

As a noted criminal law scholar sympathetic to black concerns stated in an exhaustive summary of the 

literature, "[v]irtuaBy every sophisticated review of social science evidence on criminal justice decision 

making has concluded, overall, that the apparent influence oftbe offender's race on official decisions 

concerning individual defendants is slight." With respect to arrests, "few or no reliable, systematic data 

are available that demonstrate systematic discrimination." Rather, "arrests can by and large be taken as 

reasonable reflections ofthe involvement in serious crime of members of different racial groups." 

Likewise •... blacks are not singled out for stricter or more frequent prosecution. Nor do they receive 

longer sentences once criminal history and other sentencing factors are taken into account 

Id (citing MICHAEL TONRY, MALlGNNEGLECT 50,71,79). 

18 See Russell 1. Skiba et aI., Race Is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African American and Latino 

Disproportionalily in School Discipline, SCH. PSYCHOL. REv., Vol. 40, No.1, at 85, 95 (2011) [hereinafter Skiba, Race is 

Nol Neutral]. 

"/d, at 103. 

20 Id at 93. 
825 

disciplinary system for multiple school code of conduct violations.,,21 The paper noted that the "reader 

should not discount the possibility of overrepresentation of African Americans among students who 

are repeatedly disciplined flows from the previous finding that African-American students are 

disproportionately involved in the discipline system in the first place.,,22 

The Texas study included a multivariate analysis in an attempt to compare students of different races 

who were otherwise from similar backgrounds, including socioeconomic background. But it did not 

isolate whether the students came from a single parent household, which is likely far more important 

than other socioeconomic factors. Instead, acknowledging the importance offamily structure, the 

analysis included as a variable the percentage of families in the student's county headed by a single 

parent.23 This crude variable does not remotely capture the family structure of an individual student. 

The analysis thus classified many students as coming from similar backgrounds when they differed 

with regard to their family situation. 

The statement of Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg, and Yaki cites a different study for the 

proposition that black students tend to be referred for discipline more often for "subjective offenses, 

such as disrespect or excessive noise," while white students tend to be referred more often for 

"behaviors that are objective, such as smoking, vandalism, and using obscene Ianguage.,,24 An 

examination of the study itself reveals that black students were also more often referred for "threat" or 

"loitering," while white students were more often referred for "leaving without permission.,,25 The 

subjective offenses have elsewhere been termed "defiance.,,26 All such offenses could be serious, but 

threatening behavior----even if subjective-should be viewed as more serious than skipping class. 

Moreover, threats and other forms of defiance might well be more disruptive in a classroom setting 

than obscene language. None of these behaviors will be helpful for the student later in life; teachers 

should try to stop them all. But teachers and principals need discretion to deal appropriately with each 

situation. Crude generalizations about subjective offenses (that may include threats) versus objective 

offences are not helpful. They will either encourage the administrators to ignore so-called subjective 

offenses or to try to formulate a zero-tolerance rule that converts such subjective offenses into defined, 

objective offenses. 

21 TONY F ABELO ET AL., BREAKING SCHOOLS' RULES: A STATEWIDE STUDY OF How SCHOOL DISCIPLINE RELATES TO 

STUDENTS' SUCCESS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS JUSTICE CENTER; PUBLIC 

POLlCY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 42 (20 II). 

22 Id. at 42 n.80. 

23 Id. at 94. 

24 Statement at ~~_. 

25 Russell J. Skiba et aI., The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment, 

THE URBAN REv., Vol. 34, No.4, at 317, 332 (Dec. 2002). 

26 Skiba, Race Is Not Neutral, supra note 18, at 10 I. In contrast, a 2010 study of elementary students cited by 

Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg, and Yaki did not find that black students were more likely than white students to 

receive an office disciplinary referral for defiance. See Calherine P. Bradshaw et aI., Multilevel Exploration of Factors 

Contributing to the Overrepresentation of Black Students in Office Disciplinary Referrals, J. EDUC. PSYCHOL., Vol. 102, 

No.2, a1508, 513 (2010) (hereinafier Bradshaw et al.). 
826 

Finally, one study of elementary students was cited by Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg, and Yaki 

for the proposition that black students receive office disciplinary referrals at a higher than expected rate 

after controlling for various factors?7 The study had another interesting finding, however: that black 

male students in classrooms with black teachers were more likely to receive office disciplinary 

referrals than the other students?8 Perhaps all the findings in this study of 21 elementary schools were 

anomalous, idiosyncratic, or explained by some other factor that further review and study would 

reveal. Yet the authors suggest that the "findings do not suggest that a cultural or ethnic match between 

students and their teachers reduces the risk of [office disciplinary referrals 1 among Black students.,,29 

The study suggests four possibilities to me: (I) the black teachers in the study were biased against 

black male students compared to other students and wanted black males punished at higher rates, (2) 

the black teachers in the study were biased in favor of reforming black male students as compared to 

other students, (3) the black teachers were more concerned about the negative effect of misbehaving 

black male students on others in the class, or (4) none of the above. In any event, the study does not 

easily support the simple message of racial hostility or indifference by a majority white establishment 

against minority students. 

In the end, however, the biggest difference between at least four of us on the commission and 

Commissioners Castro, Achtenberg and Yaki is our disagreement with their predictable call for an 

"immediate and substantive" intervention by the federal civil rights enforcers at the U.S. Department 

of Education. At best, such intervention will be merely unlawful, costly, and bureaucratic. In addition, 

I believe it will likely be counterproductive and make matters worse for minority students in schools 

with the most serious discipline problems.3D 

21 Bradshaw et aI., supra note 26, at 51!. 

28 ld at 514. 

"[d.atSlS. 

30 See also "Dissent and Rebuttal Statement of Commissioners Gaziano and Kirsanow" in U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, Peer-to-Peer Violence and Bullying: Examining the Federal Response at 163-68 (Sept. 2011), regarding the likely 

counterproductive effects of greater federal involvement aimed at preventing student bullying and harassment. 
827 

VDiCI!S IIfI HDUtb ill Ghie8IO IIdUClIti 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Hearing before tile Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on tbe Constitution, 

Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Name: Emma Tai, VOYCE Coordinator 

With stories from VOYCE student leaders DavishaJunius and Timothy Anderson 

City (State: Chicago, IL 

Organization: Voices of Youth in Chicago Education (VOYCE) 

Voices of Youth in Chicago Education (VOYCE) is an organizing collaborative for education 

justice led by students of color from six community organizations across the city of Chicago. For the past 

two years, our Campaign for Safe and Supportive Schools has advocated for structural reforms that 

would pJace stronger limits on exclusionary discipline at an publicly-funded schools, induding charters; 

create public and transparent reporting systems on the use of harsh discipline at aU publicly~funded 

schools; and increase investments in the student supports and interventions that address the root 

causes of violence and mIsconduct. 

Illinois, and the Chicago Public Schools system in particular, is in dire need of these reforms. 

Original research byVOYCE and Advancement Project has shown that In the 2010·2011 school year, 

students in the state of Illinois lost 1,117,458 days of instruction due to disciplinary actions; Chicago 

Public Schools students alone constituted over 300,000 of these lost instructional days. According to a 

public records request to the Illinois State Board of Education, 92% of the disciplinary actions issued in 

Chicago in 2010·2011 were for "other reasons," meaning for offenses that were not serious enough to be 

reported specifically to the state, This means that over 100,000 suspensions and expulsions-not even 

including arrests, detentions, and fines-were for minor offenses that could have been handled 

differently. 

Under ever-increasing pressure to raise standardized testing scores, schools are using measures 

like suspensions and arrests to "push out" the lowest-scoring. highest~need students while our public 

officials turn the other way. It should come as no surprise that the increasing use of suspensions and 
828 

other exclusionary discipline measures disproportionately impact low-income students of color, 

, particularly special education students, who also are the most likely to bring down a school or 

classroom's average test score. Federal civil rights data has shown that lHinois suspends proportionally 

more African-Americans than any other state, while CPS suspends 63% of all African·American students 

with disabilities at least once. These disparities are some of the highest in the country. 

The direct personal experience ofVOYCE student leader Davisha Junius captures the systemic 

failure of this system and the likelihood that vulnerable students like Davisha, who is a teenage mother 

and has a behavioral disability, will be pushed out through harsh discipline: 

I was at my first elementary school just for the first month of sixth grade. I got kicked out 

because they didn't have anyone who could teach students with an IEP (Individualized 

Education Plan). They talked to my mom and I don't know what they said, but the next day I 

came to school and they turned me around and told me f was no longer enrolled. 

They sent transcripts to another school, where I went for the rest of the first quarter and an of 

second quarter. Then they kicked me out because the social worker was only there once a week 

and I needed a certain amount of hours per week. They couldn't give that to me, 50 they 

transferred me to another school. 

At my Jast elementary school, I got suspended for three or five days a number of times. I was 

being a bully and fighting, just to see if I was going to get kicked out. I just had my mind made up 

that I was going to get kicked out again but when they didn't kick me out like I wanted them to, it 

got out of my head. I changed my ways. 

But then I went to Simeon for the beginning of my freshman year, and got kicked out the third 

week of school. I kept getting lO-day suspensions for not wearing my ID or wearing 

inappropriate clothes. I missed a lot of work at Simeon. I got kicked out because I couldn't pay [a 

fine] for detention. 

When I got kicked out of Simeon it kind of brought it back for me I'm not meant to be in school, 

period. I don't like being a student no more. What's the point of being in school if you're just 

going to get kicked out? 

Davisha, now a VOYCE student leader at Gage Park High School, attended five different schools in the 

past four years through a combination of harsh discipline, pushout and a persistent, systemic failure to 

successfully address the behavioral issues caused by her disability. A national analysis of the Office of 

Civil Rights suspension data has shown that Black students with disabilities are more likely to be 

suspended in Illinois than any other state in the country, with 41,8% of an Black students with 

disabilities suspended at least once. 
829 

High suspension rates and other pushout practices, such as Davisha's experience with fines at 

Simeon Career Academy, are not isolated to just students with disabilities, High~need students who 

don't perform well on tests, even when it's due entirely to external factors such as food insecurity or 

homelessness, are at risk of being pushed like, Like Davisha, VOYCE student leader Timothy Anderson 

was bounced around from one elemental}' school to another after he and his sister, who were living in 

shelters at the time, were teased for their clothes and acted out: 

I was eight the first time I got suspended. I had anger problems and would fight anyone, 

Instead of dealing with my problems, they kicked me out in the middle of fifth grade. They 

transferred me to a charter school, but I got kicked out on my first day there. They called my 

momma into the principal's office and told her ifI couldn't behave on the first day, I couldn't go 

there no more because they didn't want any more problems. 

The next school I went to had a strict uniform policy. I couldn't wear the uniform because my 

momma couldn't afford it. So then they kicked me and my little sister out. I was there for a week 

and a half. 

I finished eighth grade at the next school I went to. They tried to hold me back in sixth grade 

because I had switched so many schools that they didn't know what credits I had. But my 

momma got make-up work for me and I stayed on track 

The turning point for me was joining VOYCE when I started high school. When I joined VOYCE, I 

wanted to clean up and become the student I am now, because people depended on me. Being 

depended on made me feel like I could actually do something and make progress with my life. 

Dependability was missing in my education before VOYCE. But I've learned that instead of 

working by yourself, you have other people you can rely on and who can depend on you, Now I 

see myself becoming a community organizer and helping with the community and the students 

in the future. 

My proudest moment with VOYCE was when we passed the new Student Code of Conduct. I 

worked a lot on it, and I know that with reducing the suspension time, I actually did something 

that was going to affect a lot of students. 

As a result of the organizing ofVOYCE student leaders like Timothy and Davisha, the Chicago 

Board of Education approved a new Student Code of Conduct this year that ended automatic two~week 

suspensions, cut the maximum suspension time in half. and ended arrests for disorderly conduct The 

effects of these revisions can already be felt on the ground: When Timothy's little sister, Tiara, was sent 

to the in-school police room this faU for a verbal altercation with a security guard, the police told the 

principal they could not arrest her for disorderly conduct 
830 

However, as Timothy and Davisha's stories show, Chicago and school districts across Illinois 

must do much more to prevent students from being pushed out of our schools. The expanding charter 

school sector in Chicago, which is projected to grow by as many as 60 schools in the next five years, still 

has no meaningful oversight at either the city or state level to prevent the overuse of the most harsh and 

exclusionary practices, such as arrests, suspensions and fines. This has resulted in students like Timothy 

being easily kicked out of a charter schoo), while students like Davisha are pushed out of neighborhood 

schools through practices like detention fines that originated with charters and are still not monitored 

or tracked by CPS officials in any way. 

Additionally, CPS continues to aggressively expand the use ofhigh~stakes testing despite the 

significant research documenting the connection between pressure to raise test scores and the overw 

suspension of low-scoring, high-need students. Original research byVOYCE has shown that this year is 

one of the most heavily tested years in Chicago history, with the average 11 th-grader spending over SO 

instructional hours in standardized testing and students as young as kindergartners reqUired to sit 

through at least three required assessments. And the CPS high school calendar shows a whopping 96 

days of possible testing, compared to just B1 days of testing-free instruction. 

With local districts increasing the pressure on schools to deliver higher and higher test scores, 

it's no wonder that we are seeing the lowest-scoring, highest-need students pushed out through 

suspensions and other exclUSionary discipline measures. We need strong Congressional oversight and 

guidance that compels local school districts to report comprehensively on how overly harsh discipline 

practices are being used at all publicly-funded schools. We also need Congress to push districts like 

Chicago, with some of the country's highest racial disparities in school suspensions, to eliminate these 

disparities through a dear, research-based course of action such as stronger limits on exclusionary 

discipline practices such as arrests at all publicly-funded schools and investments in supports and 

interventions, not ineffective overpolicing. We can't wait. 
831 

YOIC9S UII HDUtII ill GbIe8IIlldUeati 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, 

Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Name: Malia DegiIlo1 VOYCE Organizer 

With stories from VOYCE student leaders Keshaundra Neal and Jose Bricefio 

City IState: Chicago, IL 

Organization: Voices of Youth in Chicago Education (VOYCE) 

Voices of Youth in Chicago Education (VOYCE) is an organizing collaborative for education 

justice led by students of color from six community organizations across the city of Chicago. For the past 

two years, our Campaign for Safe and Supportive Schools has advocated for structural reforms that 

would place stronger limits on exclusionary discipline at all pub1icly~funded schools, including charters; 

create public and transparent reporting systems on the use of harsh disCipline at aU publicly-funded 

schools; and increase investments in the student supports and interventions that address the root 

causes of violence and misconduct 

Illinois, and the Chicago Public Schools system in particular, is in dire need of these reforms. 

Under ever~increasing pressure to raise standardized testing scores, schools are using measures like 

suspensions and arrests to "push out" the lowest~scoring, highest-need students while our pubJic 

officials turn the other way. Federal civil rlghts data has shown that Illinois suspends proportionally 

more African~Americans than any other state, While CPS suspends 63% of all African~American students 

with disabilities at least once. Original research byVOYCE and Advancement Project has shown that in 

the 2010-2011 school year, 29 students were arrested on school property every single day, as compared 

to five arrests per day in New York City schools; 97% of these arrests were ofBJack and Latino students 

and 82% were for misdemeanor offenses that could have been handJed differently. 

VOYCE student leader Keshaundra Neal has direct experience with the overuse of school-based 

arrests: 
832 

"I never figured that I would be the first of my brothers and sisters to get arrested, but when I 

was in eighth grade, I was arrested just for walking past a big fight that broke out after school. 

The day after the fight, we were in lunch and six police officers came into the lunchroom. They 

came and grabbed us and handcuffed us and said whatever we said could be used against us. No 

matter how I cried and pleaded and told them I didn't have anything to do with it, they wouldn't 

listen. I was charged with third~degree battery. 

Even though I had good grades, my teachers treated me differently after that They saw me as 

someone who got into fights and got arrested. They didn't want to let me graduate, eat lunch 

with my class, or go on our class trip even though I hadn't done anything, 

It showed me that the world wasn't fair." 

Original research by VOYCE and Advancement Project has shown that Keshaundra, arrested 

when she was just thirteen years old, is not alone. For one, in Chicago, African~American students like 

Keshaundra are 4,4 times more likely to be arrested than their white peers, And data from the 2010-

2011 school year shows that 47% of the arrests were for students age 15 or younger. This means that 

fourteen students age 15 or younger are arrested from school every single day in CPS. 

Former student leader Jose Briceno, who graduated from high school in 2010 and is currently an 

organizer-in~training with VOYCE, also had direct experience with school-based arrests and the 

devastating impact that they can have for the futures of immigrant youth in the U.S. 

I was going through some tough times my senior year, and the only thing that was there for me 

was to go outside and be tagging. My senior year, one night I got arrested and the cops told me, 

"You shouldn't be doing this, you're already going to graduate," They basically gave me a chance 

and didn't charge me with a higher crime, so I got lucky that time. So I kind oflearned my lesson 

and decided that getting arrested won't do me better. I decided to start passing my classes, 

because I was failing. I was doing make~up work and had given up hanging out with my friends, 

my girlfriend, my family just to do my school work. 

So then two months [after my arrest] they called me into the security office and started asking 

me these questions. The security guards knew what name r used when I wrote graffiti, because 

the police computers in their office showed that I had been arrested. They told me that they 

were trying to get this tagger who had been destroying school property and that they were 

checking with all of the writers in the school if they know him to turn him in, I told them that if I 

knew him, I would turn him in, but I don't know him. 

They said that since I didn't give them his name, they were going to punish me instead, for this 

one-Inch-sized tag that I had made like two years ago, before even my first arrest. The assistant 

principal and the cops came in and I said, I know I did that damage but I'll clean it off, I know 

how to clean it off. I told him I already got arrested before and I want to graduate, I'm doing 

better in school and I only got a few weeks left to graduation, But all he did was look me in the 

eye, he didn't answer me, he just left the room, 
833 

So I asked the cops, what is his decision? And they said, we're sorry to tell you this but he 

decided to arrest you. So they handcuffed me and led me outside the security office, and then I 

had to wait for the other cops to take me to the station, where J was booked and spent the 

afternoon in a cell at the station. 

[Being suspended for two weeks1 affected me big time, I had to ask my girlfriend to get my 

school work every day and I had to stay up overnight working on essays because of aU those 

days I was missing at school. I always had an A in art class, and from an A it went back to an F. 

And there was one class that J had barely made it up to a C and then because of those missed 

days the teacher just put an F on [the gradebookJ, 

The assistant principal showed me he didn't care. I never felt that bad from a staff a member 

from the school, you know. How are you just going to walk away and not respond to me? You're 

telling me I'm going to be a criminal instead of seeing that I'm trying to do good now, Instead, 

how about you ten me, "I'll take you to this art class to get your mind off that street, let's make 

the school better. Can you coordinate some murals inside or outside the schoo}?" Luckily I had a 

mindset where today I am not committing any crimes, I'm working. But what they did made me 

feel like this is what you are going to do throughout your whole life. You're going to become a 

criminal. That's how they made me feel. 

As an undocumented immigrant, Jose's arrest could impact his ability to successfuUy apply for 

Deferred Action and to stay in the country working safely and legally. He admits that his parents are 

frightened for him, and for the impact that his unjust arrest will have on the likelihood of him being 

detained or deported in the future, 

Although they don't show up in the Office of Civil Rights database, school-based arrests in 

Chicago are out of control. Despite pressure from VOYCE this past year to significantly overhaul the CPS 

Student Code of Conduct, and to put stronger limits on the use of school-based arrests for minor 

offenses, the discipline code in Chicago still has over 20 offenses on the books that can lead to the arrest 

of a student-even if it is your first time, even if you are ten years old, even if you are undocumented. 

And the expanding charter school sector in Chicago, which is projected to grow by as many as 60 schools 

in the next five years, still has no meaningful oversight at either the city or state level to prevent the 

overuse of the most harsh and exclusionary practices, such as arrests, suspensions and fines. 

We need strong Congressional oversight and guidance that compels local school districts to 

report comprehensively on these measures at aU publicly-funded schools, and that pushes districts like 

Chicago, with some of the greatest racial disparities and highest arrest rates in the country. to eliminate 
834 

these disparities through a clear, research~based course of action such as stronger limits on 

exclusionary discipline practices such as arrests at aU publicly-funded schools and investments in 

supports and interventions, not ineffective overpolicing. We can't wait 
835 

December 10, 2012 

Re: Statement for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

Hearing on Ending the School to Prison Pipeline 

Dear Chairman Durbin and members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Human Rights: 

The W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) was encouraged when we learned of the Subcommittee Hearing to 

End the School to Prison Pipeline. Please accept our testimony on behalf of this important endeavor. 

The BI is a national non-profit organization based in San Francisco, California. We seek to protect and 

improve the lives of youth of color and poor youth by promoting fairness and equity in youth-serving 

systems across the country. Specifically, we work with local juvenile justice systems to reduce racial and 

ethnic disparities using a data driven, consensus based approach. We have worked with dozens of 

jurisdictions across the nation, including twelve counties in California, and we have achieved measurable 

reductions in racial and ethnic disparities. 

National data highlight the gravity of the problems that currently exist in the justice system. Juvenile 

justice data indicate that youth of color are far more likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system 

than White children, and in particular, are far more likely to be detained or incarcerated. 

In a one-day count of detained youth across the nation in 20 I 0;: 

Latino youth were more than 2 times as likely as White youth to be detained. 

Native American youth were nearly 3 times as likely as White youth to be detained. 

Black youth were 5 times as likely as White youth to be detained. 

Moreover, contrary to what many people believe, the vast majority of youth are detained for non-violent 

offenses such as status offenses", property offenses, and lower-level offenses such as fighting and theft. 

Federal data from 2010 shows that only 25 percent of youth detained were there for violent offenses 

against a person. ili 

In our work across the country over the past decade, we have become very familiar with "non-judicial 

drivers" that contribute racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. As our nation and 

states continues to slash basic safety net programs and underfund public education and other critical 

services, these "extra-judicial" factors that contribute to system involvement become more profound. 

With growing research to support it, one clear example of an extra-judicial factor contributing to 

disparities in the juvenile justice system is lack of access to education and school discipline policies that 

disparately impact youth of color. 

Data from the Department of Education and Department of Justice indicate significant increases in rates 

of suspension and expUlsion for children across the nation, with racial and ethnic disparities similar to 

those that we observe in the justice system. 

Nationwide, school suspensions almost doubled between 1974 and 2010, from 1.7 million in 1974 to 

3.3 million in 2010. 
836 

• Department of Education data indicates Black students are 3.5 times as likely to be suspended or 

expelled as their White peers. 

70 percent of the students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement were 

Black or Latino. 

Contrary to popular notions, these suspensions and expulsions are not simply the result of youth today, 

and particularly youth of color, misbehaving more often or committing more crime. According to a 

number of recent reports/v racial and ethnic disparities in school discipline cannot be explained by more 

serious patterns of rule-breaking amongst youth of color. In fact, research concludes that racial disparities 

in school discipline are more significant in subjective and vague offense categories. 

Additionally, the research highlights the ineffectiveness of suspension as a means to control behavior or 

to help children become successful in the long-term. Suspension is strongly associated with low 

achievement and an increased likelihood of dropping out of school. Suspensions: 

Do not increase school safety 

• Do not increase parental involvement 

Do increase teacher turnover 

Do increase the likelihood of juvenile justice involvement 

Finally, as the following graph illustrates, the rate of student reported crime has consistently trended 

down since the early 1990s. 

200 Rate of student reported crime (per 1,000 students) 

154 

The ground breaking study, Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline 

Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement, conducted by the National Council of 

State Goverrunents, found that only 3 percent of suspensions and expulsions in Texas were mandatory. In 

fact, the remainder of disciplinary actions were made at the discretion of school officials, primarily in 

response to violations of local schools' conduct codes. This discretion resulted in a startling number of 

suspensions and expUlsions for students of color and those with special education needs. Data also 

suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth also experience disproportionate 

suspensions and expUlsions. 

As student crime continues to decrease, local, state and national policy makers must ask themselves: 

Why are suspensions and expUlsions of youth of color continuing to rise? What can and should be done 

to reduce the overuse of harsh discipline such as suspension and expUlsion, particularly for youth of color, 

who bear the brunt of these discretionary policies? These are just some of the questions we address at the 
837 

Bums Institute as we work to prevent the unnecessary involvement of youth of color and poor youth in 

the juvenile justice system. 

In reducing the use of detention for youth of color in the justice system, two key strategies have been 

instrumental to our success: 

1. Forming a collaborative which includes community stakeholders, parents, youth, and system 

stakeholders to critically examine policies and practices which contribute to negative outcomes 

for youth. 

2. Using a data-driven approach to understand the problem and implement solutions. 

These pillars have lead to a variety of solutions around the country which have served to reduce detention 

utilization for youth of color, and in some cases, have stemmed the flow of children from the education to 

the juvenile justice system. Solutions are different depending on the local context and community, but 

there is no doubt that the school to prison pipeline is a solvable problem. 

For instance, in Clayton County, Georgia, the juvenile court judge observed an overwhelming number of 

children corning before the court for fights in school and other minor violations. The courts were being 

clogged up with inappropriate cases, and kids were losing out because they weren't in school. A 

collaborative developed a new protocol for four misdemeanors: fights, disorderly conduct, disruption and 

failure to follow police instructions. The protocol resulted in a decrease in school referrals to the court. 

In Peoria County, IL the use of a restorative justice model in schools reduced the number of referrals to 

the juvenile justice system for youth of color. Peoria County examined data on school referrals to the 

police and determined that the County's racial and ethnic disparities were aggravated by certain school 

discipline policies that had a disparate impact on youth of color. The County successfully reduced 

disproportionate referrals of youth of color to the juvenile justice system by working with the school 

system to strengthen school-based conflict resolution protocols. 

Since research has emerged in the past decade on the serious impact of childhood trauma on brain 

development and children's behavior in schools, Washington State and Massachusetts have been leaders 

in implementing school-wide trauma-informed responses children. The practices which are implemented 

at the classroom and school-level are supported at the school, district, and state level, not leaving the 

problem in the hands of teachers alone. Schools in both states have had great success in reducing 

suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to the juvenile justice system. More importantly, they have 

improved school climate and helped to create environments where even children who have experienced 

serious childhood trauma can thrive. Since the research also indicates that youth of color are significantly 

more likely than White youth to experience childhood trauma, these trauma informed practices should 

impact the high rates of suspensions and expUlsions experienced by youth of color in particular. 

There are many different approaches we can take besides kicking kids out of school into the justice 

system. Here are just a few more: 

• Changing School Conduct Codes 

• Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) 

• Community Service and Restitution 

Mediation 

Mentoring 

Saturday School 

In-school Suspensions 

• Peer Panels 

• Community Teams 
838 

Anger Management 

Drug &lor Alcohol Counseling 

• Restorative Circles 

Fairness Committees 

We encourage your subcommittee to consider the available data and latest research, which strongly 

supports a departure from the status quo. Successful approaches like the ones listed above should be 

bolstered by federal guidelines and funding. 

Those of us who have worked in the justice system know that detention facilities are not benign places for 

children. They are associated with negative life outcomes, such as lower educational and career 

attainment" and they come with a great cost in a time of fiscal crisis. ' Moreover, we have seen successful 

models that are less expensive and more effective. 

Our country's history shows that youth of color have often been perceived as unworthy of investment of 

public dollars, "incorrigible" and "unredeemable." 

Knowing all of this, decision makers and service providers have a moral imperative to work relentlessly 

to help students be successful in school and to end the school to prison pipeline. We hope the Senate 

Judiciary Subcommittee will move this work forward. 

Sincerely, 

James Bell 

Executive Director 

Laura John Ridolfi 

Law & Policy Analyst 

Anna Wong 

Policy & Research Associate 

, Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., and Puzzanchera, C. (2011) "Easy Access to the Census afJuveniles in 

Residential Placement." Online. Available: http://www.oJjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ 

ii Status offenses are behaviors that are not illegal for adults such as breaking curfew or running away. 

ii, Violent Offenses include homicide, violent sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault. Data Source: 

Sickmund, M., Sladky, TJ., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in 

Residential Placement." Available:, http://www.oiidp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ 

iv Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study oj Haw School Discipline Relates to Students' Success and Juvenile 

Justice Involvement," The Council of State Governments Justice Center and Public Policy Research Institute, July 

2011. "Suspended Education in California, " The UCLA Civil Rights Project, 4110112. "Educate Every Child: 

Promoting Positive Solutions to School Discipline in Virginia," Legal Aid Justice Center, November 2011. 

v The Dangers oj Detention: The Impact oj Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Justice 

Policy Institute. Holman, B., & Zidenberg, J. (2011). 
839 

Submitted to the US Senate Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights 

"Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline" 

Keeping Youth out of the 

School-to-Prison Pi eline 

A community-based approach to keeping students safely in 

schools and communities and saving taxpayer dollars 

December 12, 2012 

Youth A 

PROGRAMS, INC. 
840 

About YAP 

YAP was founded in 1975 in Pennsylvania by a group of innovative thinkers who successfully retumed 

juveniles housed in the Camp Hill state Correctional Institution for adults (located just outside 

Harrisburg, PAl to their home communities. Our mission since our founding has been to provide 

community-based alternatives to institutionalization by providing individualized, flexible and holistic 

services to system-involved youth and families. 

YAP's unique service combines best practices from the fields of wraparound, mentoring, family 

support, positive youth development and restorative justice. Our efforts are geared toward helping 

individuals and families build upon their strengths, natural resiliencies and supports to provide a positive 

path for development and ensuring each youth and family has a voice and a choice in the services 

they need and receive. Today, YAP serves children, youth and young adults with diverse needs at 

various levels of involvement with juvenile justice, child welfare and mental health systems. 

Since our founding, local governments across the country have asked YAP to help deinstitutionalize 

vulnerable popUlations, and today YAP operates community-based programs in 25 major US cities 

inclUding the South Bronx, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, Camden, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Chicago, 

Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tampa, Jacksonville and Denver as well as dozens of 

other urban, suburban and rural communities. We are the largest non-profit service provider in the 

nation with deinstitutionalization as its mission and sole focus. YAP currently provides direct services 

and advocacy in 100 communities throughout 18 states impacting 12,000 families each year. We also 

support programs in Ireland, Guatemala and Sierra Leone. 

We work with marginalized and disadvantaged people most likely to be subject to institutionalization 

and mistreatment in the US and around the world. Historically, the people we serve include racial and 

ethnic minorities, gang members, sex-trafficked youth, Native American young people, youth with 

disabilities, inter-generational families in poverty, Irish Travelers and other Roma people, former childcombatants and "street children." 

YAP is accredited by the Council on Accreditation and recognized by OJJDP, the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the American youth Policy Forum and 

the National Gang Center as a "promising, best practice model". 

This publication is a product of the youth Advocate Programs Policy & Advocacy Center, whose 

mission is to promote policies and influence change that create or invest greater resources in families 

and communities and reduce reliance on institutionalization. 

For more information, please contact YAP's National Policy Director, Shaena Fazal. Esq. at 

sfazal@yapinc.org or (202)594-6893, 
841 

Background 

Youth Advocate Programs Inc., (YAP) works with youth in 18 states across the country. The youth we 

work with are those most likely to be kicked out of schools and end up in jails, detention centers and 

prisons. Using a family-centered, individualized community-based approach, we work to give the 

youth and school the supports they need to stop the pipeline. In this report, we will demonstrate how 

our approach helps to address the underlying causes of behaviors that often subject youth to school 

push out and how we work to address those causes. 

Common Causes of School to Prison Pipeline 

Numerous studies and reports have come to the same conclusion about the causes of the school-toprison pipeline. Students are being kicked out of schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice 

systems due to zero tolerance policies, overreliance and discriminatory use of school discipline and 

overly broad student codes of conduct that lead to discipline for innocuous behavior. Vulnerable 

youth, such as children living in impoverished communities, youth with educational disabilities, students 

of color, students with involvement in the child welfare or juvenile justice system, homeless youth, 

gang-involved youth and youth who are chronically truant or absent are most likely to fall viclim to the 

pipeline, Zero tolerance policies ushered in during the 1990's coincided with the misguided "tough-onjuvenile" policies premised on the now discredited "teenage superpredator" label. These policies 

resulted in more kids being kicked out of school and into the justice system, 1 

Schools often push the "bad apples" through the pipeline - those 5% of students who seem to cause 

95% of the problems. The thought is that if we remove the bad apples, other kids will do well. While that 

may seem logical, it is a misguided approach. Many of those "bad apples" for example, are kids 

suffering from trauma and many kids who suffer trauma at an early age learn aggression as a vital 

response2• When we kick them out without understanding their behavior we send a message that we 

are giving up on them, Other stUdents also learn to be dismissive of youth who behave differently, 

reinforcing negative stereotypes. "Throwing away" these youth has come back to haunt many 

communities in the form of increased welfare, incarceration, violence and dependencies. 

Policy changes at the school and local levels are necessary to end the school to prison pipeline. In the 

last several years, important work by organizations like the Advancement Project and the Center on 

State Govemments have documented the harmful policies that lead children into the pipeline and 

promoted efforts to change those policies. For example, the Advancement Project's report Education 

on Lockdown: the School to Jailhouse Track, recommends solutions such as limiting school arrests and 

zero tolerance policies, introducing more due process and providing more resources for youth and 

schools, such as access to social workers, 

These reports also argue for more investment in prevention and intervention, A key component of 

effective prevention and intervention is to engage families and communities to support at-risk youth. 

Parental engagement has been shown to decrease suspensions and instances of violent behavior, 

two leading causes of the pipeline. The good news is we have the knowledge of "what works" to 

prevent youth from being pushed into the pipeline and can effect change for more and more 

1 President Clinton's Gun Free Schools Act, which financially incentivized schools to expel students who brought guns to 

school for at least one year led more schools to mandate expulsions under zero tolerance policies for myriad offenses, not 

limited to gun possession. It had the effect of painting students with a broad brush rather than identifying their individual 

strengths, needs. The Columbine flfec!, by John Cloud, Time Magazine December 6, 1999, 

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/O.33009.992754.OO.hlm!. 

2 Trauma and Recovery, by Dr. Judith Herman 
842 

students, improving not only the students' futures, but also their families and communities and 

ultimately, society at large. 

We know that programs like Peer Junes, volunteer panels thaI ael as alternative courts for youth in the 

juvenile justice systems and altematives to expulsions and suspensions for things like fighting can make 

a difference. Yet, these programs are frequently underfunded or unfunded, while policymakers favor 

the destruelive and expensive paths of school discipline that lead to youth dropping out or being 

involved in the juvenile 'and criminal justice systems. We need the political will to shift our foci and 

invest in resources to keep high risk students thriving in schools and communities. 

We Can't Afford the Costs of School to Prison Pipeline 

The costs of pushing children out of school and into the pipeline are 

both avoidable and excessive. 

Consider these statistics: 

Annual cost of incarcerating a youth averages $89,0003 

Annual cost to incarcerate a person in the adult system 

averages': $31,286' 

Annual income of HS Dropout: $17,299 

Annual income of HS Graduate: $26,933 

Costs to society of a high school dropout over their lifertime: 

$260,000 

Costs to society of the approximately 6.7 millions disconneeled 

youth': 

"",if the students who 

dropped out of the class of 

2007 hod graduated, the 

notion's economy would have 

benefited from on additional 

$329 billion in income over their 

lifetimes." 

-Alliance for Excellence in 

Education Policy Brief. 2007 

Annually: $252 billion to society ($93 million to each taxpayer) 

o Lifetime: $4.7 tnllion to society ($1.6 trillion to each taxpayer) 

These numbers demonstrate that while it might appear to serve the immediate need of a classroom or 

school to kick a "bad apple" out, the long-term social and economic costs are unaftordable. The 

bottom line is that it benefits everyone to keep a child in school. Students who stay in school and 

graduate will earn more money, have more earning power, more financial and social security, rely less 

on govemment benefits, be contnbutors (taxpayers), and are more likely to have stronger family and 

community connections. For the community and taxpayers, we benefit greatly from having fewer 

people in costly, ineffeelive institutions and also by having more working people in the community 

contributing to our economy as taxpayers and consumers. 

if The Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense, May 2009 1 

http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/uploadj09_05_REP _ CostsofConfinemenUJ_PS.pdf 

4 Because many youth in high school are waived into adult court or because the states they live make youth as young as 

16 or 17 automatically adults for purposes of criminal activity, this number is also relevant to school~to~prison pipeline 

issues. Importantly, youth in the adult criminal just system are far less likely to get the services they need or access to 

education. 

S The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers, Christian Henrichson & Ruth Delaney, 

http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFilesjPCS_Assets/2012jhttp_www.vera.org_download_file=3495_the-price-ofprisons~updated.pdf 

6 The costs associated with "disconnected youth" come from a report by John Bridgeland of Civic Enterprises, called 

Opportunity Road, http://www.civicenterprises.net/MediaUbrary/Docs/opportunitYJoad.pdf.lnthatReport.Bridgeland 

notes that 6.7 millions youth, ages 16-24 are "opportunity youth" because they feel promise about their futures; but 

absent help, they will remain disconnected from work and school, at a staggering cost to society. Certainly students who 

are most susceptible to the pipeline can be considered among our nation's disconnected youth. 
843 

Case Study: Chicago Youth 

Advocate Programs· Focus on 

Keeping Students Safe and 

Improving Educational Outcomes 

After the brutal beating death of 

Chicago Public Schools student 

Derrion Albert went viral, CPS 

partnered with YAP to work with the 

youth it determined to be 20 times 

more likely to be victims or 

perpetratars of gun violence. 

From 2009-September 4,2012, YAP 

Served 557 youth from Chicago's 

most gang-involved and 

impoverished communities on the 

south and west sides. At its peak, our 

program had 200 men and women 

from these communities working day 

and night to create and execute 

service plans to help these youth 

achieve educational success and 

stay safe. Here are some important 

outcomes: 

We re-enrolled 179 students who 

were chronically truant or hadn't 

been to school in years. 

Our Advocates, available 24/7, 

kept 93% of our students safe, 

despite predictions that they 

would not be sate. 

Of our seniors, 87% graduated 

high school or received their 

GED's, with 41 % enrolled in 

college and 9% enrolled in trade 

school. 

13% of seniors achieved honor 

roll status while enroiled in our 

program. 

If we push kids out of schools and do not work to reconnect kids to 

school and work, the costs are staggering. 

The question is, in addition to changing zero tolerance policies, 

how can we support more students and schools so that youth stay 

in school and out of the pipeline, avoiding detention, jail and 

prison? 

YAP Approach to Interrupting the School to 

Prison Pipeline 

youth Advocate Programs, (YAP) specializes in working with the 

most vulnerable youth and families in the country, those most at risk 

of being victims of the school to prison pipeline. Our work can be 

simply defined as providing intensive, community- and strengthbased, individualized wraparound and advocacy services for 

youth and their families. We partner with youth, adults and families 

to move them from where they are to where they want to be, 

providing intensive (7-30 hours of service per week), unconditional 

support to those with the highest need and in crisis, helping them 

achieve personal. educational and social success. This kind of 

advocacy is becoming widely accepted as an intensive form of 

mentoring, targeted to meet the complex needs of youth at 

highest risk of dropping out. Importantly, by supporting students 

and their families, we are also supporting the school administration 

and enhancing school safety. Our services are transitional and 

designed to effect long term change. 

Key to our success is the people we hire to work with YAP kids and 

families. We strategically hire people - who we call Advocates -

who live in the same communities as our kids and families. The 

Advocates are natural experts in understanding the 

neighborhood's assets and challenges. They come from diverse 

backgrounds and hold credentials from GED to PhD; the only 

requirement is that they have care and concern for their 

communities. This approach positions our Advocates to be credible 

messengers to their youth and families. 

YAP also matches youth with Advocates based on shared interests 

and strengths to further help engage youth and build the trust 

needed for true growth and change. Our Advocates know their 

communities and the schools; they build relationships with 

teachers. principals, school counselors and school security, and 

they advocate for what their kids need most. 

While our approach is individualized and flexible to adjust for 

inevitable changes, a key part of our success is also collaboration 

with other community organizations and resources. We not only 
844 

work to help the youth improve his or her behaviors, but we also work to strengthen communities. 

Our experience shows us that working with the community to help keep kids safe and thriving is the 

most desirable outcome, and that communities have untapped resources to help. As the sociologist 

John McKnight says, H[t]he community is more hospitable than it is not." 

Some of the unique ways our Advocates have helped keep students out of the pipeline include: 

Family Engagement: 

Every youth we work with has an Individualized Service Plan. The plan is created with a Program 

Director, Advocate, parents, youth and other formal or informal supports the youth identifies as 

important to him or her, comprising what we call a "child and family team." Together this team works 

to devise a plan that identifies and builds on individual and family strengths and assets. The family, 

youth and team members participate as equal members of the team; everyone is considered a 

contributor. The plan is developed using assessment tools that target needs and purposefully plan to 

address each need using community resources. This entire process is intended to improve youth 

outcomes, but also to engage the family and team members in the process. Keeping the family 

involved gives them ownership over the plan, and in the school setting, helps parents to participate in 

the youth's educational plan. Parental engagement is key to a youth's educational success, 

Children Exposed to Trauma 

Many of the youth we work with have been exposed to early childhood trauma, as exposure to 

community violence or victims of sexual or physical abuse. Youth who have grown up living in multiple 

foster care homes, residential placement or group homes or have been locked up in the juvenile 

justice system are angry and fearful resulting in behaviors in school that may lead teachers or 

administrators to kick them out and back into the systems they came from. In many instances, schools 

do not possess the resources or skilled staff to reach these youth. But with the right supports, with an 

Advocate they trust, these youth can change behavior and get the help they need to stay in school 

and avoid being pushed out. 

Our staff is trained to identify root causes of trauma that may lead to behavior likely to push them into 

the pipeline. Because our approach is individualized and relationship-based, once we identify the 

trauma, we can help the youth access counseling or other formal and informal supports to help 

improve school relationships and behavior. 

youth Living and Attending Schools in Violent Neighborhoods 

For many students, simply getting to and from school safely is a challenge due to the violence in their 

neighborhoods. As we witnessed in the brutal videotaped beating of Chicago Public Schools student 

Demon Albert, school closings that force youth to go to schools in neighborhoods that may be 

dangerous for them to travel to or through, inhibit access to education. For example, more than 1,300 

Chicago Public Schools students have been shot since 2008 through June 2012, 127 fatally?, creating 

an environment that is clearly dangerous for students. Community violence is a complicated and 

misunderstood issue that our community-based advocates are skilled at understanding. They can help 

7Numher of CPS students shot rises, as does fear of more to cornel by Noreen S. Ahmed-UlIa, June 26, 2012 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-26!news!ct-met-cps-student-violence-062S-20120626 1 cps-studentsstudents-shot-safe-haven-program: Two Hundred and Fifty Eight Public School Students Shot in Chicago Last Year, July 10, 

2012, http://www.care2.com!causes/twa-hundred-and-fifty-eight-public-school-students-shot-in-chicago-Iastyear.html#ixzz2EcM9rFOg: 508 Chicago Kids Shot in Just 16 Months, March 10,2009, 

http://tutormentorconnection.n ing.com/profiles/blogs/S08-ch icago-kids-shot-in-just. 
845 

youth get safely to and from school, doing things as basic as driving 

them there themselves and being available before and after school, 

targeting the times when youth are most likely to be exposed to 

community violence. This kind of support and supervision often results in 

youth giving up the weapons that many young people view as 

essential to their survival for the circumstances in which they live. 

Educational Help 

Many of the youth in our programs have Individualized Education Plans. 

Some youth are placed into alternative programs or classes that do not 

challenge them leading to boredom, and in some cases, acting out 

that may lead to involvement in the pipeline. In other cases, youth may 

need IEP's and do not get them. Traditional mental health services may 

also be offered but for many young people, not accepted. Through our 

individualized service planning, our Advocates will have identified each 

youth's unique needs and strengths so they can advocate for 

appropriate placement in schools and educational support services 

that are culturally sensitive, non-traditional and most important, 

accepted by youth and families as beneficial to addressing their 

challenging circumstances. 

Poor attendance I chronic absenteeism 

Students may have all kinds of reasons for not attending school, 

although failure to attend or chronic absenteeism does not mean that 

students do not want to attend to school or that they will not attend 

school. In some states, the pipeline is codified; where truancy is a status 

offense, for example, youth who are truant are sent to local detention 

centers. 

In Pittsburgh, PA, we work in partnership with the Allegheny Department 

of Human Services to help return truant youth back to school. In the 

2009-10 school year, we served 233 youth, and when they graduated 

from our program, 73% of students who were chronically truant and atrisk of being in detention, were attending school 4-5 days a week. And 

in our Chicago program, we were able to re-enroll nearly 200 youth in 

school that live in violent. impoverished neighborhoods. 

A Case Study: 

Disconnected or 

Opportunity youth (Youth 

Ages 16-24) 

YAP also has tracked our 

progress with a cohort of 

723 youth ages 16-24 who 

were either not attending 

school or engaged in work 

when they entered our 

program in August 2010. 

At the time of their 

discharge from our 

program, 64% were either 

working or in school or 

both, and post-discharge, 

that number rises to 84%. 

Our model of service not 

only addresses the needs 

of each youth. but we 

build on strengths, all with 

the goal of reconnecting 

youth to their communities 

and families and to the 

opportunities that exist for 

them, 

Key to our success are simple yet effective interventions; ensuring thot kids wake up and get to school; 

accompanying youth during the school day as needed; supporting the young person in addressing 

the underlying reasons for truancy (e.g .. bullying, sexual identity issues, conflict with other stUdents or 

teachers, domestic violence at home; homelessness); providing or arranging for tutoring and other 

educational supports and working with the family to ensure that schooling is reinforced and supported 

after hours in the home. 

A community-based model that meets youth where they are and develops a plan to get them back 

on track can help reduce the number of high school dropouts and youth in the pipeline. 

Poverty & Work 
846 

Almost 100% of the youth YAP serves live in poverty and receive school lunches. Research shows that 

students eligible for school lunches and who live in poverty-stricken neighborhoods are 

disproportionately caught up in the pipeline. We can help to alleviate the symptoms of their poverty 

by, for example, planning for time with a caring adult while a parent works two or three jobs; helping 

to involve the youth in activities that interest him or her; helping a youth access counseling or 

treatment and finding employment for the youth, 

Wherever possible and necessary, we include "supported work" to our service delivery. Supported work 

is YAP's subsidized work program where we match youth in jobs at community businesses or nonprofits 

and pay the wages. We search for supported work placements that reflect the youth's interests. 

Importantly, supported work teaches the youth job skills, gives a youth work experience, meets 

important economic needs and helps the community invest in the youth's success. Our Advocates are 

also trained job coaches, and with the new employer, are another set of eyes in the community 

focused on the youth's well-being. 

YAP Advocates can improve the chances that a youth living in impoverished conditions can achieve 

personal and social success if they have the support they need. When they feel supported, behavior 

changes and the pipeline can be averted. 

Conclusion 

Kicking students out of school and into the pipeline has a reverberating effect on youth. youth who do 

not graduate high school end up more likely to be involved in the criminal justice system, on public 

welfare, underemployed or unemployed and have a lifetime of disconnectedness. They will suffer 

chronic collateral consequences, especially if they end up with criminal histories that will disable them 

from opportunities to work, receive benefits they needs and have access to affordable housing, 

among others consequences. 

We have to ask, when we kick a youth out of school and in to the pipeline, have we done all we can 

do to help that child have the best outcome possible? If not, then we need to do more. If we don't 

the youth will not be the only ones who feel the effects; society and taxpayers will suffer, as will whole 

communities. The pipeline affects us all. 

Approaches like YAP strengthen schools, supports youth, families, communities and school 

administrators. This inclusive approach leads to far belter outcomes. The approach outlined above is 

one of several that demonstrates how we can stop the pipeline. There are ways to keep youth and 

schools safe that do not include kicking them out of school. 

Our experience shows us that kids are quite redeemable and we should invest in them. 
847 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD NOT PRINTED DUE TO VOLUMINOUS NATURE, PREVIOUSLY PRINTED BY AN AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR OTHER CRITERIA DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE, LIST: 

ACLU, ‘‘Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline’’ 

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclulstatementlforlsjclsubcomml 

hearinglonlthelschoolltolprisonlpipelinel12l2012.pdf 

Vera Institute Testimony 

http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/michaeljacobson-testimony-school-to-prison-pipeline.pdf 

Æ