School Today, Jail Tomorrow - Eastern Michigan University

School Today, Jail Tomorrow: The Impact of Zero Tolerance on the
Over-Representation of Minority Youth in the Juvenile System
Eric S. Hall
University of South Florida
Zorka Karanxha
University of South Florida
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012
| 1

2 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
Abstract
Zero Tolerance policy continues to play a significant role in perpetuating inequity across the
nation’s educational system. The enforcement of Zero Tolerance results in the funneling of many
minority youth from schools into the juvenile justice and adult correctional systems. Two
narratives situated in Florida illustrate the structures, policies, and consequences associated
with the enforcement of Zero Tolerance. Finally, the article explores recently adopted legislation
in Florida that attempts to reduce school-based arrests that have perpetuated school
displacements and incarceration.
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 3
Criticizing the high rates of incarceration of poor youth of color in this country Giroux (2009)
calls on the United States to bring this issue to the forefront of policy and social agendas. We
answer his call by critically examining zero tolerance policy and its victims across the nation,
while also studying Florida schools and its juvenile system where reform efforts are evolving in
an attempt to mitigate practices which have contributed to the arresting and sorting of minority
youth. Florida has been selected for analysis in this article due to historical challenges in its
juvenile justice system with the over-representation of minority youth, and its high rates of
school-based arrests. This article illustrates Giroux’s argument (2009) that youth of color are
viewed as “expendable” and “disposable.” Zero tolerance policy as implemented in public
schools is a pathway from school to jail for many youth of color deemed outcasts (Bauman,
2004). Zero tolerance policy in public education continues to be fed by distrust in youth,
diminished rights and freedoms of youth compared to adults in public schools, and racism that is
reflected in “widespread stereotypical images of Black youth as superpredators and Black culture
as the culture of criminality” (Giroux, 2003, p. 560).
Zero Tolerance and Disproportionality
The decline in social investments and social solutions has given “rise to a punishing state
that removes from the social order those who have no market value, those who are fatally
defined as flawed consumers, and those who are designated ‘other’ through an often-groundless
association with crime, redundancy, poverty, or simply disposability” (Giroux, 2009, p. 77). The
“disposables” overwhelmingly are boys and girls of color in the juvenile justice system and men
and women of color in the prison population. The mass incarceration of Black males has been
noted (Sentencing Project, 1995). However, Black women and girls are being incarcerated and
detained at high rates as well not because of an increase in violence among girls but, rather, due
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

4 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
to the criminalizing of minor violence that was ignored in the past (Brown, Chesney Lind, &
Stein, 2007). Nationally, amidst the rising detention of girls, it is girls of color who are
increasingly likely to be detained. According to the American Bar Association and National Bar
Association (2001), African American girls make up nearly half of those in secure detention, and
they are also far less likely than their White counterparts to have their cases dismissed; seven out
of ten cases involving White girls were dismissed compared to three out of ten for African
American girls. Examining these racialized patterns, Morris noted, “Not since slavery have we
witnessed a system so effective at arresting Black womanhood as today’s juvenile justice
system” (2002, p. 1). The same could be said of Black manhood, based on the staggering
statistics associated with disproportionality across the system (Ferguson, 2000; Robbins, 2008;
Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2000; Skiba, Simmons, Staudinger, Rausch, Dow, & Fegins,
2003).
Youth of color have borne the biggest brunt of penal solutions in public schools as
evidenced by the use of harsh disciplinary practices such as suspension, expulsion, and a
growing presence of resource officers (Nolan, 2011; Torres & Stefkovich, 2009). This has led to
the perception of youth of color as criminals to be feared, as opposed to perceiving such youth in
need of nurturing and with a future.
Schools operating in today’s world have several challenges facing them, including harsh
budget constraints, declining resources, high accountability for student achievement and
society’s demands for safe schools. As the demand for safer schools has grown, our nation has
experienced acts which excessively punish students who have the greatest needs; many are youth
of color particularly Black youth (Noguera, 2003). Studies indicate that enhanced safety
measures, such as metal detectors, surveillance cameras and security personnel (Fuentes, 2011)
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 5
are disproportionately utilized at high poverty, high minority-enrolled schools, with no direct
correlation to rates of incidents (Sparks, 2011). Practices such as these continue to perpetuate
the perceptions that youth of color are not trusted in society, particularly by schools. At the same
time, while the public expects strong safety measures in schools, there has been an evolving
voice working to present the counter narrative to this issue, which is the victimization of our
youth in schools by the enforcement of zero tolerance policies (DMC Benchmarks Report,
2008).
In recent years, since the adoption of the Guns Free Schools Act of 1994, the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2001 and the various juvenile justice stories which have hit
the media, there have been numerous reports and publications provided by organizations like the
Advancement Project, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Justice Policy Institute, the ACLU,
the Southern Poverty Law Center, and even state juvenile justice agencies, in Florida and
elsewhere, which point to the damage that zero tolerance and the resulting incarceration have on
youth. Many of these reports also point to over-representation of minority and low-
socioeconomic students being suspended, expelled or even arrested in response to this
enforcement (Advancement Project, 2010; Delinquency in Florida Schools, 2008; Kim, 2009,
2010; Skiba & Noam, 2001). Based on the preponderance of literature and data available on this
topic, it is important to examine Zero Tolerance policy in more detail and the intended or
unintended consequences of its adoption.
Zero tolerance policies in the education system stem from various district level responses
to confront risks regarding weapons, drugs, and other school disruptions, which then grew
rapidly with the adoption of the Gun-Free School Act, as established by the Clinton
administration (Skiba & Noam, 2001). There are many different perspectives and interpretations
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

6 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
of the policy and its enforcement, depending on where one attends school and on one’s ethnicity
and socio-economic status. Zero Tolerance has been defined as “a general school discipline
policy that responds with similar punishments to both nonviolent behaviors that are perceived to
be disruptive and weapons and drug related infractions of school discipline codes” (Robbins,
2008, p. 5). In essence, we are witnessing students who misbehave in school being arrested and
punished in the same way as those students who constitute actual safety threats in classrooms
and educational institutions. This practice results in the funneling of many future contributing
members of our society into juvenile facilities while perpetuating the marginalization of our
nation’s most at-risk students.
School Policies and Practices of Exclusion
Lospennato (2009) has attributed the school-to-prison pipeline to the “policies of school
districts, law enforcement agencies, and courts that criminalize in-school behavior” (p. 2) while
at the same time, this serves to “push disadvantaged, underserved, and at-risk children from
mainstream educational environments into the juvenile justice system” (p. 2). Harsh disciplinary
actions (i.e., suspension or expulsion) predicated on zero-tolerance policies, originally
implemented to address issues of school violence, have been applied to nonviolent infractions
such as tardiness, absences, and willful disobedience (Lospennato, 2009). Schools that rely on
these disciplinary methods experience greater disciplinary problems that impact students of color
disproportionately (Lospennato, 2009; Skiba & Peterson, 2000).
Skiba, Simmons, Staudinger, Rausch, Dow, and Feggins (2003) have pointed out the
negative impact that zero tolerance exclusionary practices have on the trajectory of students
exposed to such practices, so that a redirection of the pipeline from school to higher education
and productive citizenship instead leads to prison. This redirection occurs because expulsions
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 7
and suspensions remove students from the schools and increase their exposure to negative
models, increase opportunities to engage in delinquent behavior, and diminish school attachment,
an important determinant of academic achievement (Skiba & Peterson, 2000).
It is often argued that the actual cause of the disproportionality observed in many areas
within the school setting (e.g., the achievement gap, the discipline gap, gifted placement, etc.) is
due to issues of socioeconomic status (SES) and not race. However, Skiba, Michael, Nardo, &
Peterson (2000) refute this argument in their study of discipline disproportionality of African
American students. Skiba et al. (2000) found that the disproportionality still remained after
controlling for SES, and that African American students were referred at higher rates for minor
infractions such as disrespect and excessive noise. In addition, Archer (2009) and Kim (2009)
reported that Black males receive harsher punishments for engaging in similar behaviors as their
White counterparts. Further, once students experience exclusionary disciplinary actions, they
experience great difficulty being readmitted into schools, which further exacerbates the dropout
rate and school-to-prison pipeline (Fenning & Rose, 2007).
In addition to the aforementioned school policies, the push for teacher accountability has
been negatively influenced as teachers are required to attend to surveillance and behavior
management within the classroom instead of support and guidance (Raible & Irizarry, 2010).
Research has indicated that due to common stereotypes depicting Black males as troublemakers
and White teacher discomfort in working with Black youth as well as fear of losing control, such
students are often targeted in teacher surveillance and subjected disproportionately to punitive
action (Fenning & Rose, 2007; Ferguson, 2000; Raible & Irizarry, 2010). Educators are
susceptible to the stereotypes and widespread notions that most minorities, particularly African
American males, are on developmental trajectories that will result in incarceration (Ferguson,
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

8 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
2000). Meiners (2007) reported that the institutional policies and practices of influential
organizations such as the education system, legal system, and media “function to normalize an
‘expectation’ of incarceration” for children of color (p. 31).
There is a propensity for schools to criminalize school behavior (e.g., the Jena Six case),
predominantly the behavior of Black students so that infractions committed by African American
students are disciplined more harshly. The growing number of school suspensions over the past
decade has typically reflected a rising rate in the prison population, a trend that reflects a change
in school policy to more punitive practices as opposed to an actual increase in the behavioral
patterns of today’s youth. Though juvenile crime is down across the nation (OJJDP, 2012), it is
still important to consider the relationship between school-based discipline practices and the
pipeline to prison. The growing number of school suspensions reflects a rising prison
population, a trend that is said to reflect a change in school policy to more punitive practices as
opposed to an actual increase in the behavioral patterns of today’s youth (Tuzzolo & Hewitt,
2006).
Finally, despite the failure of educational institutions to respond to students’ needs, legal
recourse is also difficult. According to Kim (2009), legal challenges to the Zero Tolerance
policies are likely to be dismissed due to the court’s apprehension about becoming involved with
school discipline policies. Further, without evidence of discriminatory intent behind school
policies, the federal law prohibits discrimination charges from being made against organizations
(Kim, 2009). In addition, when legal action is taken against such hegemonic policies, change is
often still far off due to the lack of solutions (Kim, 2009).
Juvenile Justice: Fear and Consequences
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 9
All over the United States, thousands of children go to bed afraid; they attempt to go to
sleep while fearing that they will be robbed, raped, battered or murdered. Their fear is real and
results in high levels of anxiety and emotions which cannot be comforted or consoled by a loving
parent, because they are not at home in their own beds, but rather incarcerated in a juvenile
facility where they have to survive violence perpetrated by peers and by personnel charged with
the responsibility for their care. Though a great majority of the general public may not be
familiar with the juvenile justice system, it is important to realize that more than 1.7 million
cases are referred to juvenile courts each year, with 400,000 youth rotating through juvenile
detention centers (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008). The Casey Foundation reports that youth
are vulnerable to abuse in juvenile facilities, documenting that there were more than 13,000 cases
across the country between 2004 and 2007 (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008). An example of
this violence occurred in January 2006, when the nation witnessed the physical assault on a 14
year-old youth named Martin Anderson, who was placed in a juvenile boot camp and died at the
hands of guards employed at the facility. The charge that resulted in his placement at this facility
was “joyriding in his grandmother’s car” (Reuters, 2006). Across the news and other media, the
manner in which this child was handled and apparently restrained brought public shock and
outrage which ultimately led to the state defunding boot camp operations in Florida. In further
investigation of the challenges surrounding the topic of juvenile justice and youth arrest, a
separate story out of Derby Kansas sheds more light on issues which perpetuate safety and policy
enforcement. There a sophomore in high school had his arm broken and was tasered for not
pulling his sagging pants up after departing from his school (ACLU, 2001).
Many of the offenses are non-violent and do not constitute a threat to public safety. Nor
do many of these children deserve a court sentence placing them in the juvenile system. The
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

10 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
larger issue is that too many of these children are in the system as a result of school-based arrests
associated with enforcement of district policies; such policies eliminate an administrator’s
professional ability to exercise good, sound, judgment. School-based arrests that criminalize
children happen all too often and generally out of sight from the general public. Furthermore,
the policies and practices of the school system remove students repeatedly from educational
institutions and funnel them into the juvenile and correctional systems of the nation where they
endeavor to survive the hardships and abuse perpetuated against them. These survivors and
those that are imprisoned as a result of a process which was initiated by a suspension or
expulsion (Fuentes, 2011) can inform us of the injustice and oppression experienced at our
educational institutions. This injustice which begins with a displacement from peers, and
evolves into real life threats within the penal system, sets the stage for a more critical and social-
justice focused dialogue regarding the trajectories of students from school to the juvenile justice
system.
Passing through Pipeline Gates: Two Narratives
With almost two decades of first author Eric Hall’s experience in working with juvenile
justice programs, there have been numerous opportunities to hear students talk about their
personal experiences in schools and situations that they believed contributed to their entry into
the juvenile system. While listening to these narratives common themes emerge which help to
convey the impact that school-based disciplinary practices can have on students, particularly
those related to zero tolerance. It is also important to note that zero tolerance is not an isolated
school-based policy and can also be found within the juvenile system, which can reinforce the
tough barriers facing youth working to exit the system. The following narratives are from two
youth who were placed in juvenile justice programs, with each experiencing a different form of
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 11
Zero Tolerance enforcement. One narrative was collected during an informal discussion with a
student referenced as Kevin, while the other is a personal reflection of a case worker about the
impact of Zero Tolerance on a youth named Ron within the juvenile court system. In each
narrative, Zero Tolerance played a major role in introducing each youth to various levels of the
juvenile system. Kevin’s narrative comes from a discussion which took place during his
orientation at a juvenile justice program, and is presented as a recollection of experiences as
described by him back in 2004. Though this narrative is a reflection of that dialogue, the key
elements which landed him in the juvenile justice system are real, and help to reinforce the
impact that zero tolerance policies in schools can have on students. Ron’s narrative is told by
one of us (Hall) while serving as a case worker with this youth in the juvenile justice system.
Within the juvenile system, Zero Tolerance is a policy which does not necessarily displace a
student from school, but rather prevents a youth from returning to his/her local community by
perpetuating institutionalization.
Kevin’s Narrative
Looking back, I really don’t know where I started messing up. I recall being in
the 7 th grade and being a pretty good student. I got mostly B’s and C’s and even a few
A’s. I liked to play basketball and hangout with my friends. Thinking back, I remember
getting held back my 8 th grade year. Many of my classes were really boring and I had
been placed into a few slow classes because of my reading and writing. I hated school at
this point.
On that day, I remember being in the reading class and a student that had been
messing with me that morning on the bus was trying to call me out. He called me a
‘punk’ and was talking about my sister. Usually I never really get caught up in this kind
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

12 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
of smack, but I was already frustrated because I was stuck in that boring class. As he
kept running his mouth and talking about my family, my shoes and everything else, I just
got up out of my seat trying to make a point. I wasn’t going to do anything, but he got up
also and pushed me. From there it was on. I pushed him back, then he grabbed me and
we fell to the floor. I remember students egging us on and the teacher yelling for us to
stop. The teacher called for help from the office, so I knew that the results were not
going to be good in this case. I continued to struggle with the other student, and he got
me around my neck. I felt like he was choking me, so I did everything that I could to get
out. As I began to break away and make my way to my feet, he continued to grab me and
lock-up around my back. At that point I felt a pull from the back of my arm. It startled
me because I thought he was going to pull me back to the ground, so I pulled away and
threw my arm back to try and stop him. The only problem, it was not him, it was my
teacher. I realized this as I turned around and saw a look of complete fear and surprise on
her face. I guess when I threw my arm back I hit her in her face.
At that point the fight was over. I asked her if she was okay and she grew angry.
She looked fine and I did not see any injury. I knew what I had done was wrong, but my
intentions were never to hurt her or anyone else. It was truly an accident!
Due to Kevin’s incident he was arrested at the school and charged with assault and battery on a
school official which initiated his involvement in the juvenile justice system.
Ron’s Narrative as Told by Eric Hall
Over sixteen years ago, when I first began my career in juvenile justice at the age of 22, I
worked in a program that served both first time offenders and youth transitioning back to
the community from residential programs. I recall a young man named Ron, who had
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 13
recently transitioned back to the community from a residential facility. After about four
months at the program, Ron appeared to be going downhill. His attitude had slipped and
his behavior started to become more withdrawn. In speaking with him it became clear
that he and his mother had been having some problems and that a tough financial
situation had evolved in the home which was contributing to his additional stress. He
indicated that he wanted to look for a part-time job to help out around his house and I
agreed that this seemed to be the right thing to do. After about a week of searching for a
job, Ron got frustrated because no one would hire him. By the following week he had
missed one day at school and had violated curfew on two occasions by arriving home
after 8 PM. In the grand scheme of things this may not seem like a significant event, but
since he was court ordered to attend school daily and to obey a designated curfew he was
in violation of his sanctions. Based on these violations he was ordered to appear before
his assigned judge.
As his case manager, I had a responsibility to report this information and
completed the paperwork outlining his violations. This was to be my first experience in
court and of course I wanted everything to be in perfect order, so I ensured that all
documentation and facts were accurate as they had occurred with no room for
subjectivity. I recall walking into the court room for the actual case review and
remember seeing Ron and his mother sitting in the front row. I walked up to speak to
them both and remember them smiling and being very cordial. They were both always
very friendly and cooperative, so I know that this was normal behavior from them and not
an act simply because of the pending court review. Ron indicated that he was sorry and
would not miss anymore school and his mother reinforced that she would help however
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

14 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
needed. Right after this brief conversation, I recall the judge entering the courtroom and
my adrenaline and heart started pumping with anxiety. Now, looking back, I can only
imagine what Ron’s mind and body were going through as he waited to hear his fate.
The case review was initiated with the judge asking for a full report. Ron and I were both
called to the front of the room to address the judge and I was asked to explain the
violations. After explaining these violations and feeling very proud of the fact that I was
enforcing the rules, and taking a “zero tolerance” stance on Ron’s compliance with the
rules, I turned my focus to listen to the judge’s remarks.
The judge, after hearing my report took a stern position on Ron’s violations. He
scolded this young man in a fairly abrasive manner and asked him questions inquiring
about his decisions to not go to school and his reasons for violating his curfew. At this
point Ron explained himself and apologized to the judge and turned to me as if to ask for
forgiveness. Everything seemed to be going smoothly and I thought that perhaps this
would be a simple wake-up call for Ron and that the judge would instruct him to come
back to the program and follow all rules and expectations.
My thoughts were quickly proven wrong when the judge made a ruling which
ordered Ron, who had turned 18 years old a few weeks prior, to the County Jail for 364
days, only one day short of the maximum year allowed in that county system. Ron fell to
his knees and his mother quickly rushed to his side. As tears fell down his face and his
mother’s I could not help but question myself and wonder “what had I done?” Did my
firm stance make the situation right? Did my goal to ensure proper enforcement of
program policies seem justified by such a strong example of the legal process in action?
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 15
As I stood there watching as Ron was lifted to his feet by the bailiff, crying in
such a distressed manner, I found myself frozen and in shock. I could not speak, but
finally got my muscles to release long enough for me to lean over and help Ron stand and
stabilize himself. I recall looking back as the mother was escorted to a seat behind the
attorney’s table and watched as her hands covered her face as if to conceal her tearful
eyes. Ron, through his tears looked at me as if looking deep into my soul. His look is
one that I will never forget. It was not a look of anger or even a look of hate but rather a
look asking the question “why?” From that point, Ron turned to clutch his mother, who
hugged him with a strong and emotional embrace. I remember her reaching her hands
and eyes up to him, and giving that endearing look that only a mother can provide to a
child that she loves. While indulging this embrace with his mother, Ron was pulled and
escorted away by the court officer. Ron disappeared through a door in the front of the
courtroom and deeper into a system that had claimed yet another victim. Ron was sent to
the adult system, where he remained for the full sentence.
As you read these two narratives, did you develop a strong image of Kevin and Ron?
What did they look like? Did you develop any ideas regarding their ethnicity? What if you were
told that these were narratives of White students? Did your perception or image change? How
would you perceive each of these scenarios if you had been told up front that both were
designated as special education students? Unfortunately, it is likely that many individuals
reading these accounts had images of Black youth based on the overwhelming number of
minorities served in the juvenile and correctional systems as well as the perpetuation of these
images in the media (Polakow, 2000). The facts are, that Kevin and Ron are Black and both are
special education students—the most overly-represented demographic in the juvenile system
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

16 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
(Zhang, Hsien-Yuan, Katsiyannis, Barrett, & Ju, 2011). To complete these narratives, Kevin
ended up passing from gunshot wounds sometime after his release from the juvenile justice
system. This fatal shooting occurred at a car wash, where he was allegedly cleaning a family
member’s car. Based on peer statements, some believed that this event was associated with
connections he had made during his time in the juvenile system. At this time, we do not know
whatever became of Ron. We do know however that the educational and penal system that
claimed their youth and lives disproportionately and negatively affects minority youth and is
closely connected with the enforcement of zero tolerance policies across the United States
(Delinquency in Florida Schools, 2008; Kim, 2009; Skiba & Noam, 2001).
Trends and obstacles. When considering the effects of zero tolerance in schools, the
initial outcome for students breaking these policies is either suspension or expulsion. Annually
the rates of suspension and expulsion have been alarming, particularly for minority and low
socioeconomic youth who are disproportionately represented in this school-based disciplinary
practice (Skiba & Noam, 2001). For example, Kim (2009) reported that in 2004 there were
nearly 3.3 million school suspensions and 106,000 expulsions across the nation. This practice of
removing students from school has hit Black students the hardest, where back in 1973 Black
students had a six percent suspension rate which jumped to 15 percent by 2006. Nationwide,
according to the Advancement Project (2010), from 2002 to 2007, Black students experienced a
33% increase in expulsions with a six percent increase in Latino expulsions, while White
students witnessed a two percent decrease in expulsions. This practice of suspension and
expulsion for minority youth as a means of enforcing school discipline “mirrors” the racial
disproportionality evident in the juvenile and correctional systems of our nation (Raible &
Irizarry, 2010, p. 1199). The impact of this disparity is even more revealing when considering
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 17
that back in 2003, African American youths made up 16% of the nation’s overall juvenile
population, but accounted for 45% of the juvenile arrests in the United States (Kim, 2009). The
data is very consistent and well documented regarding these issues, with most related research
indicating that there is a direct correlation between suspension, expulsion and entry into the
juvenile justice system (Advancement Project, 2010; Fuentes, 2011; Kim, 2009; Skiba & Noam,
2001). Research has also found a relationship between suspension, expulsion and high school
dropout, with dropouts being at high risk for entry into the juvenile/correctional systems
(Advancement Project, 2010; Fuentes, 2011). In fact, “Black male high school dropouts
experience a 60% risk of imprisonment, which unfortunately has become an established normal
stopping point” for this demographic (Pettit & Western, 2004, p. 164). This finding is why it is
imperative that efforts be made to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline by first tackling the
school-based disciplinary practices associated with Zero Tolerance, which push minority
students out of classrooms each day and into a system that is difficult to escape. Considering
these national trends, there are some states which have had a well documented history of Zero
Tolerance policies impacting the school-to-prison pipeline, and some states such as Florida
which have been progressive enough to publish its challenges in an attempt to promote reform.
Recently, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) (2008) developed a report
which supported and acknowledged a major issue within the state’s juvenile justice system.
According to the report, the local courts and legal system are incarcerating more youth of color
at much higher rates than their White counterparts which has led to severe and disproportionate
minority representation in the juvenile system. Statewide “Black youth were 2.5 times higher in
the referral rate to the juvenile justice system than White youth. This represents a 9% increase
from 2004” (DMC Benchmarks Report, 2008, p. 3). In this case, referral means that the youth
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

18 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
was arrested and processed within the juvenile justice system. To further document the
challenges and discrepancies, Black males and females accounted for 47% of all school related
referrals to the juvenile justice system in 2007, while only representing 22% of the overall
student population in the state (Delinquency in Florida Schools, 2008). Another important and
disconcerting fact is that in Florida, the vast majority of counties (91%) had Black youth
disproportionately overrepresented at the referral stage of the juvenile justice system in 2006
(DMC Benchmarks Report, 2008).
Such troubling data elucidate our understanding and lead us to assert that school related
arrests, which are disproportionately higher for Black students, lead to an instant pathway from
our public schools to our jails and juvenile justice system. Contrast these findings to the fact that
“teachers predominantly but not at all exclusively are White women, responsible for
implementing these practices” in schools (Meiners, 2007, p. 49). In fact, according to Raible
and Irizarry (2010), the majority of teacher candidates in the United States (85%) are White
females. This is not to say that White, female teachers are to blame for this issue, but it does
require greater efforts to diversify our instructional personnel, while reinventing teacher
preparation programs so that cultural practices and awareness are incorporated into our
classrooms, where most expulsions and arrests are initiated (Raible & Irizarry, 2010). The
unequal school related arrests and disciplinary responses to minority youth misbehavior has
historically escalated the numbers of youth served under the juvenile justice system. This
disproportionate increase in minority youth in the American prison system must be addressed
with new policies, as well as practices that would lead to the minimization of school-based
arrests for lower level infractions.
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 19
We find it disconcerting that it has become all too common to see public schools address
student discipline by resorting to school resource officers and their utilization as both arresting
agents and as behavior management specialists (Hirschfield, 2008). According to Torres and
Stefkovich (2009) schools using law enforcement officers report offenses to the police at a
significantly higher rate than those not using them. Additionally such reported offenses are at
significantly high rates in high minority and high poverty schools (Fuentes, 2011; Sparks, 2011).
A major cause for the insertion of police officers in schools stems from the 1998 amendment to
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 where attempts were made to establish
school-based partnerships with local law enforcement agencies and school systems (Casella,
2001). However, Robbins (2008) suggests that a widespread and pervasive “culture of fear” (p.
2) exists in schools leading to the widespread use of resource officers. This culture of fear
benefits those with power, such as school administrators, teachers, and school resource officers
who live and operate within a system that targets minority youth disproportionately (Robbins,
2008). Of course, we get what we expect more often than not, “by sorting children on the basis
of their presumed academic ability or behavior; children learn whether they are in on the
educational pipeline and develop expectations regarding where they will end up on the social
hierarchy” (Noguera, 2003, p. 118). Arrests have become the norm in many schools and for
those students being arrested, they are learning their place in our society based on this process
for sorting children.
Several other factors further complicate the issue: a) The ever evolving establishment of
school policies which criminalize misbehavior, b) the construction of new facilities with
elements such as metal detectors, and c) the growing presence of law enforcement on school
campuses are taking the traditional institutions for learning and transforming them into prison-
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

20 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
like environments (Fuentes, 2011; Hirschfield, 2008). Multiple police cars parked in front of
high schools before the school day starts every morning have become common sights. However,
there have been cases of arrests that are so appalling that they have been widely publicized,
helping to shed light on the challenges facing public schools and the enforcement of Zero
Tolerance policies. Such incidents have served as wake up calls pushing the system to take steps
to remedy or do away with a policy gone awry.
For example, it was not long ago that “a five-year old African American girl was arrested
and forcibly removed from her St. Petersburg elementary school for having a temper tantrum in
class” (Arresting Development, 2008, p. 3). It is also disturbing to know that some states are so
correctionally-minded that they use student academic outcomes as predictors for crime. For
instance, in Washington state “4 th grade reading scores and graduation rates are used to
determine how many prison cells will be built” (Giroux, 2009, p. 73). The effort and philosophy
that is adopted in such cases show that many systems are more interested in investing in penal
responses to youth academic trends and behaviors as opposed to investing in educational and
behavioral interventions that support student success in an effort to reduce the number of
minority youth entering the system. Combine this issue with the fact that many communities
support prison construction because they provide needed employment (Meiners, 2007) and it is
simple to see how the entire United States’ system for addressing juvenile crime is a vicious
cycle destroying the lives of too many minority and poor youth.
A Glimmer of Hope
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) has initiated steps to address minority
over-representation and elevated rates of incarceration in the juvenile justice system by
conducting studies and gathering data. Additional steps in May of 2011 have focused on
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 21
removing all youth placed in residential facilities due to misdemeanor offenses and placing them
back in their local communities where they can best be served and supported; these efforts also
include the prevention of future incarceration of youth with misdemeanor charges. In recent
years, there has also been growing collaboration between the Florida Department of Education
and the Department of Juvenile Justice in an effort to enhance services and supports which can
contribute to reductions in incarceration; however there is still significant work to be done to
redirect minority youth from the juvenile system to mainstream education and re-integration in
public schools. Though these efforts are promising, reform has to transition to the public schools
which are responsible for a large number of the minority youth entering the system. This is
where intervention and prevention must begin and efforts have to be taken to improve school
safety while moving away from punitive methods towards more developmental and educational
approaches applied to student discipline and misbehavior.
Perhaps with the evolving practices of school-based interventions such as Positive
Behavioral Supports (Chitiyo & Wheeler, 2009) and Response To Intervention (RTI) (Fuchs,
Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Justice, 2006), the alignment of services to specific student
needs can curtail entry into the juvenile system, while directing supports which can hopefully
lead to high school graduation. Some research has suggested promise with the use of positive
behavioral supports and intensive academic interventions in alternative schools, where high rates
of students who have been displaced from traditional settings have been served with success
(Flowers et al., 2011). Multiple studies have found that there is a strong link between poor
school performance and antisocial behaviors which may contribute to delinquency (Brown et al.,
2008). This is why a more deliberate approach must be made to adopt school-based strategies
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

22 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
and state-wide policy to intervene and support students most at-risk from zero tolerance practices
which continue to drive our youth from school and into the system each day.
In Florida, Executive and Legislative policy has engaged in an effort to redirect youth
from the juvenile system. In July of 2009, the Florida Legislature and then Governor Charlie
Crist acknowledged the problem that Zero Tolerance policies have had on drop out and
incarceration rates of Black youth. Recognition of this issue, under their leadership and
collaboration with special interest groups led to the adoption and amendment of Florida Statute
1006.13. This amended legislation, commonly referred to as the Policy of Zero Tolerance and
Victimization (2009) states that “zero-tolerance policies are not intended to be rigorously applied
to petty acts of misconduct and misdemeanors, including, but not limited to, minor fights or
disturbances. The Florida Legislature finds that zero-tolerance policies must apply equally to all
students regardless of their economic status, race, or disability” and also encourages districts to
utilize alternatives to expulsion (Florida K-20 Education Code, 2009). Ultimately, this new
policy establishes that misconduct, though inappropriate, does not equate to criminal behavior.
Though it is still too early to determine what long term effect this new legislation will have on
the overrepresentation of minority youth in the Florida juvenile justice system, preliminary rates
of school-based arrests are down for the 2010/2011 school year by 11%, as well as the number of
youth being placed in juvenile detention centers as evidenced by a 10% reduction in juvenile
crime since 2009 (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2011). Additionally, with the wide-
spread efforts of various agencies there has been a 34% drop in referral rates since 2005 to the
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice system (Delinquency in Florida’s Schools, 2010).
The work ahead needs to focus on three main elements: a) continue the establishment of
school-based practices that maintain safety, yet work with the parents and community as a joint
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 23
venture committed to education and prevention of school-based arrests; b) focus on the quality
of services for youth already in the juvenile and correctional system; and c) employ RTI and PBS
strategies in schools to support identified student needs as a means to reduce out-of-school
placements/arrests while promoting progression towards high school graduation. These services
must include a focus on educational achievement which according to criminal justice research
from the past six decades is one of the strongest and most “well-established predictors of
desistance from criminal offending for youth” (Laub & Sampson, 2006, p. 164). This finding
necessitates continuous professional development for teachers working in diverse settings,
including juvenile justice and alternative schools, so that high expectations for learning are in
place and all signs of deficit thinking are extinguished. The continuous improvement of
education within the juvenile and alternative settings will help to improve students’ likelihood of
achievement upon return to their local public school or other continuing education or career
setting.
The common goal for both public schools and the juvenile system must be success, which
can be measured by increased graduation rates and reduced incarceration. These systems must
also work to minimize and eliminate military type practices that “wage war against young
people” and work to stop society’s dependence on “prison as a definitive model of disciplinary
regulation” (Giroux, 2009, p. 79). In essence, future efforts in schools and the system must work
to support all students regardless of background without resorting to segregating practices such
as suspension, expulsion, and arrest. Practices must work to eliminate sorting mechanisms
which promote some students as more valuable with promising futures over others that are
stereotyped as helpless, lost or deemed “wasted lives” (Bauman, 2004, p. 14). Education with
the hope for post-secondary opportunities such as college or career training must become an
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

24 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
option for all students regardless of race or socio-economic status, while prisons and juvenile
facilities are reserved for violent offenders that pose a real public safety risk to society. Higher
education can create the “hope for a dignified and secure life” while reducing the risk of
becoming a burden on society as an isolated individual residing in the “waste lands” of the
institutionalized system (Bauman, 2004, p. 14).
A call-to action is needed and a request for ongoing evaluation of the enforcement of
Zero Tolerance policy across the nation and, particularly, in states experiencing high-rates of
minority over-representation in the juvenile system. The youth of today are not the enemy, but
our future. Our commitment to them, their safety and their success is evident by the way we
treat, nurture, and respect each child.
Could Kevin and Ron’s stories have ended differently if the enforcement of policy had
been facilitated in another manner? We will never know the answer to that question; however
their stories are repeated every day all over our nation. Their stories demand to be heard so that
policy makers, practitioners, families and communities commit to acknowledging that a youth
incarceration crisis continues to exist and that we need to close the pathway that takes students
from schools today, and places them in jails tomorrow.
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 25
References
ACLU. (2011). Cop breaks a kid's arm and tasers him. His offense? Saggy pants. Retrieved
from http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-racial-justice/cop-breaks-kids-arm-and-tasers-
him-his-offense-saggy-pants-1
Advancement Project. (January, 2010). Test, punish, and push out: How “zero tolerance” and
high stakes testing funnel youth into the school-to-prison pipeline. Retrieved from:
http://www.educationnews.org/ed_reports/32593.html
American Bar Association & the National Bar Association. (2001). Justice by gender: The lack
of appropriate prevention, diversion and treatment alternatives for girls in the justice
system. Chicago. Retrieved from: http://stoneleighfoundation.org/content/justice-gender-
lack-appropriate-prevention-diversion-treatment-alternatives-girls-justice-sy
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2008). Kids count data book: State profiles of child well-being.
Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org
Archer, D. N. (2009). Introduction: Challenging the school-to-prison pipeline. New York Law
School Law Review, 54, 867-872.
Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted lives: Modernity and its outcasts. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing Inc.
Brown, L. K., 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
Brown, J. D., Riley, A. W., Walrath, C. M., Leaf, P. J., & Valdez, C. (2008). Academic
achievement and school functioning among non-incarcerated youth involved with the
juvenile justice system. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 13, 59-75.
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

26 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
Casella, R. (2001). Being down: Challenging violence in urban schools. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Chitiyo, M., & Wheeler, J. J. (2009). Challenges faced by school teachers in implementing
positive behavior support in their school systems. Remedial and Special Education, 30,
58-63.
Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary
discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536-559.
Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black masculinity. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Florida Department of Education. (November, 2008). Data Report. Dropout demographics in
Florida’s public schools and dropout rates.
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. (2011). Annual report fiscal year 2010/2011. Retrieved
from http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Communications/pr/2011/pr082911.html
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. (2008). Disproportionate minority contact benchmarks
report. Racial and ethnic minority representation at various stages of the Florida juvenile
justice system. Retrieved from: www.djj.state.fl.us/dmc/.../2011-DMC-Benchmark-
Report.pdf
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. (January, 2008). Delinquency in Florida schools: A three
year analysis.
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. (November, 2010). Delinquency in Florida schools: A
six year analysis.
Florida State Conference NAACP. (2006). Arresting development: Addressing the school
discipline crisis in Florida. Retrieved from http://www.naacp.org
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 27
Flower, A., McDaniel, S. C., & Jolivette, K. (2011). A literature review of research quality and
effective practices in alternative education settings. Education and Treatment of
Children, 34(4), 489-510.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention:
Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning
Disabilities, 18, 157–171.
Fuentes, A. (2011). Arresting development: Zero tolerance and the criminalization of children.
Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/26_02/26_02_fuentes.shtml
Giroux, H. A. (2009). Youth in a suspect society: Democracy or disposability? New York, NY:
Palgrave and Macmillan.
Giroux, H. A. (2003). Racial injustice and disposable youth in the age of zero tolerance.
Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(4), 553-565.
Greenwald, M. A., & Cooper, A. E. (January, 2008). Delinquency in Florida schools: A three
year analysis. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.
Hirschfield, P. J. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the
USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12(1), 79 – 101.
Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence based practice, Response to Intervention, and the prevention of
reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 284-297.
K-20 Education Code, Florida Statutes, §1006.13 (2009).
Kim, C. Y. (2009). Procedures for public law remediation in school-to-prison pipeline litigation:
Lessons learned from Antoine v. Winner School District. New York Law School Law
Review, 54, 955-974.
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

28 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
Landry, L., & Sinha, M. (2008). Adult correctional services in Canada, 2005/2006. Statistics
Canada Catalogue, 28(6), 1-26.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2006). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age
70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis.
Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.
Lospennato, R. K. (2009). Multifaceted strategies to stop the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal
of Poverty Law and Policy, 48, 1-21.
Meiners, E. R. (2007). Right to be hostile: Schools, prisons, and the making of public
enemies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Noguera, P. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking
disciplinary practices. Motion Magazine. Retrieved from
www.inmotionmagazine.com/er/pn_rethink.html
Nolan, K. (2011). Police in the hallways: Discipline in an urban high school. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2012). Statistical briefing book.
Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201
Partington, G. (1998). Power, discipline and minority students in high school. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Pettit, B., & Western, B. (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class
inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review, 69, 151-169.
Polakow, V. (2000). The public assault on America’s children: Poverty, violence and juvenile
injustice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

S c h o o l T o d a y , J a i l T o m o r r o w | 29
Raible, J., & Irizarry, J. G. (2010). Redirecting the teacher’s gaze: Teacher education, youth
surveillance and the school-to-prison pipeline. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5),
1196-1203.
Reuters (2006). Florida boot camp staff charged in teen’s death. Retrieved from
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/166760/florida-boot-camp-staff-charged-in-teens-
death
Robbins, C. G. (2008). Expelling hope: The assault on youth and the militarization of schooling.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2000). The color of discipline:
Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Retrieved from
http://www.indianian.edu/~safeschl/cod.pdf/minor.html
Skiba, R. J., & Noam, G. G. (2001). Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools
safe? New Directions for Youth Development. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to
early response. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 335-396.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A., Staudinger, L., Rausch, M., Dow, G., & Feggins, R. (2003, May).
Consistent removal: Contributions of school discipline to the school–prison pipeline.
Paper presented at the School to Prison Pipeline Conference, Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA.
Smith, C.D. (2009). Deconstructing the pipeline: Evaluating school-to-prison pipeline equal
protection cases through a structural racism framework. Fordham Urban Law Journal,
36, 1009-1049.
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012

30 | H a l l & K a r a n x h a
Sparks, S. D. (2011). Minority pupils more likely to face metal detectors. Education Week, 3(2).
Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/08/31/02security.h31.html?tkn=RWLFTiQAjoE
E67sFBlFgvW8ePsmXM0lTnLt6&intc=es
Torres, Jr., M. S., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2009). Demographics and police involvement:
Implications for student civil liberties and just leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 45(3), 450-473. doi: 10.1177/0013161X09335545
Tuzzolo, E., & Hewitt, D. T. (2006). Rebuilding inequity: The re-emergence of the school-to-
prison pipeline in New Orleans. The High School Journal, 90(2), 59-68.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Sentencing Project. (1995). Young Black Americans and
the Criminal Justice System: Five years later. Washington DC. Retrieved from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_crisisoftheyoung.pdf
Zhang, D., Hsien-Yuan, H., Katsiyannis, A., Barrett, D. E., & Ju, S. (2011). Adolescents with
disabilities in the juvenile justice system: Patterns of recidivism. Exceptional Children,
77(3), 283-298.
PowerPlay 4(1)
2012