A Scholarly Perspective

The School-to-Prison Pipeline and the activism that surrounds it is not tied only to the realm of grassroots organizing – scholarly research has been conducted over many years on this particular urban education issue. Academic research serves to legitimize the concerns of parents, students, educators, and community-members in a setting where their voices might not be heard otherwise. The work that is produced in Academia can aid in understanding the manifestation of the School-to-Prison Pipeline, collecting evidence on its existence and its detrimental effects, and analyzing current responses/solutions to said issue in order to provide more effective alternatives. While there is an abundance of scholarly literature on this topic, for the purpose of this website I will only be looking at two of them – “Education Or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies And The School to Prison Pipeline” ²¹ by Nancy A. Heitzeg and “Organizing to End the School-to-Prison Pipeline: An Analysis of Grassroots Organizing Campaigns and Policy Solutions” ²² by Michael P. Evans and Celeste R. Didlick-Davis.

Education of Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies and The School to Prison Pipepline

Heitzeg’s article acknowledges that tracking systems and ways of funneling different students into different outcomes have always existed, however, the funneling of students into prisons is a relatively new phenomenon. Not only are more students ending up in jail, but these students are poor, with disabilities, and youth of color (especially African Americans). This pipeline to prison is characterized by the criminalization of minor disciplinary infractions via zero tolerance policies, having police present at schools, and relying on suspensions and expulsions as punishments for minor infractions. In understanding how these characteristics have come about, we must understand that they are situated in a socio-political context that is increasingly fearful and punitive. Our schools have begun to lose funding for educational purposes and instead have enhanced funding for security measures – a trend that reflected our country’s values at the time. This trend has been documented and emphasized through the media, particularly television, which reaches nearly every household in America. Our perceptions of crime and how fearful we are of it are worsened and misled through the representation of African American and Latino males as the sole perpetrators. These assumption are inaccurate when compared to the crimes that are actually committed. Not only are men of color over-represented on the media as criminals, but they are frequently depicted as youth under 25. The media has sensationalized gang violence and “teen super-predators” to be issues of race and of a certain age. These false representations of men of color have had real consequences wherein black and Latino men are seen as villains and predators from whom we must keep safe. Given this perception, it is no surprise that we imprison 1 in every 36 Latino men and 1 in every 15 black men when 1 in every 100 adults is in prison. These racial disparities are even more apparent when looking at younger male populations. Black boys are twice as likely as white boys to be arrested or formally processed as a delinquent. It is our youth of color that bears the burden of being streamlined into prison via media stereotyping, punishment-oriented juvenile justice systems, and educational practices such as zero-tolerance.

Zero tolerance rhetoric, borrowed from the War on Drugs, became widespread in the mid 1990s after school officials and community members expressed outrage at gang shootings and community violence. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1993 (GFSA) provided the tipping point for schools to finally begin implementing zero tolerance policies. GFSA mandated that all schools that receive federal funding must have policies to expel any student who brings a firearm to school and must report that student to local law enforcement, blurring the difference between disciplinary actions taken in school vs with the law. Since schools need to revisit their disciplinary procedures, they decided to add on zero tolerance policies that generally included harsh disciplinary consequences (such as expulsion and suspension) for minor infractions that included tardiness and disorderly conduct. In fact, zero tolerance policies do not distinguish between serious and non-serious offenses so that a 5-year old student who is throwing a tantrum can be taken away in handcuffs (true incident). In theory these harsh sentences are meant to deter other students from misbehaving, however, zero tolerance policies were implemented without data supporting its effectiveness. Zero tolerance policies have succeeded in increasing rates of expulsion, elevating drop-out rates, criminalizing racial minorities, and denying due process and equal protection for students. These effects have outraged scholars and activists who have begun to organize and push for change. Groups such as the NAACP and the Advancement Project have advocated for alternative policies to zero tolerance. While these efforts are valiant, according to Heitzeg, “the school to prison pipeline can only be truly interrupted by uprooting the racist and classist under-pinning of juvenile and criminal justice, by a return to a separate, less punitive juvenile justice system, and by the re-envisioning of a legal system guided by reparative justice rather than retribution and mass imprisonment.” ²¹

Organizing to End the School-to-Prison Pipeline: An Analysis of Grassroots Organizing Campaigns and Policy Solutions

Evans and Didlick-Davis begin their academic endeavor by understanding that the School-to-Prison Pipeline exists and that it predominantly affects low-income and minority students.  In realizing that zero tolerance policies are detrimental to a quality education, many community members have organized to dismantle the prison pipeline. Evans and Didlick-Davis are most interested in looking critically at community organizing as a strategy to tackle this issue and examining whether certain campaigns are effective in providing counter discourse and in enacting change. Ultimately, they argue that grassroots policy solutions challenge existing deficit model policies and increase the likelihood of transformative and sustainable reforms.

For context, Evans and Didlick-Davis detail the inception of zero tolerance policies with the passage of GFSA. These mandates provided schools with the resources to discipline minor infractions, which alerted communities. Community members noticed that minority students were being overly punished and that entering them into the prison system would destroy their futures. So far, the efforts to dismantle the pipeline have come either through legislative reform and school or district level reform, which have not been fully effective as they are missing the input from those who are directly impacted by zero tolerance policies: students, families, and local community members. In noticing this, communities have begun to organize into grassroots communities that attempt to reclaim their children’s education. Evans and Didlick-Davis chose to look at 6 different community organizing grassroots (one of which is Blocks Together in Chicago, IL) and analyze their overarching themes and proposed actions/solutions. Overall, the 6 organizations pressed for counter discourse, dignity based alternative policies, and mutual accountability. They accomplished this through relationship building within their organization and within their communities in order to challenge the dominant social discourse. Not only do these groups promote alternative discourse, but their organizing revolves around the inherent dignity and respect that every student deserves. In this way, the groups much preferred restorative justice as a disciplinary approach and many of them have established peace rooms and peer meditation programs. Evans and Didlick-Davis found that in order to achieve the goal of dismantling the prison pipeline, schools must include more student, family, and community involvement in disciplinary decision making. Grassroots Organizations can help with this endeavor by generating support, solidarity, and coalition-building. Here, collaboration is key.

Synthesis

Both of these articles point not only to the promise in being able to dismantle such a large structural issue but also the difficulty inherent in approaching large issues from different perspectives. Heitzeg and Evans both discuss zero tolerance policies as the main aggressor of students of color and agree that its inception began in the 1990s due to policies in place that emphasized punitive measures. Since the implementation of these policies, these articles point out that low-income and minority students have been targeted unjustly. There is no disagreement in the fact that the School-to-Prison Pipeline is very real and must be deconstructed so that all students can receive a quality education in a safe environment. Where these articles differ is where exactly the solution must come from. Evans places great faith in Grassroots Organizing and argues that alternatives to the pipeline will ultimately fail if they do not include those who are most directly impacted by it – community members and students. Heitzeg, on the other hand, believes that dismantling the pipeline must come from uprooting the criminal and juvenile justice system with its foundation in racist mass incarceration – not from schools or communities. Both viewpoints provide valid concerns for why their movements must originate in specific places. Evans suggests that the movement must include those who are affected by it while Heitzeg points out that the issue is too large and structural for it to be dealt with on a local level. Its important to note that both articles praise grassroots organizations for their achievements. The question is whether these campaigns will result in permanent, institutional change.