Running head: SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE

Synthesis Paper: Problem/Context and Literature Analysis

Special Education Students and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Leah Carrington

George Mason University

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 2

Problem Setting and Study Context

The criminalization of students for school-related misconduct has burgeoned

into a major national issue (Rivkin, 2009). The school-to-prison pipeline is best

understood as policies and practices taking place in the school making it more likely

than attain a quality education, students face criminal involvement with the juvenile

court (Mallett, 2017). Similarly, the school-to-prison pipeline has been described as

a collection of education and public safety policies and practices that drive the

nation’s school children from the classroom and into the streets, juvenile justice

system, or the criminal justice system (Archer, 2009). The school system has become

a funnel by where students are routed from school to both the juvenile and criminal

justice systems (Annamma, 2014). The impact of the school-to-prison pipeline is

immense, involving millions of young people in the United States. Minority

adolescents and young adults from high poverty neighborhoods are being sent to

prison in large and growing numbers (Balfanz, Spiridakis, Neild, & Legters, 2003).

One of the most troubling aspects of the school-to-prison pipeline are the

extreme disparities that exist in areas such as suspensions, expulsions, and law

enforcement referrals for particular classifiable subgroups of youths (Kim, Losen, &

Hewitt, 2010). The concept of the school-to-prison pipeline has become a reality for

the minority population of students. The parallels that exist between special

education and the current social and educational inequities within the juvenile

justice system are glaring and unnerving (Houchins & Shippen, 2012). In the current

school climate where high stakes testing drives instruction and a focus is placed on

increasing schools’ accountability, school officials face increasing pressure to remove

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 3

poor performing students. Those students that suffer disproportionately from these

practices include students with disabilities, children of color, English Language

learners, undocumented students, homeless youth and those in foster care (Kim,

Losen, & Hewitt, 2010).

The school-to-prison pipeline is an urgent civil rights challenge where the

impact is most severely felt by students in high-minority and high-poverty schools

where overcrowding, unqualified teachers, and fewer resources collide with

misguided policies (Archer, 2009). Seminal and contemporary literature explores

the issues of punitive policies based upon disciplinary implementation, enforcement

procedures, and utilization, which are different according to school size, location,

and demographic makeup (Mallett, 2016; Mallett, 2017; Annamma, 2015). This

same research also addresses how disparity and overrepresentation affects both

minority students and students with disabilities in the juvenile justice system.

Unfortunately, research does not shed light on the issues dealing with discipline or

the school to prison pipeline from the perspective of the student or the teacher.

As a special education teacher having only worked in high-poverty and

significantly minority schools for the past ten years with special education African

American students, I have seen a fear among school districts, administrators and

teachers to give consequences to this group of students. This fear is based on a lack

of understanding surrounding special education law creating a serious lack of

consistency and structure resulting in increased negative behavioral problems

among our special education students, many of whom have frequent issues with the

law and spend a considerable amount of time in the juvenile justice system.
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 4

Conducting research that looks into whether or not this poor behavior has an

influence on the school-to-prison pipeline will allow us as school districts,

administrators and teachers to look into how our practices surrounding behavior

may in fact be contributing to the incarceration of our African American special

education students.

International law under the United Nations require that children be detained

for the shortest possible time and receive sentences proportionate to the

circumstances and gravity of the offense as well as the individuals needs (Bochenek,

2016). The United States is leading the industrialized world in the number and

percentage of children that are locked in juvenile detention, similarly the US sends

an astonishing number of children to adult jails and prisons approximately 95,000 in

2011 (Bochenek, 2016). However, in seventy-three countries including the U.S.

children may receive life sentences (Bochenek, 2016). The United Nations intended

to formulate international minimum standards for children struggling with the law,

which could be used by Member States as either a basis of creation or for running

their juvenile justice systems (Kiessel, & Wurger, 2002). Unfortunately, modern

institutionalization can be associated with being disabled, less educated, mentally ill,

minority and in poverty (Houchins, & Shippen, 2012). Children from minority

groups are frequently and disproportionately subject to both arrest and detention,

there exist disparities between their treatment and those of the “majority” children

at every stage of the process from arrest to parole decisions as studies have shown

about the Aboriginal children in Australia’s juvenile system and the minority

children in the United States (Bochenek, 2016). In some countries, children are
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 5

treated as adults and it may be done systematically by setting an age lower than 18

for the ordinary criminal courts or it may be done arbitrarily such as when judges

decide to treat children as adults if they show signs of puberty in countries such as

the Middle East (Bochenek, 2016). Both the U.S. and Denmark incarceration rates

are both extreme relative when compared to other developed democracies, the U.S.

incarceration rate is 700 per 100,000 and Denmark has 73 per 100,000 is one of the

lowest incarceration rates of all developed countries (Wildeman, & Andersen, 2015).

Many countries detain children with disabilities, supposedly for care and treatment

but in reality this is due to a lack of community services and support for families.

Children with disabilities should receive appropriate legal, and other support and

have meaningful opportunity to challenge institutionalization (Bochenek, 2016).

While exploring this topic I intend to focus on literature that deals with

“special education students and discipline”, “special education” and “the school-to-

prison pipeline”, and lastly “incarceration and children in other countries”. Searching

through databases such as Education Research Complete, Science Direct, Social

Sciences Citation Index, ERIC, JSTOR and PsycINFO. This paper serves to discover the

impact that the treatment of special education students in the school environment

has on the school-to-prison pipeline.

Analysis of Previous Research

Analyzing seminal and contemporary literature that focuses on the treatment

of special education students in the school environment and its impact on the

school-to-prison pipeline leads me to explore two major areas: discipline and the

school-to-prison pipeline both in relation to special education students. Together

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 6

these areas are important as it serves to create a bridge of understanding between

how special education students are viewed and treated in the school environment

and the effect that this may have on the promotion of at-risk students from school to

prison.

The seminal literature that drives this section focuses on the implementation

of zero-tolerance policies and the impact that this type of discipline is having on the

school environment. Students who have received historically unequal treatment in

school have been made more vulnerable under the implementation of zero-

tolerance policies and subsequent disciplinary practices (Krezmien, Leone &

Achilles, 2006). Archer (2009) mentions that schools directly contribute students to

the pipeline by having excessive police involvement in executing discipline and zero-

tolerance policies that most often end in arrests or referral to the juvenile justice

system. The combination of zero-tolerance regulations and with the introduction of

larger numbers of security guards and police officers in schools have only lead to an

increase in juvenile arrests (Balfanz, Spiridakis, Curran, Neild & Legters, 2003). Uses

of zero-tolerance policies have only served to further increase the use of school

suspension and expulsion throughout school districts across the country (Skiba,

2002). Another common theme is the overrepresentation of students with

disabilities, by race and socioeconomic status when it comes to school discipline and

subsequently the school-to-prison pipeline. Huge numbers of incarcerated juveniles

are illiterate or marginally literate and have experienced school failure and

retention, many of these same youth are disproportionately poor, male, Black and

has had significant learning or behavior problems that entitled them to special
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 7

education services under IDEA (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher & Poirer, 2005).

School discipline disproportionately affects students with disabilities leading to a

dropout rate that is twice that of general education students, even further only one-

third of students labeled emotionally disturbed graduate (Parks & Barajas, 2007).

Excluding behaviorally problematic students from school is not a new phenomenon

in the school system (Rivkin, 2009).

Children are far more likely to be arrested at school. The number of students

suspended from school each year has doubled from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million

in 2000 and in 2006 one in fourteen students were suspended at least once during

the year (Archer, 2009). In her literary analysis Archer (2009) takes a critical look at

a collection of papers that focuses on the ways in which the public school system

feeds the school-to-prison pipeline. Archer’s literary analysis examines articles that

concentrate on articles leading our African American children out of school and into

the juvenile or criminal justice system, and look at disrupting the school-to-prison

pipeline through discussion of reengaging students after they leave the juvenile and

criminal justice systems.

Parks and Barajas (2003) in their literary analysis examine the impact that

“zero tolerance” policies have on school discipline as it relates to students with

disabilities and their removal from the educational environment through

exploration of special education law. The article discusses that students with

disabilities are disproportionately affected by school discipline leading to extreme

consequences such as high incarceration and dropout rates. Under IDEA ’97

safeguards were put in place to ensure that students with disabilities were not
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 8

unfairly disciplined or ignored. It is a schools’ responsibility to locate and identify

students with disabilities, conduct behavioral assessments, create and implement

behavioral plans, and if discipline is necessary determine if the behavior being

disciplined is a manifestation of the child’s disability. The article reinforces this idea,

students with academic issues are more likely to have negative interactions and

experience punishment. Many of the office referrals received are a result of minor

matters such as not meeting or following a teachers expectations concerning

academic performance. Minor problems escalate into disciplinary actions against

students with disabilities, from in-class discipline to suspension and expulsion. They

found that students with disabilities dropout rate are twice that of the general

education population, and students categorized as having a serious emotional

disturbance have the lowest graduation rate among all students with disabilities

(Parks and Barajas, 2003). Within the article Parks and Barajas (2003) found that of

students arrested 73% of students with emotional or behavioral disabilities, 62% of

students with learning disabilities drop out of school and of the youths incarcerated

in juvenile facilities, 32% were considered to be a part of special education at some

point.

Taylor and Baker (2001) examine the impact of discipline on special

education students in the school setting through a literary analysis of special

education law. The authors have found that there exists a belief among both teachers

and administrators that IDEA ’97 protects students from experiencing consequences

for their disciplinary infractions and excludes them from the school’s regular

disciplinary procedures. There exists a misperception that educators are supposed

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 9

to tolerate unruly behavior is the result of the unclear administrative procedures

outlined by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the

Supreme Court decision in Honig v Doe (1988). Taylor and Baker (2009) believe that

educators need to know the provisions of the current law as they develop school

wide discipline plans and special education students individualized education

programs (IEP). As their article explains under the 1997 Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act, a special education student can receive the same

treatment as a student without disabilities if the disciplinary measure for the

behavior infraction lasts 10 or fewer days and 45 or fewer days for weapon or drug

infractions. However, if the special education student’s suspensions are recurrent

and add up to more than 10 days within the school year or more than 45 days for a

serious infraction, the local education agency must conduct a behavioral assessment

and implement a student behavioral plan. The authors discuss comprehensive

discipline plans as a way to cover the treatment of students with and without

disabilities. Discipline plans should do more than take corrective action for offenses,

but it must also prevent discipline problems and support positive behavior.

Skiba (2002), in this literature review through examination of special

education law, analyzes the purpose of the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals

with Disabilities Act to improving disciplinary procedures for students with

disabilities. As the author states, in 1997 Congress passed the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA ’97) with specific provisions aimed at

governing the discipline of students with disabilities (Skiba, 2002). Students who

have disabilities are expected to be held accountable for their behavior. Special
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 10

education is not intended to make students immune from school suspension. IDEA

’97 takes into consideration that long-term suspension and expulsion threatens a

student’s right to a free and appropriate public education. Removals of less than 10

days do not constitute placement changes and therefore special education students

are treated similarly in regards to consequences for students without disabilities.

With long-term disciplinary action there are many steps that must be followed

before such disciplinary action can be enacted. Firstly, when a disciplinary action

may result in a change of placement, a manifestation determination must be

conducted by the IEP team within ten school days of the decision to take disciplinary

action. Three things must be considered at this time: were the IEP and placement

appropriate for the student and were the services and interventions provided

consistent with both the IEP and the placement. If any of these things were deemed

inappropriate the behavior would be considered a manifestation of the child’s

disability and immediate steps must be taken by the school and district to fix the

problem. Second, did the child’s disability have an impact on his or her ability to

control the behavior, or the ability to understand the impact of the consequences of

the behavior? If the answer is yes then the child may not be subjected to standard

disciplinary procedures. Skiba (2002) further explains that even prior to the

introduction of zero tolerance policies, suspension was the widely used disciplinary

action in U.S. public schools. School suspension continues to be used for offenses

considered to be fairly minor and subjective, such as disobedience, disrespect,

attendance problems, and general classroom disruptions. The author found that

students who were suspended were more likely to present mental health problems.
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 11

Even further there seems to be an overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically

diverse low-income students being the target of school suspension. African

American students were not the only ones overrepresented in both suspension and

expulsion numbers but so were students with disabilities, who were generally

suspended for nonviolent behaviors in comparison to students without disabilities.

The seminal articles reviewed show some similarities, Parks and Barajas

(2003), Taylor and Baker (2001) and Skiba (2002) all look at discipline surrounding

special education students from a perspective of special education law (IDEA ’97).

Each of these articles explains the provisions that govern the discipline of students

with disabilities within the school environment. The articles mention a constant

debate that exists on finding the appropriate balance that exists between the

individual rights of students with disabilities and the flexibility school

administrators need in order to ensure safety in school. As the articles focus on the

law, they fail to examine the thoughts or feelings of two primary players involved in

this debate: teachers and students. Similarly, they fail to take into account if and how

special education law (IDEA ’97) interacts with the justice system, is there any

interaction? How can the laws that protect students with disabilities in the school

setting transfer to the criminal justice system?

Upon examination of the contemporary literature some similar themes of

overrepresentation and zero-tolerance emerged. Many of the practices that have

been designed to keep schools safe such as zero-tolerance have led to the referral of

students to the police for school code violations leading to both school exclusions

and rashly introducing these youth to the juvenile justice system (Gonsoulin,
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 12

Zablocki & Leone, 2012). There is disproportionate representation of minorities

(specifically African American), youth with disabilities and those from low socio-

economic backgrounds in the juvenile system or incarcerated. Unfortunately,

modern institutionalization can be linked to being disabled, less educated, mentally

ill, and a minority living in poverty (Houchins & Shippen, 2012). Many students of

color are experiencing racial criminalization, the pipeline is prioritizing

criminalization and incarceration over educating these children (Annamma, 2014).

It has been found that defendants coming from lower socio-economic areas are

more likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment (Rodriguez, 2013). Students that

are culturally and linguistically diverse are chronically overrepresented in special

education programs where they struggle both academically and behaviorally

(Shippen, Patterson, Green & Smitherman, 2012). Youth with disabilities and

struggling learners frequently show academic and behavioral deficits that put them

far behind their peers in public school and overrepresented in the school-to-prison

pipeline (Shippen et al., 2012). There are many factors that contribute to the school-

to-prison pipeline some are external to the school but schools are playing a key role

in accelerating the pipeline, too frequently teachers and school leaders do not

recognize the role they play in this (Osher, Coggshall, Colombi, Woodruff, Francois &

Osher, 2012).

Houchins and Shippen (2012) in this literary analysis article aim to give a

better understanding of the connection that exists between school, community, and

incarceration. The authors believe that special education institutions of the past are

very similar to juvenile justice facilities of today. People with disabilities moved from
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 13

state sanctioned institutions to more integrated settings under the passage of the

Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. During this time the treatment

of persons with disabilities became a focus as both an educational and a civil rights

issue. In more recent times the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2008,

students with and without disabilities are viewed in the same manner and are held

to the same educational standards regardless of their achievement profile, disability

status or instructional setting. The authors indicate in this article that of the 93,000

youth incarcerated in the United States 40% have disabilities compared with 12% in

the typical public school environment. They also found that in this setting there

exists an overrepresentation of disabilities, people with limited academic abilities

and with mental health problems. Similarly, they found that youth in the school-to-

prison pipeline compromise a disproportionate number of minorities. Similarly a

disproportionate number of youth that are a part of the school-to-prison pipeline

live in poverty and are affected by these negative life outcomes; decreased

educational achievement, family dysfunction, and school dropout to name a few.

Mallett (2017) in his conceptual article synthesized empirical research on

punitive norms of schools, and the disproportionate effects on child and adolescent

groups, predominantly within urban schools. The youth affected by harsh school

discipline procedures and formally involved in the juvenile court system share

commonalities and experiences that place them in a category for higher risk of this

outcome. The author identifies in the article the groups that are disproportionately a

part of the pipeline: the disadvantaged, minorities, abuse victims, students with

disabilities, and members of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender).

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 14

Mallett (2016) in this literary review article examines evidence surrounding

the school-to-prison pipeline, a convergence of two child and adolescent caring

systems (schools and juvenile courts) that have shifted over time from rehabilitation

to punitive paradigms. The movement between these two systems was both

independent and inter-dependent. In the school system, especially one that is

overstrained and underfinanced, many of the students have been progressively

suspended and expelled due to the criminalization of typical adolescent behaviors

and low level misdemeanors such as, acting out in class, truancy, fighting, and other

similar offenses. The author determines that with the increase of zero-tolerance

policies and safety resource officers (police) in the school environment have

overwhelmingly increased arrests and referrals to the juvenile courts. Unfortunately,

these changes have impacted many but more so disproportionately affected

vulnerable children, adolescents and their families. Few of these young people are

appropriately involved in the juvenile system; many do not pose as a safety risk to

either their school or community which therefore further proves that the school-to-

prison pipeline does not improve the school’s or the community’s safety.

Having reviewed contemporary literature surrounding the topic of special

education and the school to prison pipeline it is evident that the juvenile justice

system had become inexplicably connected to the school environment. Houchins and

Shippen (2012), Mallet (2016), and Mallet (2017) in their articles discuss the

disproportionately that exists with minorities being overrepresented in juvenile

justice system, due to harsh disciplinary procedures and other compounding factors

(poverty, abuse, disability, etc.). The articles detail who is affected within the school-
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 15

to-prison pipeline, who are key players of the pipeline problem and ways in which

the pipeline needs to addressed. Yet as with the seminal literature, the

contemporary literature fails to recognize the voices behind the chief players: the

teachers and the students. The articles fail to address how special education law

designed to protect students in the school environment from harsh and unfair

discipline still seems to be ineffective as students with disabilities in high numbers

continue to become victim to the criminal justice system.

As discipline of African American special education students and the school-

to-prison pipeline begin to interact, it is evident that the climate of the school has

changed. School has always been a place that theoretically thrives on order and

consistency, however now those two things can mean extreme negative life changes

for students who are already marginalized in society for many reasons. Whether

these reasons may surround race, disability or socio-economic status, they are all

strong indicators for the approaches being used with our youth.

Identifying Gaps

When looking at both seminal and contemporary literature, I broke my

research into two major categories: the school discipline of special education

students and the school-to-prison pipeline. These categories were directly

influenced by the research question: how does the behavior of special education

students’ impact the school-to-prison pipeline? While conducting this literature

synthesis I began to discover that though there was a fair amount of research

surrounding this topic there were two important gaps within the research that

needed to be addressed. These two gaps are a lack of voice given to students and
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 16

teachers both of which are major participants in the school-to-prison pipeline

debate.

Both the seminal and contemporary literature relating to special education

students, and the school-to-prison pipeline focused on the implementation of zero-

tolerance policies and the impact that it has had on increasing the influx of students

into the school-to-prison pipeline. Students directly become a part of the pipeline as

a result of excessive police involvement as imposers of discipline and zero-tolerance

policies that will typically end in arrest or referral to the juvenile justice system

(Archer, 2009). Another overarching theme has been the overrepresentation of

students with disabilities that are incarcerated. The prevalence of the high rates of

significant learning or behavioral disorders among the juvenile justice population

has led some to classify the system as a “default system” for youth who can’t read or

write well, who have mental health problems, and who drop out or are forced out of

school (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher & Poirier, 2005).

The literature surrounding discipline and special education students also

attributes the problem to zero-tolerance policies playing a major role in the way in

which discipline is handled. A nationwide implementation of zero-tolerance policies

and current disciplinary practices of public schools have increased the vulnerability

for students who historically have received unequal treatment (Krezmien, Leone &

Achilles, 2006). Students with disabilities tend to be at a greater risk for disciplinary

procedures than their peers without disabilities (Krezmien et. al, 2006). Similarly,

there is an overrepresentation of students with disabilities in discipline practices.

Minor problems are resulting in disciplinary actions for students with disabilities,
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 17

from in-class discipline to suspension and expulsion (Parks & Barajas, 2007).

Research surrounding school suspension has uncovered disproportionate rates of

school exclusion for students with disabilities, this same data shows that the

behaviors for which students with disabilities are being suspended are typically

non-violent in nature and not unlike the behaviors of students without disabilities

(Skiba, 2002).

The review of literature predominantly neglects the voices of the people

involved. It highlights issues surrounding discipline and the school-to-prison

pipeline without the perspective of the student or the teacher. When considering the

student there needs to be research that asks why the student exhibits the behavior,

what fuels the behaviors and what the student believes is the reason for their

presence within the school-to-prison pipeline? Their voices add an essential piece of

the puzzle, rather than always be told by others what is the problem with special

education students, discipline and the school-to-prison pipeline it allows us as the

researcher to gain insight from those involved as to what they believe may be the

causes.

Similarly a teacher’s perspective may offer another invaluable insight into

special education students’ interaction with discipline and the school-to-prison

pipeline. There is research DeMatthews (2016) that speaks to how teachers deal

discipline wise with special education students therefore leading to an

overrepresentation of students within exclusionary discipline and ultimately the

school-to-prison pipeline. However, research fails to directly address teachers about

their opinions, beliefs, and observations surrounding the issue of the school-to-
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 18

prison. A teacher perspective would offer an inside view from someone who

interacts with the student academically and their family in many cases and in a

variety of other capacities.

Through reading some research (Parks & Barajas, 2003; Taylor & Baker,

2001; Skiba, 2002; Houchins & Shippen, 2012; Mallet, 2016; Mallet, 2017)

surrounding the seminal and contemporary literature, it is evident that there needs

to be a wider perspective given to the topic of the school-to-prison and students

with disabilities. Getting the perspectives of the two key players students and

teachers, may allow us to begin having a deeper understanding around this topic.

With these wider perspective policy makers, school districts and educators will have

knowledge that can provide them with the tools to address the populations that they

serve.

Summary and Research Links

There is a need to continue to explore special education students and their

impact on the school-to-prison pipeline. The school-to-prison pipeline is a major

issue in education in the United States and is going to continue to be a reality for

many minority and disabled students unless, we as educators find ways to break the

cycle. The school-to-prison pipeline has a profound impact on our schools, students

and communities, especially those in urban environments. As I am in the initial

stages of exploration on this topic I believe that this synthesis presents some major

ideas for future research.

This synthesis paper largely focused on the impact of discipline and the

school-to-prison pipeline for special education students. The paper showed that as
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 19

the work in this area begins to expand their needs to be further work that explores

the voices of the students and the teachers within the pipeline. Since, the work

would be essential to understanding the roles each of these players have concerning

the impact of the school-to-prison pipeline.

I am still fairly early in my research on this topic of special education

students and the school-to-prison pipeline; it is an area that I hope to eventually

study for my dissertation. I believe that this synthesis has helped me investigate and

refine my interests further, as I move forward with my portfolio two and three. This

synthesis has allowed me to find potential gaps in the research that I can further

explore potentially for my dissertation. To do this I would have to conduct a more in

depth literature analysis that looks at topics beyond just discipline and the school-

to-prison pipeline but research in other topic areas that are vital to understanding

the impact that the special education population has on the school-to-prison

pipeline. I believe that my eventual research could be valuable to both the field of

special education and education policy.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to synthesize studies surrounding discipline

and the school-to-prison pipeline in relation to students with disabilities. It is

evident that further research needs to involve the voices of the students and the

teachers as we hope to remedy the impact of the school-to-prison pipeline on our

students, schools and communities. This paper revealed that there are many factors

impacting the school-to-prison pipeline and policies and behaviors by schools only

further to serve the pipeline than eradicate it. Students are experiencing the school
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 20

system as a funnel from school to the juvenile and criminal justice system

(Annamma, 2014). Both seminal and contemporary literature examines the fact that

the pipeline emphasizes incarceration and criminalization over educating

vulnerable students (minority and students with disabilities). Through the

introduction of zero-tolerance policies, there is an overrepresentation of minorities

and students with disabilities among discipline data and within the criminal justice

system. In particular, African American students continue to be overly suspended,

expelled, detained and incarcerated (Krezmein et. al, 2006).

References

Annamma, S. A. (2014). Disabling juvenile justice: Engaging the stories of

incarcerated young women of color with disabilities. Remedial and Special

Education, 35(5), 313-324. doi: 10.1177/0741932514526785

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 21

Annamma, S. A. (2015). Whiteness as property: Innocence and ability in teacher

education. The Urban Review, 47(2), 293-316. doi:10.1007/s11256-014-

0293-6

Archer, D. N. (2009). Introduction: Challenging the school-to-prison pipeline. New

York Law School Law Review, 54(4), 867-874. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?

public=false&handle=hein.journals/nyls54&page=867&collection=journals#

Balfanz, R., Spiridakis, K., Neild, R. C., & Legters, N. (2003). High-poverty

secondary schools and the juvenile justice system: How neither helps the

other and how that could change. New Directions for Youth Development. 99,

71-89. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?

vid=0&sid=cdde4c81-37c9-406b-bff7-

dc4bc5570929%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d

%3d#AN=11773657&db=sih

Bird, J. M., & Bassin, S. (2014). Examining disproportionate representation in

special education, disciplinary practices, and the school-to-prison pipeline.

National Association of School Psychologists: Communique, 43(2), 14-17.

Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/1634179837?accountid=14541

Bird, J. M., & Bassin, S. (2015). Examining disproportionate representation in special

education, disciplinary practices, and the school-to-prison pipeline II.

National Association of School Psychologists: Communique, 43(5), 20-23.

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 22

Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/1675652345?accountid=14541

Bochenek, M. G. (2016). Children behind bars: The global overuse of detention of

children. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/children-

behind-bars

Curtis, A. J. (2014). Tracing the school-to-prison pipeline from zero tolerance

policies to juvenile justice dispositions. The Georgetown Law Journal, 102(4),

1251-1277. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?

public=false&handle=hein.journals/glj102&page=1251&collection=journals

Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prison

pipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency.

Exceptionality, 13(2), 69-88. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1302_2

DeMatthews, D. E. (2016). The racial discipline gap: critically examining policy,

culture, and leadership in a struggling urban district. Journal of Cases in

Educational Leadership, 19(2), 82-96. doi: 10. 1177/1555458915626758

Gonsoulin, S., Zablocki, M., & Leone, P. E. (2012). Safe schools, staff development,

and the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education and Special Education,

35(4), 309-319. doi:10.1177/0888406412453470

Gowdey, L. J. (2015). Disabling discipline: Locating a right to representation of

students with disabilities in the ada. Columbia Law Review, 115(8), 2265-

2309. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43655763

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 23

Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. B. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for

behavior in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 337-

353. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/219656273?accountid=14541

Hirschfield, P. J. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school

discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12(1), 79-101.

doi:10.1177/1362480607085795

Houchins, D. E., & Shippen, M. E. (2012). Welcome to a special issue about the

school-to-prison pipeline: The pathway to modern institutionalization.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(4), 265-270.

doi:10.1177/0888406412462141

Kiessel, H., & Wurger, M. (2002). Victimization of incarcerated children and

juveniles in south Africa. International Review of Victimology, 9, 229-329.

Kim, C., Losen, D., & Hewitt, D. (2010). The school-to-prison pipeline: Structuring

legal reform. New York: New York University Press

Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., & Achilles, G. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and

disability: Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional

and Behavioral Disorders, 14(4), 217-226. Retrieved from https://search-

proquest-com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/214913481?accountid=14541

Mallett, C. A. (2017). The school-to-prison pipeline: Disproportionate impact on

vulnerable children and adolescents. Education and Urban Society, 49(6),

563-592. doi: 10.1177/0013124516644053

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 24

Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A Critical Review of the

Punitive Paradigm Shift. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33(1), 15-

24. Retrieved from https://link-springer-

com.mutex.gmu.edu/article/10.1007%2Fs10560-015-0397-1

Mary, M. Q., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005).

Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional

Children, 71(3), 339-345. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/201095681?accountid=14541

McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and

out of health-risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social

belonging and teacher support. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284-92.

Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/215679792?accountid=14541

Osher, D., Coggshall, J., Colombi, G., Woodruff, D. Francois, S., & Osher, T.

(2012). Building school and teacher capacity to eliminate the school-to-

prison pipeline. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(4), 284-295.

doi:10.1177/0888406412453930

Parks, S. L. & Barajas, M. (2007). School discipline and special education. Clearing

House Review, 41(56), 337-345. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?

handle=hein.journals/clear41&collection=journals&page=337#

Poucher, S. M. (2015). The road to prison is paved with bad evaluations: The case

for functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans.

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 25

American University Law Review, 65(2), 471-[vi]. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?

public=false&handle=hein.journals/aulr65&page=471&collection=journals#

Rivkin, D. (2009). Decriminalizing students with disabilities. New York Law School

Law Review, 54(4), 909-954. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?

public=false&handle=hein.journals/nyls54&page=909&collection=journals#

Rodriguez, N. (2013). Concentrated and disadvantage and the incarceration of

youth: Examining how context affects juvenile justice. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 189-215. doi: 10.1177/0022427811425538

Shippen, M. E., Patterson, D., Green, K. L., & Smitherman, T. (2012). Community

and school practices to reduce delinquent behavior: Intervening on the

school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(4),

296-308. doi:10.1177/0888406412445930

Skiba, R. J. (2002). Special education and school discipline: A precarious balance.

Behavioral Disorders, 27(2), 81-97. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23889132

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. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317-342.

doi:10.1023/A:1021320817372

Taylor, J. A., & Baker, R. A. (2001). Discipline and the special education student.

Educational Leadership, 59(4), 28-30. Retrieved from

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 26

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

sid=6ca23f9a-fbf9-40d3-b844-87ce48940e7f

%40sessionmgr4010&vid=1&hid=4207

Togut, T. D. (2011). The gestalt of the school-to-prison pipeline: The duality of

overrepresentation of minorities in special education and racial disparity in

school discipline on minorities. American University Journal of Gender, Social

Policy the Law, 20(1), 163-182. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?

public=false&handle=hein.journals/ajgsp20&page=163&collection=journals

Wildeman, C., & Anderson, L. H. (2015). Cumulative risks of paternal and

maternal incarceration in Denmark and the United States. Demographic

Research, 32(57), 1567-1580. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.57