In their practitioner-oriented article, entitled “The school to prison pipeline, explained” published in 2015, Libby Nelson and Dara Lind address “how the current state of school discipline developed and why some districts and federal officials are working to change the status quo.”6 Their piece draws on many statistics to explain the current state of public schools in regards to discipline and in relation to the school-to-prison pipeline.
In their practitioner oriented article published in 2014, entitled “From Classmates to Inmates: An Integrated Approach to Break the School-to-Prison Pipeline,” Elizabeth D. Cramer, Liana Gonzalez, and Cynthia Pellegrini-Lafont explore different theoretical frameworks for addressing school dropout.
These articles pair well together, with the former setting the stage that the latter intends to address.
Nelson and Lind’s article begins by stating:
“The reason the difference between juvenile detention and school discipline is so surprising — and the reason school discipline is seen as a growing concern — is that the two are connected, leading civil-rights advocates to talk about a ‘school-to-prison pipeline.’”6 Immediately connecting school discipline with civil-rights, Nelson and Lind assert that the issue of school discipline goes far beyond just the school.They continue with six statements about the school-to-prison pipeline and why it developed:
“[1] concerns about crime led schools to adopt ‘zero tolerance policies,’ [2] schools have outsourced discipline to juvenile courts and officers in schools, [3] black students are more likely to be disciplined, [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, [5] the education department is pushing schools to change their discipline policies, and [6] some school districts are taking the matters into their own hands.”6
Nelson and Lind maintain a neutral voice allowing others’ research and data speak for them and simply providing a framework.
Cramer, Gonzalez, and Pellegrini-Lafont, however, offer an analytical and critical voice, drawing on the work of other scholars to propose a framework to address the issues with school discipline. They write, “The proposed Integrated Learning Model seeks to bridge the work of sociocultural theorists…in order to form a clear framework that can serve to guide classroom climate and structure, while still leaving room for flexibility of implementation.”4
They write that there are similarities between the issues associated with dropout and the school-to-prison pipeline and the issues associated with dropout and special education. In this way, there can be overlap in ways to address these problems. They continue, “The focus is on finding ways to support the student to be successful within the classroom, rather than turning toward exclusionary practices, such as suspensions, expulsions, or referrals to segregated settings.”4
Nelson and Lind explain that “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.”6 Here, there is a systemic issues that relies on unclear and undefined policies, thus leaving freedom for bias.
Cramer, Gonzalez, and Pellegrini-Lafont add: “The nexus between dropout and prison is cultural marginalization…students are more likely to drop out when they do not feel they are part of the general culture of the school.”4
Both articles suggest a focus on individual student success rather than individual student failure. Nelson and Lind’s article explains the current state, as of 2015, of school discipline and incarceration while Cramer, Gonzelez, and Pelligrini-Lafont provides theories to apply in the classroom.