U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

Exploring the School-to-Prison Pipeline: How School Suspensions Influence Incarceration During Young Adulthood

1 Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, OH, USA

John J. Brent

2 School of Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA

Thomas J. Mowen

A growing body of research has evoked the life-course perspective to understand how experiences in school relate to a wide range of longer term life outcomes. This is perhaps best typified by the notion of the school-to-prison pipeline which refers to a process by which youth who experience punitive punishment in schools are increasingly enmeshed within the criminal justice system. While this metaphor is commonly accepted, few studies have examined the extent to which exclusionary school discipline significantly alters pathways toward incarceration as youth transition into young adulthood. Applying a life-course perspective and leveraging 15 waves of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, this study examines how school suspensions influence the odds of imprisonment during young adulthood. Mixed-effects longitudinal models demonstrate that receiving a suspension serves as a key turning point toward increased odds of incarceration, even after accounting for key covariates including levels of criminal offending. However, results show that repeated suspensions do not appear to confer additional risk of incarceration. Results carry implications for the ways in which school punishment impacts youths’ life-course.

Although mounting scrutiny over school discipline has led to various reform initiatives (see Gregory, Clawson, Davis, & Gerewitz, 2016 ; Hirschfield, 2018a ), the use of punitive and exclusionary punishment practices persists across the United States ( Kupchik, 2016 ; Musu-Gillette, Zhang, Wang, Zhang, & Oudekerk, 2018 ). Recent reports from the Department of Education’s (2018) Office of Civil Rights reveal that approximately 2.7 million students experienced at least one out-of-school suspension during the 2015–2016 academic year. In fact, estimates suggest that about one third of all students in the United States will receive at least one suspension by the time they graduate from high school ( Shollenberger, 2015 ). These trends, which have largely increased over the last few decades ( Department of Education, 2018 ), become more salient when considering there have been significant decreases in offending and violence within schools since the late 1980s ( Musu-Gillette et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, research has tied exclusionary practices to a host of negative outcomes including lower levels of attendance, self-esteem, academic performance, and graduation as well as higher levels of anxiety, dropout, delinquency, victimization, and arrest (for a thorough overview, see Welsh & Little, 2018 ).

To compound matters, the current landscape of school discipline extends beyond suspensions to include a variety of practices to prevent and punish delinquent behaviors ( Hirschfield, 2008 ). The spread of security mechanisms in the form of surveillance systems, drug-sniffing dogs, metal detectors, and school resource officers, for example, have increased over the past few decades ( Casella, 2006 ; Musu-Gillette et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, punitive policies have become increasingly procedural and standardized, preventing school officials from using their discretion when administering disciplinary sanctions (for an overview, see Kupchik, 2016 ). As such, the growing use of zero tolerance policies throughout the 1990s contributed to a significant increase in suspensions and expulsions across schools in the United States ( Hirschfield, 2008 ). When taken in sum, this assemblage of punishment practices has been indicted with establishing a school-to-prison pipeline ( Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams, 2014 ; Wald & Losen, 2003 ; for a thorough overview of the metaphor, see Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018 ). This pipeline refers to a process whereby youth who are punished under criminalized disciplinary practices find themselves in contact with the criminal justice system ( Hirschfield, 2008 ; Wald & Losen, 2003 ; see also Simmons, 2017 , p. 4, concept of the prison school).

Cast against research applying the life-course perspective, scholars have recently highlighted that school discipline can serve as a turning point that negatively affects individuals’ future outcomes ( Mowen & Brent, 2016 ). The life-course perspective recognizes that pivotal life events such as criminal justice contact are aligned with life-course trajectories associated with other adverse outcomes including incarceration, arrest, and future offending (for an overview, see Sampson and Laub, 2005 ). Recent studies have demonstrated that school discipline can serve as a turning point both toward increased risk of arrest ( Mowen & Brent, 2016 ) and increased levels of offending ( Mowen, Brent, & Boman, 2019 ) as youth progress through school. Moreover, school discipline can contribute to increased turmoil within the family (e.g., Kupchik, 2016 ), sever student bonds to their family and school ( Mowen et al., 2019 ), and place youth at greater risk of dropping out of school ( Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018 ). Despite the understanding that school discipline can function as a turning point (e.g., Mowen & Brent, 2016 ) and that school suspensions are tied to a number of negative short-term outcomes (see Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018 , for an overview), understanding the longer term outcomes and specific pathways through which suspensions promote the school-to-prison pipeline remains theoretically and empirically clouded.

Overall, despite the knowledge that school discipline contributes to deleterious outcomes for youth and young adults, few studies have examined how school discipline functions as a turning point across time that may function to promote incarceration as youth move into adulthood. Consequently, while the pipeline between school discipline and prison is a commonly accepted metaphor, few studies have directly examined this relationship. This oversight is particularly notable in light of the widespread use of exclusionary school sanctions, their association with well-established negative outcomes, and their potential to significantly alter life-course outcomes (e.g., Mowen & Brent, 2016 ). To address this gap in the literature, the current study adopts a life-course framework and leverages 15 waves of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 ( n LSY97) to examine the extent to which school suspensions experienced during adolescence are associated with the odds of incarceration in young adulthood.

Life Course and the Continuity of Negative Events

Starting in the late 1970s and 1980s, an intellectual resurgence took place within criminology focusing on understanding the longitudinal development of antisocial behavior, juvenile delinquency, and adult crime ( Blumstein, Cohen, & Farrington, 1988 ; Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986 ; Caspi, 1987 ; Elder, 1975 ; Loeber, 1982 ). During this time, scholars began developing theoretical frameworks to explain the onset, persistence, and desistence of criminal conduct as youth moved into—and through—adulthood ( Elder, 1975 ; Loeber, 1982 ; Moffitt, 1993 ; Sampson & Laub, 1993 , 1997 ). As a result, research began focusing on criminogenic and prosocial events influencing criminal pathways over time ( Elder, 1985 ; Laub & Sampson, 2003 ; Sampson & Laub, 1993 ). These pivotal life events would later be conceptualized as turning points by Sampson and Laub (1993) , which marked events in one’s life that disconnected their past from their present. Serving as catalysts for social and behavioral transitions, turning points can be either prosocial or antisocial. Prosocial turning points, or life events promoting criminal desistance, often include a stable marriage, engaged parenthood, gainful employment, academic achievements, and successful military service. Antisocial turning points, or those events encouraging criminal persistence, frequently include divorce, family instability, unemployment, educational failure, and criminal justice involvement (for an overview, see Sampson & Laub, 2005 ).

To further explain criminal pathways across time, the life-course perspective borrows Caspi’s (1987) concepts of cumulative continuity and interactional continuity. Cumulative continuity refers to the accumulation of life consequences, while interactional continuity denotes repeatedly provoking reactions from others ( Caspi, 1987 ). Within the realm of life-course criminology, these concepts suggest that negative turning points and maladaptive behaviors can evoke a durable sequence of reinforcing conditions that increasingly build onto one another as they hinder future outcomes ( Sampson & Laub, 1997 ; see also Elder, 1998 ; Moffitt, 1993 ). For Sampson and Laub (1997) , this represents a process of cumulative disadvantage in which the sustained consequences of criminal justice contact limit opportunities in conventional domains. Further, Sampson and Laub (1997) contend that the sustained continuity between negative outcomes is intimately linked to four institutions of social control—two of which being schools and state sanctions.

Schools, Discipline, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline Metaphor

A review of criminology’s theoretical infrastructure demonstrates that schools have long been central institution under examination ( Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992 ; Rocque, Jennings, Piquero, Ozkan, & Farrington, 2017 ). As such, a sizable literature highlights the impact of schools and education on crime and criminal justice outcomes. Under the umbrella of life-course criminology, schools have received considerable attention given their potential to influence adolescent’s life trajectories. For instance, educational snags, or negative school experiences such as poor educational performance, lack of school attendance, and permanent disciplinary records, have been associated with lower levels of academic achievement, occupation stability, and economic mobility as well as amplified levels of juvenile delinquency, adult criminality, criminal justice contact, and incarceration ( Bersani & Chappie, 2007 ; Elder, 1998 ; Hagan, MacMillan, & Wheaton, 1996 ; Jimerson, 1999 ; Moffitt, 1993 ; Pettit & Western, 2004 ; Laub & Sampson, 2003 ; Thornberry, Moore, & Christenson, 1985 ). These results indicate that school failure can act as a significant negative turning point within the life course of youth ( Bersani & Chappie, 2007 ).

More recently, schools have become sites of intense examination given concerns over the negative consequences associated with intensified disciplinary assemblages (see Heitzeg, 2009 ). National reports and scholarly efforts consistently find that criminal justice–based mechanisms (i.e., surveillance systems, school resource officers, metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs, and notification systems) have become commonplace within the school environment ( Casella, 2006 ; Kupchik, 2010 ; Musu-Gillette et al., 2018 ; Nolan, 2011 ). Further, evidence suggests that more punitive sanctions associated with zero tolerance policies have structured schools’ responses to minor forms of student misconduct ( Advancement Project, 2000 ; American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008 ; Curran, 2016 ; Curtis, 2014 ; Noltemeyer, Ward, & Mcloughlin, 2015 ; Phaneuf, 2009 ; Skiba & Peterson, 2000 ). More pertinent to this study, the escalation of exclusionary practices—such as in- and out-of-school suspensions and expulsions—have been shown to negatively impact the future outcomes of youth.

In perhaps the most recent systematic and comprehensive review on the subject, Welsh and Little (2018 , p. 316) synthesize the existing evidence on how punitive school punishment practices affect students’ educational and life outcomes. In their review of 71 peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2018, findings suggest that school suspensions are the most common form of punitive punishment used in schools across the United States ( Welsh & Little, 2018 , p. 335). When examining outcomes associated with exclusionary discipline, Welsh and Little (2018 , p. 321) largely find that exclusionary practices are not only negatively related to short-term educational outcomes but also to more long-term life outcomes. More specifically, their review overwhelmingly indicates that current disciplinary trends are strongly tied to diminished educational achievements, lower scores on standardized tests, diminished graduation rates, decreased school attendance, and lower rates of educational matriculation. Further, exclusionary discipline has been found to be positively associated with higher dropout rates, greater levels of grade retention, missed instructional time, and delays in graduation. Perhaps more instructive to the current study, Welsh and Little’s (2018) review also highlights that sanctioned youth experience increased levels of contact with juvenile justice and arrest. Despite these amassed findings, Welsh and Little (2018 , p. 335) conclude by stating that most research lacks a theoretical framework when interpreting disciplinary pathways leading to negative outcomes and therefore undertheorize the influence of school discipline. We echo Welsh and Little’s (2018) conclusion and, therefore, turn now to a discussion of school discipline from a life-course perspective.

The Life-Course Perspective on School Discipline

The life-course perspective posits that pivotal life experiences can serve as turning points and transitions that alter one’s life trajectory toward or away from crime as they move into and through adulthood ( Elder, 1985 ; Farrington, 2003 ; Laub & Sampson, 1993 ; Sampson & Laub, 2003). Perhaps more importantly, these experiences have the ability to knife off ( Moffitt, 1993 ) important opportunity structures and produce a cumulative effect ( Sampson & Laub, 1997 ), compounding on one another as they shape criminal pathways. As we discuss below, a number of studies reveal that school suspensions may contribute to antisocial outcomes as youth progress through school, and emerging research has highlighted that school suspensions can function as a short-term turning point toward antisocial developmental outcomes.

At least two recent studies have conceptualized school discipline within the life-course context. For example, Mowen and Brent (2016) found that school suspensions increase odds of arrest and suggest that school discipline can function as a negative turning point that increases contact with the criminal justice system. In a follow-up study, Mowen, Brent, and Boman (2019) examined the effect of school suspensions on offending behaviors using four waves of data from the NLSY97. The authors found that school suspensions actually increased offending behaviors among youth who experienced school punishment. At the same time, the authors highlight an important limitation to their study, noting that although their findings demonstrate school suspensions are an important life event for youth in the short term, their results do not speak to longer term outcomes ( Mowen et al., 2019 ).

Other studies have also considered how school suspensions may contribute to antisocial outcomes among adolescents. Although not specifically applying life-course theory, in an analysis of data encompassing 4,665 13- to 17-year-old youth in an urban school district, Cuellar and Markowitz (2015) found that youth who received a school suspension were far more likely to report increases in offending behaviors than youth who were not suspended. As a result, suspended youth were also more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system (e.g., arrest and incarceration). This finding supports the life-course notion that school suspensions may function as a turning point toward increased contact with the criminal justice system. In a related vein, Rosenbaum (2018) used propensity score matching to examine outcomes for 480 youth matched to 1,193 emerging adults. Findings revealed that youth who were suspended were less likely than youth who were not suspended to have graduated high school and were more likely to be arrested or on probation. Similarly, using the Add-Health data, Wolf and Kupchik (2017) show that suspended youth reported much greater levels of offending than nonsuspended youth in emerging adulthood. These latter two studies further demonstrate that school suspensions may serve as a turning point as youth progress through school.

Overall, the extant research has provided evidence that school suspensions can affect outcomes across time (e.g., Cuellar & Markowitz, 2015 ; Rosenbaum, 2018 ; Wolf & Kupchik, 2017 ), and emerging research has conceptualized school discipline as a key turning point toward short-term antisocial outcomes (e.g., Mowen & Brent, 2016 ). Yet, drawing upon the life-course perspective, a key question that remains unanswered is how school suspensions function to influence longer term outcomes. Given the widespread use of the school-to-prison pipeline ( Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018 ), the lack of scientific scrutiny on the link between suspension and incarceration across ones’ life course is a startling limitation particularly given the acknowledgment within these extant studies that school discipline is both theoretical and empirically a turning point for adolescents.

Part of the limitation to existing studies is the reliance on only two waves of data (e.g., Rosenbaum, 2018 ; Wolf & Kupchik, 2017 ) or focusing exclusively on data during the time frame in which the majority of youth are enrolled in school (e.g., Mowen & Brent, 2016 ; Mowen et al., 2019 ). Yet, the school-to-prison pipeline describes a process of many years whereby youth are placed at a greater risk of incarceration even as they move into, and through, young adulthood. Thus, research is needed that situates exclusionary discipline within the life-course framework to examine its impact on trajectories as men and women move into adulthood while simultaneously documenting the specific mechanisms that drive this pipeline. This need raises attention to the goals of the current study.

Current Study

The primary aim of the current study is to examine how school suspensions experienced in middle and high school relate to incarceration as youth transition into young adulthood. To accomplish this, we establish three goals to guide the present investigation. The first goal of this study is to broadly examine the relationship between school suspension and incarceration during young adulthood. Specifically, we examine how the share of men and women who are incarcerated during their young adult years differs for those who were suspended during middle or high school compared to those who never experienced a suspension. Based on the negative outcomes associated with school punishments, we predict that:

Hypothesis 1: The share of individuals who experience incarceration during young adulthood will be greater for those who were suspended at least once in middle or high school than for those who were never suspended.

Next, we investigate the school-to-prison pipeline by moving into the multivariate framework to examine the extent to which suspension functions as turning point toward incarceration over time, net the effect of key covariates such as offending and race/ethnicity. Largely reflecting the literature reviewed above, we expect that:

Hypothesis 2: Young adults who experienced a suspension during grades 7 through 12 will be placed at significantly higher odds of incarceration, even after accounting for levels of delinquency and offending.

Finally, drawing from the concept of cumulative disadvantage, we then focus only on those who reported receiving a suspension to examine the extent to which the total number of suspensions received relates to incarceration throughout young adulthood. Within this subgroup, we expect that:

Hypothesis 3: A greater number of suspensions will relate to increasingly greater odds of incarceration across time, thus demonstrating a cumulative effect of suspension on incarceration.

Data and Methods

To explore the relationship between school suspension and incarceration, we use the first 15 rounds of the NLSY97. Sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NLSY97 collects information on a variety of topics including the educational and employment outcomes of adolescents as they transitioned into adulthood. The initial sample consisted of 6,748 nationally representative respondents who were between the ages of 12 and 16 in 1997 (born between 1980 and 1984), as well as an oversample of 2,236 Black and Hispanic adolescents, resulting in an initial sample size of 8,984 respondents. Yearly interviews were conducted for the first 15 rounds (1997–2011), with the survey switching to a biennial design after 2011. Although the NLSY97 suffers from some attrition, more than 80% of the original sample is retained during the first 15 rounds of the survey. The NLSY97’s longitudinal nature allows us to observe and control for the within- and between-person characteristics and experiences throughout respondent’s teenage years and as they transition into adulthood. Being able to observe such indicators is crucial when studying the transition from adolescence to adulthood as one’s characteristics and experiences in adolescence can lead to varying outcomes in later life ( Elder, 1998 ; Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2011 ; Macmillan & Hagan, 2004 ).

The data are converted into person-year intervals representing young adults between the ages of 18 and 26. The analyses are restricted to these ages to ensure that young adults have aged out of school and are therefore no longer eligible to be suspended. Within the analyses, this restriction establishes a sequence of events where suspension experiences occurred prior to incarceration.

Dependent Measure: Incarceration

The dependent measure in this study is incarceration. The NLSY97 provides information on respondent’s incarceration status during each wave of the survey. Using this information, we create a time-varying dichotomous measure representing whether the respondents experienced an incarceration during each year from ages 18–26. As shown in Table 1 , about 1.5% of the sample reported being incarcerated at any given wave, though this does significantly vary within individuals across time (within-person standard deviation = 0.092).

Descriptive Statistics for Variables Used in Multivariate Analyses.

TI/TV VariableMean RangeWithin
Dependent variable
 TV Incarcerated0.0150.1120–10.092
Independent variables
 TI Ever suspended0.3450.4750–1
 TI Number of grades suspended (given suspended during at least one grade)1.5270.8031–6
Demographic controls
 TI Age (in years) at Round 114.801.4412.17–18.25
 TI Male0.4980.5000–1
 TI Non-Hispanic White0.5430.4980–1
 TI Non-Hispanic Black0.2540.4350–1
 TI Hispanic0.2030.4030–1
 TV Married0.1600.3670–10.244
 TV Number of biological children0.4410.8240–80.428
Criminal and delinquent controls
 TV Crime7.19051.3900–1,50040.819
 TI Respondent teen gang participation0.0880.2830–1
 TI Most peers belong in gang1.5800.9711–5
 TI Delinquent peers2.3471.0561–5
Socioeconomic controls
 TV Less than high school0.2200.4150–10.108
 TV High school or equivalent0.3280.4700–10.250
 TV Some college0.3060.4610–10.323
 TV Bachelor’s degree or more0.1450.3520–10.258
 TV Income (in 1997 dollars)$46,696.9$49,560.6$0.0–$417,074.3$36,574.1
 TI Mother less than high school0.2300.4210–1
 TI Mother high school or equivalent0.3580.4790–1
 TI Mother some college0.2350.4240–1
 TI Mother bachelor’s degree or more0.1780.3820–1
Contextual controls
 TV Living in the south0.3980.4890–10.132
 TI Family routines15.0024.2800–28
 TI School bonds12.2951.9614–16

Note . TI = time-invariant; TV = time-variant; SD = standard deviation.

Focal Independent Measure: School Suspensions

Suspension experience during the 7th through 12th grades serves as the independent variable. To capture this measure, we draw on data from two questions in the first round of the NLSY97 that asked: “Have you ever been suspended from school?” and “In what grade(s) did this happen?” Similar questions were asked during subsequent rounds: “Were you suspended from school since [the last interview]?” and “In what grades did this happen?” Using responses to these questions, we create two measures of suspension experiences. The first measure represents individuals who were ever suspended during Grades 7 through 12 as a dichotomous measure (1 = ever suspended , 0 = never suspended ). Overall, about 34.5% of the sample reported receiving a suspension sometime during school. The second measure captures the total number of grades in which respondents reported receiving a suspension. Among those who were ever suspended, respondents experienced a suspension in 1.53 grades on average, with a standard deviation of 0.80, and a range from 1 (suspended in one grade) to 6 (suspended in all grades).

Control Measures

Demographic controls..

An array of time-variant and -invariant control measures are included in the multivariate analyses. We begin by including a variety of demographic indicators associated with suspension and incarceration. Age, closely linked to both offending and incarceration, is included as a time-invariant measure. During the first interview, respondents were 14.8 years old on average, with a standard deviation of about 1.44 years and range from 12.17 to 18.25 years. We create a measure representing the square of respondent’s age to capture the nonlinear nature of the age–crime relation ( Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983 ). 1 The sample is about 49.8% female and 50.2% male. In the analyses, we withhold female as the contrast group. We also include race/ethnicity in the analysis as a series of binary variables. Overall, 25.4% of the sample was coded as Black, and 20.3% Hispanic, in contrast to 54.3% White. Due to a lack of variation in the number of “Other/Mixed” race/ethnic respondents who reported being incarcerated, this group is omitted from the analyses. Finally, to capture the influence of family formation as a turning point, we include measures representing marriage and parenthood. About 16.0% of the sample was married, and respondents reported 0.44 biological children on average, with a standard deviation of about 0.82 and a within-person standard deviation of 0.43.

Criminal and delinquent controls.

Measures that capture delinquency/offending as respondent’s offending should be the most significant predictor of both incarceration and suspension. We draw data from 6 items asking how many times the respondent: (1) carried a gun in the past 30 days, (2) destroyed property, (3) stole something worth more than $50, (4) stole something worth less than $50, (5) attacked or assaulted, and/or (6) sold illegal drugs in the past year. We sum responses to these variables such that greater scores represent larger amounts of delinquent behaviors. This measure has a mean of 7.19, and ranges from 0 ( no offending ) to 1,500 ( a great deal of offending ) with an overall standard deviation of 51.39. As a time-variant measure, delinquency/offending varies across time within persons (within standard deviation = 40.82). We transformed values of this measure using the natural log function to correct for the significant right skew.

In addition to offending, we also make use of a question asking whether respondents had been members of a gang during the first nine rounds of the survey. Responses are dichotomized to represent gang participation as an adolescent, with about 8.8% of respondents reporting gang participation and a standard deviation of 0.28. Peer gang participation is also captured and established through a question asking the percentage of the respondent’s peers who were part of a gang in 1997 (1 = almost none , 2 = about 25% , 3 = about half , 4 = about 75% , 5 = almost all ). Responses averaged 1.58, with a standard deviation of 0.97, suggesting that on average less than 25% of respondent’s peers were in a gang. Finally, a measure of peer delinquency is based on five measures indicating the share of respondent’s peers who smoked, drank alcohol, used illegal drugs, skipped school, and had sex in 1997 (1 = almost none , 2 = about 25% , 3 = about half , 4 = about 75% , 5 = almost all ). Responses are averaged and produce a mean of 2.35 with a standard deviation of 1.06.

Socioeconomic controls.

Socioeconomic controls are represented as educational attainment, household income, and mother’s educational attainment. Twenty-two percent of the sample reported less than a high school education, about one third reported high school and some college education (32.8% and 30.6%, respectively), and about 14.5% had a bachelor’s degree or more. The respondent’s total family income (in 1997 dollars) has a mean of $46,697, standard deviation of $49,561, and ranges from $0 to $417,074 a year. The modal educational attainment for respondent’s mothers is a high school degree (35.8% of the sample), whereas about 23.0% of respondents had mothers with less than a high school education, 23.5% had mothers with some college experience, and 17.8% had mothers with a bachelor’s degree or more.

Contextual controls.

Finally, a set of contextual controls are added to account for factors related to the respondent’s environment that may contribute to the odds of suspension and/or incarceration. To account for higher rates incarceration in the South ( Carson, 2018 ), a dichotomous time-varying measure is included representing if respondents lived in a Southern state (the Census definition of the South is used). Slightly less than 40% of the sample lived in the South during the period of observation, with a within-person standard deviation of 0.13 as respondents moved into (or out of) the South. A time-invariant family routines scale capturing how frequently respondents participated in activities with their family in 1997 is also included. The scale ranges from 0 to 28, with higher scores indicating more family routine activities. The average sample score is 15.0 with a standard deviation of 4.28.

In addition to geographic location and family routines, we also include a scale representing bonds to the respondent’s school experiences in 1997. Factor loading was used to identify four school-related questions to create a scale with the following items: whether teachers are good, whether teachers are interested in students, whether students are graded fairly, and whether respondents feel safe at school. Responses to these items included 1 = strongly agree , 2 = agree , 3 = disagree , and 4 = strongly disagree and were reverse coded such that higher scores represent more positive school experiences. The final scale ranges from 4 to 16, with a mean of 12.30 and a standard deviation of 1.96.

Analytic Strategy

To address the research questions presented above, we conduct three analyses. As our first broad aim is to explore the bivariate relationship between suspension and incarceration throughout young adulthood, we first begin by plotting the share of respondents who reported being incarcerated between the ages of 18 and 26 by their suspension experience status. Creating this allows us to gain a visual understanding of the association between suspension and incarceration during young adulthood.

Next, we turn to multivariate analyses to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between school suspension and incarceration across time. Because the NLSY97 data are longitudinal panel data, a model must be used that accounts for this nested design as the data violate the assumption of independence made by ordinary least squares regression. To capture both within-person changes and between-person differences, we use a mixed-effects model ( Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal, 2012 ). A mixed-effects model nests time within the individual and, through the introduction of a random intercept, accounts for a lack of independence over time. In the case of the NLSY97, time is nested within the individual allowing each case to randomly vary across the 15 waves of data. To address our second research aim and test whether any suspension during middle or high school is associated with incarceration, the first set of longitudinal models uses a dichotomous measure of suspension experience (and an array of controls) to predict incarceration for the entire analytical sample ( n = 7,623).

To address our third research aim, we then focus solely on students who ever received a suspension to examine whether a greater number of suspensions (e.g., being suspended in more grades) is significantly associated with an increased risk of incarceration later in life. Thus, for this final analysis, an interval-level measure of grades suspended is included in the model, and the sample is limited to those who experienced at least one suspension ( n = 2,710). 2

We begin by examining the share of men and women who were incarcerated between ages 18 and 26 by their suspension status ( Figure 1 ). Among those who never experienced a suspension during grades 7 through 12, less than 1% were incarcerated during any given year. The share who experienced an incarceration during each round of the NLSY97 was greater for those who reported at least one suspension. At 18, about 2.5% of the ever suspended sample reported being incarcerated, and this share peaked to 4.5% at age 26. The higher incarceration rates of the ever suspended sample throughout young adulthood provides evidence—at least at the bivariate level—of a positive association between suspension and the odds of experiencing an incarceration. To examine whether this relationship persists when delinquent, socioeconomic, demographic, and contextual characteristics are accounted for, we turn to our mixed-effects models.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1706891-f0001.jpg

Percentage of respondents who experienced an incarceration, by suspension status.

Table 2 presents the mixed-effects models examining the association between experiencing any suspension during grades 7–12 and the risk of incarceration. To ease interpretation of the generalized multilevel models, we report odds ratios from the multivariate models. Model 1 from Table 2 uses the dichotomous measure of suspension experience as the focal independent variable and the set of demographic controls. We first note that the significant Χ 2 value (915.54, p < .001) indicates the model fits the data well, with about 66.4% of the variability in incarceration occurring within persons across time. Χ 2 values remain significant in subsequent Table 2 models and are not discussed further. Turning to the substantive results, the model demonstrates that experiencing a suspension during grades 7–12 is significantly associated with greater odds of incarceration in young adulthood. Specifically, ever suspended youth report 878% greater logged odds of experiencing an incarceration than youth who were never suspended. Regarding demographic characteristics, the results show that males report higher logged odds of incarceration than females. Black respondents also report higher odds of incarceration than White respondents, while those who are currently married report a 75% reduction in the logged odds of incarceration. Finally, each additional child born is associated with a 49% increase in the logged odds of incarceration, a result likely due to the positive correlation between multipartner fertility and incarceration history ( Carlson & Furstenberg, 2006 ).

Mixed-Effects Regression Models Predicting the Odds of Incarceration.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
β β β
Ever suspended2.280.18 9.781.970.18 7.171.350.17 3.88
Demographic controls
 Age (in years) at Round 10.001.150.21−1.921.150.15−1.711.080.18
 Age (in years) at Round 1 squared0.050.041.060.060.041.070.060.041.06
 Male2.410.21 11.152.300.21 10.002.110.19 8.21
Race/ethnicity (ref. = non-Hispanic White)
 Non-Hispanic Black0.630.18 1.880.610.18 1.830.420.18 1.52
 Hispanic0.280.211.320.270.211.310.090.211.10
Married−1.330.25 0.26−1.280.25 0.28−1.170.24 0.31
Number of biological children0.400.07 1.490.380.07 1.460.250.07 1.29
Criminal and delinquent controls
 log(Crime)0.180.03 1.200.170.03 1.18
 Respondent teen gang participation0.950.20 2.580.700.19 2.01
 Most peers belong in gang−0.030.080.97−0.090.080.91
 Delinquent peers0.190.10 1.210.140.091.14
Socioeconomic controls
 Educational attainment (ref. = high school)
  Less than high school1.150.16 3.15
  Some college−0.670.21 0.51
  Bachelor’s degree or more−1.670.49 0.19
 Income (in 1997 dollars)0.000.00 1.00
 Mother’s education (ref. = high school)
  Less than high school−0.130.180.87
  Some college−0.420.21 0.66
  Bachelor’s degree or more−0.100.260.91
Contextual controls
 Living in the South−0.090.150.91
 Family routines0.010.021.01
 School bonds−0.050.030.96
Random intercept0.838.522.293.628.5037.233.787.9943.66
915.54 872.86 685.18
Percent of within-person variation66.44%65.45%59.80%

Note. n = 7,623; OR = Odds Ratio.

Controls for criminal and delinquent behaviors by both the respondent and their peers are introduced in Model 2. The addition of these measures reduces the strength of the association between any suspension experience and incarceration, although ever suspended individuals continue to experience logged odds of incarceration that are 617% greater than their never suspended peers. The Logged Crime Scale control is significantly associated with the odds of incarceration, as a one unit increase in the logged self-reported crime scale increases the logged odds of incarceration by 20%. Gang participation also increases the odds of incarceration during young adulthood by 158%, and a one unit increase on the measure of peer delinquency increases the odds of incarceration by 21%.

Experiencing any suspension during grades 7 through 12 significantly increases the logged odds of incarceration in young adulthood by 288% when socioeconomic and contextual controls are incorporated in the mixed-effects model (Model 3, Table 2 ). Results of the rest of the model echo recent work as Black individuals reported significantly elevated odds of incarceration relative to White individuals, males report higher odds in incarceration relative to females, self-reported crime is positively associated with incarceration, and social class (measured as educational attainment) is negatively related to incarceration.

Table 3 uses mixed-effects modeling to estimate the association between the number of grades in which respondents experienced a suspension and the risk of incarceration in adulthood. To accomplish this task, the models in Table 3 are restricted to only respondents who experienced at least one suspension during grades 7 through 12, and the focal independent variable is an interval-level measure representing the number of grades respondents were suspended. Model 1 includes this measure of suspension and demographic controls. The model fits the data well with a significant Χ 2 value (684.51, p < .001) and about 64.54% of the variability in incarceration occurring within persons across time. Subsequent models in Table 3 also fit the data well as indicated by significant Χ 2 values. Model 1 suggests that each additional grade a suspension was experienced increases the logged odds of incarceration by 34%. Furthermore, men who were suspended at least once experienced 1,329% greater logged odds of incarceration than their female counterparts, Blacks reported 63% greater logged odds of incarceration relative to Whites, married young adults experienced a 68% reduction in the logged odds of incarceration, and each additional biological born increased the odds of incarceration by 37%.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
β β β
Number of grades suspended0.290.11 1.340.230.11 1.260.180.111.20
Demographic controls
 Age (in years) at Round 1−2.101.370.12−2.531.370.08−2.191.300.11
 Age (in years) at Round 1 squared0.080.051.080.090.051.090.070.041.08
 Male2.660.26 14.292.590.26 13.292.410.25 11.08
Race/ethnicity (ref. = non-Hispanic White)
 Non-Hispanic0.490.21 1.630.470.21 1.600.370.211.44
 Black
 Hispanic0.170.261.180.160.261.170.110.251.11
Married−1.140.28 0.32−1.090.28 0.34−1.010 28 0.37
Number of biological children0.310.08 1.370.290.08 1.340.220.07 1.25
Criminal and delinquent controls
 log(Crime)0.130.04 1.140.120.04 1.13
 Respondent teen gang participation0.780.22 2.180.620.21 1.85
 Most peers belong in gang0.010.091.01−0.050.090.95
 Delinquent peers0.200.111.220.160.111.18
Socioeconomic controls
 Educational attainment (ref. = high school)
  Less than high school0.970.19 2.64
  Some college or more −0.750.26 0.47
 Income (in 1997 dollars)0.000.001.00
 Mother’s education (ref. = high school)
  Less than high school−0.180.210.83
  Some college−0.580.26 0.56
  Bachelor’s degree or more0.150.321.17
Contextual controls
 Living in the South−0.200.180.82
 Family routines0.040.021.04
 School bonds−0.050.040.95
Random intercept6.1610.09474.449.2810.1110,706.577.739.662,279.45
684.51 651.49 533.00
Percent of within-person variation64.5463.6459.59

Note. n = 2,710; OR = Odds Ratio.

The number of grades suspended remained significantly associated with the odds of incarceration for ever suspended young adults with the addition of crime and delinquent controls in Model 2. Specifically, each additional grade a respondent was suspended increased the logged odds of incarceration by 26%. Self-reported crime and gang participation as an adolescent also increased the odds of incarceration such that a one unit increase in the Logged Crime Scale heightened the logged odds of incarceration by 14% and adolescent gang participation amplified the logged odds of incarceration by 118%.

When introducing socioeconomic and contextual controls in the final model of Table 3 , the association between the number of grades respondents was suspended and incarceration fails to reach statistical significance. Young adults who experienced any suspension and who did not complete a high school education reported logged odds of incarceration that were 164% greater than ever suspended young adults with a high school education. Those with at least some college experience, on the other hand, experienced a 53% reduction in the logged odds of incarceration than their high school educated peers and young adults whose mother had a college degree reported 44% lower odds of incarceration than those whose mothers had a high school education.

In additional analyses ( Appendix ), we compare versions of Model 3 from Table 3 with and without the measure of respondent’s educational attainment and find that education mediated away the significant relationship between number of suspensions and incarceration. This finding suggests that the positive and significant effect of repeated school suspension on incarceration are driven largely due to failure to graduate high school.

Discussion and Conclusion

Through the lens of the life-course perspective ( Elder, 1985 ; Farrington, 2003 ; Laub & Sampson, 1993 ; Sampson & Laub, 2003), and situated alongside research investigating exclusionary school discipline and the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor ( Wald & Losen, 2003 ; see also Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018 ; Hirschfield, 2018b ; Mowen & Brent, 2016 ; Schollenberger, 2015 ; Rosenbaum, 2018 ), this study sought to examine the empirical relationship between school suspensions in adolescence and incarceration during young adulthood. Leveraging 15 waves of data from the NLSY97, results of mixed-effects models, overall, demonstrated a significant positive relationship between school suspensions experienced during adolescence and the odds of later imprisonment, net the effect of key controls such as levels of crime and delinquency. The following section discusses results from the study, outlines their contributions to the school discipline/life-course literature, and proposes policy implications for recent trends in school discipline and punishment.

Our first broad aim of the study was to examine the relationship between suspension and incarceration across time at the bivariate level. Mirroring prior work (e.g., Losen & Martinez, 2013 ; Shollenberger, 2015 ), results of a time-series plot demonstrated a strong link between suspension experience and incarceration between the ages of 18 and 26, supporting our first hypothesis. However, it is possible that this bivariate relationship could be due to selection. That is, suspended youth may be more delinquent as youth (and thus, suspended) and criminal into adulthood (and therefore, incarcerated). To account for this effect, we then moved into the multivariate context and hypothesized (Hypothesis 2) that having experienced a suspension between grades 7 and 12 would be positively associated with the odds of incarceration even after accounting for key covariates including levels of offending. Results from mixed-effects regression model found support for this second hypothesis. Specifically, our findings demonstrated that youth who experienced a suspension between grades 7 and 12 experienced significantly higher odds of incarceration as young adults, relative to youth who were never suspended. When placed within the life-course framework, this finding strongly suggests that school suspensions serve as a negative turning point that places youth at much greater risk of experiencing incarceration as they transition to adulthood. In short, this finding supports the notion of a school-to-prison pipeline whereby youth who experience exclusionary punishment in school are, in fact, put at significant risk of incarceration ( Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018 ).

Finally, and largely drawing from the concept of cumulative disadvantage ( Sampson & Laub, 1997 ), we then focused our analysis on only youth who reported receiving at least one suspension and hypothesized that a greater number of suspensions would relate to increasingly greater odds of incarceration. This third hypothesis was not supported suggesting that the frequency of suspension does matter as much as the difference between no suspension and at least one suspension. Thus, in our primary analysis, we find no evidence that repeated suspension experiences confer cumulative disadvantage. Because this finding stands in stark contrast to our life-course-informed theoretical expectations based on the concept of cumulative disadvantage, we engaged in a supplemental analysis which we turn to now.

To unpack this unexpected finding in greater detail, we examined whether this cumulative effect was partially mediated by school attainment. This subsequent analysis, shown in Appendix , demonstrated that educational attainment did, in fact, partially mediate the relationship between the number of suspensions experienced and odds of incarceration. When placed within the life-course framework, this finding suggests that school suspensions may present cumulative disadvantage to students who do not complete high school. In this manner, the cumulative effect of suspensions on incarceration exists among students who fail to graduate high school. Although our analysis demonstrates that school suspensions do not directly present cumulative disadvantage to adolescents as they age, we find support for the notion that school suspensions may indirectly promote incarceration across time through educational attainment. This finding becomes more salient considering that school suspensions have been identified as a key factor in students failing to graduate from high school ( Crawley & Hirshfield, 2018 ). Though studies should aim to unpack this finding further, this result echoes Caspi (1987) and Sampson and Laub’s (1997) concepts of cumulative continuity and cumulative disadvantage. From this vantage point, experiencing exclusionary school sanctions may encourage additional negative outcomes—such as failure to complete high school—that progressively build on one another as they mortgage future conventional opportunities and reinforce life trajectories heading toward imprisonment ( Sampson & Laub, 1997 ). Taken together, our results suggest that the effect of suspension on incarceration may be partially mediated by educational attrition highlighting the need for future research to explore additional mediating mechanisms through which the school-to-prison pipeline may operate.

Overall, within the life-course literature, educational snags in the form of missed educational time, grade retention, and dropping out are linked to a host of adverse consequences for youth as they move into and through adulthood ( Bersani & Chappie, 2007 ; Elder, 1998 ; Hagan et al., 1996 ; Jimerson, 1999 ; Moffitt, 1993 ; Pettit & Western, 2004 ; Sampson & Laub, 2003; Thornberry et al., 1985 ). Mounting research is converging on the idea that current punitive disciplinary strategies not only increase the likelihood of these snags but—perhaps more importantly—serve as antisocial turning points themselves ( Mowen & Brent, 2016 ). However, research in this area has been limited to examining how exclusionary discipline impacts short-term effects on youths’ academic and personal outcomes including arrest and juvenile justice contact (see Mowen & Brent, 2016 ; Welsh & Little, 2018 ). This study extends prior scholarship by locating school discipline within the longer life course process by showing that suspensions—a disciplinary mechanism within a larger assemblage of punitive punishment practices—function as a negative turning point increasing the odds of incarceration as an adult.

Certainly, these results stack alongside others challenging the effectiveness of exclusionary punishment practices in their current form (see Welsh & Little, 2018 ). From a policy standpoint, these findings bolster recent calls for disciplinary reform, alternative strategies, and remedial practices ( American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008 ; Gregory et al., 2016 ; Hirschfield, 2018b ). Perhaps the most commonly cited includes the behavioral management system known as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. This approach seeks to enhance schools’ response to student misconduct and the school climate through the use of effective, efficient, and equitable practices (see Sugai & Horner, 2002 ). Restorative justice principles have also been proposed which would address the damages and needs of all parties involved to remedy harms, address underlying issues, and prevent future misconduct ( González, Sattler, & Buth, 2018 ; Zehr, 2015 ). Others have outlined specific changes to how schools respond to student misconduct; these recommendations include supporting educators though professional training, ongoing data collection and analysis, collaborating with communities, working with families, and increasing the presence of mental health supports ( Kupchik & Catlaw, 2015 ; Skiba & Losen, 2015 ; Winkler, Walsh, de Blois, Maré, & Carvajal, 2017 ). While each strategy addresses the immediate outcomes of school discipline, it is likely they will also curb the findings here. However, it is important to note that there are likely to be ideological, financial, personnel, political, and institutional barriers that hinder such reform initiatives ( Brent, 2019 ; Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Palmieri, 2008 ).

Outside of the contributions of this research, there are several notable limitations. First is that the results presented under this study are limited to a sample of men and women who were born between 1980 and 1984 and attended school during the late 1990s. As a result, the associations identified in the current study may differ for more recent generations of young men and women. Specifically, the positive relationship between suspension and incarceration may be stronger among current cohorts of students as schools have continued to expand techniques intended to capture and punish delinquent behaviors. Whether this association is stronger for contemporary cohorts should be explored by subsequent literature. Second is that the data only examine respondents into early adulthood. Future work should explore whether school suspension continues to be associated with greater odds of incarceration as men and women age through their adult lives.

Third, the Logged Crime Scale used in the multivariate analyses does not completely account for the possibility of spuriousness within the documented relationship between suspension and incarceration. Preexisting behaviors or disorders that were not captured could increase the odds of both suspension and incarceration. Finally, we note the measure representing respondents’ race/ethnicity is limited in that Hispanic ethnicity and indicators of race are combined into mutually exclusive categories. We are therefore unable to distinguish respondents who identify as both Hispanic ethnicity and as members of a particular racial group. Likewise, we do not explore the relationship between suspension and incarceration for race and ethnic groups beyond White, Blacks, and Hispanics due to an insufficient sample size of other race/ethnic group members. This is problematic given the high suspension rates experienced by some minority groups such as Native Americans ( U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014 ). Future research should test whether school sanctions are associated with greater odds of criminal justice contact for members of minority racial and ethnic groups who are not captured in this study.

An important contribution the present study offers to the literature on school sanctions as a turning point is the lasting influence that suspensions can have throughout young adulthood. However, we do not explore the specific mechanisms by which suspensions are positively associated with incarceration. Studies using much smaller time frames of the NLSY97 have shown that school suspensions can promote offending ( Mowen et al., 2019 ). Although we account for offending, with the limitation in this measure above, it could be that school suspensions promote offending far beyond adolescence, and future research should examine this possibility. Wiley, Slocum, and Esbensen (2013) suggest, for example, that school discipline could also introduce teenagers to the criminal justice system through the growing presence of school resource officers. An understanding of the exact mechanisms by which suspended youth are more likely to experience contact with the criminal justice system would provide researchers and policy makers with a better understanding of ways to implement school sanctions that act as less of a negative turning point in the lives of young men and women.

Overall, this study builds on work documenting the negative effects associated with school discipline by situating their effects within youths’ life course. Although existing studies have highlighted that school discipline may function as a turning point toward short-term antisocial life outcomes such as arrest (e.g., Mowen & Brent, 2016 ), this study uncovers that suspensions may incite adverse long-term outcomes extending into adulthood. When interpreted through the life-course perspective, these findings suggest that suspensions may serve as important antisocial turning points that reshape trajectories and usher youth toward incarceration later in life. This study also provides empirical evidence documenting the widely employed school-to-prison pipeline metaphor used within the literature. In a similar vein, findings uncover that suspensions serve as a significant disciplinary conduit within schools through which the school-to-prison pipeline operates.

Acknowledgments

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD050959).

Author Biographies

Paul Hemez’s research interests focus on the influence of youth and young adult experiences on later life outcomes.

John J. Brent’s interests focus on the cultural and structural dynamics of crime and crime control, how institutions create and perpetuate inequalities, building a theoretical foundation for criminal justice theory, and how individuals are disciplined and punished. Among other projects, his recent work includes a series of publications examining the intersections of institutional discipline and punishment, cultural dispositions, and inequality.

Thomas J. Mowen’s research explores the impact of punishment on families and youth. His recent work has appeared in Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

Role of Educational Attainment on Relationship Between Number of Grades Suspended and Odds of Incarceration.

Model 1 Model 2
β β
Number of grades suspended0.230.11 1.260.180.111.20
Demographic controls
 Age (in years) at Round 1−2.331.350.10−2.191.300.11
 Age (in years) at Round 1 squared0.080.051.080.070.041.08
 Male2.590.26 13.292.410.25 11.08
Race/ethnicity (ref. = non-Hispanic White)
 Non-Hispanic Black0.340.221.410.370.211.44
 Hispanic0.080.261.080.110.251.11
Married−1.100.28 0.33−1.010.28 0.37
Number of biological children0.270.08 1.310.220.07 1.25
Criminal and delinquent controls
 Log(crime)0.130.04 1.140.120.04 1.13
 Respondent teen gang participation0.760.22 2.130.620.21 1.85
 Most peers belong in gang−0.010.090.99−0.050.090.95
 Delinquent peers0.180.111.200.160.111.18
Socioeconomic controls
Educational attainment (ref. = high school)
 Less than high school---0.970.19 2.64
 Some college or more ---−0.750.26 0.47
Income (in 1997 dollars)0.000.00 1.000.000.001.00
Mother’s education (ref. = high school)
 Less than high school0.030.221.03−0.180.210.83
 Some college−0.690.27 0.50−0.580.26 0.56
 Bachelor’s degree or more−0.150.320.860.150.321.17
Contextual controls
 Living in the South−0.110.180.89−0.200.180.82
 Family routines0.040.021.040.040.021.04
 School bonds−0.080.050.93−0.050.040.95
Random intercept8.719.996,059.137.739.662,279.45
602.39 533.00
Percent of within-person variation62.2659.59

Note. n = 2,710. OR = Odds Ratio. Educational attainment categories “some college” and “bachelor’s degree or more” collapsed due to small cell sizes.

1 Similar conclusions are drawn from multivariate analyses when a linear or quadratic term is used to model age.

2 We performed an attrition analysis to examine how missing data affected the results of the study. Results of a series of t tests ( n ot shown, but available) demonstrated no significant patterns of sample attrition, suggesting that patterns of missing data are missing at random.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

  • Advancement Project. (2000). Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline . Cambridge, MA: The Civil Right Project. [ Google Scholar ]
  • American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? American Psychologist , 63 , 852–862. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bersani BE, & Chappie CL (2007). School failure as an adolescent turning point . Sociological Focus , 40 , 370–391. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Blumstein A, Cohen J, & Farrington DP (1988). Criminal career research: Its value for criminology . Criminology , 26 , 1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth JA, & Visher CA (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals .” Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brent J (2019). Enduring dispositions: Examining punitive logics in the context of disciplinary reform . Theoretical Criminology , 23 , 96–116. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carlson MJ, & Furstenberg FF (2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility among urban U.S. parents . Journal of Marriage and Family , 68 , 718–732. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carson EA (2018). Prisoners in 2016. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (nCJ 251149) . Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Casella R (2006). Selling us the fortress: The promotion of techno-security equipment for schools . New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Caspi A (1987). Personality in the life course . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 53 , 1203–1213. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cernkovich SA, & Giordano PC (1992). School bonding, race, and delinquency . Criminology , 30 , 261–291. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Crawley K, & Hirschfield P (2018). Examining the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor . In Oxford research encyclopedia of criminology . Retrieved from http://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-346?print=pdf [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cuellar AE, & Markowitz S (2015). School suspension and the school-to-prison pipeline . International Review of Law and Economics , 43 , 98–106. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Curran FC (2016). Estimating the effect of state zero tolerance laws on exclusionary discipline, racial discipline gaps, and student behavior . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 38 , 647–668. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Curtis AJ (2014). Tracing the school-to-prison pipeline from zero-tolerance policies to juvenile justice dispositions . Georgetown Law Journal , 102 , 1251–1277. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Department of Education. (2018). 2015–2016 civil rights data collection: School climate and safety . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Elder GH (1975). Age differentiation and the life course . Annual Review of Sociology , 1 , 165–190. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Elder GH (1985). Perspectives on the life course. In Elder G (Ed.), Life course dynamics: Trajectories and transitions, 1968–1980 (pp. 23–49). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Elder GH (1998). The life course as developmental theory . Child Development , 69 , 1–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Farrington DP (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues—The 2002 Sutherland Award address . Criminology , 4 , 221–225. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gregory A, Clawson K, Davis A, & Gerewitz J (2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline . Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation , 26 , 325–353. [ Google Scholar ]
  • González T, Sattler H, & Buth AJ (2018). New directions in whole-school restorative justice implementation . Conflict Resolution Quarterly , 36 ( 3 ), 207–220. doi: 10.1002/crq.21236. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hagan J, MacMillan R, & Wheaton B (1996). New kid in town: Social capital and the life course effects of family migration on children . American Sociological Review , 61 , 368–385. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Heitzeg N (2009). Education or incarceration: Zero tolerance and the school to prison pipeline . Forum on Public Policy , 2 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hirschfield PJ (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA . Theoretical Criminology , 12 , 79–101. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hirschfield PJ (2018a). Trends in school social control in the United States: Explaining patterns of decriminalization. In Deakin J, Taylor E & Kupchik A (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of school discipline, surveillance, and social control (pp. 43–64). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hirschfield PJ (2018b). Schools and crime . Annual Review of Criminology , 1 , 149–169. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hirschi T, & Gottfredson M (1983). Age and the explanation of crime . American Journal of Sociology , 89 , 552–584. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jimerson SR (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence . Journal of School Psychology , 37 , 243–272. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Johnson MK, Crosnoe R, & Elder GH (2011). Insights on adolescence from a life course perspective . Journal of Research on Adolescence , 21 , 273–280. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kupchik A (2010). Homeroom security: School discipline in the age of fear . New York, NY: New York University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kupchik A (2016). The real school safety problem: The long-term consequences of harsh school punishment . Oakland, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kupchik A, & Catlaw TJ (2015). Discipline and participation: The long-term effects of suspension and school security on the political and civic engagement of youth . Youth & Society , 47 , 95–124. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Laub JH, & Sampson RJ (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime . Criminology , 31 , 301–325. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Laub JH, & Sampson RJ (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70 . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Loeber R (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review . Child Development , 53 , 1431–1446. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lohrmann S, Forman S, Martin S, & Palmieri M (2008). Understanding school personnel’s resistance to adopting schoolwide positive behavior support at a universal level of intervention . Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , 10 , 256–269. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Losen D, & Martinez T (2013). Out of school and off track: The overuse of suspensions in American middle and high schools . Los Angeles, CA: The UCLA Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights Project. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Macmillan R, & Hagan J (2004). Violence in the transition to adulthood: Adolescent victimization, education, and socioeconomic attainment in later life . Journal of Research on Adolescence , 14 , 127–158. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Moffitt T (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy . Psychological Review , 100 , 674–701. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mowen T, & Brent J (2016). School discipline as a turning point . Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency , 53 , 628–653. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mowen T, Brent J, & Boman J (2019). The effect of school discipline on offending across time . Justice Quarterly . Advance Online Publication. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2019.1625428 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Musu-Gillette L, Zhang A, Wang K, Zhang J, & Oudekerk BA (2018). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2017 (nCES 2017– 064/NCJ 250650) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nolan K (2011). Police in the hallways: Discipline in an urban high school . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Noltemeyer AL, Ward RM, & Mcloughlin C (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis . School Psychology Review , 44 , 224–240. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pettit B, & Western B (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in US incarceration . American Sociological Review , 69 , 151–169. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Phaneuf SW (2009). Security in schools: Its effect on students . El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rabe-Hesketh S, & Skrondal A (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using STATA (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rocque M, Jennings WG, Piquero AR, Ozkan T, & Farrington DP (2017). The importance of school attendance: Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development on the life-course effects of truancy . Crime & Delinquency , 63 , 592–612. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rosenbaum J (2018). Educational and criminal justice outcomes 12 years after school suspension . Youth & Society , 52 ( 4 ), 515–547. doi: 10.1177/0044118X17752208. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sampson RJ, & Laub JH (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points throughout life . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sampson RJ, & Laub JH (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In Thornberry T (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 133–161). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sampson RJ, & Laub JH (2005). A general age-graded theory of crime: Lessons learned and the future of life-course criminology. In Farrington D (Ed.), Advances in criminological theory: Testing integrated development/life course theories of offending (pp. 165–182). New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shollenberger TL (2015). Racial disparities in school suspension and subsequent outcomes: Evidence from the national longitudinal survey of youth. In Losen DJ (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion (pp. 31–43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Simmons L (2017). The prison school: Educational inequality and school discipline in the age of mass incarceration . Oakland, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Skiba RJ, Arredondo MI, & Williams NT (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline . Equity & Excellence in Education , 47 , 546–564. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Skiba RJ, & Losen DJ (2015). From reaction to prevention: Turning the page on school discipline . American Educator , 39 , 4–11. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Skiba RJ, & Peterson RL (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response . Exceptional Children , 66 , 335–346. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sugai G, & Horner R (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports . Child & Family Behavior Therapy , 24 , 23–50. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Thornberry TP, Moore M, & Christenson RL (1985). The effect of dropping out of high school on subsequent criminal behavior . Criminology , 23 , 3–18. [ Google Scholar ]
  • U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection: Data snapshot (school discipline) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wald J, & Losen D (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. Framing Paper for the School-to-Prison Pipeline Research Conference. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Welsh RO, & Little S (2018). Caste and control in schools: A systematic review of the pathways, rates and correlates of exclusion due to school discipline . Children and Youth Services Review , 94 , 315–339. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wiley SA, Slocum LA, & Esbensen FA (2013). The unintended consequences of being stopped or arrested: An exploration of the labeling mechanisms through which police contact leads to subsequent delinquency . Criminology , 51 , 927–966. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Winkler JL, Walsh ME, de Blois M, Maré J, & Carvajal SC (2017). Kind discipline: Developing a conceptual model of a promising school discipline approach . Evaluation and Program Planning , 62 , 15–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wolf KC, & Kupchik A (2017). School suspensions and adverse experiences in adulthood . Justice Quarterly , 34 , 407–430. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zehr H (2015). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated . New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. [ Google Scholar ]

The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Critical Review of the Punitive Paradigm Shift

  • Published: 28 April 2015
  • Volume 33 , pages 15–24, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

research on school to prison pipeline

  • Christopher A. Mallett 1  

25k Accesses

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper reviews evidence of the school-to-prison pipeline, a confluence of two child- and adolescent-caring systems—schools and juvenile courts—that simultaneously shifted over the past generation from rehabilitative to punitive paradigms. While there was crossover impact between these systems, the movements were both independent and inter-dependent. In the school systems, and particularly those that are overburdened and underfinanced, many students have been increasingly suspended and expelled due to criminalizing both typical adolescent developmental behaviors as well as low-level type misdemeanors: acting out in class, truancy, fighting, and other similar offenses. The increased use of zero tolerance policies and police (safety resource officers) in the schools has exponentially increased arrests and referrals to the juvenile courts. While impacting many, unfortunately, these changes disproportionately affect vulnerable children, adolescents, and their families. Thus, millions of young people have become encapsulated in harmful punitive systems. Very few of these young people are actually appropriately involved, in that they do not pose safety risks to their schools or communities. Thus, the school-to-prison pipeline does not improve school or community safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

research on school to prison pipeline

Risk Factors for School Absenteeism and Dropout: A Meta-Analytic Review

research on school to prison pipeline

Examining the Effectiveness of School-Bullying Intervention Programs Globally: a Meta-analysis

research on school to prison pipeline

Risk and Protective Factors for Child Maltreatment: a Review

Adams, T. (2000). The status of school discipline and violence. The Annals of the American Academy of Politics and Society, 675 (1), 140–156.

Article   Google Scholar  

Addington, L. A. (2009). Cops and cameras: Public school security as a policy response to Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52 , 1426–1446.

Addington, L. A. (2014). Surveillance and security approaches across public school levels. In G. W. Muschert, S. Henry, N. L. Bracy, & A. A. Peguero (Eds.), Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect (pp. 71–88). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

Google Scholar  

Advancement Project. (2005). Education on lockdown: The schoolhouse to jailhouse track . Washington, DC: Wadsworth.

Advancement Project, Education Law Center – PA, FairTest, The Forum for Education and Democracy, Juvenile Law Center, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (2011). Federal policy, ESEA reauthorization, and the school - to - prison pipeline . Washington DC.

American Psychological Association. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations . A report by the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Policy Task Force, Washington, DC.

American Psychological Association (Zero Tolerance Task Force). (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the school? American Psychologist, 63 , 852–862.

Arum, R. (2003). Judging school discipline: The crisis of moral authority . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bazemore, G., Leip, L., & Stinchcomb, J. B. (2004). Boundary changes and the nexus between formal and informal social control: Truancy intervention as a case study in criminal justice expansionism. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy, 18 , 521–570.

Birkland, T. A., & Lawrence, R. (2009). Media framing after Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52 , 1426–1446.

Bracy, N. L. (2010). Circumventing the law: Students’ rights in schools with police. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26 , 294–315.

Brady, K. P. (2002). Weapons of choice: Zero tolerance school discipline policies and the limitations of student procedural due process. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 22 , 2–10.

Brady, K. P., Balmer, C., & Phenix, D. (2007). School-police partnership effectiveness in urban schools: An analysis of New York City’s Impact Schools Initiative. Education and Urban Society, 39 (4), 455–478.

Brooks, K. V., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2000). School house hype: Two years later . Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, Policy Report.

Brown, B. (2006). Understanding and assessing school police officers: A conceptual and methodological comment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34 , 591–604.

Carter, P. L., Fine, M., & Russell, S. (2014). Discipline disparities overview . Discipline Disparities: A Research-to-Practice Collaborative. The Equity Project at Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Bloomington, IN.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). School policy and school environment questionnaire . Atlanta, GA: Springer.

Children’s Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? . Cambridege, MA: Washington Research Project.

Children’s Defense Fund. (2012). Portrait of inequality, 2012 . Washington, DC.

Cornell, D. G. (2006). School violence: Fears versus facts . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Costtenbader, V., & Markson, S. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology, 36 , 59–82.

Crouch, E., & Williams, D. (1995). What cities are doing to protect kids. Educational Leadership, 52 (5), 60–62.

Dahlberg, T. L. (2012). Arrested futures: The criminalization of school discipline in Massachusetts’ three largest school districts . New York: American Civil Liberties Union.

Davis, A., Irvine, A., & Ziedenberg, J. (2014). Close to home: Strategies to place young people in their communities . Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime & Delinquency.

DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., & Baum, K. (2004). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2004 . Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education.

Dilulio, J. J, Jr. (1995). The coming of the superpredators. Weekly Standard, 1 (11), 23–32.

Donohue, E., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, (1998). School house hype: School shootings and the real risks kids face in America . Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute and Children’s Law Center.

Dupper, D. (2010). Does the punishment fit the crime? The impact of zero tolerance discipline on at risk youth. Children & Schools, 32 , 67–69.

Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P, I. I. I., & Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking school s’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement . New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Faffaele-Mendez, L. M., Knoff, H. M., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). School demographic variables and out-of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large, ethnically diverse school district. Psychology in the Schools, 39 , 259–277.

Finn, P., McDevitt, J., Lassiter, M., Shively, & Rich, T. (2005). Case studies of 19 school resource officer (SRO) programs . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2012). The rise of residential segregation by income . Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Fuentes, A. (2014). The schoolhouse as jailhouse. In A. J. Nocella II, P. Parmar, & D. Stovall (Eds.), From education to incarceration: Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline . New York: Peter Lang.

Giroux, H. A. (2003). Racial injustice and disposable youth in the age of zero tolerance. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16 (4), 553–564.

Gowri, A. (2003). Community policing is an epicycle. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26 (4), 591–611.

Griffin, P. (2008). Different from adults: An updated analysis of juvenile transfer and blended sentencing laws, with recommendations for reform . Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Hanson, A. L. (2005). Have zero tolerance school discipline policies turned into a nightmare? The American dream’s promise of equal educational opportunity grounded in Brown v. Board of Education. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 9 , 289–379.

Heitzeg, N. A. (2014). Criminalizing education: Zero tolerance policies, police in the hallways, and the school to prison pipeline. In A. J. Nocella II, P. Parmar, & D. Stovall (Eds.), From education to incarceration: Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline . New York: Peter Lang.

Henry, S. (2000). What is school violence: An integrated definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567 , 16–29.

Hirschfield, P. J. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12 , 79–101.

Hirschfield, P. J. (2010). School surveillance in America: Disparate and unequal. In T. Monahan & R. D. Torres (Eds.), Schools under surveillance: Cultures of control in public education (pp. 38–54). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hyman, I. A., & McDowell, E. (1979). Corporal punishment in American education . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Insley, A. (2001). Suspending and expelling children from educational opportunity: Time to reevaluate zero tolerance policies. American University Law Review, 50 , 1039–1074.

Jones, V. (1996). Classroom management. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guiton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education . New York: Macmillan.

Justice Policy Institute. (2011). Education under arrest: The case against police in schools . Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

Kang-Brown, J., Trone, J., Fratello, J., & Daftary-Kapur, T. (2013). A generation later: What we’ve learned about zero tolerance in schools . New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Youth Justice.

Kim, K. Y., Losen, D. J., & Hewitt, D. T. (2010). The school-to-prison pipeline: Structuring legal reform . New York, NY: New York University Press.

Klehr, D. G. (2009). Addressing the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind and zero tolerance: Better strategies for safe schools and successful students. Georgetown Journal on Poverty, Law, & Policy, 16 , 585–597.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America . New York: Three Rivers Press.

Kupchik, A. (2010). Homeroom security: School discipline in an age of fear . New York: New York University Press.

Kupchik, A., & Bracy, N. L. (2009). To protect, serve, and mentor: Police officers in public schools. In T. Monahan & R. D. Torres (Eds.), Schools under surveillance: Cultures of control in public education (pp. 21–37). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Kupchik, A., & Monahan, T. (2006). The new American school: Preparation for post-industrial discipline. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27 , 617–632.

Lawrence, R. G. (2007). School crime and juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Leachman, M., & Mai, C. (2014). Most states funding schools less than before the recession . Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Levy-Pounds, N. (2014). Warehousing, imprisoning, and labelling youth “minorities”. In A. J. Nocella II, P. Parmar, & D. Stovall (Eds.), From education to incarceration: Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 131–144). New York: Peter Lang.

Losen, D. L., Hewitt, D., & Toldson, I. (2014). Eliminating excessive and unfair discipline in schools: Policy recommendations for reducing disparities . Discipline Disparities: A Research-to-Practice Collaborative. The Equity Project at Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Bloomington, IN.

Mallett, C. (2007). Death is not different: The transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts. Criminal Law Bulletin, 43 , 523–547.

Mallett, C. (2013). Linking disorders to delinquency: Treating high risk youth in the juvenile justice system . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

Marsh, S. (2014). School pathways to juvenile justice system project . Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Martinez, S. (2009). A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance policies really affecting schools? Preventing School Failure, 53 (3), 153–157.

Marx, G. T. (1981). Ironies of social control: Authorities as contributors to deviance through escalation, nonenforcement and covert facilitation. Social Problems, 28 , 221–246.

Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (1999). A structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 22 , 333–356.

McCurdy, J. (2014). Targets for arrest. In A. J. Nocella II, P. Parmar, & D. Stovall (Eds.), From education to incarceration: Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 86–101). New York: Peter Lang.

Morgan, E., Salomon, N., Plotkin, M., & Cohen, R. (2014). The school discipline consensus report: Strategies from the field to keep students engaged in school and out of the juvenile justice system . Washington, DC: The Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Muschert, G. W. (2009). Frame-changing in the media coverage of a school shooting: The rise of Columbine as a national concern. Social Science Journal, 46 , 164–170.

Muschert, G. W., Henry, S., Bracy, N. L., & Peguero, A. A. (2014). Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

Muschert, G. W., & Peguero, A. A. (2010). The Columbine effect and school antiviolence policy. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 17 , 117–148.

NAACP. (2005). Interrupting the school to prison pipeline . Washington, DC.

NAACP. (2006). Arresting development: Addressing the school discipline crisis in Florida . Florida State Conference NAACP. Washington, DC: Advancement Project.

Neiman, S., & DeVoe, J. F. (2009). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in US public schools: Findings from the school survey on crime and safety . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Newman, K. (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings . New York: Basic Books.

Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools . Cambridge: Harvard Educational Press.

Nolan, K. (2011). Police in the hallways: Discipline in an urban high school . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: A 21st Century challenge . Los Angeles: UCLA Civil Rights Project.

Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E Pluribus … separation: Deepening double segregation for more students . Los Angeles: UCLA Civil Rights Project.

Palardy, G. (2009). High school socioeconomic segregation and student attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 50 , 714–754.

Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2010). Formal system processing on juveniles: Effects on delinquency . Oslo: Campbell System Reviews.

Petteruti, A. (2011). “Education under arrest”: The case against police in schools . Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

Puzzanchera, C., & Hockenberry, S. (2010). Juvenile court statistics, 2010 . Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Reyes, A. H. (2006). Discipline, achievement, and race: Is zero tolerance the answer? . Lanham, MD: The Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Company.

Rich-Shae, A. M. (2010). Adolescent youth and social control: The changing role of public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International . UMI No. 3427444.

Rich-Shae, A. M., & Fox, J. A. (2014). Zero-tolerance policies. In G. W. Muschert, S. Henry, N. L. Bracy, & A. A. Peguero (Eds.), Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect (pp. 89–104). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

Robers, S., Zhang, J., & Truman, J. (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2011 . Institute of Education Services, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Rosiak, J. (2009). Developing safe schools partnerships with law enforcement . Washington, DC: National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention.

Ruddy, S. A., Bauer, L., Neiman, S., Hryczaniuk, C. A., Thomas, T. L., & Parmer, R. J. (2010). 2007–08 school survey on crime and safety (SSOCS): Survey documentation for restricted-use data file uses . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Ryan, J. E. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York University Law Review, 79 , 932–945.

Sipe, P. (2012). Newjack: Teaching in a failing middle school. In S. Bahena, N. Cooc, R. Currie-Rubin, P. Kuttner, & M. Ng (Eds.), Disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 32–41). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Skiba, R.J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice . Indiana Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report #SRS2.

Skiba, R. J., Reynolds, C. R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J. C., & Garcia-Vasquez, E. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force.

Sojoyner, D. M. (2014). Changing the lens: Moving away from the school to prison pipeline. In A. J. Nocella II, P. Parmar, & D. Stovall (Eds.), From education to incarceration: Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 54–66). New York: Peter Lang.

Steeves, V., & Marx, G. T. (2014). Safe schools initiatives and the shifting climate of trust. In G. W. Muschert, S. Henry, N. L. Bracy, & A. A. Peguero (Eds.), Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect (pp. 105–124). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

Teasley, M. I., & Miller, C. (2011). School social workers’ perceived efficiency at tasks related to curbing suspensions and undesirable behaviors. Children & Schools, 33 , 136–145.

The Equity Project at Indiana University. (2014). Discipline disparities series: Key findings . Discipline Disparities: A Research-to-Practice Collaborative. The Equity Project at Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Bloomington, IN.

Theriot, M. T. (2009). School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37 , 280–287.

Thurae, L., & Wald, J. (2010). Controlling partners: When law enforcement meets discipline in public schools. New York Law School Law Review, 54 , 977–1020.

U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Back to school statistics . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Services.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014a). Indicators of school crime and safety, 2014 . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Services.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014b). Appendix 1: U.S. Department of Education: Director of Federal School Climate and Discipline Resources . Washington DC.

Verdugo, R. R. (2002). Race-ethnicity, social class, and zero-tolerance policies: The cultural and structural wars. Education and Urban Society, 35 , 50–75.

Walker, S., Spoh, C., & DeLone, M. (2012). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity and crime in America (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Welch, M., Price, E. A., & Yankey, N. (2002). Moral panic over youth violence: Wilding and the manufacture of menace in the media. Youth and Society, 34 , 3–30.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Social Work, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA

Christopher A. Mallett

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher A. Mallett .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mallett, C.A. The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Critical Review of the Punitive Paradigm Shift. Child Adolesc Soc Work J 33 , 15–24 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-015-0397-1

Download citation

Published : 28 April 2015

Issue Date : February 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-015-0397-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research
  • Tools and Resources
  • Customer Services
  • Corrections
  • Crime, Media, and Popular Culture
  • Criminal Behavior
  • Criminological Theory
  • Critical Criminology
  • Geography of Crime
  • International Crime
  • Juvenile Justice
  • Prevention/Public Policy
  • Race, Ethnicity, and Crime
  • Research Methods
  • Victimology/Criminal Victimization
  • White Collar Crime
  • Women, Crime, and Justice
  • Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Examining the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor.

  • Kayla Crawley Kayla Crawley Department of Sociology, Rutgers University
  •  and  Paul Hirschfield Paul Hirschfield Department of Sociology, Rutgers University
  • https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.346
  • Published online: 25 June 2018

The school-to-prison pipeline (STPP) is a commonly used metaphor that was developed to describe the many ways in which schools have become a conduit to the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The STPP metaphor encompasses various disciplinary policies and practices that label students as troublemakers, exclude students from school, and increase their likelihood of involvement in delinquency, juvenile justice, and subsequent incarceration. Many external forces promote these policies and practices, including high-stakes testing, harsh justice system practices and penal policies, and federal laws that promote the referral of certain school offenses to law enforcement. Empirical research confirms some of the pathways posited by STPP. For example, research has shown that out-of-school suspensions predict school dropout, justice system involvement and adult incarceration. However, research on some of the posited links, such as the impact of school-based arrests and referrals to court on school dropout, is lacking.

Despite gaps in the empirical literature and some theoretical shortcomings, the term has gained widespread acceptance in both academic and political circles. A conference held at Northeastern University in 2003 yielded the first published use of the phrase. Soon, it attained widespread prominence, as various media outlets as well as civil rights and education organizations (e.g., ACLU, the Advancement Project (they also use “schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track”), the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Federation of Teachers) referenced the term in their initiatives. More recently, the Obama administration used the phrase in their federal school disciplinary reform efforts. Despite its widespread use, the utility of STPP as a social scientific concept and model is open for debate.

Whereas some social scientists and activists have employed STPP to highlight how even non-criminal justice institutions can contribute to over-incarceration, other scholars are critical of the concept. Some scholars feel that the pipeline metaphor is too narrow and posits an overly purposeful or mechanistic link between schools and prisons; in fact, there is a much more complicated relationship that includes multiple stakeholders that fail our nation’s youth. Rather than viewing school policies and practices in isolation, critical scholars have argued that school processes of criminalization and exclusion are inextricably linked to poverty, unemployment, and the weaknesses of the child welfare and mental health systems. In short, the metaphor does not properly capture the web of institutional forces and missed opportunities that can push youth toward harmful choices and circumstances, often resulting in incarceration. Many reforms across the nation seek to dismantle STPP, including non-exclusionary discipline alternatives such as restorative justice and limiting the role of school police officers. Rigorous research on their effectiveness is needed.

  • school discipline
  • education policy
  • school-to-prison pipeline
  • juvenile justice
  • school police

Pipeline Concept

Schools and the criminal justice system intersect in multiple, complex ways. The notion of a “school-to prison pipeline” directs attention to particular social processes and aspects of the interrelationship between schools and the criminal justice system. Some studies have traced the development of the metaphor in academic research, policy, and advocacy circles (Skiba, 2014 ; McGrew, 2016 ). The following themes have emerged:

First, the school-to-prison pipeline operates primarily through school exclusion, which encompasses suspensions, expulsion, and disciplinary transfers and often entails the rigid application of “zero tolerance” disciplinary codes (Skiba, 2014 ). Second, the metaphor also highlights particular negative consequences of exclusionary discipline (suspension and expulsion), such as elevated contact with the justice system (Skiba, 2014 ). Third, these consequences are disproportionately levied on minority and low-income populations (Skiba et al., 2002 ), with poor students more likely to experience aspects of criminalized school discipline (e.g., suspensions, police, metal detectors) during elementary school (Kupchik & Ward, 2014 ). Fourth, some scholars have extended the pipeline notion beyond the movement of student bodies from schools to prison to encompass the physical similarities of schools and prisons, the use of criminal justice tools such as metal detectors and surveillance technology, and the increased importation of police officers into schools (Hirschfield, 2008 ; Meiners, 2010 ), all of which helped redefine troubled children as potential lawbreakers (Simon, 2007 ).

A well-known report on school discipline in Texas public schools, Breaking Schools’ Rules (Fabelo et al., 2011 ), sharpened the conceptualization of STPP and facilitated its empirical assessment by distinguishing “direct” and “indirect” causes of student involvement with the criminal justice system. Direct causes include schools’ use of criminal justice personnel and their propensity to classify school misconduct as criminal behavior. This can include writing students misdemeanor citations and juvenile court referrals for minor infractions. Disciplinary mechanisms such as suspension and expulsion are indirect causes, as exclusion from school creates more opportunities for involvement in illegal activity and exposure to discriminatory policing practices.

Political Backdrop

The era of harsh discipline in schools expanded following the student rights movement and deindustrialization. Some contend that the student rights movements in the 1960s and 1970s empowered students to openly defy teachers and school administrators (Arum, 2005 ). To toughen discipline while reducing vulnerability to accusations of bias, key education stakeholders formalized disciplinary procedures (Hirschfield, 2008 ; Sojoyner, 2013 ). School disciplinary harshening has also been tied to broader political and economic shifts. The “governing-through-crime” framework (Simon, 2007 ) contends that de-industrialization and a national economic squeeze tempered the redistributive ambitions of federal government, requiring new criteria for government success and legitimacy. As a result, the control and punishment of crime became a more viable mission of governance. This framework will be discussed in greater detail in a later section.

Over time, especially after the Gun Free Schools Act was enacted in 1994 , schools’ methods for handling rule violations and problematic behavior became more exclusionary and dependent on law enforcement (Curran, 2016 ). Other scholars have highlighted more proximate influences on STPP. For example, “moral panic” explanations depict the increasing severity of school discipline as a disproportionate response to the increase in school violence and the media’s “crisis narrative” in the 1980s and 1990s (Burns & Crawford, 1999 ). A more detailed discussion of the theoretical and historical underpinnings of the school-to-prison pipeline will appear later.

Timeline of Use

The STPP metaphor has gained widespread acceptance as a slogan that critically depicts the relationship between schools and the criminal justice system. The term “pipeline” was first used within education in 1960 by Elliot Berg to describe the successful movement of students through their educational journeys in school (McGrew, 2016 ). Only in the late 1990s did scholars begin using the term to describe the flow of youth from schools into the justice system via exclusionary policies and practices (Costenbader & Markson, 1998 ). Various disciplines including criminology, sociology, psychology, education, legal studies, etc., along with civil rights advocates, focused on the link between school discipline, school failure, and the increasing numbers of youth entering the criminal justice system.

In 2000 , the Harvard Civil Rights Project and the Advancement Project teamed up to produce a national report, Opportunities Suspended , on the massive scale and consequences of zero-tolerance discipline in schools. The report documented how “zero tolerance” had been expanded to minor infractions, disproportionately pushing minority students into the criminal justice system. Although the report did not use the “school-to-prison pipeline” metaphor, it documented some of its key elements.

Scholars trace the origin of the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor to a conference held in May of 2003 at Northeastern University entitled, “Reconstructing the School to Prison Pipeline: Charting Intervention Strategies of Prevention and Support for Minority Children” (McGrew, 2016 ). The goal of the conference was to “commission research that will explore how school policies and practices may be affecting the flow of certain students into the criminal justice system.” 1 One of the most referenced pieces from the conference proceedings, “Deconstructing the Prison Pipeline” (Wald & Losen, 2003 ), has shaped the discourse surrounding this issue (Soyjoyner, 2013 ). This article focused on the background influences of the model, as well as some explanations of the model that are still heavily discussed in the literature, including the exclusionary nature of high-stakes testing, zero-tolerance disciplinary practices, and the nexus between the racial disproportionality in punishment within schools and the criminal justice system, all of which were exacerbated by the fiscal crises facing most states. This conference launched the term and gave it legitimacy.

Following the conference, direct media references to STPP and its attendant social processes dramatically increased. Concurrently, various social justice organizations prioritized confronting the STPP (McGrew, 2016 ). For example, in November of 2008 , the ACLU released a report called “Dignity Denied: The Effect of ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policies on Students’ Human Rights.” 2 The report examined how the merger of educational and criminal justice processes strips students, especially students of color, of their rights to an education. The organization offered recommendations for school disciplinary procedures that protect students’ civil and human rights. The ACLU has also directly intervened to protect vulnerable students from the prison pipeline, filing numerous cases against school districts for violations of students’ rights in incidents involving school discipline. A prime example is their 2006 class action lawsuit against the Winner School District in South Dakota for levying disproportionate sanctions against Native American students (see Antoine et al. v. Winner School District ).

Ultimately, the metaphor gained mainstream acceptance from the highest officials in the federal government and the most powerful educational associations in the country. The secretary of education and the U.S. attorney general used the phrase to launch the Obama administration’s school disciplinary reform efforts to “Rethink Discipline” in 2011 and continued to use it for all public announcements on related federal policy initiatives. 3 It was even included in President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union speech (McGrew, 2016 ). Additionally, leading educational associations featured the metaphor in their Framework for Safe and Successful Schools report (Cowan et al., 2013 ). The metaphor remains prominent in state and federal political discourse and continues to galvanize research, advocacy, and policy reform.

Contribution

Utility of the metaphor.

One of the clear benefits of the STPP metaphor is its ability to raise awareness and alarm. The slogan “school-to-prison pipeline” provides jarring visual imagery and a simple narrative. The term resonated with both journalists seeking a sensational angle and advocacy organizations pushing for change in school discipline policy.

As mentioned, in 2011 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder launched the Supportive School Discipline Initiative. The official press release states that the collaborative initiative addresses the “‘school-to-prison pipeline’ and the disciplinary policies that can push students out of school and into the justice system.” 4 The use of this term signals that the metaphor was already well established in political discourse as government leaders began to take on school discipline as a focal issue. Following this announcement, in December of 2012 , the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights held hearings, which were anchored to the pipeline metaphor (Kupchik, 2014 ).

The metaphor joins together multiple processes within schools and criminal justice under a single system. This conceptual integration helps galvanize and legitimize coalitions of stakeholders across institutional domains that seek to reduce exclusionary and criminalizing practices and expand disciplinary alternatives such as school-based restorative justice (Hernandez & Lance, 2016 ). The STPP model highlights the processes that produce parallel racial inequalities across social settings. The expanded definition of what qualifies as illegal school misconduct, as well as the growing prominence of law enforcement within education increase the concordance between schools and criminal justice. The pipeline framework emphasizes the negative impact of exclusionary discipline and school-based criminal justice interactions. Through this lens, exclusionary school policies and practices seem to prepare youth for an adulthood marked by a heavy police presence and diminished civil rights (Foucault, 1979 ; Kupchik, 2014 ).

Critiques of the Metaphor

Despite STPP’s strong political, social justice and advocacy benefits, the academic utility of the metaphor is less clear (Hirschfield, 2012 ; McGrew, 2016 ). Scholars have asserted that the STPP metaphor lacks theoretical elucidation (McGrew, 2016 ) and complexity (Kupchik, 2014 ; Hirschfield, 2012 ). Theories of resistance, social reproduction, as well as political economy tend to be conspicuously absent from, or improperly situated within, the school-to-prison pipeline literature (McGrew, 2016 ). In addition, pipeline proponents often fail to confirm the theoretical validity of the pipeline and use it as a stand-in for theory itself (McGrew, 2016 ). Aside from inadequate theoretical grounding, some aspects of the model risk calling too much policy attention to some factors and too little to others. First, the connection between schools and prisons is much more indirect than some images of the STPP convey. Close examination reveals that statements about the role of law enforcement in schools are, in some cases, rhetorically inflated. For example, most students who commit code of conduct infractions at school are not arrested; they are rather penalized through some form of exclusionary discipline like in-school or out-of-school suspension (Fabelo et al., 2011 ; Kupchik, 2014 ). School-based court referrals are common in many jurisdictions, but police in schools rarely provide a direct pathway to incarceration.

Although school-based arrests are infrequently used in some places to address student misconduct problems (Fabelo et al., 2011 ), exclusionary discipline and future criminal justice involvement are strongly correlated (Wald & Losen, 2003 ; Noguera, 2003 ; Skiba, 2014 ; Skiba et. al., 2014 ). However, leading proponents of the metaphor often fail to document exactly how school exclusion facilitates involvement in the criminal justice system. While the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor connotes a direct pathway from school exclusion to prison, there is a much more complicated and intricate relationship that exists between these two entities. Figure 1 depicts the most direct path.

Figure 1. Simplest model of school-to-prison pipeline.

In this figure, school exclusion is highlighted as the sole vehicle that drives juvenile justice involvement. The model fails to elaborate the intermediary steps between school exclusion and justice system involvement. Skiba, Arrendondo, and Williams ( 2014 ) specify such intermediary processes in a second model (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2. A “More Fully Articulated” model of school-to-prison pipeline.

This expanded model includes other factors such as school climate, achievement, and behavior that influence the outcome of school exclusion. These factors are considered to be additive, compounding the likelihood of involvement in the criminal justice system. An even more detailed pipeline model (see Figure 3 ) has no clear start or end, emphasizing the multidirectional nature of the processes that contribute to justice system involvement over the short and long terms (Hirschfield, 2012 ).

Figure 3. Third model of school-to-prison pipeline. This model is probabilistic, multi-directional and often multi-level.

This model includes multiple experiences that can help forge a pathway to prison. Each factor overlaps and interacts with the others, creating a web of forces that eventuate in incarceration. This model emphasizes the indeterminate nature of the pipeline process. Hirschfield emphasizes macro processes that shape the course to prison, while acknowledging the unique experiences of individual students that include potential diversions or interruptions. Hirschfield’s ( 2012 ) model challenges the uni-directional pipeline visual by explaining that whereas some students are advanced to the next stage of the process, others manage to avoid or delay negative outcomes. Moreover, the same student could enter (and reenter) the process at different stages of his or her life, challenging the determinacy of the pipeline metaphor. Hirschfield also presents an alternate model that depicts success pathways becoming more narrow, precarious, and blocked, leading students to fall through the cracks. Rather than a deliberate channeling of youth through stages of exclusion and criminalization, Hirschfield’s model depicts a probabilistic narrowing of legitimate alternatives to criminal justice involvement. Such alternative models highlight the role of schools alongside systems of child welfare and other social services in shaping the risk of incarceration (Kupchik, 2014 ).

Theoretical Influences

As mentioned previously, one of the common criticisms of the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor is its lack of theoretical development. While STPP is not a theory in itself, numerous theoretical traditions within sociology, criminology, and legal studies could have helped its proponents explain the “construction” and maintenance of the pipeline. Judging from current reviews of the literature, no one has offered a comprehensive and cohesive theory unique to STPP. Instead, multiple theories align with and inform the logic of the pipeline metaphor, with each explaining only some components of the model. Tracing the epistemological origins of the metaphor will hopefully bring greater understanding and context to STPP and its constituent policies and practices.

Mass Incarceration

Theoretical and empirical work on mass incarceration and the so-called prison industrial complex developed alongside the increased salience of the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor (McGrew, 2016 ). The prison industrial complex describes the network of economic and political elites who draw power and wealth from the expansion of prisons. The literature links developments in the political economy (e.g., deindustrialization) with multiple social problems such as school failure, unemployment, and incarceration. Scholars such as Hirschfield articulate how the shift toward over-incarceration had a direct impact on school policy. Many legislators responsible for education policy and funding also have vested interests in an expanding penal system that provides population-based political benefits (e.g., representation), as well as an economic boost to their jurisdiction. Therefore, such legislators have little incentive to direct funds away from prisons into schools (Hirschfield, 2008 ). Criminal justice expansion also leaves states and school districts with fewer resources to spend on effective prevention and curricular reform, making school exclusion and criminalization the most economically viable means to address chronic student misconduct. Lastly, Hirschfield ( 2008 ) points out that the criminal justice expansion afforded schools an army of security consultants ready to help schools address crime and fear while demonstrating allegiance to a “get tough” politics of crime.

Patterns of racial disproportionality provide grounds for another notable comparison between mass incarceration and STPP. Black and Latino males are hyper-criminalized even in non–criminal justice spaces (including schools) in such a way that the control and punishment of black and brown youth has taken precedence over their growth and development (Rios, 2011 ). Similarly, Wacquant highlights the links between multiple “peculiar institutions” (Wacquant, 2000 ) that serve to control African Americans in myriad ways. Much like how Angela Davis suggests that incarceration has become the primary vehicle through which difficult social problems such as addiction and mental illness are addressed (Davis, 1998 ), schools have adopted strategies similar to courts when dealing with challenging behavior in learning environments (Wilson, 2014 ). As Wilson ( 2014 ) denotes specifically, the idea of applying predetermined punishments for specific behavioral offenses is a practice schools have adopted in the era of zero-tolerance discipline that closely mirrors criminal justice procedures. As previous research reviewed in this article has shown, these sorts of practices most acutely impact African American youth and Latino youth (in select contexts). When these policies and practices are codified into law, it is easy for these youths to get entangled in systems that seemingly work together.

Critical Race Theory

The school-to-prison pipeline metaphor borrows ideologically from Critical Race Theory (CRT), the legal studies theory that seeks to explain the ways in which laws, including those regulating education, perpetuate racial inequality without explicitly discriminating. CRT emerged in the 1970s as a movement of scholars and activists who bemoaned the fact that the civil rights era produced only modest, liberal reforms that had limited material impact on most minorities in the United States (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012 ). CRT is variously defined in the literature, but common themes, interests, and principles unite CRT scholars under a common agenda. CRT holds that white supremacy and systems of hierarchy lock communities of color into marginalized positions over time, irrespective of legal reforms (Crenshaw, 1995 ; Bell, 1980 ). According to one of the founders of CRT (Crenshaw, 1995 ), white supremacy is built into our political and legal structure and is therefore resistant to liberal reforms. Structurally embedded racism seems ordinary and natural, as it is now advanced through race-neutral practices.

Within a CRT perspective, races are not consciously targeted for zero-tolerance discipline. Rather, school codes and informal disciplinary mechanisms direct disproportionate penal scrutiny to behaviors that African American and Latino students are either more likely to commit or be perceived as committing (Skiba et al., 2002 ). For example, Skiba, Michael, Nardo, and Peterson ( 2002 ) found that African American and Latino students were more likely to be disciplined for disrespect, talking loudly or minor threats. It is the very existence of vague and expansive categories such as insubordination and willful defiance—an institutional feature—that makes it possible for black and Latino students to be disproportionately swept into the disciplinary process. Some researchers claim that national data show that racial disparities in suspensions reflect racial differences in misbehavior (Wright et al., 2014 ). However, their net “black effect” is likely smaller than that observed in other studies, because their analysis controls for other indicators and sources of racial bias such as percent of black enrollment, parental perceptions of school quality, and early teacher reports of misbehavior—all of which could be infused with racial bias.

CRT helps to explain how seemingly race-neutral practices have racially disparate consequences. According to CRT scholars, while liberal reforms seemingly promote the rights of the marginalized and underserved, they simultaneously legitimize the widespread use of restrictive definitions of merit, fault, and causation (Crenshaw, 1988 ). It is possible that the struggle for dignity and legitimacy was waged with such vigor that anyone who fell outside of a normalized Western standard for behavior and aptitude were deemed undeserving of protection under the law. Rigid school discipline practices can be viewed as examples of these inflexible standards, in which the pursuit of a narrowly defined path to excellence has squeezed out students who fall outside of the set of prescribed cultural norms and learning styles.

Critical Race Theory Applied to Education

Scholarship that applies CRT principles to education helps provide context for the STPP metaphor. In the first published application of CRT to education, Ladson-Billings and Tate ( 1995 ) elucidated how education perpetuates poverty and disadvantage, namely through the coupling of property rights and race. Framing school discipline in the context of property rights within education (i.e., the premise that education belongs to some and not others) illuminates how some students are deemed undeserving of consideration for academic, financial, and cultural realities not conveniently aligned with white cultural norms and furthermore are sanctioned for non-white cultural practices (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995 ; Watts & Erevelles, 2004 ).

Property rights within education also include the right to exclusion (Harris, 1993 ), a primary outcome of zero-tolerance discipline and the main mechanism of STPP. In 2010 , Sullivan and colleagues linked zero-tolerance discipline in Texas to two certain elements of CRT, the permanence of racism and a critique of liberalism. They argue that historically discriminatory ways of thinking about minority youth and violence yield racially disparate outcomes in school discipline. A confluence of additional factors including the spread of gang activity into suburbs, and an increasingly punitive criminal justice system, led to a tightening of school disciplinary procedures over both criminal and non-criminal behaviors. The punitive shift in school discipline was accomplished with ostensibly race-neutral school safety and disciplinary initiatives that, in fact, targeted behaviors and demeanors implicitly associated with race. This system ignores influences on student behavior that may not be the fault of the student, such as economic circumstances and family environment. Elements of critical race theory help to contextualize the racially disproportionate outcomes examined in STPP research.

Governing Through Crime

There are other theoretical links to the STPP metaphor that bring broader understanding to the pipeline metaphor and why these policies and practices exist. Criminalization is a broad term used to describe a range of political and social processes that result in behaviors such as abortion and stalking becoming illegal (Hirschfield, 2008 ). The term also has specific relevance for school discipline. As Hirschfield ( 2008 ) points out, serious crimes on school grounds such as weapons possession and drug offenses are often subject to mandated police referrals. Moreover, the infusion of law enforcement into schools has also resulted in various acts of student misconduct (e.g., minor fights, running in the hallways, insubordination and rudeness, etc.) being redefined as criminal behavior (Fabelo et al., 2011 ).

Some scholars have linked school criminalization to broader political and economic shifts that resulted in the control and punishment of crime becoming a more viable mission of governance than redistributive aims. The government prioritization of crime resulted in a vastly expanded crime control infrastructure. The imperative to govern through crime transformed not only crime policy at the highest levels but also filtered to the local level and to government agencies that were traditionally separate from criminal justice like schools and child welfare. Sustained by a stable criminal justice infrastructure and a crime-fixated media, crime control has become well cemented into America’s social fabric. This approach to governance has seeped into school policies and practices, and crime governance has transformed the general function of education for our communities and the country at large. However, the process of criminalization has not occurred in a monolithic fashion across the country. Rather, school disciplinary and security practices show great variability across schools, districts and states (Hirschfield, 2008 ). Whereas policies that were initially restricted to schools with an actual violence problem expanded to school districts nationwide (Simon, 2007 ), criminalization assumed milder and more flexible forms in whiter and more affluent contexts (Hirschfield, 2008 , 2009 ).

The Safe Schools Act of 1994 5 cemented and nationalized zero-tolerance policies in schools by providing financial incentives for schools to adopt codes that comply with state mandates for the removal of a student from class. 6 This focus lead to further exclusion of students deemed in violation of the new policies. This legislation imposed a number of requirements (e.g., standardized data collection, reporting crimes to police) that made crime more visible and commensurable, and thereby amenable to state regulation (Simon, 2007 ). The next hallmark of federal reform, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 enacted by the Bush administration, punished educational failure, a symbolic mode of governing through crime (Simon, 2007 ). 7 This legislation links educational failure and crime as ills of the American school system that can and should be addressed together, adding to the already well-cemented influence on schools to align with funding pathways that support environments where crimes are identified. This made it more appealing to sweep more forms of student misbehavior under the umbrella of crime or possible crime. The “dangerous schools” provisions also incentivized making the knowledge of crimes on school grounds salient on an organizational level. However, competing evidence suggests that some schools were incentivized to decriminalize their environments in order to stay off the radar of state overseers (National School Safety and Security Services, 2016 ).

These processes are also racialized. Assessing schools on the basis of standardized test scores (along with safety measures) without providing resources to increase students’ enrichment and engagement incentivizes schools to exclude those students who will hurt schools’ “bottom line” (Figlio, 2006 ). Moreover, disciplinary and criminal codes afford enforcement agents considerable discretion in targeting students for exclusion or arrest on the basis of disruptive or disorderly behavior. This dynamic systematically disadvantages poor students of color, especially African Americans, in two ways. First and foremost, these students are much more likely than white students to attend schools that face such exclusionary pressures coupled with more limited resources to pursue non-exclusionary alternatives. Second, as noted previously, in the context of racially diverse schools, cultural biases on the part of predominantly white and middle-class school professionals result in more behaviors of youth of color being perceived and classified as disorderly or disruptive (Shedd, 2015 ). School personnel are more likely to project bleak or criminal adult futures onto black students (Noguera, 2003 ; Rios, 2006 ), which likely contributes to harsher disciplinary outcomes for black students (Hirschfield, 2008 ). Teachers’ anticipatory labeling of students, school administrators, and school police officers may, in turn, influence students’ vision for their own future (Hirschfield, 2008 ; Noguera, 2003 ). The ubiquitous and internalized labeling of urban minority males as criminals is a feature of the “youth control complex” (Rios, 2011 ), the network of community, law enforcement, and teachers that view urban youth as deviant, which steers them away from schools and toward criminal justice (including within school contexts) (Rios, 2011 ). As products of their experiences, these youths form identities around their involvement with the criminal justice system more so than a promising future of opportunity.

These theoretical links illustrate the myriad ways in which schools came to function as a conduit to criminal justice. The pathways are numerous and include political actors who incentivize schools toward criminalization, school personnel whose personal and professional discretion determine which students end up on the track toward juvenile justice involvement through classroom and school exclusion. Students’ choices and self-efficacy are shaped by the external circumstances of a criminalized school, coupled with the realities they may face in their communities.

Empirical Evidence

STPP models specify various pathways through which school experiences promote involvement with the justice system. Empirical research bolsters some of these pathways more than others. Fortunately, exclusionary school discipline, which is typically depicted as the principal engine of the pipeline is the most widely studied. Numerous studies have documented that school suspensions increase the risk of arrest and juvenile justice involvement over the short and long term. The most rigorous study (Cuellar & Markowitz, 2015 ) of short-term effects, echoing the findings of an earlier study (Monahan et al., 2014 ), found that the risk of arrest doubled during suspensions. The effect does not appear to be merely an automatic consequence of more time away from school, because the effect is stronger on weekdays than on weekends. This study provides strong evidence that being suspended on a school day draws more police scrutiny. However, suspensions also increased the risk of felony arrest, which suggests that consistent with labeling (Mowen & Brent, 2016 ) and strain theories (Agnew, 2001 ), suspension may also increase offending behavior.

School officials may increase students’ vulnerability to police scrutiny not only through suspensions but also through transfers to disciplinary alternative schools. Multiple qualitative studies have documented that students at alternative school are subject to enhanced police surveillance on and near school property (Rios, 2011 ; Reck, 2015 ). Enhanced police scrutiny at school, in turn, can also increase the risk of school exclusion (Fisher & Hennessy, 2016 ).

School exclusion may not only elevate delinquency and police scrutiny in the short term, but it may also intensify interactions with the justice system over the longer term through multiple mechanisms. First, school exclusion can be a source of stigmatizing labels, which can attenuate social support and positive influences at home and at school and thereby increase delinquency (Kupchik, 2016 ). Second, these adverse consequences along with school exclusion itself, may affect assessments of “risk” and “compliance” on the part of decision makers within the juvenile justice system. For example, Bishop et al. ( 2010 ) found that arrested youth within a single Iowa county who had school disciplinary problems (detention, suspension) were more likely to be processed formally (versus diversion) even after taking into account prior offenses and the number and severity of current charges. Disciplinary problems also increased the odds of being subject to a formal delinquency petition but only among African Americans. On the other hand, disciplinary problems had no effect on the risk of being adjudicated delinquent or being placed out of the home. Moreover, using the same data set and selection controls, Leiber ( 2013 ) observed that for African American arrestees only, disciplinary problems lowered the risk of pre-adjudicatory detention. Likewise, in multinomial logistic regression models that include controls for juvenile detention, black youth with disciplinary problems were less likely to be placed out of the home versus in “community-based corrections.”

Of course, many youth attend school even after they have been placed on probation or are released on parole. For such youth, additional suspensions or arrests at school can trigger punitive reactions from other institutions, a phenomenon that has been termed “secondary sanctioning” (Liberman et al., 2014 ). For example, in many jurisdictions, a school suspension constitutes a violation of the terms of probation or parole (Kim, Losen, & Hewitt, 2010 ), which can result in secure confinement (see Shepherd, 2016 for one recent example). 8 Although no known empirical studies document that phenomenon, cogent evidence of this direct pathway from school discipline to incarceration comes from a lawsuit filed in 2012 by the U.S. Justice Department against the educational and juvenile justice organizations serving the students of Meridian, Mississippi. The lawsuit alleged that the “[d]efendants in this case collectively help to operate a school-to-prison pipeline whereby” students who broke school rules were arrested: if they were on probation, the students served their suspensions in the juvenile detention center. The lawsuit was successfully settled in 2015 with the defendants agreeing to drastically curtail the practice of incarcerating probationers for school rule violations.

Given that the foregoing processes of secondary sanctioning further marginalize, stigmatize, and criminalize students, it is hardly surprising that longitudinal studies have found that being suspended from school is associated with subsequent arrests or juvenile involvement (Fabelo et al., 2011 ), especially after multiple suspensions (Mowen & Brent, 2016 ). These effects are observed even for students who remain enrolled and even when self-reported offending is taken into account.

The observed effects of school suspensions on police scrutiny, social status and support, and secondary sanctioning likely hold—or are amplified—for school arrests and school-based court referrals. School arrests, a product of enhanced school policing (Nolan, 2011 ; Na & Gottfredson, 2013 ), are likely to impact juvenile justice processing given that they create a police record and often trigger court involvement as well. The apparent absence of scientific studies on the impact of school-based arrests and court referrals represents a gaping hole in the empirical STPP literature.

As mentioned earlier, suspensions and school arrests rarely lead directly to incarceration. However, along with the juvenile justice interactions they facilitate, these punishments can inflict severe and lasting damage on a youth’s prospects for a healthy and productive future. Perhaps the most common means through which such sanctions foreclose opportunity is through preventing high school graduation. Although definitive evidence of a causal impact of school suspensions on dropout is lacking, Peguero and Bracy ( 2015 ) found that suspensions elevate the risk of dropout, even after controlling for a large set of risk factors, including prior delinquency. This evidence aligns with qualitative research documenting how schools use their disciplinary systems to “push out” unwanted students (Morris, 2015 ). The evidence that arrests and juvenile court involvement cause early school exits is more rigorous (Hirschfield, 2009 ; Kirk & Sampson, 2013 ), although research has not examined the impact of school-based arrests and court referrals. Some jurisdictions permit schools to exclude students for their off-campus legal entanglements, and scholars have noted that students released from secure confinement often face various obstacles to successful reenrollment, including mandatory alternative schooling, bureaucratic delays, and curricular discontinuities (Hirschfield, 2014 ; Kim, Losen, & Hewitt, 2010 ).

Dropping out of school, in turn, appears to be a frequent stop en route from school to prison. Whereas recent evidence challenges a causal link between dropout and subsequent criminal behavior in the near term (Sweeten et al., 2009 ; Na, 2017 ), research consistently suggests that dropping out of school increases the risk of arrest (Na, 2017 ; Bell et al., 2016 ). Likewise, school dropout, like suspensions, can violate the terms of probation and parole and elevate the risk of formal processing (but not petitions and adjudication) (Bishop et al., 2010 ). Bishop et al. ( 2010 ) also found that dropout status increases the risk of out-of-home placement.

Even if school dropout has a minor or fleeting impact on criminal behavior or juvenile justice involvement, its effects can reverberate across the life course and culminate in adult incarceration. Lacking a high school diploma can greatly diminish prospects for success in marriage and the labor market. Thus, getting in trouble at a young age often deprives youth of the social ties, social control, and human capital that helps to avoid trouble as adults (Rios, 2011 ). The lack of educational credentials can be particularly disadvantageous when combined with the negative credential of a juvenile and/or criminal record and in urban contexts where decent jobs for less-educated workers are scarce (Bell et al., 2016 ; Kirk & Sampson, 2013 ). Accordingly, Pettit and Western ( 2004 ) observed that nearly 60% of black male high school dropouts were incarcerated by age 34 compared to only 11% of non-Hispanic white male dropouts. Likewise, Wolf and Kupchik ( 2017 ) recently found that being suspended from school between grades 7 and 12 is associated with the risks of both committing a crime and being incarcerated 14 years later, even after controlling for years of school completed and myriad other risk factors.

Overall, research supports principal components of the STPP model, especially the adverse consequences of school exclusion. More research is needed to examine whether the observed associations are robust to more rigorous methodologies and to assess the impact of school-based arrests and court referrals. Considerable research also supports the core contention of many STPP proponents that African Americans are disproportionately selected for “pipeline processes” and that these processes are disparately harmful to them (Cuellar & Markowitz, 2015 ). However, for this contention evidence is incomplete and inconsistent as well (see Bishop et al., 2010 ).

The Future of the Pipeline

The pipeline metaphor is useful for characterizing the predictable pathways that many students follow en route to incarceration. Most STPP models properly depict multiple pathways between school punishment and criminal justice involvement. The image of a progressively punitive “pipeline” emphasizes that movement through each stage increases the odds of moving through successive stages. Criminological theories such as cumulative disadvantage are helpful for understanding movement through the pipeline (Mowen & Brent, 2016 ). That said, a pipeline is not the only way of characterizing the interrelationship between school and justice system experiences. Other metaphors and models are needed that take into account the role of individual agency, reverse pathways (e.g., returns to school following dropout or incarceration), and other social and government institutions (e.g., social service and treatment agencies).

Limitations of the STPP model aside, the devastating short- and long-term consequences of school punishment and criminalization for targeted students, and for their families and communities, are real (Kupchik, 2016 ). Various states and local jurisdictions are beginning to acknowledge the negative consequences of merging educational and the criminal justice processes.

Restorative Justice and Restricting the Use of Police

The criminal justice system provides a template not only for swiftly removing students from school but also for helping offenders repair the harm their crimes have done to victims and the community. Reforms have been instituted across the country that target various aspects of STPP, such as the hyper-exclusionary zero-tolerance discipline practices that target minor offenses, schools’ tendencies to refer disciplinary problems to law enforcement, and the discriminatory manner in which these sanctions are levied. This section will provide examples of successful efforts underway to dismantle the pipeline, including restorative justice programs, PBIS (Positive Behavioral Intervention Services), and diversion programs.

Numerous jurisdictions have adopted school-based restorative justice to supplement or partially supplant exclusionary approaches. For example, Denver, Colorado, was a forerunner in the shift from punitive to restorative justice as an explicit effort to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline. Padres y Jovenes Unidos, a coalition of parents and students backed by the Advancement Project, took aim at discriminatory school disciplinary practices in Denver. 9 Reform initiatives targeted multiple aspects of STPP. First, they reduced suspensions by training thousands of educators in restorative justice practices and revising the district’s disciplinary code. Second, new disciplinary codes mandated that schools make less use of suspensions and expulsions and implement more restorative and therapeutic alternatives. Lastly, an Intergovernmental Agreement was reached between Denver Public Schools and the Denver Police Department that focused on redefining the role of police in schools, with a focus on distinguishing between disciplinary issues and crime (Hirschfield, 2018 ). As a result, schools experienced reductions in the use of exclusionary discipline and the racial disparities that persist therein. Between 2005 and 2015 out-of-school suspensions fell by 64%, and referrals to law enforcement fell by 31% in Denver (Hirschfield, 2018 ). Evidence also suggests academic improvement in reading levels and graduation rates as a result of these reforms.

Numerous other jurisdictions have followed Denver’s lead. Oakland has seen comparable gains from their restorative justice programs. Local reforms, like Oakland’s, are sometimes spurred by federal investigative and enforcement actions, which explicitly aimed to address the STPP. Under federal scrutiny, Oakland expanded and revised their disciplinary practices in schools. They later joined Los Angeles and Pasadena in banning suspensions for willful defiance and prohibiting school officials from involving law enforcement to address violations of school rules and nonviolent offenses (Hirschfield, 2018 ). With the recent blessing of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing ( 2015 ), administrators have limited the scope of police responsibilities within schools. For example, districts such as Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, and Fort Wayne reduced the number offenses for which schools can refer students to law enforcement (Hirschfield, 2018 ). Other jurisdictions such as Broward County, Sedgwick County (Kansas), and Cambridge (Massachusetts) mandated that police resort to arrest less frequently and refer students to diversion programs (Hirschfield, 2018 ).

It is important to note that restorative justice reforms do not address the special needs of students with chronic behavioral problems and disorders and who account for a disproportionate share of students subject to harsh and exclusionary policies (Palley, 2004 ; Dickinson & Miller, 2006 ; Fabelo et al., 2011 ). One way to reduce school exclusion is to provide treatment and support that effectively prevent further misbehavior. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs promoted the implementation of Positive Behavioral Intervention Services (PBIS), equipping states and school districts with additional resources to train individuals supporting children with disabilities, in positive, non-punitive responses to misconduct including rewards systems, revised teaching expectations that accommodate different learning styles, and more intensive interventions that are multitiered and culturally responsive. 10 PBIS has proven benefits including reducing suspensions and dropout (Horner et al., 2010 ).

Considering Trauma

Trauma has not typically been factored into school disciplinary decisions. However, trauma, whether due to exposure to violence, poverty, racism, or other negative life events, can impact the life of a student much like war trauma affects military veterans. In 2015 , public counsel and Irell & Manella LLP filed a lawsuit against the Compton Unified School District on behalf of teachers and students, asserting that students experiencing trauma had been punished and excluded more than supported and provided with a healthy school learning environment. The plaintiffs and their supporters mandated that practices be implemented to support students suffering from emotional trauma, similar to those that assist students with physical and learning disabilities. 11

The mandates made by the plaintiffs in this case are in line with other trauma-centered alternatives implemented by other states (e.g., Massachusetts): providing mental health services for high-risk students, trauma-informed training for educators and school staff, teaching emotional coping skills to students, and creating restorative strategies to keep students in the classroom. 12 The claims in this lawsuit also bolster research suggesting the importance of trauma in explaining differential involvement by race and gender in the school disciplinary process. For example, in her analysis of the overrepresentation of black girls in school discipline, Morris ( 2015 ) notes that many black girls in trouble at school have been overexposed to racial and gender-based oppressions including violence (sexual and otherwise), which can contribute to defiant behaviors at school such as violations of the dress code. Morris calls for educators and school staff to recognize the “centrality of trauma and the conditions that affect black girls’ actions.” (Morris, 2015 , p. 50). Morris ( 2015 ) calls for healing-informed learning spaces in which teachers and school staff employ empathic discipline (which has proven successful in reducing the incidence of out-of-school suspension), unbiased curriculum, and a focus on college and career readiness.

The Teske Model

In Clayton County, Georgia, Chief Juvenile Court Judge Steve Teske implemented a comprehensive program that has inspired similar reforms around the country. 13 The “Teske Model” explicitly aims to disrupt the flow of students from schools to juvenile courts. As many of the previously mentioned critiques of the pipeline metaphor state, the issue is complex, involving multiple social stakeholders including law enforcement, schools, and social services. Judge Teske takes a holistic approach to school discipline, recognizing that actions and inactions on the part of various interdependent entities push students into courts (Hirschfield, 2012 ). Systemic analysis of the problem in Clayton County revealed that schools essentially transferred responsibility for addressing behavioral issues to the juvenile justice system because schools lacked the resources to manage all students’ behavioral needs. To address the challenges to improving school-based and prevention and disciplinary policy, the juvenile court and its partnering agencies created a county-funded, team-based service entity that includes a mental health professional, the school’s social worker, a social services professional, a juvenile court officer, other service providers, and a trained facilitator provided by the courts (Teske et al., 2013 ). To further reduce referrals, the school district and the chief of police signed an agreement that mandated a three-step procedure would be followed for students who committed misdemeanor offenses at school, where referral to the juvenile courts would be a last resort after receiving a warning on the first offense and a conflict skills workshop on the second (Teske et al., 2013 ).

Like the desegregation of schools, many of the recent efforts to dismantle STPP have been spurred and overseen by the federal government. Other states such as Connecticut, 14 North Carolina, 15 Kentucky, 16 Virginia, 17 and others have pursued reforms similar to those described here. Local reform efforts have encountered some pushback from entrenched interest groups such as teachers associations. Some teachers and school administrators have complained that reforms curtail one of the few available tools to ensure student and staff safety (e.g., suspensions) without providing them effective resources to replace exclusionary discipline. Disciplinary alternatives, when implemented with few resources and in contexts with “entrenched punitive logics” may come to function as disguised, alternative forms of exclusion (see Brent, 2017 ).

Future Research Directions

As mentioned previously, the pipeline model has been criticized for being under-theorized (McGrew, 2016 ), overly mechanistic, and deterministic (Kupchik, 2014 ; Hirschfield, 2012 ). Some scholars have suggested research strategies to address some of these weaknesses. Hirschfield ( 2012 ) suggests a multi-tiered analysis of school discipline policies and practices to investigate how the multiple layers of influence work together to push youth out of the classroom, out of school, and ultimately into the criminal justice system. Most empirical studies have focused on single posited links (e.g., between suspensions and arrest). Better tests of STPP’s multi-stage models would involve mediational analyses. For example, researchers can assess whether juvenile justice involvement mediates the relationship between school suspensions/arrests and dropout, as well as whether dropout mediates the relationship between juvenile arrests and adult incarceration. Also needed are more analyses of the differential impacts of the practices and processes in the STPP by race. Additionally, more qualitative research is needed to examine whether the observed statistical relationships comport with lived experiences (i.e., people’s own accounts of the impact of school exclusion and criminalization on their life trajectories). Lastly, future research on STPP should consider the impact of alternatives to exclusionary discipline such as trauma-informed strategies, restorative practices, and multi-tiered alternative models that involve multiple stakeholders from education, the courts, and law enforcement. It will be crucial to evaluate whether or not these changes to school discipline have disrupted the pipeline in qualitatively and statistically meaningful ways.

A Legacy of Limits and Promise

The school-to-prison pipeline clusters several concepts and processes including school exclusion and criminalization, juvenile justice sanctioning, and disproportionality in punishment under a singular broader process. Consequently, it has been a useful heuristic (Skiba et al., 2014 ) that has helped forge advocacy coalitions and service partnerships across institutional domains. Whereas the term garnered widespread acceptance within advocacy and policy circles, its academic utility is debatable. Its tenuous theoretical grounding and overly purposeful or mechanistic depiction of the nexus between schools and criminal justice are purported weaknesses of the metaphor. That said, empirical evidence does support a causal connection between school exclusion and arrests as well as between juvenile justice involvement and school dropout. This provides a promising initial foundation of empirical support for STPP. Additional quantitative and qualitative research is needed to determine which theories posited by STPP hold up to empirical scrutiny and which do not. Furthermore, education stakeholders would benefit from multi-layered analyses that attempt to see the issue as a broad web of influences in the over-incarceration of youth. Although research in this area needs to become more complex and sophisticated, school discipline policy reforms will not pause to wait for the best empirical results.

Links to Digital Materials

  • ACLU—Juvenile Justice (“School-to-Prison Pipeline” and “Police Presence in Schools.”)
  • ACLU—school-to-prison pipeline infographic.
  • Civil Rights Project—school-to-prison pipeline data.
  • Suspension Stories—school-to-prison pipeline infographic.
  • Trauma and Learning— Peter P., et al. v. Compton Unified School District, et al .

Further Reading

  • Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness . New York: The New Press.
  • Arum, R. (2005) Judging school discipline: The crisis of moral authority . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Cuellar, A. E. , & Markowitz, S. (2015). School suspension and the school-to-prison pipeline. International Review of Law and Economics , 43 , 98–106.
  • Hirschfield, P. J. , & Celinska, K. (2011). Beyond fear: Sociological perspectives on the criminalization of school discipline. Sociology Compass , 5 (1), 1–12.
  • Kupchik, A. , Bracy, N. , Apple, M. , Hirschfield, P. , Casella, R. , Gilliom, J. , et al. (2009). Schools under surveillance: Cultures of control in public education . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  • Morris, M. W. (2015). Pushout: The criminalization of black girls in schools . New York: The New Press.
  • Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory Into Practice , 42 (4), 341–350.
  • Skiba, R. J. , Arredondo, M. I. , & Williams, N. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education , 47 (4), 546–564.
  • Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 38 (4), 319–361.
  • Bell, B. , Costa, R. , & Machin, S. 2016. Crime, compulsory schooling laws and education. Economics of Education Review , 54 (C), 214–226.
  • Bell, D. A., Jr. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review , (3), 518.
  • Berg, E. J. (1960). The economic basis of political choice in French west Africa. American Political Science Review , 54 (2), 391–405.
  • Bishop, D. M. , Leiber, M. , & Johnson, J. (2010). Contexts of decision making in the juvenile justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 8 (3), 213–233.
  • Brent, J. J. (2017). Enduring dispositions: Examining punitive logics in the context of disciplinary reform . Theoretical Criminology , 1–21.
  • Burns, R. , & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for a moral panic. Crime, Law and Social Change , 32 (2), 147–168.
  • Capper, C. A. (2015). The 20th-year anniversary of critical race theory in education implications for leading to eliminate racism. Educational Administration Quarterly , 51 (5), 791–833.
  • Costenbader, V. , & Markson, S. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology , 36 (1), 59–82.
  • Cowan, K. C. , Vaillancourt, K. , Rossen, E. , & Pollitt, K. (2013). A framework for safe and successful schools . Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
  • Crenshaw, K. (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement . New York: The New Press.
  • Crenshaw, K. W. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review , (7), 1331.
  • Curran, F. C. (2016). Estimating the effect of state zero tolerance laws on exclusionary discipline, racial discipline gaps, and student behavior. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 38 (4), 647–668.
  • Dancy, T. E. (2014). (Un)doing hegemony in education: Disrupting school-to-prison pipelines for black males. Equity & Excellence in Education , 47 (4), 476–493.
  • Davis, A. (1998). Masked racism: Reflections on the prison industrial complex. Color Lines , 1 (2), 11–13.
  • Delgado, R. , & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory . New York: New York University Press.
  • Dickinson, M. C. , & Miller, T. L. (2006). Issues regarding in-school suspensions and high school students with disabilities. American Secondary Education , 35 (1), 72–83.
  • Fabelo, T. , Thompson, M. D. , Plotkin, M. , Carmichael, D. , Marchbanks, M. P. , & Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement . New York: Justice Center.
  • Figlio, D. N. (2006). Testing, crime and punishment. Journal of Public Economics , 90 (4), 837–851.
  • Fisher, B. W. , & Hennessy, E. A. (2016). School resource officers and exclusionary discipline in US high schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review , 1 (3), 217–233.
  • Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison . New York: Vintage Books.
  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control (Vol. 367). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hagan, J. , Hirschfield, P. J. , & Shedd, C. (2002). Shooting at Tilden High: Causes and consequences. In M. Moore , C. Petrie , A. Braga , & Shedd, C. (Eds.), Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence (pp. 143–174). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review , (8), 1707.
  • Hernandez, L. (2016). Denver students, Padres & Jovenes Unidos Give DPS a C+ for efforts to end school to prison pipeline . Denver 7 ABC News.
  • Hirschfield, P. J. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology , 12 (1), 79–101.
  • Hirschfield, P. J. (2009). Another way out: The impact of juvenile arrests on high school dropout. Sociology of Education , 82 (4), 368–393.
  • Hirschfield, P. J. (2012). A critical assessment of theory and research on the ‘school to prison pipeline.’ American Society of Criminology 2012 Meeting , Chicago, IL.
  • Hirschfield, P. J. (2014). Effective and promising practices in transitional planning and school reentry. Journal of Correctional Education , 65 (2), 84.
  • Hirschfield, P. “Trends in School Social Control in the U.S.: Explaining Patterns of Decriminalization.” In J. Deakin , E. Taylor , A. Kupchik (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of School Discipline, Surveillance and Social Control (forthcoming in 2018).
  • Horner, R. H. , Sugai, G. , & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children , 42 (8), 1–14.
  • Kim C. Y. , Losen D. J. , & Hewitt D. T. (2010). The school-to-prison pipeline: Structuring legal reform . New York: New York University Press.
  • Kirk, D. S. , & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education , 86 (1), 36–62.
  • Kupchik, A. (2014). The school-to-prison pipeline: Rhetoric and reality. In F. E. Zimring & D. S. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Choosing the future for American juvenile justice . New York: New York University Press.
  • Kupchik, A. 2016. The real school safety problem: Long-term consequences of harsh school Punishment . Oakland: University of California Press.
  • Kupchik, A. , & Monahan, T. (2006). The new American school: Preparation for post-industrial discipline. British Journal of Sociology of Education , 27 (5), 617–631.
  • Kupchik, A. , & Ward, G. (2014). Race, poverty, and exclusionary school security: An empirical analysis of U.S. elementary, middle, and high school. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 12 (4), 332–354.
  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 11 (1), 7–24.
  • Ladson-Billings, G. , & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record , 97 (1), 47.
  • Leiber, M. J. (2013). Race, pre-and postdetention, and juvenile justice decision making. Crime & Delinquency , 59 (3), 396–418.
  • Liberman, A. M. , Kirk, D. S. , & Kim, K. (2014). Labeling effects of first juvenile arrests: Secondary deviance and secondary sanctioning. Criminology , 52 (3), 345–370.
  • McGrew, K. (2016). The dangers of pipeline thinking: How the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor squeezes out complexity . Educational Theory , 66 (3), 341–367.
  • Meiners, E. R. (2010). Right to be hostile: Schools, prisons, and the making of public enemies . London: Routledge.
  • Monahan, K. C. , VanDerhei, S. , Bechtold, J. , & Cauffman, E. (2014). From the school yard to the squad car: School discipline, truancy, and arrest. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 43 (7), 1110–1122.
  • Morris, M. W. (2016). Protecting black girls. Educational Leadership , 74 (3), 49–53.
  • Mowen, T. , & Brent, J. (2016). School discipline as a turning point. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 53 (5), 628–653.
  • Na, C. (2017). The consequences of school dropout among serious adolescent offenders: More offending? More arrest? Both? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 54 (1), 78–110.
  • Na, C. , & Gottfredson, D. C. (2013). Police officers in schools: Effects on school crime and the processing of offending behaviors. Justice Quarterly , 30 (4), 619–650.
  • National School Safety and Security Services . (2016). School crime reporting and underreporting . Cleveland, OH: National School Safety and Security Services .
  • Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into Practice , 42 (4), 341–350.
  • Nolan, K. (2011). Police in the hallways: Discipline in an urban high school . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Palley, E. (2004). Balancing student mental health needs and discipline: A case study of the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act . Social Service Review , 78 (2), 243–266.
  • Peguero, A. A. , & Bracy, N. L. (2015). School order, justice, and education: Climate, discipline practices, and dropping out. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 25 (3), 412–426.
  • Pettit, B. , & Western, B. (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in US incarceration. American Sociological Review , 69 (2), 151–169.
  • Reck, P. (2015). The influence of community characteristics on police officers’ approaches to patrolling Latinos in three towns. Race and Justice , 5 (1), 4–32.
  • Rios, V. M. (2006). The hyper-criminalization of black and Latino male youth in the era of mass incarceration. Souls , 8 (2), 40–54.
  • Rios, V.M. (2011). Punished: Policing the lives of black and Latino boys . New York: New York University Press.
  • Shedd, C. (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, and perceptions of injustice . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Shepherd, L. (2016). Teen gets detention on violation. Times Gazette .
  • Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Skiba, R. J. (2014). The failure of zero tolerance. Reclaiming Children and Youth , 22 (4), 27–33.
  • Skiba, R. J. , Michael, R. S. , Nardo, A. C. , & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review , 34 (4), 317.
  • Soyjoyner, D. M. (2013). Black radicals make for bad citizens: Undoing the myth of the school to prison pipeline. Berkeley Review of Education , 4 (2), 241–263.
  • Sullivan, C. J. , Dollard, N. , Sellers, B. , & Mayo, J. (2010). Rebalancing response to school-based offenses: A civil citation program. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 8 (4), 279–294.
  • Sweeten, G. , Bushway, S. D. , & Paternoster, R. (2009). Does dropping out of school mean dropping into delinquency? Criminology , 47 (1), 47–91.
  • Teske, S. , Brian, H. & Cora, G. (2013). Collaborative Role of Courts in Promoting Outcomes for Students: The Relationship between Arrests, Graduation Rates and School Safety. Family Court Review , 51 (3), 418–426.
  • Wacquant, L. (2000). The new peculiar institution’: On the prison as surrogate ghetto. Theoretical Criminology , 4 (3), 377–389.
  • Wacquant, L. (2002). From slavery to mass incarceration. New Left Review , 13 , 42–60.
  • Wald, J. , & Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development , 2003 (99), 9–15.
  • Watts, I. E. , & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research Journal , 41 (2), 271–299.
  • Western, B. , & Muller, C. (2013). Mass incarceration, macrosociology, and the poor. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 647 (1), 166–189.
  • Wilson, H. (2014). Turning off the school-to-prison pipeline. Reclaiming Children & Youth , 23 (1), 49–53.
  • Wolf, K. C. , & Kupchik, A. (2017). School suspensions and adverse experiences in adulthood. Justice Quarterly , 34 (3), 407–430.
  • Wright, J. P. , Morgan, M. A. , Coyne, M. A. , Beaver, K. M. , & Barnes, J. C. (2014). Prior problem behavior accounts for the racial gap in school suspensions. Journal of Criminal Justice , 42 , 257–266.

1. Northeastern University .

2. Dignity denied: the effect of “zero tolerance” policies on students’ human rights .

3. School Climate and Discipline .

4. Secretary Duncan, Attorney General Holder Announce Effort to Respond to School-to-Prison Pipeline by Supporting Good Discipline Practices .

5. H.R.2455 — 103rd Congress (1993–1994) .

6. Safe Schools Act .

7. H.R.1 - No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 .

8. Teen gets detention on violation .

9. Padres & Jóvenes Unidos .

10. Achieving equity in school discipline .

11. Trauma & Learning .

12. Judge Steve Teske seeks to keep kids with minor problems out of court .

13. Our Stories .

14. New America .

15. Instead of Suspension .

16. American Educator .

17. Virginia lawmaker wants to tighten rules on how schools can discipline students .

Related Articles

  • Images of Alternative Justice: The Alternative of Restorative Justice
  • A Review of the Validity of Juvenile Risk Assessment across Race/Ethnicity
  • School Climate
  • Juvenile Delinquency in an International Context
  • Aging in Prison and Correction Policy in Global Perspectives
  • Bullying in School and Cyberspace
  • Penal Paradigms of Juvenile Justice in Canada and Hong Kong

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Criminology and Criminal Justice. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 07 July 2024

  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Accessibility
  • [81.177.182.174]
  • 81.177.182.174

Character limit 500 /500

Personal tools

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

research on school to prison pipeline

  • Legal Developments
  The School-to-Prison Pipeline November 01, 2010

NYU Press, Copyright © 2010

ISBN 978-0814748435

presents the intersection of a K–12 educational system and a juvenile justice system, which too often fail to serve our nation’s at-risk youth. In many cases, these failures are attributable not to the children themselves but rather to deficiencies in the institutions charged with caring for them. For the past several years, policymakers, educators, academics, advocates, the media, and the public at large have paid increasing attention to these deficiencies—at the national, state, and local levels—which disserve our youth by reducing the likelihood that they will remain in school and ultimately graduate and instead increasing the likelihood that they will become involved with the courts and ultimately be detained or incarcerated.

At its core, the pipeline results from the failure of public institutions to meet the educational and social development needs of a large segment of the children they are charged with serving. Toward the front end of the pipeline, the denial of adequate educational services sets up many students for failure. Overcrowded classrooms, racially and socioeconomically isolated environments, a lack of effective teachers and school leaders, and insufficient funding for “extras” such as counselors, special education services, and even text- books lock too many students into second-rate educational environments. These deficiencies increase students’ disengagement and the likelihood of their dropping out and later becoming involved with the courts. Even worse, some schools may actually encourage dropouts in response to unintended pressures from test-driven accountability regimes, which create incentives to push out low-performing students to boost overall test scores.

Unfortunately, the youth who suffer disproportionately from these practices are likely to be precisely those who need the most support, including low-income students, students of color, English language learners, homeless youth, youth in foster care, and students with disabilities. And, of course, many students fall into more than one of these categories.

 

The Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles 8370 Math Sciences, Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 [email protected]

  • Copyright Policy
  • Accessibility

Copyright © 2010 UC Regents

The School to Prison Pipeline: Long-Run Impacts of School Suspensions on Adult Crime

Schools face important policy tradeoffs in monitoring and managing student behavior. Strict discipline policies may stigmatize suspended students and expose them to the criminal justice system at a young age. On the other hand, strict discipline acts as a deterrent and limits harmful spillovers of misbehavior onto other students. This paper estimates the net impact of school discipline on student achievement, educational attainment and adult criminal activity. Using exogenous variation in school assignment caused by a large and sudden boundary change and a supplementary design based on principal switches, we show that schools with higher suspension rates have substantial negative long-run impacts. Students assigned to a school that has a one standard deviation higher suspension rate are 15 to 20 percent more likely to be arrested and incarcerated as adults. We also find negative impacts on educational attainment. The negative impacts of attending a high suspension school are largest for males and minorities.

We thank seminar participants at the 2019 NBER Summer Institute Economics of Education meetings for helpful comments. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Non-Technical Summaries

  • How Grocery Prices Influence Consumers' Inflation Expectations Author(s): Francesco D’Acunto Ulrike Malmendier Juan Ospina Michael Weber Consumers who experience extreme changes in grocery prices are more likely to base inflation expectations on those changes than those...
  • Spare the Suspensions, Spoil the Child? Maybe the Reverse Is True Author(s): Andrew Bacher-Hicks Stephen B. Billings David J. Deming North Carolina students who were rezoned to schools with stricter discipline were 17 percent more likely to be arrested as adults and...

Working Groups

Mentioned in the news, more from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

15th Annual Feldstein Lecture, Mario Draghi, "The Next Flight of the Bumblebee: The Path to Common Fiscal Policy in the Eurozone cover slide

The School-to-Prison Pipeline

  • In book: The Palgrave International Handbook of School Discipline, Surveillance, and Social Control (pp.269-290)

Sanna King at Mississippi State University

  • Mississippi State University
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Anthony A. Peguero at Arizona State University

  • Arizona State University

Discover the world's research

  • 25+ million members
  • 160+ million publication pages
  • 2.3+ billion citations

Shontale Bryant

  • Gabby Medina Falzone
  • CRIME DELINQUENCY
  • Scott Crosse
  • Denise C. Gottfredson
  • Erin L. Bauer

Angela Greene

  • Alicia Rusoja

Eric Madfis

  • Melissa Ripepi

Kecia Johnson

  • J Contemp Crim Justice

Nicole L. Bracy

  • Aaron Kupchik

Cheryl Duckworth

  • Erica Meiners

Michael Rocque

  • Quincy Snellings
  • Crim Justice Pol Rev

David C. May

  • Karen Graham

Susan A. Dumais

  • Recruit researchers
  • Join for free
  • Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

The School-to-Prison Pipeline

Illustration of boy sitting in a caged desk

In Meridian, Miss., police routinely arrest and transport youths to a juvenile detention center for minor classroom misbehaviors. In Jefferson Parish, La., according to a U.S. Department of Justice complaint, school officials have given armed police “unfettered authority to stop, frisk, detain, question, search and arrest schoolchildren on and off school grounds.” In Birmingham, Ala., police officers are permanently stationed in nearly every high school.

In fact, hundreds of school districts across the country employ discipline policies that push students out of the classroom and into the criminal justice system at alarming rates—a phenomenon known as the school-to-prison pipeline.

Last month, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., held the first federal hearing on the school-to-prison pipeline—an important step toward ending policies that favor incarceration over education and disproportionately push minority students and students with disabilities out of schools and into jails.

In opening the hearing, Durbin told the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “For many young people, our schools are increasingly a gateway to the criminal justice system. This phenomenon is a consequence of a culture of zero tolerance that is widespread in our schools and is depriving many children of their fundamental right to an education.”

A wide array of organizations—including the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP and Dignity in Schools—offered testimony during the hearing. They joined representatives from the Departments of Education and Justice to shine a national spotlight on a situation viewed far too often as a local responsibility.

“We have a national problem that deserves federal action,” Matthew Cregor, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, explained. “With suspension a top predictor of dropout, we must confront this practice if we are ever to end the ‘dropout crisis’ or the so-called achievement gap.” In the words of Vermont’s Sen. Patrick Leahy, “As a nation, we can do better.”  

What is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?

Policies that encourage police presence at schools, harsh tactics including physical restraint, and automatic punishments that result in suspensions and out-of-class time are huge contributors to the pipeline, but the problem is more complex than that.

The school-to-prison pipeline starts (or is best avoided) in the classroom. When combined with zero-tolerance policies, a teacher’s decision to refer students for punishment can mean they are pushed out of the classroom—and much more likely to be introduced into the criminal justice system.  

Who’s in the Pipeline?

Students from two groups—racial minorities and children with disabilities—are disproportionately represented in the school-to-prison pipeline. African-American students, for instance, are 3.5 times more likely than their white classmates to be suspended or expelled, according to a nationwide study by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.

Black children constitute 18 percent of students, but they account for 46 percent of those suspended more than once.

For students with disabilities, the numbers are equally troubling. One report found that while 8.6 percent of public school children have been identified as having disabilities that affect their ability to learn, these students make up 32 percent of youth in juvenile detention centers.

The racial disparities are even starker for students with disabilities. About 1 in 4 black children with disabilities were suspended at least once, versus 1 in 11 white students, according to an analysis of the government report by Daniel J. Losen, director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA.

About 1 in 4 black children with disabilities were suspended at least once, versus 1 in 11 white students with disabilities.

A landmark study published last year tracked nearly 1 million Texas students for at least six years. The study controlled for more than 80 variables, such as socioeconomic class, to see how they affected the likelihood of school discipline. The study found that African Americans were disproportionately punished compared with otherwise similar white and Latino students. Children with emotional disabilities also were disproportionately suspended and expelled.

In other studies, Losen found racial differences in suspension rates have widened since the early 1970s and that suspension is being used more frequently as a disciplinary tool. But he said his recent study and other research show that removing children from school does not improve their behavior. Instead, it greatly increases the likelihood that they’ll drop out and wind up behind bars.  

Punishing Policies

The SPLC advocates for changes to end the school-to-prison pipeline and has filed lawsuits or civil rights complaints against districts with punitive discipline practices that are discriminatory in impact.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of school resource officers rose 38 percent between 1997 and 2007. Jerri Katzerman, SPLC deputy legal director, said this surge in police on campus has helped to criminalize many students and fill the pipeline.

One 2005 study found that children are far more likely to be arrested at school than they were a generation ago. The vast majority of these arrests are for nonviolent offenses. In most cases, the students are simply being disruptive. And a recent U.S. Department of Education study found that more than 70 percent of students arrested in school-related incidents or referred to law enforcement are black or Hispanic. Zero-tolerance policies, which set one-size-fits-all punishments for a variety of behaviors, have fed these trends.  

Best Practices

Instead of pushing children out, Katzerman said, “Teachers need a lot more support and training for effective discipline, and schools need to use best practices for behavior modification to keep these kids in school where they belong.”

Keeping at-risk kids in class can be a tough order for educators under pressure to meet accountability measures, but classroom teachers are in a unique position to divert students from the school-to-prison pipeline.

Teachers know their students better than any resource officer or administrator—which puts them in a singularly empowered position to keep students in the classroom. It’s not easy, but when teachers take a more responsive and less punitive approach in the classroom, students are more likely to complete their education.

The information in "A Teacher's Guide to Rerouting the Pipeline" highlights common scenarios that push young people into the school-to-prison pipeline and offers practical advice for how teachers can dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline.  

Avoiding the Pipeline

How can school districts divert the school-to-prison pipeline?

  • Increase the use of positive behavior interventions and supports.
  • Compile annual reports on the total number of disciplinary actions that push students out of the classroom based on gender, race and ability.
  • Create agreements with police departments and court systems to limit arrests at school and the use of restraints, such as mace and handcuffs.
  • Provide simple explanations of infractions and prescribed responses in the student code of conduct to ensure fairness.
  • Create appropriate limits on the use of law enforcement in public schools.
  • Train teachers on the use of positive behavior supports for at-risk students.
  • Student sensitivity.
  • The Power of Advertising and Girls' Self-Image

Print this Article

Would you like to print the images in this article?

  • Google Classroom

Toolkit for “The School-to-Prison Pipeline”

A teacher's guide to rerouting the pipeline, toolkit for "a teacher's guide to rerouting the pipeline", sign in to save these resources..

Login or create an account to save resources to your bookmark collection.

Get the Learning for Justice Newsletter

Logo

Explainer: The School to Prison Pipeline and What It Costs Our Youth

The school to prison pipeline is a system that fosteres mass incarceration.

14 May Explainer: The School to Prison Pipeline and What It Costs Our Youth

The school-to-prison pipeline perpetuates mass incarceration and generational trauma. Justice advocates have been targeting changes to public education to help end the flow of students from schools to prisons; nevertheless, the problem remains, and it disproportionately affects non-white students . From on-campus police officers to a culture of failure in low-income schools, the problem shows no signs of slowing down. Now, a new generation is at risk of falling victim to flawed policies as well.

What is the school to prison pipeline?

The school-to-prison pipeline refers to a group of policies and practices that result in students entering the legal system at a young age. These practices are common across districts and from state to state. Often, students lose educational opportunities and enter the justice system for just minor infractions like dress code violations and tardiness, according to a report from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Because many districts rely on police officers to enforce behavior, interactions between students and police are frequent. The same report shows that students with special needs and students of color are also more likely to enter the system due to discipline in schools.

Fear fueled by highly publicized school shootings and viral videos showing school fights causes misconceptions about school safety and crime in schools. This leads to the misguided belief that police presence in schools makes kids safer. Disciplinary action now often begins with police officers , who escort students from classrooms and break up physical altercations rather than teachers or other professionals. Districts also adopted “zero tolerance” policies under the guise of school safety. This results in frequent out-of-school suspensions and expulsions. But removing students from schools, even temporarily, puts them at risk of leaving school before graduation and increases the likelihood that they will enter the justice system .

The school-to-prison pipeline does not start with older children, though. The issues begin as early as preschool . While Black children are 18% of all preschool students, they account for 48% of students receiving multiple suspensions. White children, on the other hand, make up 43% of the preschool population, but just 26% of students with more than one suspension. In other words, Black children as young as three and four years old face systemic discrimination. Their discipline policies set the stage for years of discipline and establish a culture of failure before Black children begin kindergarten.

The school to prison pipeline begins in the classroom.

Who does the pipeline most affect?

According to the ACLU , suspensions went from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million in 2000. The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights collected data that highlights the systemic injustice inherent in suspension policies. According to their 2014 report , schools expel and suspend Black students three times more often than white students. Students with disabilities are also twice as likely to receive out-of-school suspensions. School officials are also more likely to refer these two groups to law enforcement than any other subset of students.

The ACLU also identifies students in low-income districts and schools as more at risk of entering the justice system. Based on their research , key factors that lead to interactions with police include limited resources, incentives to push out low-performing students, underqualified teachers, overcrowded classrooms and limited funding for student resources like counseling and special education services. These factors increase the likelihood that students face discipline, and the zero-tolerance policies within these districts mandate harsh punishments.

Zero-tolerance policies disproportionately affect Black students. Though they make up just 16% of the public school population, Black students account for 42% of all students who receive multiple suspensions. In contrast, white students make up 51% of the student population and account for 31% of all students with multiple suspensions. Students who receive suspension or expulsion are three times more likely than their peers to enter the justice system within one year. Once in the system, young people face an uphill battle while trying to graduate and pursue employment, putting them at higher risk of going to prison.

Is it possible to close the school to prison pipeline?

According to the National Education Association (NEA) , “The school-to-prison-pipeline refers to the practices, policies and actions in our nation’s schools that have led to the disproportionate removal from the school of students of color, including those who identify as LGBTQ, have disabilities, and/or are English Language Learners…. NEA recognizes that schools must enforce rules and provide teachers with the tools to create and maintain a classroom environment that promotes student success. But the tools and policies that school districts use should never disproportionately impact one or another group of students.”

As part of their statement, the NEA recommended government intervention and drastic changes to school discipline policies. One of those changes was to reduce the number of suspensions handed out. Mary Ellen Flannery explains that “a suspension can be life-altering. It is the number-one predictor — more than poverty — of whether children will drop out of school…a road that includes a greater likelihood of unemployment, reliance on social welfare programs, and imprisonment.”

Though legislators and education organizations have been aware of the school to prison pipeline for years, little has changed. Thousands of School Resource Officers (SROs) , many of them armed, still patrol school buildings daily. The presence of these officers does little to deter school shootings.

But it does contribute to criminalizing our nation’s youth. There’s also evidence that suggests SROs perpetuate the school-to-prison pipeline. The presence of SROs is directly linked to increases in disciplinary action around drug offenses. Using SROs to respond when students are disruptive in class or acting out in the halls also can also increase the likelihood that students will end up with a suspension or other disciplinary action.

School Resource Officers play a major role in the school to prison pipeline.

Increased focus on justice reform includes renewed efforts to close the school to prison pipeline.

The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition published “ Reversing the Pipeline to Prison in Texas ” in 2020, which takes a detailed look at school policies and practices contributing to students entering the justice system. Among other things, the report advocates for reimagining discipline. Rather than mandatory suspensions, the report recommends restorative justice without court intervention. The report also calls attention to unnecessarily harsh punishments attached to ambiguous behaviors.

According to the report, schools included phrases like “willful defiance” in their zero-tolerance policies. This allowed districts to suspend students for everything from dress code violations to talking back in class. Texas schools mirrored the national trend, disproportionately applying those policies to minority populations. To combat this, the report recommends bias training and trauma-informed training for school employees.

What’s next for school-related justice reform?

Lawmakers at the state and national level seem poised to push justice reform related to systemic injustice and racism. The school to prison pipeline is directly connected to mass incarceration and generational trauma; thus, these efforts must necessarily include changes to public school policies. Some educators and activists are already doing work at the local level. This includes speaking candidly with students about the pipeline and how schools unjustly target specific groups.

Unlike legal mandates, school policies do not require government intervention. Community members and local leaders can help schools enact new practices to address the pipeline and reduce student interactions with the justice system. Parents can also attend school board meetings or help facilitate formal conversations between district officials, students, and justice advocates.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Education Next

  • Vol. 21, No. 4

Proving the School-to-Prison Pipeline

research on school to prison pipeline

Andrew Bacher-Hicks

research on school to prison pipeline

Stephen B. Billings

research on school to prison pipeline

David J. Deming

Illustration

This spring, the Biden administration announced it would seek public comment on student race and school climate, which was roundly viewed as a precursor to restoring an Obama-era directive to reduce racial disparities in discipline practices. Those guidelines, which were rescinded by former Secretary Betsy DeVos, have been variously described as a critical means of protecting students’ civil rights and a dangerous overreach by the federal government that prevented schools from keeping students safe.

At issue is the school-to-prison pipeline—a term often used to describe the connection between exclusionary punishments like suspensions and expulsions and involvement in the criminal justice system. Black and Hispanic students are far more likely than white students to be suspended or expelled, and Black and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately represented in the nation’s prisons.

Is there a causal link between experiencing strict school discipline as a student and being arrested or incarcerated as an adult? Research shows that completing more years of school reduces subsequent criminal activity, as does enrolling in a higher-quality school and graduating from high school . Yet there is little evidence on the mechanisms by which a school can have a long-run influence on criminal activity.

To address this, we examine middle-school suspension rates in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, where a large and sudden change in school-enrollment boundary lines resulted in half of all students changing schools in a single year. We estimate a school’s disciplinary strictness based on its suspension rates before the change and use this natural experiment to identify how attending a stricter school influences criminal activity in adulthood.

Our analysis shows that young adolescents who attend schools with high suspension rates are substantially more likely to be arrested and jailed as adults. These long-term, negative impacts in adulthood apply across a school’s population, not just to students who are suspended during their school years.

Students assigned to middle schools that are one standard deviation stricter—equivalent to being at the 84th percentile of strictness versus the mean—are 3.2 percentage points more likely to have ever been arrested and 2.5 percentage points more likely to have ever been incarcerated as adults. They also are 1.7 percentage points more likely to drop out of high school and 2.4 percentage points less likely to attend a 4-year college. These impacts are much larger for Black and Hispanic male students.

We also find that principals, who have considerable discretion in meting out school discipline, are the major driver of differences in the number of suspensions from one school to the next. In tracking the movements of principals across schools, we see that principals’ effects on suspensions in one school predicts their effects on suspensions at another.

Our findings show that early censure of school misbehavior causes increases in adult crime—that there is, in fact, a school-to-prison pipeline. Further, we find that the negative impacts from strict disciplinary environments are largest for minorities and males, suggesting that suspension policies expand preexisting gaps in educational attainment and incarceration. We do see some limited evidence of positive effects on the academic achievement of white male students, which highlights the potential to increase the achievement of some subgroups by removing disruptive peers. However, any effort to maintain safe and orderly school climates must take into account the clear and negative consequences of exclusionary discipline practices for young students, and especially young students of color, which last well into adulthood.

Desegregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg

For decades, school enrollment and bus routes in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district were designed to achieve racial integration. The busing plan was ordered by a state judge and upheld by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1971, after the Swann family, who were Black, sued to reassign their 6-year-old son from an all-Black school to an integrated school closer to their home. The landmark Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education decision required the district to reassign students to new schools to balance their racial composition and influenced similar busing programs nationwide.

It was another parent lawsuit that ultimately ended mandatory busing and redrew school-zone boundaries in Charlotte-Mecklenburg again. In 1997, a white parent named William Capacchione sued the district because he believed his child was denied entrance to a magnet program based on race. This case led to a series of court battles that ended with a 2001 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld an earlier state court order to stop using race in school assignments. The district had “eliminated, to the extent practicable, the vestiges of past discrimination in the traditional areas of school operations,” the court ruled.

As a result, over the summer of 2002, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools redrew school-attendance boundaries based only on classroom capacity and the geographical concentration of students around a building. This mechanical redistricting process rarely took advantage of environmental features such as streams and major roads, and was controversial because it often bisected existing neighborhoods. About half of all students changed schools between 2001–02 and 2002–03.

For some students, that meant going from a school where suspensions were relatively rare to a school with a different approach to discipline (see Figure 1 for an example). While all schools are held to the district’s code of conduct and guidance by the North Carolina Department of Education, different schools have higher or lower rates of suspensions and expulsions.

Many discussions about the school-to-prison pipeline center on the possibility that students experiencing suspension differ from other students in ways that could explain their higher levels of involvement in the criminal justice system later in life. The sudden reassignment of half of all Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools students in the summer of 2002 meant that students who live in the same neighborhoods and previously attended the same school could be assigned to attend very different schools in the fall. This creates a natural experiment to identify the impact of a school’s approach to discipline, which we use to identify a school’s influence on a range of outcomes in adulthood, including educational attainment and criminal activity.

Figure 1: Redrawing School Boundaries in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

A Natural Experiment

Our analysis focuses on 26,246 middle-school students who experienced the boundary change because they were enrolled in a Charlotte-Mecklenburg school in both the 2001–02 and 2002–03 school years. We use district administrative records that track students from 1998–99 through 2010–11. The data include information on student demographics, test scores for grades 3 through 8 in math and reading, and annual counts of days suspended. Overall, 48 percent of students are Black, 39 percent are white, and 8 percent are Hispanic. On average, 23 percent of students are suspended at least once per school year, and the average suspension duration is 2.3 days.

District records also include each student’s home address in every year, which we use to determine individual school assignments under the busing and post-busing regimes. To define residential neighborhood, we use the 371 block groups from the 2000 Census that include at least one Charlotte-Mecklenburg student. We use address records to assign students to these neighborhoods and to middle-school zones for both the pre- and post-2002 boundaries.

To look at long-term outcomes, we first match district records to Mecklenburg County administrative data for all adult arrests and incarcerations from 1998 through 2013. Sixth graders in 2002–03 who progress through school as expected would enter 12th grade in the 2008–09 school year. Because our data on crime extends through 2013, we use two main measures of criminal activity: whether the individual was arrested between the ages of 16 and 21 and whether the individual was incarcerated between the ages of 16 and 21. This allows us to observe crime outcomes for all students who were in grades 6 through 8 in 2002–03.

We also track college-going data from the National Student Clearinghouse. That includes records for every student of college age who had ever attended a Charlotte-Mecklenburg school, including students who transfer to other districts or private schools or who drop out of school altogether. Because our data end in the summer of 2009, we cannot examine longer-run measures of educational attainment such as degree completion. Thus we focus on 7th- and 8th-grade students and measure whether they attended college within 12 months of the fall after their expected high-school graduation date.

Approximately 12 percent of our sample eventually drops out of high school, while 23 percent attend a 4-year college within 12 months of their expected graduation date. Between the ages of 16 and 21 years old, 19 percent are arrested at least once and 13 percent are incarcerated at least once. While well above the national averages in terms of suspensions and crime, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools is fairly representative of large, urban school districts in the Southern United States.

The Impacts of a Strict School

To quantify each school’s strictness, we use the same basic method commonly used to estimate individual teachers’ value-added to student test scores. We examine the number of days students are suspended both in and out of school to calculate strictness, while controlling for student characteristics such as test scores, race, gender, special-education status, and limited-English proficiency status, among others. This produces an estimate of each school’s predicted impact on suspensions based on how frequently it had suspended students in previous years.

We find that an increase of one standard deviation in school strictness expands the likelihood of being suspended in a given school year by 1.7 percentage points, or 7 percent. The average annual number of days suspended per year grows by 0.38, a 16 percent increase.

How does this affect student outcomes later in life? We look at criminal activity throughout Mecklenburg County and find that students who attend a stricter school are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated between the ages of 16 and 21.

Students assigned a school that is one standard deviation more strict are 17 percent more likely to be arrested and 20 percent more likely to go to jail, based on our estimated increases of about 3.2 percentage points for arrests and 2.5 percentage points for incarcerations. In looking at what types of crimes are involved, we find that school strictness increases later involvement in crimes related to illegal drugs, fraud, arson, and burglary, but not in serious violent crimes like murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

We also look at the impact on student academic performance and educational attainment and find no evidence that school strictness affects overall achievement. Because we measure the net effect across all students in a school, this may be due to a balancing of two opposing forces: negative effects of lost instructional time for those students who were suspended and positive effects of reduced number of disruptive peers in the classroom for students who were not.

However, we do find evidence that suspensions negatively affect educational attainment. A one standard deviation stricter school increases the likelihood that a student drops out of high school by 1.7 percentage points, or 15 percent, and decreases the likelihood of attending a 4-year college by 2.4 percentage points, or 11 percent.

We then compare effects by race and find outsized impacts for Black and Hispanic students. Being assigned to a school that is one standard deviation more strict increases the average number of days suspended each school year by 0.43 for Black and Hispanic students compared to 0.21 days for non-minority students. That number is even larger for Black and Hispanic males, who are suspended 0.82 more days each year, on average—more than three times the effect for non-minority males.

As adults, Black and Hispanic students assigned to stricter schools are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated than their non-minority classmates. A one standard deviation stricter school increases the likelihood of being arrested by 3.9 percentage points for Black and Hispanic students compared to 2.7 percentage points for non-minority students (see Figure 2). The effect on incarceration in adulthood is 3.1 percentage points for Black and Hispanic students compared to 1.9 percentage points for non-minority students. Negative effects are especially pronounced among Black and Hispanic male students, who are 5.4 percentage points more likely to be arrested and 4.4 percentage points more likely to be incarcerated as adults.

While the average impact of a strict school across all students is negative, we do find small positive impacts on academic achievement for white male students. White male students who are assigned a school that is one standard deviation stricter score about 0.06 standard deviations higher on middle-school math and reading tests. This is consistent with prior studies that show positive short-run academic benefits to some students from removing disruptive peers from the classroom. However, we find no long-run impact on educational attainment for white males, who also experience substantial increases in adult arrests and incarcerations of 4.9 and 3.7 percentage points, respectively.

Figure 2: School Strictness Matters Most for Black and Hispanic Males

What Drives School Strictness?

We investigate three potential factors driving differences in school strictness. First, we look at the potential role of school peers. Prior research has found that peers are important contributors to students’ educational experiences, but we find little relationship between school strictness and peer characteristics, suggesting that our results are not driven by changes in peer composition.

Second, we test our main school strictness results alongside two other measures of school effects, based on student-achievement gains and teacher turnover. We find that disciplinary strictness is the only predictor of students’ later involvement in the criminal-justice system. This serves as further evidence that our results are driven by school effects on suspensions rather than other aspects of school quality or simply the disruption caused by sudden changes in enrollment patterns.

Finally, we turn to the role of school leaders, who have considerable discretion in how they handle disciplinary action. Principals have the authority to set parental meetings, after-school interventions, and in-school suspensions. Even the process for short-term out-of-school suspension is almost completely up to school leaders in Charlotte-Mecklenburg; the superintendent’s approval is only required for long-term suspensions of 11 days or more. We look at the movements of principals across schools and find that when a principal who has been strict in prior years switches into a new school, suspensions in the new school increase. This suggests that school effects on suspensions are driven by leadership decisions.

These findings echo the public’s anecdotal understanding of the strong role that principals play in establishing school climate and discipline. Consider Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s recent approach to limiting suspensions among young elementary-school students. Suspending very young students has come under public criticism across the country, with policymakers in New York City, Colorado, and New Jersey weighing moratoriums on the practice. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board considered a moratorium but opted to limit principal discretion instead and now requires the superintendent’s approval. In 2017–18, the first year of the new policy, the number of suspensions for K–2 students fell by 90 percent .

Implications

Misbehaving peers can have strong negative impacts on other students in the classroom, and all students need a safe, predictable, and peaceful environment to thrive. But our findings show that the school-to-prison pipeline is real and poses substantial risks for students in strict school environments. On average, students who attend middle schools that rely heavily on suspensions are at greater risk of being arrested and incarcerated as young adults and less likely to graduate from high school and go to college. Further, these effects are most pronounced for Black and Hispanic males, who are dramatically underrepresented among college graduates and overrepresented in the nation’s prison system.

This raises a critical question for policymakers and educators who enforce strict school discipline: for whom are our schools safe? And it establishes an opportunity for principals and organizations that support school leadership to weigh the tradeoffs between strict discipline practices and longer-term outcomes for students. As the nation continues to grapple with questions about racial equity and police reform, the contributing causal role that school-discipline practices play in raising the risk of criminality in adulthood cannot be ignored.

Andrew Bacher-Hicks is assistant professor of education at Boston University. Stephen B. Billings is associate professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. David J. Deming is professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Graduate School of Education.

For more, please see “ The Top 20 Education Next Articles of 2023 .”

This article appeared in the Fall 2021 issue of Education Next . Suggested citation format:

Bacher-Hicks, A., Billings, S., Deming, D. (2021). Proving the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Stricter middle schools raise the risk of adult arrest . Education Next , 21(4), 52-57.

Last Updated

License this Content

Latest Issue

Summer 2023.

Vol. 24, No. 3

We Recommend You Read

The U.S. Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Behind Biden Administration’s Retreat on Race and School Discipline, Real Concern on Student Behavior

Even the teachers are alarmed about fights, violence

by R. Shep Melnick

Infants sitting on a pile of money

Should Congress Make the Expanded Child Tax Credit Permanent?

Cash would alleviate poverty and could help pay tuition, but some see downside risk in costs and unintended consequences.

by Scott Winship

US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris arrive for an event to mark the start of monthly Child Tax Credit relief payments, in the White House complex, July 15, 2021.

How a Turbocharged Child Tax Credit Could Electrify School Choice

States could offer to match the money if parents spend it on education

by Frederick Hess

The school-to-prison pipeline, explained

Police officers in classrooms are just the tip of the iceberg

by Libby Nelson and Dara Lind

A police officer handcuffs a small child during a demonstration.

When a student at Spring Valley High School, South Carolina captured a cellphone video of a police officer flipping over a student and her desk, then throwing the student across the room, the video quickly got national attention: people were alarmed that a police officer in a school would do that to a teenager who didn't pose a threat.

But to others, it was less surprising that a police officer would behave so aggressively in a school: because school discipline and the criminal justice system have already been intertwined, in a phenomenon civil-rights advocates call the "school-to-prison pipeline." Especially for older students, trouble at school can lead to their first contact with the criminal justice system. And in many cases, schools themselves are the ones pushing students into the juvenile justice system — often by having students arrested at school by School Resource Officers like the one in Spring Valley.

Juvenile crime rates are plummeting, and the juvenile incarceration rate dropped 41 percent between 1995 and 2010. But school discipline policies are moving in the opposite direction: out-of-school suspensions have increased about 10 percent since 2000. They have more than doubled since the 1970s. And it's hardly racially balanced: Black students are three times more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students, according to the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights , and research in Texas found students who have been suspended are more likely to be held back a grade and drop out of school entirely.

Here's how the current state of school discipline developed and why some districts and federal officials are working to change the status quo.

1) Concerns about crime led schools to adopt 'zero tolerance' policies

police escorting kids to school in chicago

A Chicago police officer escorts a child to school. (Chris Walker/Chicago Tribune)

In the 1970s, keeping students out of school as a punishment was relatively rare: fewer than 4 percent of students were suspended in 1973, according to an analysis of Education Department data by the Southern Poverty Law Center . But growing concern about crime and violence in schools led states and districts to adopt policies that required students to be suspended.

The Gun-Free Schools Act, passed in 1994, mandated a yearlong out-of-school suspension for any student caught bringing a weapon to school. And as states began adopting these zero-tolerance policies, the number of suspensions and expulsions increased. The suspension rate for all students has nearly doubled since the 1970s, and has increased even more for black and Hispanic students.

Zero-tolerance policies have been widely criticized when schools have interpreted "weapon" very broadly, expelling students for making guns with their fingers or chewing a Pop-Tart into a gun shape or bringing a camping fork for Cub Scouts to class .

But they're not the only reason schools suspended students more frequently. At the same time as zero-tolerance policies for violence were growing, school districts adopted their own version of the broken windows theory of policing. The broken windows theory emphasizes the importance of cracking down on small offenses in order to make residents feel safer and discourage more serious crimes; in schools, it translated into more suspensions for offenses that previously hadn't warranted them — talking back to teachers, skipping class, or being otherwise disobedient or disruptive.

At the same time, administrators started relying more heavily on actualpolice — in the form of School Resource Officers (SROs) stationed in schools. From 1997 to 2007, the number of SROs increased by nearly a third . Ostensibly, they were there to prevent mass school shootings like the one at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1998 — in other words, to protect students, not to police them.

But as often happens with law enforcement, resources that are supposed to be used for a rare occurrence often get used for more common occurrences simply because they're there. About 92,000 students were arrested in school during the 2011-2012 school year, according to US Department of Education statistics. And most of those are low-level violations: 74 percent of arrests in New York City public schools in 2012, according to a report published by the state courts, were for misdemeanors or civil violations.

2) Schools have outsourced discipline to juvenile courts and officers in schools

school resource officer

Officer Joe Plazio, of the Fairfax County Police Department, stays armed with his service pistol as he patrols the hallways where he is stationed at West Springfield High School on Friday, January 18, 2012, in Springfield, VA.

When a school allows a School Resource Officer to arrest a student — or, less drastically and more commonly, refers a student to law enforcement or juvenile court as a form of discipline — they're turning that student over to the juvenile justice system. That makes it that much easier for a student to get a juvenile record (so even if punishment for a first offense is light, punishment for a second offense is likely to be much harsher).

This happens way more at schools with officers. A report by the Justice Policy Institute found that, even controlling for a school district's poverty level, schools with officers had five times as many arrests for "disorderly conduct" as schools without them.

This isn't something that the juvenile court system is calling for — quite the opposite. The chief judge of the juvenile court in Clayton County, Georgia has become an outspoken opponent of police in schools and the school-to-prison pipeline after placing cops on school grounds resulted in eleven times as many students getting sent to juvenile court. He told Congress at a 2012 hearing that "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."

SRO chart

(Justice Policy Institute)

The Department of Education only started collecting detailed data on arrests and referrals for the last two iterations of its Office for Civil Rights report. So it's hard to be confident about trends. But there's some evidence that arrests and referrals are on the decline; referrals to law enforcement of students without disabilities, for example, went down about 9 percent between 2009-10 and 2011-12.

3) Black students are more likely to be disciplined

Black students are suspended or expelled three times more frequently than white students. And while black children made up 16 percent of all enrolled children in 2011-12, according to federal data, they accounted for 31 percent of all in-school arrests.

The disparity begins in preschool: 48 percent of preschool children suspended more than once are black. And students with disabilities are also suspended more frequently than students without disabilities. This, too, can have a racial component. One 2014 study by a Columbia University researcher found that five-year-old boys whose fathers had been incarcerated were substantially less behaviorally "ready" for school than five-year-olds whose fathers hadn't been incarcerated - making them more likely to be placed in special-education classes for their behavioral disabilities.

Several studies have looked at the relationship between race, behavior, and suspension, and none have them have proven that black students misbehave at higher rates. A study in 2002 found that white students were more likely to be disciplined for provable, documentable offenses — smoking, vandalism, and obscene language — while black students were more likely to be disciplined for more subjective reasons, such as disrespect.

Schools with more black students tend to have higher rates of suspension, researchers have found. There's a 2010 study by researchers at Villanova University that showed the punitiveness of a school's discipline policy was positively correlated with the percentage of its students that were black. It wasn't correlated with students' rates of juvenile delinquency or drug use.

A landmark study of Texas discipline policies found that 97 percent of school suspensions were the choice of school administrators. Only 3 percent of students had broken rules that made suspension a required punishment, such as carrying a weapon to school. And those discretionary suspensions fell particularly hard on black students: they were 31 percent more likely to receive a discretionary suspension , even after controlling for 83 other variables.

racial disparities in suspensions

(US Department of Education)

Many discretionary suspensions and arrests are for tough-to-define offenses, like "insubordination" or "willful defiance," which can just mean a student has challenged the authority of a teacher or school administrator. In California, for example, 40 percent of all suspensions during the 2010-11 school year were for "willful defiance" — which a US Department of Education official defined in 2012 as "any behavior that disrupts a classroom." "Insubordination" was the most common cause of suspension in New York City public schools in 2013-14.

Unsurprisingly, there's a racial disparity in suspensions for nebulous offenses like these: in 2006-2007 (the last year data appears to be readily available) in New York City, 51 percent of students suspended for "profanity" were black, and 57 percent of students suspended for "insubordination." Even arrests by SROs are often for vague reasons: in New York in 2012, one of every six arrests in schools was for "resisting arrest" or "obstructing governmental administration" after the student had been in a conflict with an officer.

4) Even when schools aren't deliberately sending children into the juvenile justice system, disciplining them makes it more likely they'll end up there

Students who are suspended are more likely to repeat a grade or drop out than students who were not. The Texas study, considered the most thorough analysis of school discipline policies and their effects, looked at data from every seventh-grader in the state in 2000, 2001, and 2002, then tracked their academic and disciplinary records for six years. They found that 31 percent of students who were suspended or expelled repeated a grade, compared with only 5 percent of students who weren't.

It's hard to prove causation; it's possible that students who misbehave would have ended up in academic trouble no matter how they were punished. But the Texas study found that students who had been suspended or expelled were twice as likely to drop out compared to students with similar characteristics at similar schools who had not been suspended.

Students who are disciplined by schools are also more likely to end up in the juvenile justice system. The Texas study found that, of students disciplined in middle or high school, 23 percent of them ended up in contact with a juvenile probation officer. That figure stands at 2 percent among those not disciplined. And students who have been suspended or expelled are three times more likely to come into contact with the juvenile probation system the following year than one who wasn't.

teenagers juvenile jail maricopa

A juvenile detention center in Maricopa County, AZ. (Mike Fiala/Hulton Archive via Getty)

It's hard to prove that suspensions causedelinquency in the same way they cause poor educational outcomes. But researchers argue that just as out-of-school suspensions or expulsions don't do anything to improve a student's academic standing, they don't do anything to monitor his behavior or improve his safety, either.

5) The Education Department is pushing schools to change their discipline policies

The Obama administration has opened investigations into the civil rights implications of schools' discipline policies , and urged schools to restructure their discipline systems so that expulsion and suspension are a last resort.

But this effort, by the Education Department and the Department of Justice, has been controversial because the guidance is based on "disparate impact." Even if a policy doesn't mention race and is applied equally to students of all races, the federal government says schools shouldn't use it if the consequences fall disproportionately on students of a particular race. For example, if a school had a policy that all students who were caught using cell phones in class got an out-of-school suspension, and that school ended up suspending a disproportionate number of Latino students as a result of the policy, the federal government would urge the school to figure out if there was another way to achieve the same goal (a cell phone-free classroom) without removing students from the classroom.

Some conservatives argue that schools will become disorderly if teachers and administrators feel that they aren't able to remove disruptive students from the classroom.

6) Some school districts are taking the matter into their own hands

Even before the Obama administration issued that guidance, though, some school districts were acting on their own. Some of the nation's largest districts are working to punish students in ways that don't involve suspension, trying to reform discipline so that students aren't referred to police, or both.

In Clayton County, Georgia, for example, where referrals from schools were overwhelming juvenile prosecutors, the juvenile courts made an agreement with the police force and the school district, restricting the cases in which police were allowed to arrest students in school or refer them to court. The agreement had a huge impact in schools: the high-school graduation rate increased by 24 percent from 2004 to 2010, beating the national average.

Meanwhile, some large school districts are moving away from zero tolerance policies. Broward County, Florida, one of the largest school districts in the country, decided in 2013 that schools, not police, would deal with students' nonviolent misdemeanors. The Chicago Public Schools are trying to reduce the number of suspensions, softening a policy under which students could be suspended for using a cell phone in school and ending suspensions for children younger than second grade, among other changes. In Los Angeles, children under 13 won't be referred to police for minor offenses, after police issued 552 tickets to preteens during the 2013-14 school year.

New York City schools are taking a more targeted approach. The city recently unveiled proposals to overhaul its school discipline code. If the changes go into effect, school principals will have to get the city Department of Education's permission to suspend any student for "insubordination," or for any suspension of a student in third grade or younger. And it would no longer be possible to give "superintendent's suspensions" (a more serious level of suspension) to students involved in "minor physical altercations."

Other schools are exploring restorative justice programs, which focus on forming relationships between teachers, students, and administrators and giving students an opportunity to resolve problems by talking about them. The Oakland School District has been testing this approach for 10 years and recently decided to expand it districtwide after schools using restorative justice reported that their suspension rates were cut in half.

Most Popular

Stop setting your thermostat at 72, in an abc interview, biden charts a course for dems’ worst-case scenario, web3 is the future, or a scam, or both, the lawsuit accusing trump of raping a 13-year-old girl, explained, take a mental break with the newest vox crossword, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Explainers

What the Labour Party’s big win in the UK will actually mean

What the Labour Party’s big win in the UK will actually mean

What Kenya’s deadly protests are really about

What Kenya’s deadly protests are really about

The Democrats who could replace Biden if he steps aside

The Democrats who could replace Biden if he steps aside

Is Nvidia stock overvalued? It depends on the future of AI.

Is Nvidia stock overvalued? It depends on the future of AI.

Julian Assange’s release is still a lose-lose for press freedom

Julian Assange’s release is still a lose-lose for press freedom

What two years without Roe looks like, in 8 charts

What two years without Roe looks like, in 8 charts

What the Labour Party’s big win in the UK will actually mean

How the 1990s broke politics  Audio

Scientists want to bring back one of the ocean’s most unexpected predators

Scientists want to bring back one of the ocean’s most unexpected predators

The most crucial part of next year’s federal budget

The most crucial part of next year’s federal budget

The existential struggle of being Black

The existential struggle of being Black  Audio

In an ABC interview, Biden charts a course for Dems’ worst-case scenario

Innovation in child care is coming from a surprising source: Police departments

Who is Most Affected by the School to Prison Pipeline?

How legal juvenile policies created a racially disparate pipeline of incarceration.

The school-to-prison pipeline refers to practices and policies that disproportionately place students of color into the criminal justice system. The biased application of harsh disciplinary measures and overuse of referrals to law enforcement contribute to the problem, setting up vulnerable students for failure and ignoring the underlying causes.

How can educators end the school-to-prison pipeline? The first step is considering an alternative approach to school discipline.

To learn more, check out the infographic created by American University’s Doctorate in Education Policy & Leadership program.

The Dangers of Zero-Tolerance Policies

Zero-tolerance policies stem from the war on drugs and strict crime laws that greatly increased mass incarceration in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s. The expansion of such policies to address crime among juveniles and school environments led to what education and social justice advocates now call the school-to-prison pipeline.

The Origin of Zero-Tolerance Policies

Zero-tolerance policies in public schools originated with the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA). Under this act, the punishment for bringing a firearm to school is suspension for at least one academic year. The GFSA’s introduction led to the expansion of zero-tolerance policies to encompass other offenses and to increased reporting to law enforcement. Since 1994, school districts have also adopted strict policies that mandate harsh punishment for less serious offenses in an effort to discourage more serious crimes.

The Effects of Zero-Tolerance Policies

Zero-tolerance policies have dramatically increased the number of students who are suspended or expelled. This has led to serious ramifications. For example, students who miss at least 15 days of school in even a single year are seven times more likely to drop out of high school. Students who fail to complete their education are more likely to experience negative outcomes such as poverty, poor health, or time in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, it’s been determined that disparities in school discipline contribute to disparities in the learning opportunities. It’s also been determined that Black students miss almost five times as many days of instruction as a result of out-of-school suspensions compared with white students.

Along the way, schools have hired more school resource officers (SROs), law enforcement professionals who are responsible for student safety and crime prevention. The increased placement of SROs has led to increases in the number of students arrested, as well as the number of referrals to law enforcement and juvenile courts.

Who Is Most Affected by The School-to-Prison Pipeline?

The statistics paint a bleak picture: students from marginalized groups are the greatest risk of being drawn into the school-to-prison pipeline.

Risk Factors for Juvenile Involvement in the Justice System

There are different risk factor tiers concerning juvenile involvement in the justice system. Individual risk factors include antisocial behavior, hyperactivity, and substance misuse. Family risk factors include abusive parents, low socioeconomic status, and teen parenthood. Peer risk factors include bullying from peers, gang membership, and weak social ties. School and community factors include impoverished or disorganized communities and poor academic performance.

How Many Students Receive Out-of-School Suspensions?

2.7 million K-12 students received one or more out-of-school suspensions during the 2015-16 school year. This number revealed a disproportionate impact on Black or African American students. While this demographic made up just 8% of both the male and female students, they represented 25% and 14% of their respective gender’s out-of-school suspensions.

In comparison, white students received out-of-school suspensions at a rate lower than their enrollment. While 25% of the male student population and 24% of the female student population were white, they only represented 24% and 8% of out-of-school suspensions, respectively.

Among Hispanic or Latinx students, male students received far more out-of-school suspension than female students. Hispanc and Latinx males and females both made up 13% of the student population, but they represented 15% and 6% of out-of-school suspensions, respectively.

How Many Students Do Law Enforcement Referrals and Arrests Impact?

290,600 students were referred to law enforcement agencies or arrested during the 2015-16 school year. Only 15% of students were Black or African American, but these students represented 31% of law enforcement referrals and arrests. 49% of students were white, but these students represented just 36% of law enforcement referrals or arrests. 26% of students were Hispanic or Latinx, and these students represented 24% of law enforcement referrals or arrests.

Why Students of Color are Disproportionately Affected

Students from marginalized communities are more likely to end up in the school-to-prison pipeline because of systemic racism. Also known as structural or institutional racism, systemic racism refers to systems and policies that create and/or maintain racial inequalities.

Disciplinary actions that result in court referrals, suspensions, or expulsions – all of which increase the likelihood of dropping out and entering the juvenile justice system – are disproportionately applied to students of color. Additionally, Black students are more likely than their white peers to be suspended, expelled, or arrested for the same kind of conduct. Furthermore, Black students are suspended or expelled at a rate almost 3.5 times greater than that of white students.

How Students of Color Are Affected

The school-to-prison pipeline causes a disproportionate number of students of color to drop out of school and enter the criminal justice system, which can have life-changing negative effects.

For instance, students who fail to complete high school are more likely to be imprisoned. This gives them a criminal record, which can then make it more difficult to attain housing, build credit, gain employment, and qualify for public assistance. Additionally, students who are convicted of a felony offense face even greater obstacles in finding employment, and they may lose their voting rights and eligibility for financial aid. Students who do not complete high school also go on to earn lower wages compared to peers that graduate.

The Healing Power of Restorative Justice

To help eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline, educators should consider replacing zero-tolerance policies with restorative justice.

A New Approach: Restorative Justice

Restorative justice seeks to understand the underlying causes of misbehavior, repair damage, and build a sense of community. This process breaks down into several restorative practices. The first practice is to address the disciplinary practice disparities by reviewing and monitoring policies and practices to ensure that disciplinary measures are not applied unfairly. The second practice is to create a supportive school environment that focuses on agreement and mediation instead of punishment. The third practice is to utilize professional training and development to develop cultural competence, expand communication skills, address cultural bias, and learn about educational trauma.

A Better Approach

Restorative justice is an alternative approach to school discipline that has the potential to uncover the underlying causes of misbehavior and improve student outcomes. By investing in students’ health and well-being, educators are investing in this country’s future.

American Civil Liberties Union, 11 Million Days Lost: Race, Discipline, and Safety at U.S. Public Schools (Part 1)

The Hamilton Project, Ten Economic Facts About Crime and Incarceration in the United States

Justice Policy Institute, The School to Prison Pipeline, Explained

National Center for Education Statistics, Indicator 15; Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion

Rehabilitation Enables Dreams, The School to Prison Pipeline: The Issue, the Solution, and Guiding principles to Consider

The Sentencing Project, Americans with Criminal Records

Undergraduate Journal of Service Learning & Community-Based Research, From Punitive to Restorative, Punishment to Healing: Using Restorative Justice in a School to Combat Zero-Tolerance Policies and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

U.S. Department of Education, Chronic Absenteeism in the Nation’s Schools

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2015-16 Civil Rights Data Collection School Climate and Safety

Youth.gov, Risk & Protective Factors

Request Information

AU Program Helper

This AI chatbot provides automated responses, which may not always be accurate. By continuing with this conversation, you agree that the contents of this chat session may be transcribed and retained. You also consent that this chat session and your interactions, including cookie usage, are subject to our  privacy policy .

Jump to navigation Skip navigation

School-to-Prison Pipeline [Infographic]

  • Text Version

The ACLU is committed to challenging the "school-to-prison pipeline," a disturbing national trend wherein children are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Many of these children 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.

"Zero-tolerance" policies criminalize minor infractions of school rules, while cops in school lead to students being criminalized for behavior that should be handled inside the school. Students of color are especially vulnerable to push-out trends and the discriminatory application of discipline.

The "Zero-tolerance" discipline has resulted in Black students facing disproportionately harsher punishment than white students in public schools. While Black students only make up 16% of public school enrollment, they account for 42% of all students who have been suspended multiple times. This is in sharp contract to white students who represent 51% of public school enrollment yet only constitute 31% of students who serve multiple suspensions.

Black students represent 31% of school-related arrests.

Black students are suspended and expelled 3 times more than white students.

Students suspended or expelled for a discretionary violation are nearly 3 times more likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice system the following year.

  • Juvenile Justice
  • School-to-Prison Pipeline
  • Racial Justice
  • Race and Inequality in Education

School-to-Prison Pipeline: School disciplinary policies disproportionately affect Black students

Stay Informed

The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Understanding a National Crisis

This essay is about the “school-to-prison pipeline” a troubling national trend where students particularly those from marginalized communities are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. It highlights how zero-tolerance policies and the presence of law enforcement in schools contribute to this phenomenon by prioritizing punitive measures over educational support. The essay discusses the devastating impact of these practices including higher dropout rates and limited future opportunities for affected students. It also examines the racial and socioeconomic disparities inherent in this system. The essay advocates for restorative justice practices policy reform and increased support for students to address and dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline.

How it works

A troubling nationwide trend wherein students are driven from public schools into the juvenile and criminal justice systems is known as the “school-to–prison pipeline”. Particularly common among students of race those with impairments and those from low-income backgrounds is this phenomena. It draws attention to certain systematic problems in the judicial and educational systems that disproportionately impact underprivileged groups hence extending cycles of poverty and imprisonment.

Fundamentally policies and practices that give punitive measures more priority than educational assistance produce the school-to- jail pipeline.

One important contributing cause is zero-tolerance rules which demand severe penalties for certain actions independent of the context or circumstances. Many times these rules result in suspensions expulsions and other disciplinary measures removing children from the classroom. These pupils are more likely to run into law enforcement after they are kicked out of the classroom therefore guiding them toward the criminal justice system.

Commonly known as School Resource Officers (SROs) the presence of law enforcement personnel in educational environments has also been rather important in the school-to-prison pipeline. Although safety is still a top priority depending more on SROs has resulted in the prosecution of little violations that school officials would have handled otherwise. Nowadays behaviors like tardiness dress code infractions and little classroom disturbances are more likely to lead to arrest or court attendance. This change turns classrooms from places of learning into settings where pupils are under continual monitoring and could face criminal penalties.

The school-to- jail pipeline has disastrous and broad effects. Suspended or expelled students are far more likely to completely drop out of the classroom. Without a high school certificate these people have less job possibilities and are more likely to be caught in the criminal justice system. Furthermore severe disciplinary policies may have significant psychological consequences that lower self-esteem raise anxiety and cause estrangement from the school system.

Examining the school-to—prison pipeline critically also uncovers ingrained racial and socioeconomic inequalities. Punitive school practices disproportionately target Black and Hispanic pupils as well as those from low-income backgrounds according studies. Black kids for instance are suspended and expelled three times more than their white counterparts. This unfair treatment is a reflection of systematic racism and more general society prejudices that contaminate the judicial and educational institutions.

Dealing with the school-to–prison pipeline calls for a multimodal strategy including teachers legislators local leaders and activists. Using restorative justice techniques in educational settings is among the most successful approaches available. Unlike strictly penalizing kids restorative justice focuses on healing damage and restoring connections. This method promotes responsibility and gives pupils chances to grow from their errors in a conducive surroundings. Reducing the need for punitive measures may also be greatly aided by programs supporting social and emotional development mental health assistance and conflict resolution techniques.

Reevaluating and changing zero-tolerance rules is another crucial action. Discipline rules that take into account the unique situation of every case and give maintaining pupils in school first priority should be adopted by schools. This covers offering pupils with behavioral problems extra help including academic support counseling and mentorship. Schools should also provide a welcoming environment that supports fairness and diversity.

Another very vital is lowering the presence of police enforcement in educational settings. Although protecting safety is crucial it is also necessary to understand that overpolicing of schools helps to criminalize kids. Schools should instead make investments in counselors social workers and other support staff members qualified to meet children’ emotional and social needs. Strong bonds between kids and trusted adults help to build a more caring classroom and lower the possibility of problems developing into disciplinary measures.

Ultimately the school-to–prison pipeline is a multifarious and complicated problem requiring immediate attention and action. It emphasizes the necessity of structural reforms in the criminal justice and educational systems to guarantee that every student has chances to flourish and prosper. We can help to destroy the pipeline and build a more fair and just society for next generations by giving restoring behaviors first priority reevaluating punishing regulations and funding helpful resources top priority.

owl

Cite this page

The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Understanding a National Crisis. (2024, Jul 06). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-school-to-prison-pipeline-understanding-a-national-crisis/

"The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Understanding a National Crisis." PapersOwl.com , 6 Jul 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-school-to-prison-pipeline-understanding-a-national-crisis/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Understanding a National Crisis . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-school-to-prison-pipeline-understanding-a-national-crisis/ [Accessed: 7 Jul. 2024]

"The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Understanding a National Crisis." PapersOwl.com, Jul 06, 2024. Accessed July 7, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-school-to-prison-pipeline-understanding-a-national-crisis/

"The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Understanding a National Crisis," PapersOwl.com , 06-Jul-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-school-to-prison-pipeline-understanding-a-national-crisis/. [Accessed: 7-Jul-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Understanding a National Crisis . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-school-to-prison-pipeline-understanding-a-national-crisis/ [Accessed: 7-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

owl

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

  • College of Education
  • Location Location
  • Contact Contact
  • Colleges and Schools

SC TEACHER releases top 10 data findings across the past year of educator pipeline research, showing stable teacher retention rates and more.

Each month, SC TEACHER releases a new report on one of their key focus areas . This month, as FY24 comes to a close, they’ve compiled an illustrative guide to the top 10 takeaways that stood out across the last year of research on teacher retention, working conditions, and more.

Access the report here: http://www.sc-teacher.org/top-ten-findings-jun2024

What it is:

  • SC TEACHER’s top ten findings shed light on concerns around teacher retention, as well as the working conditions affecting teachers most and insights into new teacher experiences.  
  • The piece helps paint a broader picture of today’s educator experiences and the educator pipeline in South Carolina.
  • As illustrated in this piece, SC TEACHER is working to making research analysis more accessible and actionable through data visualization.

Why it matters:

Looking at research in conversation across SC TEACHER focus areas, state education leaders can better see patterns and trends in SC-centric data that could inform statewide policies and district practices.

Housed in the USC College of Education, SC TEACHER is a research consortium focused on South Carolina’s educator pipeline. The consortium is completing its second year of legislative funding and releases state-centric research every month.

Challenge the conventional. Create the exceptional. No Limits.

COMMENTS

  1. Notes

    Given the widespread use of the school-to-prison pipeline (Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018), the lack of scientific scrutiny on the link between suspension and incarceration across ones' life course is a startling limitation particularly given the acknowledgment within these extant studies that school discipline is both theoretical and ...

  2. Study Confirms School-to-Prison Pipeline

    Study Confirms School-to-Prison Pipeline. New research found that early strict discipline causes an increase in adult crime. Students assigned to stricter middle schools are 3.2 percentage points ...

  3. Expanding Research on the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Examining the

    The school-to-prison pipeline describes the ramifications of punitive school environments and disciplinary practices on students' well-being and long-term functioning (Hirschfield, 2018).More specifically, it posits that changes in school environments, especially the increasing presence of school security and school resource officers, the proliferation of school-based zero tolerance policies ...

  4. The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Critical Review of the Punitive

    This paper reviews evidence of the school-to-prison pipeline, a confluence of two child- and adolescent-caring systems—schools and juvenile courts—that simultaneously shifted over the past generation from rehabilitative to punitive paradigms. While there was crossover impact between these systems, the movements were both independent and inter-dependent. In the school systems, and ...

  5. PDF The School to Prison Pipeline: National Bureau of Economic Research

    The School to Prison Pipeline: Long-Run Impacts of School Suspensions on Adult Crime Andrew Bacher-Hicks, Stephen B. Billings, and David J. Deming NBER Working Paper No. 26257 September 2019 JEL No. I24 ABSTRACT Schools face important policy tradeoffs in monitoring and managing student behavior. Strict

  6. Disrupting the School-To-Prison Pipeline: A Mixed-Methods Systematic

    School to Prison Pipeline: Disproportionate Effects for Black and Brown Students 6 Multi-Tiered System of Supports 10 Primary Tier (Universal Supports) 12 ... groups in the school-to-prison pipeline. Previous research and literature reviews suggest there are a host of developing Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) practices that have ...

  7. Examining the School-to-Prison Pipeline Metaphor

    Summary. The school-to-prison pipeline (STPP) is a commonly used metaphor that was developed to describe the many ways in which schools have become a conduit to the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The STPP metaphor encompasses various disciplinary policies and practices that label students as troublemakers, exclude students from school ...

  8. A Mixed-Studies Review of the School-to-Prison Pipeline and a Call to

    The 1990s brought a shift in U.S. public policy with an increased focus on social control as an approach to crime. This approach led to the proliferation of policies and law enforcement approaches such as the War on Drugs, which disproportionately target and harm Black and Brown communities (Smith-Fornili, 2018).These policies have filtered into public school systems and impacted school ...

  9. The School-to-Prison Pipeline

    Date Published: November 01, 2010. In this comprehensive study of the relationship between American law and the school-to-prison pipeline, co-authors Catherine Y. Kim, Daniel J. Losen, and Damon T. Hewitt analyze the current state of the law for each entry point on the pipeline and propose legal theories and remedies to challenge them.

  10. PDF Facts about the School-to-Prison Pipeline

    The "school-to-prison pipeline" refers to the policies and practices that push our nation's schoolchildren, especially our most at-risk children, out of classrooms and into the ... For more information, contact Dr. Fred Cheesman, Principal Court Research Consultant with the National Center for State Courts at [email protected] 757.259.1872 ...

  11. School-to-prison pipeline

    In the United States, the school-to-prison pipeline (SPP), also known as the school-to-prison link, school-prison nexus, or schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track, is the disproportionate tendency of minors and young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds to become incarcerated because of increasingly harsh school and municipal policies.Additionally, this is due to educational inequality in the ...

  12. School-to-Prison Pipeline

    The ACLU is committed to challenging the "school-to-prison pipeline," a disturbing national trend wherein youth are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal legal systems. Many of these youth are Black or Brown, have disabilities, or histories of poverty, abuse, or neglect, and would benefit from additional supports ...

  13. The School to Prison Pipeline: Long-Run Impacts of School Suspensions

    Using exogenous variation in school assignment caused by a large and sudden boundary change and a supplementary design based on principal switches, we show that schools with higher suspension rates have substantial negative long-run impacts. Students assigned to a school that has a one standard deviation higher suspension rate are 15 to 20 ...

  14. (PDF) The School-to-Prison Pipeline

    Background: The school-to-prison pipeline is a relatively recent phenomenon identified by researchers as a link between negative school outcomes, such as discipline, and involvement in the justice ...

  15. The School-to-Prison Pipeline

    The SPLC advocates for changes to end the school-to-prison pipeline and has filed lawsuits or civil rights complaints against districts with punitive discipline practices that are discriminatory in impact. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of school resource officers rose 38 percent between 1997 and 2007.

  16. SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE: THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE IT, AND HOW WE CAN By

    Public schools have made continued progress in shifting their disciplinary policies away from punitive, "zero tolerance" models and towards positive behavioral interventions, but there continues to be a disproportionate number of students ending up in the school-to-prison-pipeline from economically disadvantaged communities and homes. Lawmakers

  17. School-to-prison Pipeline

    The school-to-prison pipeline is a pathway that begins in the school system that operates under the notion of zero tolerance for some youth (e.g., youth-of-color). Once a youth enters the juvenile justice system, the likelihood of having adult criminal legal system involvement is then increased. As such, this poster will describe the factors of ...

  18. PDF School-to-Prison Pipeline

    School-to-Prison Pipeline . Preliminary Report . February 2016 . Authors Professors . Sarah E. Redfield & Jason P. Nance . The School-to-Prison Pipeline Task Force is a project of the Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice, Criminal Justice Section and Council for Racial & Ethnic Diversity in the Educational Pipeline.

  19. Explainer: The School to Prison Pipeline and What It Costs Our Youth

    The school-to-prison pipeline perpetuates mass incarceration and generational trauma. Justice advocates have been targeting changes to public education to help end the flow of students from schools to prisons; nevertheless, the problem remains, and it disproportionately affects non-white students.From on-campus police officers to a culture of failure in low-income schools, the problem shows no ...

  20. Proving the School-to-Prison Pipeline

    Research shows that completing more years of school reduces subsequent criminal activity, ... Many discussions about the school-to-prison pipeline center on the possibility that students experiencing suspension differ from other students in ways that could explain their higher levels of involvement in the criminal justice system later in life ...

  21. The school-to-prison pipeline, explained

    The school-to-prison pipeline, explained. A police officer handcuffs a small child during a demonstration. Libby Nelson is Vox's policy editor, leading coverage of how government action and ...

  22. Who is Most Affected by the School-to-Prison Pipeline

    The school-to-prison pipeline refers to practices and policies that disproportionately place students of color into the criminal justice system. The biased application of harsh disciplinary measures and overuse of referrals to law enforcement contribute to the problem, setting up vulnerable students for failure and ignoring the underlying causes.

  23. School-to-Prison Pipeline [Infographic]

    The ACLU is committed to challenging the "school-to-prison pipeline," a disturbing national trend wherein children are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Many of these children have learning disabilities or histories of poverty, abuse or neglect, and would benefit from additional educational and counseling services.

  24. The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Understanding a National Crisis

    Commonly known as School Resource Officers (SROs) the presence of law enforcement personnel in educational environments has also been rather important in the school-to-prison pipeline. Although safety is still a top priority depending more on SROs has resulted in the prosecution of little violations that school officials would have handled ...

  25. US Supreme Court Leaves Judge Tanya Chutkan to Parse Trump Immunity

    US News is a recognized leader in college, grad school, hospital, mutual fund, and car rankings. Track elected officials, research health conditions, and find news you can use in politics ...

  26. College of Education

    SC TEACHER releases top 10 data findings across the past year of educator pipeline research, showing stable teacher retention rates and more. Posted on: July 2, 2024; Updated on: July 2, 2024 By Anna Francis , [email protected]