Plugging Up the School-to-Prison Pipeline
By: Kristian Emel
Tags: Wp2f2020econ, Schools, Criminal Justice, Education, Black Lives Mater

By Kristian Emel

Image from https://allianceinaction.org/2017/03/30/4-ways-to-reverse-the-school-to-prison-pipeline-now/

Exploratory Anecdote

Let’s imagine a scenario:

It’s a sunny day and you’re 11 years old preparing for your long-awaited first day of 6th grade at your local school in your inner-city neighborhood. You’re in the car on the way to school, trembling with an indistinguishable mix of excitement and anxiety as you mentally prepare to meet all of your new classmates and immerse yourself into a completely new environment; but, when you’re mom pulls around the corner to approach the school drop-off point, your excitement quickly diminishes and your anxiety takes a turn for the worse. Your school doesn’t look so much like the green fields, open playgrounds, and clean eating areas that you were expecting. Instead, the paint on the buildings is faded and chipping, the fields are brown and patchy, and there are large towering fences surrounding the entire campus that look more appropriate for a prison yard than a middle school. You’re a young African-American male, or in other words, you’re automatically likely to be punished far more harshly than your White classmates for similar behavior at school, you face higher expectancy of academic failure, and, on average, there is likely a impenetrable tension between your school administrators and the parents and members of your community that inevitably spill over into the creation of an adverse academic environment for you. To top things off, there just so happens to be a looming private-prison system that’s counting on your academic failure.

I hope that this wasn’t your experience at any point in your academic career, but, unfortunately, for many who reside in our inner-cities, this is the reality that they grapple with, some not knowing that alternative options are available to them. From a very young age, kids are subject to an inequitable public schooling system based on socioeconomic status that they, as kids, have no control over. We must beg the question: Is this the environment that we want those who are the future of our world to grow up in?

Executive Summary

In this paper, we will explore the conditions that distinguish the public school system’s failure in many of our inner-cities, thus creating and catering to the infamous school-to-prison pipeline. We will then discuss the systematic inequalities, in regard to discipline, that afflict Black and Brown kids more than their White counterparts, contributing to higher drop-out rates in high school and eventually involvement in the penal system. Finally we will explore solutions, namely, the Education Rehabilitation Plan; Reach One, Teach One Plan; and Empathy First Policy, which all work together to bring the community and their respective schools closer together to address and solve topical and systemic issues that will ultimately contribute to the plugging-up, or eradication, of the infamous School-to-Prison Pipeline.

We have a responsibility to not only explore, but also to correct these issues in our education system because of our commitment to equality, or at least equal opportunity, for all Americans, our collective interest in providing the best for our youth, and the impetus to root out the inhumane corruption that plagues the private prison industrial complex, which thrives off of the school-to-prison pipeline. This topic is not solely about government spending or infrastructure or even resource allocation, but about the summation of all of them and how they specifically pertain to human rights and the violations, thereof, in our inner-cities.

Scope of Problem

According to Vincent Roscigno, professor of Sociology at Ohio State University, “students living in inner city and rural areas of the United States exhibit lower educational achievement and a higher likelihood of dropping out of high school than do their suburban counterparts.” However, before we dig into the causation, let’s first clearly define what the “Inner-City” is. For decades, there have been divergent schools of thought on the true meaning of the Inner City, some limiting the meaning to the self-implication of the name, while others assign a more racially, socio-economic charged definition. Historically, inner cities were massive sprawls of industry and innovation, however, since the 1950’s, when a large portion of manufacturing jobs shut down or moved elsewhere, these same inner cities were left impoverished with few economic opportunities for stability or growth. Unfortunately, not much has changed for the inner cities’ environments since the 50’s era displacement of economic activity, as “67 percent of African American families living in the United States’ poorest neighborhoods a generation ago continue to live in the same neighborhoods today” and “48 percent of black families have lived in poor neighborhoods for over two consecutive generations, compared to only 7 percent of white families” (Hughey). As a result, when the term “Inner-City” is used, there often is a hint or implication into the poverty that exists in the area.

How does this tie into education? Well, unfortunately, unless informed otherwise, many may fall guilty to the assumption that Inner Cities have very little to offer or may not be safe at all, thus resulting in poorer availability for good teachers, financial investment, and expectations of success for inner city schools. As Hughey describes, far too often do we think of schools in our inner cities and picture, “struggling teachers, administrators, and students of color embroiled in antagonistic relationships that are frequently punctuated by extreme and injurious violence” and “dimly lit and graffiti-filled hallways and run-down classrooms overseen by burned-out teachers.” This image is very harmful, not only for its painfully, racially-charged assumptions, but because in more cases than others, this image is somewhat accurate, and that’s a shame on us as the people who shape the learning environments for our youth, not on the author for the description.

The extent of struggle that schools in inner cities face is beyond what meets the eye or distant assumptions, but materializes systematically. For example, inner city schools are chronically under-funded, not solely because of lack of government funding, but also because of the surrounding community. Economically, “inner city and rural families lag behind those residing in suburban locales in income. The income deficit for inner city students, reported here as the natural log, is approximately $14,000 per year” (Roscigno). This deficit, although starkly problematic in itself, contributes to a larger problem, specifically, low income neighborhoods “shape the availability of school resources through the concentration of poverty and the generation of educational revenue through local property taxes. Simply, lower property values join with a relatively high tax burden and a lack of corporate tax revenues to produce a smaller economic base for educational spending” (Roscigno). Not only are communities in inner cities generating less income on average, but this low income is also rolling over into poorer available educational resources for students, who cannot pay taxes and have no control over the socioeconomic status of their family or their neighborhood. It is, however, important to acknowledge the government’s role in attempting to ameliorate these problems, however ineffective. It is important to point out the differences in government spending. As a matter of fact, “inner-city schools tend to provide, on average, higher expenditure per pupil. Federal funds in particular are targeted at high-poverty schools, and these federal transfers are incorporated in this measure” (Roscigno). So then why are we still observing painfully-underfunded schools struggle to provide adequate learning-environments for their students and what effect do these environments ultimately have on the students themselves?

For decades, inner city schools have been notorious for the harsh and swift disciplining of their students. For some, this method of control and instruction is necessary and welcomed, but to others, it is a sign of racialization and lack of understanding and empathy for students. Racially, Black students are far more likely to receive harsher punishments than their White peers for the same behavior. This gap has been aggravated and clearly identified by members of the community and school administrators as schools have moved to harsher punishments for students over the decades. Before, when students may have been told to write standards, go to time-out, or go home for the day for misbehavior, they are now facing increasing rates of suspension and even expulsion. According to Skiba, “the rate at which students across the country were suspended and expelled from schools almost doubled, from 3.7% (1.7 million students) suspended in 1974 to 6.6% (over 3 million students) suspended in 2009–2010,” and can you guess who disproportionately suffered more from this increase in exclusionary discipline? Skiba adds, “Black students have been documented as receiving fewer mild disciplinary sanctions and more severe disciplinary consequences for similar infractions, especially for Black girls were “over five times more likely than white girls to be suspended or expelled. A number of studies have shown high rates of disciplinary disparities for black females at both the elementary and secondary school levels.” As you can imagine from the theme of this breakdown that these inequalities in discipline don’t simply stand at face value, but they also matriculate into deeper problems for the students who they affect the worst.

Allow me to introduce the School-to-Prison Pipeline, a construct used to describe policies and practices, especially with respect to school discipline, in the public schools and juvenile justice system that decrease the probability of school success for children and youth, and increase the probability of negative life outcomes, particularly through involvement in the juvenile justice system” (Skiba). It is important to note that the term School-to-Prison does not imply that schools are actively engaging in sending students to prison, but rather, unequitable and harsh school environments leave students unprepared to join the workforce and increase their chances of involvement with the criminal justice system. The three primary disciplinary actions that contribute to the School-to-Prison Pipeline, or STPP, are suspension, expulsion, and drop-out, the last one being the decision of the student, but not solely isolated from the effects of the first two. Simply stated, “increased use of school exclusion through suspension and expulsion could reduce academic engagement, thereby negatively impacting student achievement.

These outcomes could prove to be a potent predictor of both school dropout and eventual involvement in the juvenile justice system” (Skiba). Suspending and expelling students, while seeming necessary and important for the well-being of the general student body, is likely far more dangerous for the student being suspended and expelled than the counterparts being affected in school. According to data, sixty-one percent of youth found in juvenile justice detention facilities reported being expelled or suspended from school the year prior to entering juvenile justice custody found that, in a sample of over 500 males in a juvenile correctional facility, more than four in five had been suspended from school and more than one in two had been expelled from school” (Skiba). As commonly stated, correlation does not equal causation, however, the correlation is astounding. We must also factor in race, due to the fact that exclusionary discipline and our criminal justice system is harsher on some more than others. Data further points out that the criminal justice system benefits from adverse learning environments for kids of color, as, “half of the nation’s black and Hispanic students attend schools in low-income areas with dropout rates that range from 40% to 50%” contributing to the “well-documented connection [that] exists between school dropout and incarceration. For example, students who do not graduate from school are 26% more likely to become inmates. African American students are twice as likely as their white peers to drop out of school and Hispanic students are two and a half times as likely to drop out” (Cramer).

Inner city poverty is linked to educational underfunding, which is linked to racially-abusive disciplinary strategies, which is linked to increased dropout rates, which finally are linked to involvement and induction into the criminal justice system. Correlation does not equal causation but this chain of evidence is undeniably salient for those living in poverty and needs to be broken, swiftly.

Policy Options

Due to our knowledge that a large contributor to the STPP is exclusionary discipline, it would not be illogical to start drafting policy that addresses these behavior-correction tactics. However, it may be more rehabilitating to the system itself to start at the root of the problem, neighborhood poverty. It is understood that, as household wealth increases so does the performance and opportunity available to the students within the household, which is why it is important to start drafting policy that affects the home. I’d like to introduce the Education Rehabilitation Policy. As we discovered, a large reason for schools being underfunded was because of the limited resources available in the economic base of the community.

A lifeline of household educational support for families could go a long way in setting the stage for early opportunities for youth in inner cities and help raise the bar of funding in local schools. Imagine this as an educational discretionary fund for families. Instead of putting cash directly into family’s hands, consider providing resources directly such as school materials, books, engaging toys and games, and group learning activities. Whether presented to families household by household or made publicly available in the community, families would have an opportunity to engage in their children’s academic development without having to spend any income directly. To account for the underfunding of schools, consider reconfiguring the tax structure on families in the inner city, redirecting the majority of collected funds towards education first. This plan would focus on aiding the parents in ways tangible and intangible. Unfortunately, many families don’t have the discretionary income to spend extra on academic resources for their children. This plan works to ameliorate that problem. The additional clause to redirect tax dollars targets long-term development and growth. In addition to the government already spending discretionary dollars on improving school conditions, families will now also be able to play a larger part in the improvement of their communities without any necessary shift in their income.

Throughout this process, it is paramount to begin to establish better relationships between the school administrators and families as, “school staff often view parents and communities as deficient in providing proper home learning environments for students. From their perspective, ‘the community’ is part of the problem” while “community members, on the other hand, blame schools for their children’s inferior academic performance. Past negative experiences with teachers and school administrators keep parents at arm’s length. Families may also feel too intimidated to make demands of more educated and well-versed school professionals, viewing an educator’s credentials as more important than their own knowledge of what is right for their children” (Glickman).

It is critical to amend each parties’ perspective and usher in a collaborative effort built on trust and providing the best possible product for the students. Parents are an important part of schools functioning and success, just as schools should be an important part of parents’ community involvement. Glickman elaborates, “education organizing improves community participation and the integration of other community services within schools, making schools an important center for civic and family life. It increases parental presence in schools, getting more volunteers for after-school programs and special events.” A progresive policy option that would aim to improve parent-school relations would be something that I call the “Reach One, Teach One” method, a policy that encourages parents to get more engaged in the classroom, if their schedule permits, while also holding the school more accountable with transparency in regard to student performance and behavior. One one end of the policy, parents would be invited on a rotational schedule to “volunteer” to be a class-helper or to volunteer as a moderator on the recess yard. These opportunities would ideally take 30 minutes to an hour, but would give parents an important point of view of their child’s education and social environment. A program like this would be very effective early in the child’s journey, therefore, it is recommended for elementary school.

On the other hand of the policy, schools would be expected to hire community counselors whose sole purpose is to engage with parents on behalf of the school. Their job would entail establishing consistent contact with parents, not as a way to solely report on their children, but also as a way to work with the parents to establish a plan to improve their child’s performance. These counselors would be intermediaries between the families and the schools. This plan is ideal for middle and high school kids, for as kids get older, it is easier for them to disengage from school and for parents to lose authoritarian control of their children.

Finally, we must address the disciplinary strategy that many schools employ that leave students at a higher risk of incarceration. It is important not to overcomplicate this issue or fall subject to hypotheticals such as, “what if so-and-so ends up doing this”, “or that,” but rather to stay loyal to the interest and protection of all students. To start, we must reconsider the conditions that must be met in order for a student to be suspended or expelled, and furthermore reconsider the way we approach discipline as a whole. Is discipline in schools punitive or rehabilitative? What should it be? Does suspending a student teach a lesson? Or does it put the student more at odds? What about expulsion? The goal of any school should be to keep students engaged and in school. This is, of course, not to dismiss obvious grounds for suspension or expulsion such as violent or threatening behavior that puts the safety of other kids at risk, but it does question other excuses that have been used to harshly punish kids such as interrupting class, acting out, or disobeying authority. I propose an “Empathy First” policy that advocates for students being met with an empathetic response before a punitive one. Instead of punishing a student for acting out, first try to understand why that student was acting out to begin with. Instead of punishing a student for disobeying authority, first try to understand where the problem is rooted. Lastly, establish a suspension and expulsion oversight committee made up of parents in the community that specifically oversees the grounds for suspensions and expulsions. Not only does this put pressure on the school to reserve harsh punishment for cases that truly deserve it, but it also allows parents to observe the worst of students’ behavior and have an opportunity to actively be a part of the process of rehabilitating the child. It is an accountability measure for both parties.

Policy Recommendation

While I believe that all three aforementioned policy options would be effective, the Education Rehabilitation Plan; the Reach One, Teach One Plan; and the Empathy First Policy, I believe the Reach One, Teach One Plan should be implemented first. It is a plan with the priority of mending the relationship between parents and administrators, which has potential to solve the problems that the other two policies are targeting as well. With an improved relationship between the community and the school, educational funding and resources are likely to improve, opportunities for children will expand and disciplinary action will be a less-targeted approach to maintain control in schools. Instead of focusing on looking outward for solutions, schools and neighborhoods can rely on themselves for improvements, after all, making school environments better is and should be the main priority for administrators. It is important to note that, “community groups pressure districts to reduce overcrowding, forcing them to build new facilities, reduce class and school sizes, and lower teacher–student ratios,” (Glickman) which in turn allows institutions to improve their environments, infrastructure, and relationships with students and families. The expected outcomes are far more promising and propose small financial burdens on the schools themselves. Beyond the cost of the extra school counselors, which can be subsidised by the government, the school would be acquiring no extra cost. Restoring the relationship between schools and the communities that they serve is critical and necessary, now. How many more children will face unequal learning opportunities, higher risk of drop out, and incarceration before we take definitive action?

References

Cramer, Elizabeth. “From Classmates to Inmates: An Integrated Approach to Break the

School-to-Prison Pipeline.” Shibboleth Authentication Request, 2014, www-tandfonline-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10665684.2014.958962. **Cramer is a Professor of Special Education and Florida International University

Glickman, Norman. “Can Community and Education Organizing Improve Inner-City

Schools.” Shibboleth Authentication Request, 2016, www-tandfonline-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467–9906.2008.00418.x.

**Norman Glickman was a professor of Public Policy at Rutgers University

Hughey, Matthew. “The Dimensions of Racialization and the Inner-City School .” Sage

Journals, 2017, journals-sagepub-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/full/10.1177/0002716217726758.

**Mathew Hughey is a sociologist known for his work on race and racism

Roscigno, Vincent. “Education and the Inequalities of Place.” Gale Academic Onefile,

2006, go-gale-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE.

**Vincent is a Sociology professor at Ohio State University

Skiba, Russell. “More than a Metaphor: The Contribution of Exclusionary Discipline to a

School-to-Prison Pipeline.” Taylor & Francis Online, 2014, www-tandfonline-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10665684.2014.958965.

**Skiba is a professor of Psychology at Indiana University