Education under armed guard': an analysis of the school-to-prison pipeline in Washington, D.C

• Author: John A.D. Marinelli
• Pages: 1697-1727

NOTE

“EDUCATION UNDER ARMED GUARD”: AN ANALYSIS OF THE

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

John A.D. Marinelli*

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1698

I. THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1699

A. Origins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1699

1. Suppressing Civil Rights Demonstrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1699

2. The “Tough on Crime” Mentality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1700

3. Mass Shootings and School Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1701

B. Component Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1702

1. School Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1702

2. The Criminalization of Student Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1703

3. Exclusionary Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1705

C. Disparate Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1706

D. Negative Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1707

1. Ineffective Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1707

2. Impact of Criminal Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1708

II. THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . 1709

A. School Police in Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1709

1. The Origins of School Policing in Washington, D.C. . . . . 1709

2. School Policing in 2018–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1711

3. Recent Reform Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1712

B. Criminalizing Student Conduct in Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . 1713

1. Criminal Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1713

2. Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1714

3. Criminalizing Student Misconduct in 2018–19 . . . . . . . . . 1715

4. Disparate Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1715

C. Exclusionary Discipline in Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1716

1. Legislative Background and Reform Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . 1716

2. Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1718

a. Suspensions in Recent Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1718

b. Expulsions in Recent Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1719

c. Exclusionary Discipline in 2018–19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1719

3. Disparate Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1720

III. PROPOSALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1720

* J.D. Georgetown University Law Center 2021. © 2022, John Marinelli.

1697

A. Responsibly Eliminate School Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1721

1. Do Not Replace Police with a Functional Equivalent . . . . 1721

2. Pilot Interventions that Do Not Require Law Enforcement . . 1721

B. Limit the Criminalization of Student Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1722

1. Improve Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1722

2. Limit Arrests to Only the Most Serious Offenses . . . . . . . 1723

C. Limit Exclusionary Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1723

1. Evaluate the Impact of 2018 Student Fair Access to School

Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1723

2. Prohibit Exclusionary Discipline Except Where Federally

Mandated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1724

D. Invest in Proven Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1724

1. Student Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1724

2. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports . . . . . . . . 1725

3. Trauma-Informed Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1725

4. Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1726

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1726

INTRODUCTION

Nationwide, America’s middle and high school students face the threat of arrest

and incarceration as a consequence of their conduct at school. Around the country,

kids have been handcuffed and criminally prosecuted for things like feigned burp-

ing, leaving class without permission, and getting off a bus too early. Termed the

“school-to-prison pipeline,” this phenomenon has drawn increasing attention and

advocacy in recent years.

The school-to-prison pipeline remains alive and well in the nation’s capital,

Washington, D.C. A substantial majority of the city’s public-school students face

police in their schools, and many are referred to law enforcement for classroom mis-

conduct. More still face the prospect of suspension and expulsion, and these punish-

ments substantially increase students’ likelihood of later interaction with the criminal

justice system. And while Black students comprise less than two-thirds of the city’s

public-school population, they experience nearly all school-related arrests. District

policymakers have made some strides toward combatting the school-to-prison pipe-

line. But further commitment remains necessary to ensure that, as students continue

to return to in-person learning, they do not face criminal consequences at school.

To that end, this Note incorporates original research to analyze the school-to-

prison pipeline in Washington, D.C., focusing in particular on 2018–19—the last

full year of in-person instruction before the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a

shift to online learning. Part I of this Note describes the origins of the school-to-

prison pipeline and identifies practices that contribute to the nationwide phenom-

enon. That Part also shows how these practices disproportionately affect Black stu-

dents and negatively impact children around the country. Part II analyzes the

1698 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 59:1697