Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2018): Districts of Innovation: A Policy Brief of the Latest Effort to Re/Empower Local Control of Texas Public Schools

Vengeful Equity: Gendering the School-to-Prison Pipeline

DOI
https://doi.org/10.21423/epbj-v2.a1
Submitted
July 12, 2017
Published
2022-10-03

Abstract

The ‘school-to prison pipeline’ problem has typically been framed as predominantly affecting boys since punitive school discipline practices become firmly entrenched in U.S. public schools beginning in the 1990’s.  Since then, the experiences of girls and gender non-conforming students has largely been overlooked.  Girls and gender non-conforming students represent an increasing number of students suspended from schools annually and the number of juvenile justice involved girls has increased.  This policy brief presents context to the problem and suggests a gendered analysis of aggression and violence is warranted to identify differences in the ways girls’  and gender non-conforming students’ behaviors are perceived and punished in schools utilizing intersectionality as an analytic tool of critical praxis to provide researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners recommendations for future empirical study and practical approaches to correct policy and practice that perpetuate gender bias and social inequality.  Improved policy and practice that address inequitable application of school discipline decision-making and juvenile justice decisions can have a direct effect on girls’ and gender non-conforming students’ academic success and decrease the number of women incarcerated across the United States.

References

  1. Altschuler, D. M., & Brash, R. (2004). Adolescent and teenage offenders confronting the challenges and opportunities of reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 72 – 87. doi: 10.1177/1541204003260048
  2. Bishop, D. M. (2006). Public opinion and juvenile justice policy: Myths and misconceptions. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(4), 653 – 664.
  3. Blake, J. J., Butler, B. R., Lewis, C. W., & Darensbourg, A. (2011). Unmasking the inequitable discipline experiences of urban Black girls: Implications for urban education stakeholders. Urban Review, 43, 90 – 106. doi: 10.1007/s11256-009-0148-8
  4. Brown, L. M., Chesney-Lind, M., & Stein, N. (2007). Patriarchy matters: Toward a gendered theory of teen violence and victimization. Violence against Women, 13(12), 1249 – 1273. doi: 10.1177/1077801207310430
  5. 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, 12(2), 69 – 88.
  6. Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2015). Locked out: Improving educational and vocational outcomes for incarcerated youth. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.
  7. Crime in the United States. (2010). Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-theu.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010
  8. Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1 – 79.
  9. Farn, A., & Adams, J. (2016). Education and interagency collaboration: A lifeline for justice involved youth. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform.
  10. Feierman, J., Levick, M., & Mody, A. (2009/2010). The school-to-prison pipeline…and back: Obstacles and remedies for the re-enrollment of adjudicated youth. New York Law School Law Review, 54, 1115 – 1129.
  11. Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. §4141 (1994).
  12. Hawkins, S. R., Lattimore, P. K., Dawes, D., & Visher, C. A. (2010). Reentry experiences of confined juvenile offenders: Characteristics, service receipt, and outcomes of juvenile male participants in the SVORI multi-site evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  13. Hockenberry, S. (2016). Juveniles in residential placement, 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  14. Klehr, D. G. (2009). Addressing the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind and zero tolerance strategies for safe schools and successful students. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, XVI, 585 – 610.
  15. Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12(1), 45 – 63. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.732546
  16. Leve, L. D., Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (2005). Intervention outcomes for girls referred from juvenile justice: Effects on delinquency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1181 – 1184. doi: 10:1037/0022-006X.73.6.1181
  17. Losen, D. J., Hodson, C. L., Keith II, M. A., Morrison, K., Belway, S. (2015). Are we closing the school discipline gap? Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project.
  18. Mackey, H. J. (2011). Youth detention facilities and restorative justice: Lessons for public education. In A. Normore, & B. Fitch (Eds.). Leadership in education, corrections and law enforcement: A commitment to ethics, equity, and excellence (pp. 229-243), Volume 12, Advances in Educational Administration Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  19. Mackey, H. J. (2015). Going against the grain of accountability: Leadership preparation for using data to promote socially just outcomes. eJournal of Education Policy, Summer, 41 – 56.
  20. McCarthy, P., Schiraldi, V., & Shark, M. (2016). The future of youth justice: A community based alternative to the youth prison model. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin.
  21. Rhudy, K. & Sucherman, J. (2009) Breaking the cycle of offending and poverty: A symposium on the intersection of juvenile justice and poverty. Georgetown Journal on Poverty, Law & Policy, XVI, 461 – 470.
  22. Roberts, D., & Jesudason, S. (2013). Movement intersectionality: The case of race, gender, disability, and genetic technologies. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 313 – 328.
  23. Schwartz, I. M., Guo, S., & Kerbs, J. J. (1993). The impact of demographic variables on public opinion regarding juvenile justice: Implications for public policy. Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 5 – 28.
  24. Skiba, R. J., Chung, C., Trachok, M., Baker, T. L., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R. (2014). Parsing disciplinary disproportionality: Contributions of infraction, student, and school characteristics to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. American Education Research Journal, 51(4), 640 – 670. doi:10.3102/0002831214541670
  25. Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Youth Development, 92, 17 – 43.
  26. Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459 – 487.
  27. Still, W., Broderick, B., & Raphael, S. (2016). Building trust and legitimacy within community corrections. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
  28. The Sentencing Project. (2015). Incarcerated Women and Girls. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
  29. Wallace Jr., J. M., Goodkind, S., Wallace, C. M., & Backman, J. G. (2008). Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline among U.S. high school students: 1991-2005. The Negro Educational Review, 59(1-2), 47 – 52.
  30. Welch, K., & Payne, A. A. (2013). Racial threat and punitive school discipline. Social Problems, 57(1), 25 – 48.
  31. Zaplin, R. T. (1998). Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publications.
  32. Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Johnsen, M. C., & Myers, K. A. (1994). The mediating effect of good school performance on the maltreatment-delinquency relationship. Journal of Research on Crime Delinquency, 31(1), 62 – 91.